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.
Most people are capable of getting through life without being ruled by anyone. If Washington DC wants to improve the country, all they need is to get out of the way.
Because political decisions isn’t science.
Because scientists aren’t economists.
Because experts have been wrong more often than they have been right.
Because when we go to a doctor or get on a plane, we make a choice. Obama and climate change don;t allow me a choice.
And perhaps Obama should listen to the majority of economists, who think that most of his financial policies are stupid and keep the poor poor. So why doesn’t he listen to the experts in that field?
Weren’t the so called scientists and their collective institutions ‘in charge’ presiding over the ‘insight’ of eugenics? That didn’t end so well. And that was before the current chancre of precautionary Progressive, post-modern ‘Science’, which appears to be entering a period that is a simulacrum for tertiary stage neuro-syphilis.
A definite no thank you.
“We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.”*
*Harold Macmillan
As the American revolution ended many of Washington’s officers were very discontented. The Continental Congress had failed to fulfil it’s promises for pay and other compensation to the officers and men who had fought for so long and at substantial personal cost. Anonymous letters circulated calling for a military overthrow of the government. A substantial number of officers wanted Washington to be declared a King.
Washington understood he had to act and prevented an unauthorized meeting of his officers to discuss such propositions. Instead he proposed to meet and speak with his officers a few days later. His prepared speech was not well received by the gathering. Then Washington took out a letter from Congress in which they explained their terrible financial condition. Squinting, he tried to read the letter then stopped, and reached into his pocket for a pair of glasses. Very few of his officers knew he required glasses to read. Washington had done his best to hide the fact. Then Washington said: “Gentlemen,” said Washington, “you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”
That statement moved some to tears. Here was the man who had risked more than most and led the Army with unwavering fidelity and valor through some of it’s darkest times when all seemed lost, and who still remained loyal to the experiment, revealing a disability that they had no idea he was suffering from.
The gathering ended with a unanimous vote to support Congress and to wait to see what transpired.
rah wrote: ” Then Washington said: “Gentlemen,” said Washington, “you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.”
That statement moved some to tears. Here was the man who had risked more than most and led the Army with unwavering fidelity and valor through some of it’s darkest times when all seemed lost, and who still remained loyal to the experiment, revealing a disability that they had no idea he was suffering from.
The gathering ended with a unanimous vote to support Congress and to wait to see what transpired.”
That moves me to tears.
For me politicians see to make “insane” judgements as we consider them because the agenda is not what they claim it is. To the professed agenda the decisions seem in sane, but if you put those decisions into the context of another agenda, they make sense.
WMD is a perfect example. It was not a mistake, the middle east was not an error, it was intentional
Of course when we have to replicate the agenda based on actions, we call it “conspiracy theory” but it isn’t really, we are trying to reconcile the actions with the reasons, and it doesn’t add up.
But what if the doctor used the concepts of the Four Humors, and used leeches, and bled his patients? Would we want to call them if we were hurt or sick? What if the teacher taught Ptolemaic astronomy and that the Earth was flat? Would we want to send our kids to that school? What if the pilot had all the skill and learning of the 9/11 hijackers? Would we want to board that flight?
The straw man used by Obama in this case is assumed to be a highly-qualified and objective practitioner of its art, and not blinded by groupthink and confirmation bias. However, we can tell by comments such as that by Phil Jones, “Why should I give it [his data] to you when all you’ll do is try to find something wrong with it?” and the efforts of The Team to blacklist and defame any author or journal who tried to publish anything opposing The Cause, that what is being done here is not science.
The politicians have access to all the experts they require after all.
The IPCC is a perfect example of actions not matching the reasons for said actions
Wasn’t Keynes an economist? I’ll take a pass.
Scientist is a self-serving epithet only. There is no school of scientists.
Majority rule is as misunderstood. Read Aristotle on demarchy, democracy, sortition, election by lot. Only the tyrants enjoyed majority rule, the citizens did no worse with election by lot.
Michael Crichton covered all the issues in the head post very well in his Caltech Lecture “Aliens Cause Global Warming”. I notice Anthony has posted the lecture here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
It is a very enlightening read and although I’m also a fan of Carl Sagan’s books (He is hard on Sagan) I highly recommend it to anybody concerned about the politics of consensus science!
Michael Crichton was a very smart man who had some very very good ideas, he happened to be right on global warming, but I am reading his autobiography called Travels, and he also had some very strange ideas that are not backed up by science.
The Left-wing political parties already support the ideas of the climate scientists.
There are already dozens of policies designed and hundreds of billions spent to support the ideas of the climate scientists.
They already have lots of political power.
Are the left-wing political parties really saying that the climate scientists should replace them.
Surely not. The left-wing parties want more political power, not less. They are mostly just using the climate scientists to gain more power. Obama doesn’t live a green life-style.
Obama doesn’t live a green life-style.
Yes, he does:
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/Obama-putting-AP-photo-640×480.jpg
Oblahblah blathers:
“Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science — these are good things. These are qualities you want in people making policy.”
Too bad our Liar-in-Chief has none of those qualities, nor do those he relies on for advice, particularly on “climate change”.
I don’t imagine any of the freshly-minted drones there were able to spot the numerous logical fallacies he used. First he buttered them up and pandered to them, then he used the bully pulpit to spout propaganda. Sickening.
In government or in science, the best results often arise from the tension and competition of opposed forces. When there is no balance of power is when things go completely pear-shaped.
….But, but….Obama and his administration are the most “transparent” …EVA’ !! LOL
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/22/epa-conducts-two-secret-meetings-a-year-to-decide-how-to-dole-out-billions-in-slush-fund-money/
George Washington was killed by settled science.
Indeed he was. Unfortunately we’re still in the “bloodletting stage” of climate science progress.
Xi Jinping – China chemical engineering
Angela Merkel – Germany physics, doctrate in quantum chemistry
Elio Di Rupo – Belgium Ph.D. in chemistry
Mohamed Morsi – Egypt Ph.D. in materials
Ah yes, civic virtue Roman-style: the rape of the Sabine women…ahem.
Because scientists are no more immune to abuse of money, power & ego than politicians.
That’s right, scientists are only human.
We do not put scientists in charge because you cannot go from an “is” to an “ought”. Scientists tell us what is, politicians decide what we ought to do.
Take medicine as an example. Doctors and scientists can provide the infomation on, say vaccines. They can say “If we conduct this compulsory vaccination program we will have X fewer cases of disease Y”.
The scientist cannot say whether we should carry out said program. If it is a compulsory program there are lots of non-scientific reasons why we might choose not to do it. Is prevention of X cases of disease Y worth the infringement of freedom? That is not a scientific question. We cannot arrive at the ought from the is.
The scientist can tell us sugar contributes to obesity and diabetes. They can say “If sugar consumption was cut by X%, all else being equal we would have Y% less obesity”. They cannot tell us that we should introduce a sugar tax. We cannot go from an is to an ought.
It is the responsibility of the politician to take all the experts advice and decide what we ought to do. Science cannot tell us what we ought to do.
What the politician should not do is decide what we ought to do without considering the scientific evidence. They might justifiably decide not to have a compulsory vaccination campaign, but they must not do because they think it will not reduce disease Y if that is what the scientists tell them. They might justifiably decide not to implement a sugar tax, but they must not justify this by saying sugar does not contribute to obesity, if that is what he experts tell them. They might justifiably reject a carbon tax, but thay must not justify this by saying that carbon has no effect on the climate, if that is what the experts tell them.
Seaice1 says “We do not put scientists in charge because you cannot go from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’.”
There is no “we”. I appreciate your reasons for not choosing a scientist for President.
Michael 2. The title of the post asks “Why don’t we put climate scientists in charge of the country?” I was simply answering this question in the same terms. What are you reasons?
Putting it simply, it is not the job of scientists to tell us what to do. It is their job to tell us what is likely to happen if we make certain choices.
We could ask the same question of other “expert groups”. Why don’t we put the police in charge? Why don’t we put teachers in charge? Why don’t we put economists in charge (if you could get them to agree about anything)? Why don’t we put doctors in charge?
It is because being in charge is about much more than the areas in which these groups are experts. There is more to running the country than policing. There is more than education. There is more than the economy. There is more than medicine. There is more than the climate.
“Scientists tell us what is…”
Unfortunately, climate “scientists” practice government-funded pseudoscience, geared towards remaining on the “climate” gravy train. So, in the case of climate the agenda isn’t science at all, but rather the appearance of it.
“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.”
There is an example just like this from ancient history. One of the most intelligent men ever wondered about who would be the best leader. After decades of study, Plato wrote “The Republic” which included (among other ideas) that the nation ought to be run by philosopher kings. Such enlightened learned men understand how to meet everyone’s needs, because they have taught that. (Ironically, everybody in history who studies governments always comes to the same conclusion — “governments are best run by people like me.”)
Plato had the chance to see his Republic played out in reality. A small nation-state in Greece declared independence and appointed a ruling council. One of these council members had been one of Plato’s students. Plato even wrote suggestions on how to develop the council.
Long story short, the council was an unmitigated disaster. It fell apart within ten months and the nation was back at war. .They became tyrants and ruled horribly. The main problem turned out to be that these leaders thought they smarter than everyone else so they did not listen to anyone else. The leaders felt like they were so intelligent that they knew all of the answers.
Lrcanbonda wrote: “The main problem turned out to be that these leaders thought they smarter than everyone else so they did not listen to anyone else. The leaders felt like they were so intelligent that they knew all of the answers.”
That sounds like President Obama. And just like those former ancient leaders, they and he, were wrong about that. They don’t know all the answers. Although I am sure Obama still thinks he does.
Many of these “smart guys’s” answers make things much worse, not better. Obama being the case in point.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama gave an interview in which he claimed he was a better speech writer than his speech writers. A better campaign manager than his campaign manager and so on.
He stated that the only reason why he didn’t do everything himself was because there wasn’t enough hours in the day for him to do it all.
Ben Franklin would have laughed at Obama’s profound ignorance of climate science and called for the abolition of IPCC seeing it as a bunch of charlatans.
Dr Strangelove
“Ben Franklin would have laughed at Obama’s profound ignorance of climate science and called for the abolition of IPCC seeing it as a bunch of charlatans.”
+100, he would have seen through the shame in a second and he certainly would have seen increased CO2 as a boon for plant life and the warming trends since the end of LIA as a very positive thing. But then again he didn’t want to control every ones lives and wasn’t looking to use fear as a way to eliminate freedom, come to think of it didn’t he have a little bit to say on the subject of freedom or am I mistaken (sarc)?
The whole issue is suspect when posed by a President that picked John Holdren as WH science adviser. That guy is walking red flag at this point.
We have put them in charge indirectly. Climate Change is the made up agenda of the United Nations to take over the 170 nations which have joined their non-scientific agenda that has a real goal of destroying the USA and capitalism…believing that communism is the best form of government…do some research and it all makes sense. It has all been admitted by those in the UN. Bush Sr, Pelosi, and many of our federal representatives have turned a blind eye to science and the people of this nation in order to promote the UNs plans. Worse, the taxpayer in the US is paying for it.
‘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.)’
A while back, you may have seen a sweating United States senator who trotted out a sweating James Hansen giving a floor speech (in a room in which the AC was deliberately turned off) during one of the hottest days of summer as “proof” that the world was not warming. (Laughter.)
We live in a parallel universe mr. president.
I believe Sen. Inhofe did that more as a joke than anything else. But Climatists, as we’ve seen, are allergic to humor. Makes them break out in hives.