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.
Progressive thinking requires one to obey the laws of science given by Climatologists.(Correct Climatologists, that is.)
Yet these same science advocates ignore Biologists when they say Genetic science dictates the gender of Humans. .
Yes, let’s! As presidential science advisor Prof Muller had pointed out in his talks ‘Physics for future Presidents’, there had been a supposed commitment to listen to scientific advice anyway — except for they don’t. And so it is that they did NOT come through with the nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, of which he said, as far as he is concerned, the site is ready to go and safe, and is only held back by irrational political decisions; also, Muller called the electric car ‘dead’ many years ago – so why is politics pushing for them anyway?
So there you have it.
“….Climate change is not something subject to political spin.” An unfortunate misstatement, incredibly gross naivety, blatant pandering, diabolical propaganda or what?
Why don’t we put Climate Scientists in charge, rather than politicians?
These are two vastly different philosophies regarding the nature of humans and what government is for.
To put scientists in charge is to say you believe in “progressivism:” this is the belief that we humans can and should use reason and knowledge to continually improve the wellfare of humankind.
Think about it: this is EXACTLY the philosophy of many a government philosophy that has failed miserably. All of the flavors of Marxism have been varieties of Progressivism. Also, the Charles Fourier-type socialist fantasies.
Same with the various utopias. There have been many utopian ideas, leading back, as noted, to Plato’s Republic. The Oneida, NY community was supposed to be a superior society based on progressivism. The kibbutz movement was a Marxist-based version of society with a zionist twist. There have been many “commune” communities attempted in the 1970s. Some still exist, but none live up to the ideals they are based upon.
B. F. Skinner’s “Walden II” was an overly optimistic portrayal of a utopian community build upon the learning principles he was so enthusiastic about. Walden II should regularly be included in the list of popular fiction representing different types of dystopias, along with “1984,” “Brave New World,” and “Farenheit 451.”
Skinner’s ideas were more directly reported in another book, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.”
That title was serious – Skinner actually believed we should get beyond our cultural adherence to the concepts of “freedom” and “dignity.” He believed these actually interfered with maximization of quality of life.
Those concepts illustrate why we need to be governed by politicians – by elected officials elected popularly by some representative democracy – sorry, that is the best we can do until Jesus returns.
Rather than turn society over to the best judgments of John Holdren and other social engineers, we citizens pick our own poison, and we build freedom and dignity into our politics.
All of the progressivism-based political philosophies are top-down governments – the powerful individuals at the top decide WHETHER and how you get to live.
Instead, with a commitment to freedom and dignity / human worth of each individual, we get to live our lives as we wish, and only relinquish the freedom we need to in order to permit others to enjoy their God-given liberty, as well.
This is society governed from the bottom-up, rather than top-down. In short, a top-down society always has and will always end up being oppressive.
Some of the more clever Marxists and Socialists know this. So, they strive to portray their versions of government from the top-down as from the bottom-up, and portray our open society as governed from the to-down – the dreaded “cultural hegemony.”
Instead of Obama’s claptrap speech, here is what they really need to hear. They’ll have to learn how to THINK (now, where have I heard that before?).
Why on earth would anyone put Climate Scientists in charge of whole nations? We already have politicians who do everything that CliSci recommends.
The question is why don’t we put “climate scientists” in jail?
Imagine if Ben Franklin saw a biological male claiming he was a female.
Why is Obama pro-science on some matters but so anti-science on others? The science of determining male vs female was settled long, LONG ago.
I live in Oregon. I was under the impression climate scientists DO run the country – with eyes on the world.
Or perhaps that’s just the seedy activist sub-class and their political stooges.
If the POTUS genuinely believes that a Doctor, a Pilot and an ‘environmental scientist’ are all equal then he needs to be removed.
He seems to want, simultaneously, Doctors treating patients and Pilots flying planes. Fair enough, but why then would we want ‘environmental scientists’ telling us how to run the economy? Surely economists should be doing that job?
Environmental ‘scientists’ are the ones that couldn’t make it into medical school and certainly couldn’t fly a plane. They seem to have massive problems with maths ‘n’ stats and certainly couldn’t pass economics or PR 101.
If a POTUS believes that these people should running the Planet then I guess that it is time to use ones democratic vote.
Then again, isn’t this the guy that employed Holdren as his chief scientific advisor? Holdren would have done much better in Germany some decades ago.
As an Englishman, I had no problems with Obama becoming POTUS. My problems only started when he put that POS in charge of US science. Couldn’t you track down a genuine article from Argentina or are they all dead now?
A good essay Eric. Well written, well said.
I wasn’t sure where this reply would end up, so I put it here at the end.
Ray Boorman May 23, 2016 at 5:36 pm wrote: “TA, Afghanistan & Iraq are not “yours” – ie the property of the USA.”
I never made that claim, Ray. I don’t think that. I see the U.S. as the potential benfactor of the Iraqi and Afghan people, which is also beneficial to the U.S. Americans have no desire to tell others what to do unless those others are trying to kill us.
“It is a failing of US foreign policy since WW2 that they think the application of US power can solve any problem, anywhere.”
It is a failure to follow the policy the U.S. had during World War II, and the Korean war: NATION BUILDING, that has been the cause of the three failings of U.S. foreign policy, namely South Vietnam and Iraq and Libya.
After World War II, the U.S. stayed and rebuilt Europe, and Japan, and rebuilt South Korea after the Korean war. All of these nations are now good, prosperous allies of the United States, and U.S. troops are still there protecting the peace, with the consent and cooperation of the host countries.
The only failures are when the U.S. has a war and then leaves too early and does not protect the peace. If you want a war to solve a problem, you must do nation building afterwards, otherwise all you do is create chaos, and more problems.
“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.”
That might be true, but force of arms and the current situation is all we have to work with right now. We’ll have to work it out from here.
Bartleby May 23, 2016 at 7:35 pm wrote: “TA, you neglect to mention the Shrub prosecuted an aggressive act of war and the invasion of a sovereign country under false pretense.”
No, I didn’t neglect to mention that because I don’t believe that. I think George W. Bush believed just what he told the American public. No false pretense involved.
Bartleby: “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.”
Well, nearly every politician in Washington voted in favor of backing George W. Bush in the Iraq war, and they all said the same things about WMD that Bush was saying. Some of them, including many Liberal Democrats had been saying those things long before Bush came to Office. It was even official U.S. policy to depose Saddam Insane, the law being passed in 1998, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. So don’t lay it all off on Bush. The U.S. has been gunning for Saddam for a long time, for lots of good reasons.
Bartleby: “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.”
I’m glad to see you at least see the reality of the Obama lack of performance.
Bartleby: “These are not small things.”
No, they are not small things, but I think a wider view of the issue is needed to get the true picture.
A climate scientist- or at least a wannabe – has been in charge of the country since 2009
Why don’t we put climate scientists in charge of the country? A wannabe climate scientist has been in charge since 2009.