Guest essay by Eric Worrall
President Obama recently gave a speech, in which he seemed to suggest that politicians should subordinate their decisions to the opinions of scientists. My question – why don’t we cut out the middleman, and put the scientists directly in charge?
But when our leaders express a disdain for facts, when they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, while actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we’ve got a problem. (Applause.)
You know, it’s interesting that if we get sick, we actually want to make sure the doctors have gone to medical school, they know what they’re talking about. (Applause.) If we get on a plane, we say we really want a pilot to be able to pilot the plane. (Laughter.) And yet, in our public lives, we certainly think, “I don’t want somebody who’s done it before.” (Laughter and applause.) The rejection of facts, the rejection of reason and science — that is the path to decline. It calls to mind the words of Carl Sagan, who graduated high school here in New Jersey — (applause) — he said: “We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depths of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
The debate around climate change is a perfect example of this. Now, I recognize it doesn’t feel like the planet is warmer right now. (Laughter.) I understand. There was hail when I landed in Newark. (Laughter.) (The wind starts blowing hard.) (Laughter.) But think about the climate change issue. Every day, there are officials in high office with responsibilities who mock the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists that human activities and the release of carbon dioxide and methane and other substances are altering our climate in profound and dangerous ways.
A while back, you may have seen a United States senator trotted out a snowball during a floor speech in the middle of winter as “proof” that the world was not warming. (Laughter.) I mean, listen, climate change is not something subject to political spin. There is evidence. There are facts. We can see it happening right now. (Applause.) If we don’t act, if we don’t follow through on the progress we made in Paris, the progress we’ve been making here at home, your generation will feel the brunt of this catastrophe.
So it’s up to you to insist upon and shape an informed debate. Imagine if Benjamin Franklin had seen that senator with the snowball, what he would think. Imagine if your 5th grade science teacher had seen that. (Laughter.) He’d get a D. (Laughter.) And he’s a senator! (Laughter.)
Look, I’m not suggesting that cold analysis and hard data are ultimately more important in life than passion, or faith, or love, or loyalty. I am suggesting that those highest expressions of our humanity can only flourish when our economy functions well, and proposed budgets add up, and our environment is protected. And to accomplish those things, to make collective decisions on behalf of a common good, we have to use our heads. We have to agree that facts and evidence matter. And we got to hold our leaders and ourselves accountable to know what the heck they’re talking about. (Applause.)
The reason we don’t put scientists in charge, is because it doesn’t work. As history shows, scientists are as susceptible to group think and pressure as any other group of people.
Someone has to watch the watchers.
Very few politicians or other authority figures who have been entrusted with absolute power, have used it well. One politician who stands out, for the honourable discharge of his duty, was the Roman General Cincinnatus.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519–430 BC) was a Roman aristocrat and statesman whose service as consul in 460 BC and dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC made him a model of civic virtue.[1]
Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity.[2] He was a persistent opponent of the plebeians.[2] When his son, Caeso Quinctius, was convicted and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he resigned two weeks later, after completing his task of defeating the rival tribes of the Aequians, Sabines, and Volscians.
His immediate resignation of his near-absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, lack of personal ambition, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, many of which are named in his honour.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
George Washington was frequently compared by his contemporaries to General Cincinnatus – throughout the turbulence of the War of Independence, and serving two terms as President, he maintained his humility, and never developed a pathological love of power, a disregard for political boundaries, which is all too evident in many of today’s politicians.
George Washington wrote the following, in response to be asked to serve a third term as President.
The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the sametime, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country–and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
Read more: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents_gw/farewell/transcript.html
President Obama asked what Benjamin Franklin would have thought, about people who are unconvinced about the urgency of climate change.
He should have asked what George Washington would have thought, about a President who casually muses about a third term, whose legacy of office will include, in my opinion, a politically unhealthy broadening of executive power, a track record of excessive use of executive authority, all to “solve” a crisis which his political opponents do not agree is an urgent issue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Governments of the past controlled people by religions. Today they are using scientist’s.
Example: Watch your weather report and see a forecast and how it is revised daily. 3 day and they want to say what’s going to happen in 30 years?
Religion, faith, and tradition are separable. Tradition is a generational habit of a class. Faith is a logical domain. Religion is a moral or behavioral philosophy. Secular governments are especially notorious for exploiting religion, using coercion, and redistributing opiates to control and modify individual and class behavior. The 20th and 21st centuries are spectacular testaments to the progressive slopes followed by secular governments under established religions (e.g. pro-choice or selective/opportunistic principles, progressive or generational liberalism) and the death, exploitation, confusion, and depravity normalized by leaders of secular minority power blocs in unprecedented limited frames of reference.
Oh, falsehoods like the 97%. Falsehoods like CO2 being a toxic gas.
Pres Obama should start by holding himself accountable for his own falsehoods before bemoaning others.
As a devout christian he will doubtless be aware of what Jesus said:
Matthew 7:5 :
Let’s just start with his incredible ability to twist words to mean other than their intent:
“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depths of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
Is it “courage of our questions” to invoke consensus, rather than hard data, as a reason to cease to question? Can the science EVER be “settled” just because more voices shout the same thing? The fact that we go to a doctor when we’re sick, or want a licensed pilot to be the one flying, does NOT mean we’re willing to subordinate our own judgement—what about asking for a second opinion when one doctor says we’ve got a terminal disease (do I need to list an account of malpractice suits here?)? Wouldn’t we question our pilot’s ability if we could smell alcohol on his breath (this last actually happened, and both pilot and co-pilot were grounded, fined, etc., at least once in my own recent memory; google America West Airlines Flight 556)?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but doesn’t it strike others as shallow to accept an answer that’s based on, “Trust me, I’m an expert?” and isn’t that what the President was asking when he invoked Carl Sagan? Would not that be a shallow answer, nothing more than crowd-sourced hearsay? I can hear Bill Murray from ‘Ghostbusters’ now: “Back off, man. I’m a Scientist.” Oh, and our willingness to “embrace what is true”… Well, to quote a judge of antiquity, “What is ‘Truth'”? And isn’t jumping on the “Climate Change Bad” bandwagon nothing more than doing what feels good after simply nodding like a sun-struck bovine when someone tells you that the sky is falling about ‘climate change’? And that’s somehow NOT simply embracing what feels good?? Just turning off our brains, refusing to think for ourselves, NOT judge on the facts as we see them, NOT thinking critically, and accepting whatever the “experts” say (I can hear the sub-text here: “our betters”… Blind obedience to “authority”. Hmmmm… Isn’t that pretty much chauvinism, by definition? It’s certainly dogmatic. “Yes, you TOO can be a Zombie, just turn your brains off and….”)?
Who, exactly, is it, that’s “disdaining” facts here? What “facts”?? That climate changes? Anyone who has lived through a couple of sets of seasons knows that. Or am I just a broken machine, and inspite of what my senses tell me, every Spring is identical to the last, every Winter as cold, snow falling on the same days, in the same amounts, and my clock is set by the Thunderstorm that’s certain to occur at exactly 0915 UTC this Friday?
When NOAA, GISS, et al, can alter their historical records to somehow “improve” the record of the past, and Michael Mann can claim to know what the “global” average temperature was for decades of years past based on a single tree’s rings—one single tree on the entire planet can tell him what the average was, so that he can tell us, lucky lucky us—and “scientists” can conspire to lie and hide data to preserve their own interpretation of the “facts” in order to deliberately manipulate the public’s opinion, flouting the law because, of course, THEY answer to a Higher Purpose, when nearly every new paper on the subject that we read makes claims about warming!warming!warming! based on nothing but computer models—all actual satellite measurements from the real world to the contrary—and when they DO stick to thermometer readings, it’s only to questionable measurements from stations provably subject to land changes that have occurred since the initial siting of the measurement station which have compromised it’s data record, which because they’ve been compromised support the warming theory, yet jettison any readings which do not… Oh, and let’s not forget “infilling”, which is nothing but inserting numbers to support their theories, for what, nearly three quarters of the earth at least, that being the ocean surface area, to say nothing of the interiors of continents (like, oh, Australia, or Antarctica, or North and South America, or Asia, or Most of Europe, for example), for which we have no data, no records, because there ARE no stations to cover all that…
Just what FACTS is it that I’m supposedly “disdaining”?
That is climate not weather. They claim it is different and has patterns that are affected by CO2 but then use methods of deducing normal that were made obsolete in the 1700 by Fourier and are analogous to predicting the height of the 10,000th wave from now using linear projection of the slope of the wave over a short period and ignoring the cyclic element.
Because the “middleman” paid the scientists?
Maybe President Obama should
“judge [his] progress by the courage of [my] questions and the depths of our answers, [my] willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
I.e. practice what he is preaching.
This is what Benjamin Franklin said:
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
“In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is Freedom, in water there is bacteria.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Imagine what he would have said had bacteria actually been discovered yet!
exactly……who is going to choose which scientists we believe
It did work out so well for Lysenko, didn’t it.
Lysenko was a pathetic human being. Like many people who came under Stalin’s gaze, he found himself between a rock and a hard place. Think of those people at the bottom of the stairs in the 10:10 video, who know about the button about to be pushed. So he decided to live a little longer by lying about scientific, objective truth. He decided to appease Stalin. Stalin didn’t approve of him for any reason other than he granted the collective farm mandates a faux scientific imprimatur. And Stalin didn’t give a damn about Lysenko’s foolish understanding of genetics. Then, for a while, Lysenko enjoyed the perks of being a favored Communist insider, while Ukrainians died in the millions due to starvation during the holodomor. That will forever be a part of Lysenko’s shameful legacy. But it brings to mind the idea that maybe there are some things worse than dying or being sent to the gulag.
The “progressives” will do the choosing – and if you don’t like it, they have a cosy cell waiting for you.
Why don’t we cut out the middleman, and put the teleprompter directly in charge?
Polibot
TOTUS – Teleprompter Of The United States.
PRIAPUS
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES.
Here are a few things that Benjamin Franklin did say in regards to science and the educated:
“A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one”
~Benjamin Franklin Poor Richards Almanac 1734~
“God heals and the doctor takes the fees.”
~Poor Richards Almanac 1744~
“He’s the best physician that knows the worthlessness of the most medicines.”
~Poor Richards Almanac 1733~
“He’s a fool who makes his physician his heir”
~Poor Richards Almanac 1733~
“In New England they once thought blackbirds useless, and mischievous to the corn. They made efforts to destroy them. The consequence was, the blackbirds were diminished; but a kind of worm, which devoured their grass, and which the blackbirds used to feed on, increased prodigiously; then, finding their loss in grass much greater than their saving in corn, they wished again for their blackbirds.”
~Letter to Richard Jackson May 5th 1753~
“In going on with these Experiments, how many pretty systems do we build, which we soon find ourselves oblig’d to destroy!”
~Letter to Peter Collinson Aug. 14th 1747~
I agree that the issue of who should we choose to govern us is the main question these remarks raise. However, it is also interesting to consider the analogies he gives.
“It’s interesting that if we get sick, we actually want to make sure the doctors have gone to medical school, they know what they’re talking about. If we get on a plane, we say we really want a pilot to be able to pilot the plane.”
First a general point: analogies from other scientific or engineering disciplines are defective because the balance of theory and evidence, and the degrees of certainty about the validity of different hypotheses or theories, vary across the branches of science.
Turning to the two cited cases, there are many examples where the “received wisdom” in medicine proved to be wrong and lonely dissenters were ultimately proved right. Saying that we are advised to go with today’s “best medical opinion” when seeking treatment does not mean we want to outlaw any people testing and questioning that opinion.
In the pilot case, why were checklists introduced? My understanding is that in the early history of aviation it was found that it is too easy for the expert pilot to become overconfident in his snap judgements that everything is working fine. Going through the checklist forces the pilot to test those initial judgements against actual measurements and modify them if found defective.
So if we want someone to lead a nation, is it too much to ask that he might have some credentials? Hello, Barak….Barak…Barak? Are you there, mate?
What credentials would those be? If there’s an objective list of credentials for leading a nation, I’ve never seen it. Much less a list that everyone would agree on.
Politics isn’t like flying a jet or building a bridge. There are no mathematically precise laws to apply. Social “science” isn’t science, and never will be.
Eustace Cranch writes “If there’s an objective list of credentials for leading a nation, I’ve never seen it.”
Nor is anyone appointed to lead this nation. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch and the military. He is supposed to lead various departments of government; not the nation.
We lead ourselves. This leading is delegated to members of Congress but they are supposed to be our servants. Everyone here that talks about “leading the nation” has subscribed to the idea of leadership, hence followership. I was promoted in the Navy when I started leading combined with a bit less following. One must follow good principles; not persons.
Michael 2- hear, hear. The deification of the Presidency, and government in general, depresses me. I get so tired of people referring to the President’s job as “running the country.”
In reference to the analogies – when I am sick, first I seek someone that wishes to make me well – he need not have a medical degree. When I fly on a plane, first I seek to find someone that can fly the plane – he need not be a licensed pilot. When I seek someone that knows climate science, first I seek someone aware of their ignorance of climate science, then I know I will at least hear truths. Unfortunately, politicians first seek to listen to themselves as they find themselves ‘experts” on everything, Obama included.
Well if I was a US citizen, I might submit that climate scientists might be better than the current actor.
Actor? Reagan finished a while ago.
RTFC. “current actor.”
Whoever is meant it must be current; present, now.
Well who would you rather have there right now?
We are all actors, we just have different stages.
What we need is someone who loses his shirt if he makes a wrong decision. Like a honest private businessman for instance.
Maybe there should be a new rule where the voters get to decide what level of benefits the outgoing president receives based on performance.
“Every day, there are officials in high office with responsibilities who mock the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists that human activities and the release of carbon dioxide and methane and other substances are altering our climate in profound and dangerous ways”
There is much agreement on carbon dioxide causing warming, there is much less agreement if it is or will “alert the climate in profound and dangerous ways.”
Why do people think the climate around 1900 was the ideal?
There can never be as you claim ” much agreement on carbon dioxide causing warming,” based on evidence. There can only be agreement on correlation which even then is incredibly poor. Climate has proven to be remarkably stable except given traceable major events. To any engineer this spells out that it is a negative feedback system so that means that CO2 is the result of temperature changes not the cause, assuming any cause and effect relationship.
David, your reasoning is faulty. CO2 is clearly the result of emissions (after all, we have emitted more than is actually measured in the atmosphere since it is absorbed in various processes).
A better conclusion would be that since there is negative feedback, CO2 cannot cause major warming, and certainly not any catastrophic consequences, as these did not occur in ages past. It means that the amplifier is small. If greater than 1, not much greater. This means that any warming due to CO2 should be too weak to cause any significant effects, and certainly nothing worth the astronomical costs associated with CO2 reductions.
It’s still good news, but we shouldn’t overreach our conclusions
Ben of Houston, we may have emitted carbon dioxide, but not to the extent the warming ocean has emitted carbon dioxide, thus David is right, and the carbon dioxide is the result of the warming. Why do you assume that the addition of what man puts in the air is far greater than the planet’s reaction to warming?
Actually, there is NO evidence that humans have caused the climate to change.
Human-caused CO2 may cause a little warming. So little, we can’t even measure it and separate it out from the background noise. But the ole climate may have a feedback that erases even that small amount of warming. Noone knows.
Bottom line: There is NO evidence humans are causing the climate to change.
Richard, there’s no scientific agreement on the role carbon dioxide plays in determining the Earth’s climate, solely because there is no scientific evidence one way or the other. It’s the continuing illusion such evidence exists, in the form of a lab experiment performed over a century ago. That was not evidence; it was a demonstration and crude measurement of the absorption and radiation spectra of carbon dioxide. It was not an in vivo proof of the “Greenhouse Hypothesis”. It violated the basic premise of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is that the system be open; there is nothing “open” about a sealed container of gas.
it’s completely false to say it was. Any consensus on the subject is nothing more than opinion; it has no scientific basis.
No matter what Obama says–its still politics, all the way down.
Better yet, put engineers in charge of the country. Unlike science, the limits of the scientific domain are strictly enforced by local physical laws in the engineering discipline. Also, engineering requires actually reconciliation of natural and human interests, thereby avoiding the worst special and peculiar traps laid by a pro-choice or selectively principled philosophy (e.g. selective child, selective exclusion, [class] diversity).
Does anyone actually believe in spontaneous conception or selective discontinuities in a human life (i.e. chaotic or evolutionary process)?
And engineers are prevented from playing semantic, fiscal, and emotional games as other professionals in the legal, financial, advocacy, etc. professions. Notwithstanding the variable demands and expectations of the rider professions. However, they do need to improve characterization and estimation of projection resolutions.
That said, drop the political (i.e. social) consensus, and scientists may become a viable option.
Well, you know what they say… ‘It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician is going to get elected.
Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.
previous reply intended for n.n. 8:44 am
I don’t think I would have wanted jimmy carter running a nuclear power plant.
Jimmy Carter was called an engineer by some but he wasn’t an engineer.
Naval engineer, that’s akin to train engineer.
“Jimmy Carter was called an engineer by some but he wasn’t an engineer.”
Some jurisdictions have strict controls on who can call themselves an “engineer”. Typically the USA is not one of them.
While Obama’s speech is garbage and AGW a farce; Carter was an engineer and scientist: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/car0bio-1
n.n – What’s wrong with choice?
I believe you’re correct in that prescription n.n. Unlike scientists engineers are expected to provide working solutions. In some cases they can be prosecuted under law for being wrong.
In spite of all the noise they make, “Climate Scientists” are a small minority of the scientific community.
The author does a terrible disservice to scientists as a whole.
That is a fairly ugly statement.
I followed the link. It goes to a Wikipedia(!) link to “Scientific Communism”, a version of Marxism-Leninism as taught in the Soviet Union.
That is a pretty nasty slur, right there.
For my money, I would rather have an eclectic mix of biologists, chemists, and physicists running the show, rather than lawyers, lawyers, and lawyers.
I do not think any sane person could look around today and conclude that lawyers have done a great job.
Isaac Asimov imagined an entire planet ruled by scientists in the Foundation trilogy. It worked for a while.
One of its problems is that scientists define scientist. Thus it can be anything and tends to collapse upon itself.
On second thought, there is no reason why “we” don’t put scientists in charge. What is your reason?
What scientist do you nominate for President of the United States, and why? Military experience? Executive experience? Political connections? Ability to compromise? None of the above?
As I think you know, my objection was to the blanket condemnation of scientists as a group, rather than to suggest any one person.
But since you ask: Dr. Ben Carson. By all accounts, a good and decent man, and a patriot. If you watched the debates, you saw him as articulate and well informed on the issues, and he held himself above the bickering and cat fighting of the other candidates. Character Counts.
Military and executive experience? Can’t do worse than what we have now. Principles and Character Matter. The tough decisions do not always go by the choices of the political policy wonks.
I would take a pediatric brain surgeon over a lawyer any day.
TonyL wrote “I would take a pediatric brain surgeon over a lawyer any day.”
As would I (absent any other information).
TonyL May 22, 2016 at 9:59 pm: ” I would take a pediatric brain surgeon over a lawyer any day.”
You could call him “Papa Doc”.
I believe you’re right about Carson.
I also believe the machine of big government and the Corridors of Power would have eaten him alive.
TonyL “biologists, chemists, and physicists” do run things like the National Academies, SCIENCE, NATURE, ROYAL Society, etc. How good a job are they doing in promoting global warming and smothering new ideas? Pretty good I think.
True enough, the big societies jumping on the CAGW bandwagon is most troubling. But there are a few issues to consider. First, particularly with the American Physics Soc. and American Chemical Soc., when we pull back the curtain we see a huge gulf between the leadership and the rank and file. That big rift has caused some real sparks in both organizations. I remember APS was considering a petition to withdraw their support of CAGW, but I do not know how that turned out. Second, is the leadership of APS and ACS really invested in CAGW, or is it a more realpolitik acknowledgment of where the money and politics are? That, I do not know.
So on balance, are they better than, or as bad as, for instance, the education establishment which is fully invested in CAGW, or the political establishment which is both funding and exploiting CAGW.
At least in the US, I think it is a rather mixed bag. The professional societies are in some ways on the wrong side of the CAGW issue, but not nearly as bad or as strident as they could be.
===================
” I remember APS was considering a petition to withdraw their support of CAGW
===================
I remember WUWT had a post where several prominent members debated the CAGW issue. Once again, in my view, the skeptics dominated hands down. Most or all scientific organizations have refused to submit the question of CAGW to their members to vote on. Zero “consensus studies” have addressed the “C” in CAGW, and zero scientific society organizations have addressed the “C” in their generalized affirmation that CO2 causes some warming, statements many skeptical of CAGW would agree with.. The O’s abuse of the deeply flawed 97 percent studies is clear.
The mixture of policy and science is called “post normal science” and WUWT had several posts on this years ago. The rational view of many commentators is that mixing the two, “science” and “politics” destroys science. I certainly have no objection to a scientist becoming a politician. (Any of the 30,000 plus signers of the “Oregon Petition” would get my consideration.) The PHD scientists I would choose for political appointment would not be the ones the O would choose.
Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of scientific community becoming indebted to the Government is certainly cogent today. Obama’s abuse of the power of position and the purse is tragic for both science and the US, and in extension, the world. Our refusal to encourage investment of inexpensive fossil fuel energy in Africa is not helpful to the poor of that Continent. Obama’s words and actions are often miles apart.
Typical of big government advocates, the policies implemented have had the opposite affect. The ACA for example is anything but affordable, and the quality of care will only be further harmed by it as it is more fully implemented. (The worst aspects of the ACA are yet to be fully implemented) IMV the foreign policy of the O has sent the world on a very dangerous course and created tragedy in North Africa and the Middle East which will likely only continue to intensify, making a mockery of his “Peace Prize” given for speaking about peace in good sounding platitudes before actually doing anything. His economic policies have harmed the middle class and the poor he is the supposed champion of, as well as endangering the entire economic system and US dollar through debt on steroids, items his successors will have to deal with in almost impossible circumstances. His opportunity to further instill the improving (before his term) racial harmony in the US, have in my view been worse then ineffective and have only increased racial divides and animosity, and increased class resentments within society.
David A wrote: “The O’s abuse of the deeply flawed 97 percent studies is clear.”
It shows how effective one little lie can be in the propaganda game, doesn’t it. Effective for the uninformed, that is. But that’s always the case.
Ah yes Mr Obama, the consensus.
Would that be the IPCC scientist who said they’re basing recommendations on the models? Or the IPCC scientists that said the models run too hot and should be set aside in favour of expert opinion?
Those of course would be the same scientists who, after repeatedly asserting a consensus climate sensitivity in the first four IPCC reports, now say that based on the most recent research, they can’t agree on one?
Are we talking about the scientists who said the warming was too large to be natural variation? Or the ones that said natural variation is so big it can hide the warming? Oh, wait those were both from the IPCC too.
Wait, I know, you’re talking about the dozens of climate papers that explain the pause, each with a different explanation? That consensus? Do we include the paper claiming it never existed as part of the same consensus? I’m really confused.
I have no idea Mr Obama, what consensus you speak of. But as to putting scientists in charge:
Climate change is too important to be left to scientists – least of all the normal ones.
~ Mike Hulme, professor, University of East Anglia
No matter what Obama says, he will be a Lame Duck in 6 months. The worst President since WWII, with the possible exception of George Bush Junior.
George Bush Jr. did not have enough sense to finish the job in Afghanistan before trying and failing to show us how how much more macho he is than his father by opening Iraq to the jihadists.
On second thought, no matter how hard he tries, not even Obama has topped that one.
The Obama Legacy:
1. ObamaCare
2. Debt outstripping all former Presidents combined
3. Unprecedented numbers on food stamps.
4. Transgender bathrooms
Oh! The pride! The pride!
Let’s not leave out the worst, the most egregious legacy of the Obama Presidency; a total and complete failure as the first Black President of the USA.
I’m not being facetious. It was historic. Morgan Freeman did a better job. All he had to be was “OK” and he would have made history. Instead, he fell on his face. His presidency has seen the most frightening (nay, horrific) rise of racism in the United States since the Civil War. It’s been a complete and total cultural disaster. Then the transgender bathroom thing. It just keeps getting worse…
And no, I don’t have any “black friends”. Not anymore anyway, they’re all dead. This guy really screwed the pooch.
Frederick Colbourne May 22, 2016 at 9:06 pm wrote:
“No matter what Obama says, he will be a Lame Duck in 6 months. The worst President since WWII, with the possible exception of George Bush Junior.”
No, there is no doubt Obama is the worst president in U.S. history. Obama has done more to fuel the expansion of radical Islamic terrrorism than any person in world history. It’s not even close.
Frederick Colbourne: “George Bush Jr. did not have enough sense to finish the job in Afghanistan before trying and failing to show us how how much more macho he is than his father by opening Iraq to the jihadists.”
When George W. Bush left Office, both Afghanistan and Iraq were well under control. The jihadists did try to take advantage of Bush deposing Saddam Insane, and put up a pretty good fight for a while, until Bush surged an extra 20,000 troops into Iraq (against Democrat opposition) and decimated the jihadists and ran them out of Iraq. The jihadists, including al Baghdadi, fled to Syria with an estimated 37 members left after Bush and U.S. troops got done with them.
It was Obama who spawned the Islamic Terror Army by pulling all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq in 2011, against the advice of all his military advisors. The “Al Qaeda-in-Iraq jihdists that Bush defeated in 2008, came back as the Islamic Terror Army and Obama let them take over nearly half of Iraq, murdering thousands of innocent people, and sending hundreds more thousands of people fleeing to Europe, where they are underming Western democracy in Europe even as I write.
George W. Bush didn’t do this. Obama did it. Bush had an Iraq success story. Obama turned it into an ongoing horror story.
Bush outlined exactly what kind of horrors would take place in Iraq if the U.S. pulled out too soon, in his State of the Union speech in 2007. You ought to read that speech. It is prescient.
Bush gave that speech because all the Liberal Demcrats at the time were opposed to sending more troops, fighting Bush all the way. Bush got more troops anyway, and won the day with them. Too bad Obama didn’t listen to Bush’s speech, and protect the gains the U.S. had made in Iraq.
“On second thought, no matter how hard he tries, not even Obama has topped that one.”
Well, as I explained above, Obama has been the problem, not Bush.
Obama is also doing his best to lose us Afghanistan, too. It’s what Liberal Appeasers do. It’s ALL they do, when it comes to war and national security.
Good comment, and it is factual that the Iraq economy was very steadily improving with time. It is likewise true that Obama tried to claim credit for the successes there and subsequently turned it back into a hell hole as you have mentioned. Shia or Sunni Islamists, the O policy has supported and enabled both and been partially responsible for the “refugee” crisis.
David A May 23, 2016 at 7:10 am wrote: “Good comment, and it is factual that the Iraq economy was very steadily improving with time. It is likewise true that Obama tried to claim credit for the successes there and subsequently turned it back into a hell hole as you have mentioned.”
Yes, things were going so good in Iraq that Obama and Biden both went over there right before the U.S. troops pullout, and tried to take credit for how well things were going.
Then Obama pulled all the U.S. combat troops out, and things went straight to hell.
Bush left a stable, hopeful Iraq to Obama, and Obama turned it into a hellhole.
In polls done in Jordan and Iraq, 75 percent of Jordanians blame Obama for their horrendous refugee crisis there in Jordan and surrounding areas, and about 50 percent of Iraqis think Obama is on the side of the Islamic Terror Army.
That’s a heck of a legacy Obama is building.
TA, Afghanistan & Iraq are not “yours” – ie the property of the USA. It is a failing of US foreign policy since WW2 that they think the application of US power can solve any problem, anywhere. Truth be told the wars in the Middle East & Africa are all to do with the national borders drawn on maps by the colonial powers. These borders completely ignored centuries old ethnic, religious, & tribal boundaries, thereby creating countries that can only be held together by force of arms.
TA, you neglect to mention the Shrub prosecuted an aggressive act of war and the invasion of a sovereign country under false pretense.
He was never prosecuted himself for that act, which cost tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives in Iraq and other middle eastern countries, not to mention some 3 trillion dollars in US debt. This isn’t meant in any way to excuse the subsequent policy failures of his predecessor, only to point out that you get what you pay for.
These are not small things.
Successor; “the subsequent policy failures of his successor“.
Frederick Colbourne May 22, 2016 at 9:06 pm:
The worst President since WWII, with the possible exception of George Bush Junior.
George Bush Jr. did not have enough sense to finish the job in Afghanistan before trying and failing to show us how how much more macho he is than his father by opening Iraq to the jihadists.
Yeah, just think about the possibilities! If only we’d elected Obama to be Commander In Chief instead of retaining Boooosh! twice to fill this Post from 2009 on, Obama could have even been in the running for Worst Living Person In The World and celebrated by Shariah Law Supremacists as perhaps The Greatest Dhimmi evah! But apparently White Privilege again took its toll.
“On second thought, no matter how hard he tries, not even Obama has topped that one.”
Your mileage obviously varies. “Top” assumes a direction and magnitude (vector) that you have defined for you, but which I define for me, and varies according to things you consider important or that I consider important.
It’s Obama total lack of reguard for limited government and rule of law that will be his ultimate legacy, congress and Scotus have totally failed to check his power grab, what future president will gladly give back what Obama has taken? One can only hope for ineptitude in our future presidents because the alternative is dictatorship, gleefully given by the masses of clueless citizens who want a LEADER to run their lives.
Here is what else the author has to say about scientists:
The second link is , again, to Wikipedia, this time to the entry on Lysenkoism. I am sure we all agree that Lysenkoism was pretty nasty business, as was all of all of the USSR under Stalin.
Let’s see what the entry has to say.
“under Lysenko’s admonitions and with Stalin’s approval, many geneticists were executed”
Does not seem that they were too “susceptible to group think and pressure” if they had to be taken out and shot before they would conform.
Anyway, so what if scientists were as susceptible to group think as anybody else, how would that make them worse than everybody else?
Lysenko had his scientific naysayers dispatched. Today, a kinder gentler John Holdren just has their NSF or intramural funding cut-off.
A whole bunch of AGs are looking to fabricate a case for criminal prosecutions. If “Climate Contrary-ism” (We can’t use the “D” word) is redefined as a Crime Against Humanity, then the Death Penalty will apply.
Think it is too far-fetched? Consider an IRS weaponized and wielded against the citizenry. Consider a presidential edict demanding that in all public schools, boys/men *must* be allowed to use the girls locker rooms.
I believe the point is that since scientists are as susceptible to group think as everybody else, putting scientists in charge will be no better than putting anyone else in charge, in terms of results.
Anyone who does not think scientists are susceptible to group think must not realize that scientists are humans. All humans are flawed, regardless of education level or descriptor or title. Currently, there are “scientists” who are pushing to silence those who have different views, by refusing to allow others to be heard, discouraging funding, and attempting to shun or “shame” perceived iconoclasts. No industry is free of corruptible members.
Do you have any evidence that scientists are less susceptible to group think and pressure than are others? Or do you just want to continue whining?
Well the O is a lawyer and Merkel was a scientist, I see no difference.
Whining?? Really now.
Given the criticism and sometimes outright ostracism science majors face on the American campus, it takes a person willing to go their own way to pursue a physical science major.
There are the “belongers”, who form up into groups and take their social status from the group. You can see this clearly with fraternities, sororities, and the sports team fans. these are the people who are going to engage in groupthink. I find it interesting that these above groups are exactly the groups (and their activities) that the typical science major wants nothing to do with.
Then you have the “independents”, people who pursue their own goals in their own way. If you would ask one of these people about “groupthink”, they might not be sure what you are talking about. By and large, these are the science majors.
For myself, I just want to know how that chemical system works. I do even care about how I think the system works. I want to know. I most certainly do not care what others think about the system, as that does not get me to know how that system works, unless, of course, I find someone who actually does know how it works. Ultimately, I want to know how the system works, why it does what it does, and why the damn thing won’t behave itself. Groupthink not involved.
These are two entirely different world views, and they do not reconcile.
I also find it interesting that people who align themselves with a “belonger” viewpoint and exhibit herding behavoir, very often cannot imagine that anyone would do things differently. Indeed, they often react with open hostility when confronted with someone who will not subscribe to the herd’s viewpoint.
What you see coming up through the ranks in college is pretty much what you will get later in life.
Anyone who gets bent out of shape when someone points out the obvious fact that scientists can be influenced by group thing and group pressure is whining.
I’m sorry that you weren’t popular while you were college.
I’ve been a nerd all my life, and while my popularity went up and down depending on many factors, I got over it.
You should too.
TonyL
How about this, lets just have a limited government that protects or civil liberties, person and property and defends us from foreign powers and we live our life each as we see fit and to hell with needing to be lead by anyone.
You know that kind of thinking could get you in trouble, some people would even call it revolutionary. I will tell you right now, I do not think the Crown will go for it.
But anyway, you could run it by George W., Thomas J., James M., Ben F., and the rest of the gang. They might want to come up with a Declaration of some sort, or something.
Thank God for the wisdom of the 22nd Amendment.
But I have no doubt that Obama is scheming to remain in power past January 20, 2017.
Marshall Law anyone?
I literally abhor the actions and policies of the current POTUS. However on what basis are you so certain this is the O’s plan?
The current POTUS has spoken carelessly about a third term. All other modern POTUS have studiously avoided the topic, as a matter of protocol, if nothing else. His breach of protocol in this instance startling. Combined with 8 years of wanton disregard for constitutional limits on his powers, such talk is truly worrying. Far from observing his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, he called it “a seriously flawed document”.
A stepwise scenario:
1) declare a limited financial emergency
2) declare a general economic emergency
3) declare a civil emergency
4) declare a national emergency
5) invoke extraordinary powers, suspend civil liberties
6) suspend elections
Thanks Tony. I would not put it past him, but I read the link about speaking carelessly about a third term, and did not find that to be the case from the O quotes linked here Not that I take the O at his word except when he is talking about “fundamentally changing the US” so…
Mum would like this
Stuart Esplin Mob: 0409039136 stuartesplin@optusnet.com.au
>
Carl Sagan also said that whenever new ideas are offered for consideration, scientists must use a baloney detection kit containing tools for skeptical thinking. Among the tools are the following:
* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”.
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.
* Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.
* Quantify. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
* Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
* Control experiments are essential.
Carl Sagan went on to say that politicians [especially Obama] often use fallacies of logic and rhetoric such as the following:
* argument from authority
* argument from adverse consequences
* appeal to ignorance
* special pleading
* assuming the answer
* observational selection
* statistics of small numbers
* misunderstanding of the nature of statistics
* inconsistency
* post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“it happened after, so it was caused by”)
* false dichotomy, considering only two extremes in a continuum; short-term vs. long-term
* confusion of correlation and causation
* straw man [Obama’s a master utilizing this]
* suppressed evidence or half-truths
* weasel words [e.g., “climate change”]
(source: The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, 1995, Chapter 12: The Fine Art Of Baloney Detection)
Thank you for a brilliant quote that sums up all that is wrong with climate science and its practitioners except perhaps some of their private lives and ethical standards which is by no means restricted to IPCC heads.
I really wish we could see the same coverage to any accusations against some of the other major figures by their subordinates that these figures get for claims about climate that are in contrast totally unfounded.
David Cage wrote: “Thank you for a brilliant quote that sums up all that is wrong with climate science and its practitioners”
I agree. Good post. The Alarmists score a zero on about all those Sagan tests.
Oddly enough we have already done so.
We are governed by far too many graduates of “Political Science”.
They probably consider themselves scientists.
Obama-Bin Lying is great at empty rhetoric, shame he never has anything factual to say.
Would be wonderful to see him forced,under oath, to state the evidence he claims exists for Anthropogenic Climate Change..AKA CAGW, which is always the sense he uses Climate Change in.
Supposedly this is the best informed head of state in the world, is all the evidence classified?
Perhaps he should share it with the UN IPCC.
Everybody seems to have missed the glaring irony contained in Obama’s speech.
He states that we should defer to the experts, and ensure that they are qualified to do their jobs.
Yet, Obama, who was not even qualified to flip burgers was elected as President. Twice.
Kind of negates his argument. Only he could make that argument with a straight face.
In that speech he also says:
I wasn’t aware that Obama has already been to prison. Can someone enlighten me?
I think Barack is prescient. He has memories of being sent to prison in the future.
His similarity to our King Blair, is remarkable. Both are shyster Lawyers, Both promised a new deal, which turned out to be simply a pragmatic way to get and stay elected, both misused ‘liberal ‘ politics to destroy huge swathes of the culture they inherited. Both were so vain that in the end all they cared about was their ‘legacy’. Both hated Britain with a passion. Both use the interesting rationale, that if they didn’t know something was wrong, they cant be blamed for any decision they made with respect to it, and thereby cultivate deliberately uninformed positions.
And both should be in jail.
Compared to most of us, Our Dear President has led a blessed life, full of good fortune, partly due to the wonderful nation we have, as has his wife.
They have not been hindered in their life goals by Racism as he infers; instead, he and his race-bating wife have benefited – marvelously – from our society’s efforts to address those wrongs.
He should be praising this truth, not re-writing this truth.
Unlike any other US president, the legacy of President Obama is to have fallen for a scam.
Now, some people find that falling for a scam is not such a great legacy. However, in his defense it must be said that, at least, he fell for the biggest scam in history.
For instance, if he had instead spent the same $250 bn to help a Nigerian general in distress, his legacy would have been worse.
Well, Adrian O, if he’d done that, the money would be gone, true, but the US and other nations dutifully following along, would not have the “green energy” industry foisted on them. No it would have been better (I think).
We cross for a word from one of the best presidents since WW2, (if I may, as a non-us citizen, say so):
Thanks, Chris. Great speech with insight, humility, and faith.
So when the engineers who actually have to make things work say the scientist have a superb theory but it does not actually work in the real world the scientists still are supposed to be right? This even when the engineers are eager to have their rebuttal publicly aired and examined by everybody while the scientists abuse legislation intended to keep information from terrorists to suppress the less than high integrity of their work let alone their abuse of position for extra curricular favours on the part of desirable younger team members? An abuse far more widespread that so far revealed.
Yes the scientist is still right and still collecting a paycheck when his views align with the politician. Keynesian economics is another great theory that doesn’t work in the real world, that doesnt stop economic scientists from continuously promoting it, and politicians from continuously implementing it. Those that disagree are ignored to the point one hardly can tell they still exist. I can fully understand why Obama sees scientists as a powerful and useful tools to promote the politics one desires.
The thesis goes that scientists are dispassionate, independent thinkers, working for humanity.
The evidence in my experience is that scientists are driven by grant funding, their ‘thought processes’ are often guided by the grant fund raising process and that scientists work for whoever will pay them.
Scientific promotion is gained by publication in ‘high impact’ publications, which are controlled by scientist editorial boards, well-known ‘jobs for the boys’ old-boys clubs. As a young scientist, you are more likely to publish work in ‘high impact’ publications working for a Professor on high impact journal editorial boards than if you seek to publish ostensibly identical work from a less high profile research team.
Science has mantras, dogmas and things young scientists do not question if they know what’s good for them. Those mantras and dogmas may change over generations, but in any one generation, group think stifles independent thought. You play the publication game and you play by the rules.
At the top levels, there is a lot of mutual back scratching. 5 year programme grant reviews in many research institutes are carried out by ‘competitors’ in similar positions in other institutes. In many ways, these things operate like a highly skilled Trades Union. Just like the same old speakers tend to get invited to conference after conference, which reinforces group think through repetition of desired messages.
Part of this is a belief that ‘politicians don’t understand science’. Whilst this is true for the majority of politicians, the evidence is that if you ask tough, tough questions from a position of knowledge and understanding, you get the concerted media witch hunt treatment. Science and medicine knows how to do that just as well as the politicians, you know. That’s because the security services infest science and medicine just like all other arenas of western life…….