It's not like a lot of people are reading blogs right now...but still, I thought I'd get this up before I take the night train to Flagstaff, AZ, where I'm spending Christmas with my mom and sister.
First of all, since last I posted ScienceDebate2008 has (once again) added some extremely impressive names. In ABC order:
Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature
Rita Colwell, Former Director, National Science Foundation 1998-2004; Distinguished Professor, University Of Maryland/Johns Hopkins University School Of Public Health; National Medal of Science, 2006
Robert H. Grubbs, Victor and Elizabeth Atkins Professor of Chemistry, California Institute of Technology; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
But perhaps even more dramatic is what has happened to our steering committee. It is now officially co-chaired by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI)--two scientist-congressmen, one from each party. Meanwhile, also joining the steering committee are Norm Augustine, the retired CEO of Martin Marietta; Arne Carlson, former Republican governor of Minnesota; and Calvin DeWitt, President of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists.
As these names demonstrate, ScienceDebate2008 is a fully bipartisan effort, one that is meant to appeal--and that does appeal--to an incredibly broad swath of America.
With this organizational structure in place, look to hear a lot more about ScienceDebate2008 in the new year.
In the meantime, Sheril and I both wish you a happy and safe holidays--and want to thank you for being our readers. You're the best, and you make us better. We couldn't do it without you.
- Log in to post comments
As a former Flagstonian myself, good travels, and may the snows of San Francisco bless your Christmas. (Those who know the weather patterns of Flagstaff will understand. Hint, there are things other than cities named after St. Francis.)
The science debate is irrelevant. Candidates will say what they want their supporters to hear. Supporters will hear what they want their candidate to say. As for me, I'm for the candidate with the strongest belief in Christ our Savior.
born again, maybe the religious people feel that way. You are used to being lied to and manipulated by your leaders. It is what makes a religion. We atheists judge people on their actions, not on which imaginary figure they say they represent!
@iRobot:
As one of those "religious people" you are describing, I can't help but tell you that your wrong. Dead wrong. I- and most people I know- judge people by what they have done, not what they say. After all, didn't Christ say, "Judge men by the fruits of the labors?"
@Chris:
You know, I was a bit skeptical of this when it started out. But now that I see a truly bipartisian group leading this thing, I can't help but feel excited. Keep up the good work!
My religiosity may have interferred with my main point, which so far nobody has agreed to or rejected. To wit: the science debate will not make on ounce of difference.
Candidates are in the business of telling people (or their constituents) what they want to hear. And people hear what they want to their candidates to say. End of story.
How many opinions will be swayed by the science debate? How many people here already tend to back a certain candidate? If John McCain takes a strong pro-science stand, which he has done, will that sway you from supporting Obama, if that already is your view?
As far as the national media is concerned? May the best one-liner win!
Before you waste your time and energy trying to influence politicians this is an absolute must read from the BBC in London. You must know the obstacles in your way before you begin your campaign.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm
Is this the single most Dangerous TERRORIST on the planet today alive and well and living in the good old U.S. of A.?
James Connaughton
Bush's senior adviser on the environment
Are you wasting your time taking to the Liars and Deceivers?
Oh, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot whether you believe in AGW or not. So, in my way of looking, which I'm sure all of you share, it's a non-issue one way or the other. Nobody's going to change and you can't make people change. So your going to hoot and holler about global warming, support over-hyped pie-in-the-sky trading or taxing schemes, continue to consume like there's no tomorrow and hope you build enough CSPs to feed the beast and your latest iDevice. Consume, consume, consume, keep that American consumer economy just chugging along. You people don't want to change. You want an easy fix that doesn't inconvenience you. Let's switch to alternatives and keep on keeping on.
All the fancy techno-fixes ain't gunna do it, sorry. So go with the flow and don't have too many children unless you want to see them starve. But don't get on your high horses and worry about saving the species or saving the planet. The planet's going to be all right--eventually. Best to put your faith in the Lord.
But science? No. Science will discover ever newer and more effective ways than it already has to extinguish the species. Praise the Lord.
Global warming stopped in 1998