Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Politicizing science from the left, part deux
If you are a scientist who campaigns for a particular policy, are you acting as a scientist? NASA's climate change guru James Hansen is is an activist to the point of calling for civil disobedience, quite possibly in violation of federal law given his position in the civil service. I am not sure I would join the campaign to have him prosecuted, but it does seem to me that NASA should not employ people who never learned that one cannot derive what ought from what is (see David Hume). But then, are there any environmentalists who have learned that?
8 Comments:
By 
Neil Sinhababu, at
Tue Feb 24, 05:44:00 AM:
one cannot derive what ought from what is
Well, one just needs to add a fairly obvious if-then statement connecting facts to values. Like, "If sea levels rise several meters, flood lots of coastal cities, and generate massive refugee crises, that would be bad."
By 
, at
Tue Feb 24, 08:43:00 AM:
'one cannot derive what ought from what is'. A very true thought TH. Unfortunately, the thinking on the Left is that one CAN derive what ought from what is. Their whole ideology is based on that premise.
By , at
Tue Feb 24, 09:50:00 AM:
For people like James Hansen, environmentalism is a religion, not a science. And for them, it is the One True Faith.
By , at
Tue Feb 24, 11:28:00 AM:
When I was in my teens, those I called my friends all questioned and rebelled a bit. It seems that it was part of the chemistry of taking the world in, making sense of it and finding one's place in it. In doing so we set ourselves apart from our parents and those keepers of the order of things. They were the Establishment. We were Change (we believed in). Our minds and eyes were open, theirs were not.
I remember the first Earth Day and the early environmental legislation. I remember enlisting for the cause, circulating petitions, marching, talking like I really knew something.
So environmentalism was at one point a rebellious, anti-establishment cause. And in many respects, I think, a good one.
It is so surprising to see that the Global Warming Cause is now orthodox. Our son at the university gets the argument, no doubt one sided, and now seems to have an unshakable conviction that all he has heard is absolutely true and arguments to the contrary cannot be of equal quality. It is so darned ironic, that what was probably presented in the University as a response to Evil (Exxon, Wall Street, Greed, Profit), and seen as rebellious, has become that which those with the open minds rebel against.
If he comes home and tells me to get a hair cut, I'm going to make him sit down and listen to my music.
M.E.
By Mike Beversluis, at
Tue Feb 24, 03:07:00 PM:
Actually, NASA is a very good place for Dr. Hansen. The fences around their facilities should be to keep people in, not vice versa.
By davod, at
Tue Feb 24, 03:25:00 PM:
I know your blog enry was related to science so it should be treated differently than the normal appointments. However, some of the Obama appointments, Holder for one, should have been subject to far more intense scrutiny by Republicans.
I think I read ine of thebreasons they voted for Holder was that he promised not to conduct a witch hunt of the previous administration,. What a lame excuse. If it is in Obama administrations political interest to do so they will.
By davod, at
Tue Feb 24, 03:33:00 PM:
PS. Corrections.
I know your blog entry was related to science so it should be treated differently than the normal appointments. However, some of the Obama appointments, Holder for one, should have been subject to far more intense scrutiny by Republicans.
I think I read one of the reasons they voted for Holder was that he promised not to conduct a witch hunt of the previous administration. What a lame excuse. If it is in the Obama administration's political interest to do so they will.
After Holder's recent "Coward" comments, who among you does not think the Justice Department is going to be part of a general race baiting policy.
The "Coward" comment is just the continuation of Obama's comments where every now and then he sticks it to "The Man" only the man is us.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Feb 24, 06:57:00 PM:
I will disagree with davod at this point. If Obama wants to bring in nuts that make his administration look loony, far be it from the Republicans to stand in his way. It is Senate confirmation, not Senate nomination. The only time a Senator should vote to reject a Presidents nominee, is if the nominee is an obvious incompetent, criminal, or will cause irreparable harm to the interests of the US. (i.e. if Obama proposes Supreme Court Justice Laurence Tribe)
I don’t like Hansen, I think he’s slanted in his science and refuses to do the due scrutiny an honest scientist would do with any data that opposes OR supports his theories. But I don’t think that is reason enough to vote against him if for some reason he gets nominated for cabinet position.
