Scientific Am: House Science Committee calls on “Alt-Science”

[icehorse]

This isn’t at all creepy:

House Science Committee Calls on Alt-Science to Drive Policy

Summary: In order to continue to burn fossil fuels, let’s frame climate change as a legitimate debate…

 

[sun rise]

May be we should put chlorpyrifos shakers next to their salt and pepper since they don't care about science.

In case any missed it The US government ignored its own scientists' warning that a pesticide causes brain damage

 

[esmith]

Oh you mean like the hoax about Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane that caused the deaths of 50 million or more people.

 

[Revoltingest]

This isn’t at all creepy:

House Science Committee Calls on Alt-Science to Drive Policy

Summary: In order to continue to burn fossil fuels, let’s frame climate change as a legitimate debate…

I've no problem with its being debated.
Not doing so would be a really bad sign.

 

[Father Heathen]

I've no problem with its being debated.
Not doing so would be a really bad sign.

Perhaps we should debate heliocentricism while we're at it?

 

[icehorse]

I've no problem with its being debated.
Not doing so would be a really bad sign.

Science should be debated amongst experts, not politicians.

 

[Falvlun]

I've no problem with its being debated.
Not doing so would be a really bad sign.

Debating our policy in reference to climate change is valid. Politicians shouldn't be debating the science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps we should debate heliocentricism while we're at it?

We could!
But it would be fast.
Unlike climate change, solar system models are very simple & far more readily tested.

Remember that some claims made about GW have been debunked, eg, more numerous hurricanes.
If such a claim had been enshrined as not debatable, ie, inerrant fact, than we'd have bogus science.
But fortunately for us, scientists continue to observe & theorize without government imposing an
agenda. Neither the believers or deniers should control science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science should be debated amongst experts, not politicians.

Agreed!
But pols will have to discuss it in the course of designing public policy.
(We need better pols....too many lawyers....too few technocrats.)

Debating our policy in reference to climate change is valid. Politicians shouldn't be debating the science.

Agreed again!

 

[fantome profane]

Trivia question: Who is the only U.S. President since Nixon not to have a science advisor?