This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Policy

House Science Committee Take on March for Science

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 22, 2017
Filed under
House Science Committee Take on March for Science

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chairman Smith Statement on the March for Science
“I support the right of science supporters to gather and march this weekend. Opening new frontiers of scientific knowledge, on Earth and beyond, will pave the way to a better, more secure future for the next generation. I will continue to support scientific research that furthers our national interest and is of the highest intellectual merit.”
Ranking Member Johnson Applauds Mission of the March for Science
“Though I am disheartened by the fact that there currently is a need to defend the ‘vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments,’ I am thrilled to see such a large and diverse group of people passionate about science, invested in the future of scientific discovery, and committed to the need for science-based policy making. … “Science shouldn’t be a partisan issue. I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle are supporting all of the goals of today’s march.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

62 responses to “House Science Committee Take on March for Science”

  1. Fred says:
    0
    0

    “Science shouldn’t be a partisan issue. I hope that Members on both
    sides of the aisle are supporting all of the goals of today’s march.”

    Does that also include climate sciences Mr Smith?

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    What I find interesting is how scientists decided they needed a protest march now and not when science cuts were made under the Obama Administration.

    https://www.scientificameri

    But then Big Science in Washington has become, sadly, part of the Washington swamp it seems. How far it has drifted from the ideals underlying its foundation.

    https://www.nsf.gov/about/h

    From the letter by President Franklin Roosevelt to Dr. Vannevar Bush that led to the report, “Science: The Endless Frontier” that created American post war science policy and our modern high tech world.

    “DEAR DR. BUSH: The Office of Scientific Research and Development, of which you are the Director, represents a unique experiment of team-work and cooperation in coordinating scientific research and in applying existing scientific knowledge to the solution of the technical problems paramount in war. Its work has been conducted in the utmost
    secrecy and carried on without public recognition of any kind; but its tangible results can be found in the communiques coming in from the battlefronts all over the world. Some day the full story of its achievements can be told.

    There is, however, no reason why the lessons to be found in this experiment cannot be profitably employed in times of peace. The information, the techniques, and the research experience developed
    by the Office of Scientific Research and Development and by the thousands of scientists in the universities and in private industry, should be used in the days of peace ahead for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs, and the betterment of the national standard of living.”

    I wonder how many of the scientists marching have even heard of let alone read that report.

    What is really needed, rather than a march led by an actor is a Commission to review the impact of American science policy since WWII to create a new road map for American science for the 21 Century to achieve the same goals of “the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs, and the betterment of the national standard of living.”

    • Anon Ymous says:
      0
      0

      Someone is confusing “Swamp” with “Grassroots”.
      And I mean, seriously? The Obama administration was as hostile to science as the Trump administration?

      The idea of the Trump campaign being supportive of science is like the Klan rebranding itself as not really racist. Pure spin to half-pretend to hide the agenda, all as a tool to subvert the opposition.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        You may not be familiar with it, but that’s more or less what Marine Le Pen did with Front National. As of today’s vote, she’s in the run off election for the French presidency.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, its a strategy they learned from the left, which is why the left is so outraged about it.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            My daughter, who is a graduate student in physics at Notre Dame, joined the march Friday in Chicago. Her sign carried a statement most scientists will be happy to attest to. It is not a slogan. It is a deeply held belief. It is the attitude that underlies both critical thinking and the scientific method. The sign she proudly carried read simply:

            “I could be wrong.”

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and it would be a shame to destroy the economy if the scientists are indeed wrong about Climate Change being bad.

            For example, why would folks see a longer growing season as a negative?

            https://www.epa.gov/climate

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The most immediate problem is the rising sea level, at least here in Florida, Bangladesh, New York, and other low-lying areas. Most of Florida was once under water (back before all the coal formed) including the area where I live. Florida and Australia are also losing their coral reefs due to ocean acidification (CO2 is an acid). But the biggest problem may be that the vast majority of the CO2 that has been produced from burning fossil fuels is now dissolved in ocean water, either in liquid form or as a clathrate. As can easily be demonstrated in any kitchen, when you heat water containing a dissolved gas, it comes out of solution in a hurry. Do you think it would be prudent to figure out just how much is going to be released?

            I am always ready to read any data that you have that supports your point of view. Once we admit we can be wrong, we want to examine the world as carefully as we can to find out.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            When the coal formed in the coal age (300 mya) what was Florida today was in the middle of Pangaea. As for the sea level rise. Again, its only projected as 1-4 ft as I noted above.

            http://nca2014.globalchange

            The problem in Florida is not the ocean rising, but the land sinking from taking all the ground water out. It would be happening without climate change.

            http://dailycaller.com/2016

            “As populations increase, the need for industry does as well. That means more water is drawn from the ground for industrial purposes. Add the weight of an increasing population and you have a recipe for subsidence. Water that once filled areas underground is now gone, and the land settles into these new hollow spaces.

            Andrew Kiernan, a real estate expert from Franklin Street, makes the point that Miami Beach was built on sand, something that would lend itself to subsidence.

            “People continue to build right up to the water’s edge,” Kiernan told Risk and Insurance in
            2015. “Miami Beach has extremely tall condos containing levels of multimillion dollar units on a sandbar that may not have existed 300 years ago.”

            In short its a geology problem, not a climate one. You really couldn’t pick a worst place to build a city than in south Florida.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Are you saying that sea level is not rising? What do you make of this?
            https://climate.nasa.gov/vi

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No, only that its not rising as fast as many folks think. You do know those charts are in millimeters. 200 mm is equal to about 8 inches. Hardly a flood tide.

            Actually if the last interglacial era, the Eemian is a good reference point the seas need to rise another 6 to 7 meters (20-23 ft) and temperatures need to rise about 3-5 degrees C (5-8 degrees F).

            http://www.nature.com/natur

            Really, one question I have wondered about is why the existing interglacial is so cold compared to earlier ones…

            Its actually an especially interesting question given CO2 is so much higher now than in earlier interglacial eras.

            https://uk.news.yahoo.com/c

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            And the increase in CO2 is accelerating.

            https://www.graphiq.com/vlp

            The rise in sea level takes some time, so even if CO2 were stabilized it would continue. During the recent ice ages the driver may have been external (i.e. the 100ky Milachovic cycle) and the rise in CO2 (due to reduced solubility in seawater) a secondary or amplifying factor.

          • djschultz3 says:
            0
            0

            “Destroy the economy”? Really? Don’t you think there won’t be fortunes to be made in converting the economy over to clean renewable energy sources? Smart businessmen embrace the change instead of trying to deny it.

            Coal mining is a dying industry regardless of who is president. Cheap natural gas is the main reason coal mines are closing. Wind turbines and solar power are coming down in cost so that they are now competitive with fossil fuels. Coal miners earn those big paychecks at the expense of black lung disease that shortens their lives by a decade or more. They, or their children, would be better off working in the new energy economy rather than clinging to a past economy that is no longer viable.

            A longer growing season won’t help us much if large areas of land are underwater and hundreds of millions of refugees are seeking new homes on dry land. It will make the Syrian refugee crisis seem tame by comparison. There is also research that shows that increased CO2 levels will cause weeds to grow faster than desirable food crops.

            Yes, there is an increasingly slight possibility that our forecasts might be wrong, but it is more and more apparent that the harm to our economy will be much greater if we ignore the problem and fail to take action while we can.

          • Anon Ymous says:
            0
            0

            Exxon is poised to make big bucks in other energy markets which is why they provided a statement in support of the Paris climate agreement. Again, there is no real morality in all of this on the business side. They follow the money, always.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            If there are fortunes to be made they will be made easier without government interference.

            Also have you actually look at the predictions for sea level rise? Really looked at them?

            http://nca2014.globalchange

            8″ higher sea level since 1880 and maybe another 1 to 4 ft by 2100. Hardly enough to change the shape of coastlines let alone drown large areas of farm land, most of which is not along coastlines anyway due to salt spray from sea water. And GMO research will transfer those genes from weeds into food plants if needed.

            The refugees are not running from climate change, they are running from socialist and Islamic fundamentalists.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Just to clarify, do you find the evidence confincing that global warming is occurring due to increasing atmospheric CO2?

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Give up, Daniel. Anyone who dismisses 1′ to 4′ sea level rise is simply singing on a different planet.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Do you really think 4 ft of sea level rise will destroy the world? Honestly?

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            Do you really think that that your “destroy the world” hyperbole is intellectually honest?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            But isn’t that what environmentalists are claiming?

            http://www.livescience.com/

            NASA: Rising Sea Levels More Dangerous Than Thought

            Really you are the only one being dishonest by hiding your identity.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            That is not what Michael Spencer was claiming, and you were pretending to respond to him, remember?
            Your link also does not claim anything like “destroy the world”. Your ridiculous hyperbole is incompatible even with your purported evidence.
            I’ve made no claims about my identity. Your issue with it is an irrelevant and weak attempt at deflection.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            So if global warming isn’t going to destroy the world as you now freely admit why are you so worried about it? Take out a ruler, look at just how small 1 ft is. The tell me why we need to shut down all the coal power plants because the ocean may rise a foot or so?

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            You do like to put words in other peoples mouths, don’t you. I’ve “freely admitted” nothing other than that your claim was intellectually dishonest hyperbole.
            Are you really that binary? Destruction or irrelevance? I don’t really think you’re as ignorant as you’re pretending to be about sea level rise. There are quite a few studies available for the hazards of different levels of SL rise.
            One example of one aspect: flood hazard for NYC area:
            https://www.climate.gov/new
            “They” tell you we need to shut down all coal power plants because of ‘maybe’ one foot of SL rise, do “they”? You’re really not making a strong, or really any, case for intellectual honesty here.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Not surprising. Most of those areas were under water a couple hundred years ago, but then were added to the city by use of landfill. The seas is reclaiming what belongs to the sea.

            http://gizmodo.com/5-parts-

            But really it just looks like they didn’t build the land recovered from the sea high enough and will need to add to them.

            Yes, I know, there are buildings there. There were buildings in Chicago and Galveston too, but they just lifted them. In the case of Galveston it was by 14 feet to avoid sea surges from Hurricanes in the future. Or you could go the route of Hilo HI the Chicago lake front and turn those areas into parkland. That would probably be the smarter thing to do. Its basically a problem with an engineering solution, but then all cities are a series of engineering problems and solutions. But not a big one with only a couple of feet of sea level rise which is the point I keep trying to make you are missing.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “But really it just looks like they didn’t build the land recovered from the sea high enough…”
            To withstand sea level rise, no. You’ve made the point for me. But you can pretend that you’ve nullified the concern by ignoring every other region of increased flooding where an “engineering” solution is too expensive or otherwise not possible for the local population, every area of salt water encroachment on water tables, and all other impacts. I don’t believe you’re really that simpleminded, but you’re demonstrating a willful ignorance.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You are the one that is demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how the world works. Areas worth protecting will be. Others will be ignored. The decisions will be made locally.

            You need to actually take that long view environmentalists claim folks should take. Humans have been adjusting to sea level changes since the dawn of civilization, the next hundred, or even thousand years will be no different. Here is an article two ancient cities in Egypt that were flooded when the Nile about a 1,000 years ago.

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/

            “For 1,000 years, Thonis-Heracleion was completely submerged. Fish made their homes among the rubble of mighty temples; hieroglyphs gathered algae. Gods and kings sat in stasis, powerless, their statues slowly withdrawing from the world, one inch of sand at a time. Goddio spent years surveying this find, as well as neighboring Canopus, which was rediscovered by a British RAF pilot in 1933 who noticed ruins leading into the waters.”

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “Areas worth protecting will be. Others will be ignored.”
            Tell that to Bangladesh and the Mekong delta, and places like them. Your first world condescention positively reeks.

            “You need to actually take that long view environmentalists claim folks should take.”
            I do. That’s one of the reasons you ring so hollow.

            World population 1000 years ago was around 300 million people. Responding to environmental changes by migration was both easier – less infrastructure to abandon/rebuild/relocate, and the way many cultures worked. Trying to equate that circumstance to today is pretty silly.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            As I have noted before, I accepted global warming by CO2 in the 1970’s after reading about it in essays by Willy Ley (Days of Creation, 1940) and Issac Asimov (1958) as well as the article below by Broecker from the 1970’s.

            Broecker, W.S. Climate change; are we on the brink of a pronunced global warming?” Science, v 189, n 4201, p 460-3, 8 Aug. 1975

            BTW the term global warming dates to this article.

            Sadly at the same time the AEC, who Dr. Broecker often did research for, were pushing for replacement of coal by nuclear power the Earth Day environmentalists were attacking their science and creating the present fear of nuclear power.

            The difference is that having read and thought about it for the last 40 years I don’t see it from the doom and gloom view you do.

            Tell me, when did you first accept global warming?

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            That’s a good point. I could be wrong. I may need to re-examine the facts. if the facts indicate, I may have to change my conclusions. As a scientist, I am always ready to do so.

            We must all guard against confirmation bias. That is the tendency to instinctively reject any idea that conflicts with our political, emotional, or religious instincts. It is a primary cause of the political polarization we see today, and has impeded scientific research since the time of Galileo.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        No, swamps like the Everglades are often called a “sea of grass”, so its you confusing a public based movement with one organized by the Washington Swamp. But then you only need to look at how many of the sponsoring organizations funding it have Washington D.C. offices to see that its the swamp promoting it.

        Also President Obama was against science like exploring Mars.

        https://www.universetoday.c

        Experts React to Obama Slash to NASA’s Mars and Planetary Science Exploration

        But since he was so supportive of regulations based on climate change you just close your eyes to his actions on science elsewhere…

        • Anon Ymous says:
          0
          0

          The fact that establishment groups are responding to and furthering public sentiment doesn’t take away the fact that the movement has been driven by the people.

          And speaking of actions on science, the current precision slash to NASA Earth science? Oh, I forgot. All Earth science is climate science, am I right? An easy way to politicize and diminish a wide range of scientific activities. And as long as it’s not “my program”, I can look the other way. Because it’s all about number one.

          What is important to discuss is what’s happening right now – the current administration’s position on science which has clearly been established during the campaign as well as its first 100 days.

          Some people around here should be old enough to remember when many major scientific ideas were nonpartisan. If big tobacco hadn’t already been dealt with during “calmer” times, we’d be debating right now whether smoking really does cause cancer. Today’s climate deniers would be cancer deniers. And for one reason only – as a result of the propaganda and influence of major business interests.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The March of Science was nothing more than a last minute rebranding of Earth Day to try to erase the perception that environmentalists are anti-science except for climate change research.

            http://e360.yale.edu/featur

            Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

            On issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists are increasingly refusing to listen to scientific
            arguments that challenge standard green positions. This approach risks weakening the environmental movement and empowering climate contrarians.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “March of Science was nothing more than a last minute rebranding of Earth Day”
            Laughably untrue. The date of the march took weeks to determine after the decision to have one was made. The mission and goals of the march were (and still are) also clearly stated on its site.
            Further, your 5-year-old link provides a broad and misleading characterization of, for example Sierra Club policy, as “anti-science” when the opposite is true. From the SC Biotechnology policy:
            “We call for a ban on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved, pending improved regulatory procedures and safety testing. Releases should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determines the long-term environmental and health impacts of each GEO and there is public debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GEO intended for release into the environment.”
            (from http://www.sierraclub.org/p
            You may agree or disagree with this policy. But to call it anti-scientific is to lie.

            Pearce himself says “Clearly there are issues about gene pollution, though research suggesting there is a problem is still very thin. Let’s do the research, rather than trash the test fields, which has been the default response of groups such as Greenpeace…”
            In which he takes essentially the same stance as the Sierra Club, but fails to differentiate that from Greenpeace with which he has it lumped.

            He (and you) in multiple places generalize from the “some say” to create a category-wide strawman to slay. It’s intellectually dishonest.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            How could the March take weeks to determine a date when it was announced on February 1, less that 10 days after the Women’s march that “inspired” it?

            http://www.earthday.org/201

            And why on Earth Day when you clearly had the choice of different days? Why not in early April or May?

            And why was there nothing about Earth Day marches that were separate from the March for Science? Oh wait, it is because you “partnered” with Earth Day in January to create it. Only 4 days after the Women’s March that “inspired” it

            http://www.earthday.org/201

            Which leads us to the last question – just why did you decide to “partner” with the Earth Day groups if its wasn’t about rebranding Earth Day?

            Sorry, your story just doesn’t match your press releases. The March for Science was not grassroots, it was Astroturf all the way 🙂

            There are many other stories about how environmentalists throw science under the bus when the science doesn’t fit their agenda. That was just a well written one.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “How could the March take weeks to determine a date when it was only announced in February?”
            By taking weeks. It was an issue at the time because many people wanted it ‘as soon as possible’ and it took time getting the permits and permissions.

            “And why on Earth Day when you clearly had the choice of different days? Why not in early April or May?”
            You’ll have to ask the organizers and the permit granters. My guess is that it couldn’t be done sooner – I would have liked it sooner myself. But that’s only a guess.

            “Which leads us to the last question – just why did you decide to “partner” with the Earth Day groups if its wasn’t about rebranding Earth Day?”
            You is “you” in this question? My guess is, since it was going to be on Earth day, working with the theme and other organizing groups of the day was logical, and a force multiplier.

            “The March for Science was not grassroots, it was Astroturf’
            Sorry, that’s pure bullshit.

            “here are many other stories about how anti-science environmentalists are when the science doesn’t fit their agenda.”
            All you need for your straw man is “some say”, and “many stories” and you have license to slag all environmentalists. More bullshit.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, your reply doesn’t fit the facts. First, here is the “origin story” from the Washington Post.

            https://www.washingtonpost….

            “Three months ago, a member of the social-network website Reddit saw the headline for this Jan. 20 Vice article: “All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website.” That did not sit well with Reddit user Beaverteeth92, who commented, “There needs to be a Scientists’ March on Washington.””

            Note that the individual claiming credit is, like you, hiding their identity – one key sign of an astroturf campaign. However their profile indicates a location in Maryland. Yet, they claim to live too far away to take part in the Washington march…

            Second, the official domain, Marchforscience.org was registered only 2 days later on Godaddy by someone hiding their identity behind a Proxy service. However, the domain servers selected for it are the same used by Earthday.org

            Also, again, you claim it took weeks to pick the date for the March, but as I noted, the date was announced by Earthday.org on Feb. 1, only 9 days after the supposed origin of the idea “as a throw away line” on Reddit by someone hiding their identity like you.

            Again, all add up to an astroturf campaign by the organizers of Earth Day, one that served to rebrand Earth Day, which was starting to lag in participation, as March for Science…

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            The Washpost article doesn’t support baseless allegations of astroturf.

            “Note that the individual claiming credit is, like you, hiding their identity – one key sign of an astroturf campaign.”
            That’s laughable, equivalent to insinuating all quadrilaterals are squares.

            I looked back at my mails from the March organizers, and indeed found the mailing from Feb 1 that announced April 22 as the day. I had registered to volunteer with them that first week and had thought it had taken them the day after the signup and thought it had longer to get a date. I had been pretty impatient for a date, thinking that the momentum from the Women’s March was important not to lose. You are correct I misstated the time it took, and I apologize for that.

            In the days weeks after the March was announced hundreds of thousands responded, and larger sponsors took notice and offered help. You claim it was the other way around and offer insinuation as evidence. I will be unable to disabuse you of your fantasy.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, but again you need to open your eyes and consider these two bits of evidence.

            First, the level of effort needed to organize a march in Washington, as well as in hundreds of other cities. This includes getting the necessary permits. It doesn’t happen by magic. And those permits would be hard to get for Earth Day since the Earth Day organizers would already have them.

            Second, There appears to have been no independent Earth Day marches. None, not even in Washington where there have been Earth Day marches since 1970… Why?

            Simple, the Earth Day organizers turned those permits over for the March of Science.

            Now ask yourself, why would they do that, abandon their signature event? Was it out of the goodness of their heart? Or because Earth Day was lagging and they knew by rebranding it as a March for Science they would get folks like you to turn out.

            Sorry, but you were set up by the group that runs Earth Day in a really good astroturf rebranding strategy. Indeed, I think I will use if as a good example for my PR students on how to run a really slick astroturf strategy.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “It doesn’t happen by magic.”
            Indeed not. But when 40,000 people respond by email in one week, and hundreds of thousands in the subsequent weeks _including_ organizations with experience in such events, much happens quickly. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

            Your guess and suspicions are good as suspicious guesses, but little else. I’d call it a conspiracy theory, but it’s not even a conspiracy. It’s just an aspersion cast on motives.

            “I think I will use if as a good example for my PR students on how to run a really slick astroturf strategy.”
            In that event you should also teach them about the hazards of looking only for inferences that support one’s a priori conclusions, because that’s all you have. Otherwise it would be a case example of miseducation, and I pity the students.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No, its preparing them for the modern world where slick PR campaigns use social media to convince folks like you that you are acting independently when you are actually being herded each and every step of the way to your “opinion” and behavior.

            I know that is a hard truth for you to realize so I understand why you just keep closing your eyes.

            So I will just ask you two more questions to consider and think about.

            First, if it was just another Earth Day march would you have taken part in it? Yes or no?

            Second, if the March for Science was not an astroturf rebranding of Earth Day, what happened to all the Earth Day marchers and rallies? Every year since 1970 there have been dozens, hundreds with hundreds of thousands of marchers and folks like Bill Nye giving speeches on the environment. Yet this year not a single one. None. All the reports are about the March for Science… And Bill Nye giving a speech on science and the environment.

            No, by teaching the students taking PR how such astroturf campaigns are organized and run it enables them to recognize the markers of one.

            Also, FYI a Washington Post article on astroturfing…

            https://www.washingtonpost….

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            Too bad there will be no one to teach your students that a priori conclusions supported by conjecture and assertion are worth spit.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Again, would you have attended if it was just an another Earth March? Yes or no. My guess is probably not, which shows why they rebranded Earth day as the March for Science.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            Your ignorance is pretty impressive. The march was about much more than environmental issues.

    • Colin Seftor says:
      0
      0

      Oh please!

      Requesting a flat budget for NIH and NSF (while not optimal) is not quite the same same thing as wanting to gut the EPA and eviscerate NOAA NESDIS, just to name two aspects of this administration’s “skinny budget.”

      If that’s the main thrust of your argument, then there’s no point in continuing to discuss this because your perspective is, shall we say, a bit out there.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        I see you are one of those that only read headlines…
        The flat budgets were after the 2013 cuts to science.

        https://www.scientificameri

        U.S. Debt Deal Could Dramatically Slash Science Funding in 2013

        Yes, when push came to shove President Obama was OK with throwing science under the bus. How soon folks forget…

        https://www.aaas.org/news/s

        “In particular, NOAA’s climate research program remains well below FY 2009 levels (Figure 5). Other programs that have struggled to obtain their requested funding include the DOE Office of Science’s climate research activities and the U.S. Geological Survey.”

        • Colin Seftor says:
          0
          0

          Oh please (again)!

          You should read the articles you refer to (specifically the one from AAAS):

          First:

          “These budget troubles reflect the reality that it’s Congress who controls the purse strings, not the White House. A president must
          therefore find a way to bring Congress along on funding priorities, and in the aggregate the Obama Administration was generally unable to do that.”

          Then:

          “These actions – largely a product of the Tea Party backlash in the 2010 midterm elections – had major ripple effects on science and innovation agencies, given that most science agency budgets are discretionary and move in unison with the overall discretionary budget. Indeed, as Figure 1 shows, some of the most acute challenges occurred between FY 2010 and FY 2013, when the long-term spending cuts under sequestration were put it place.”

          And finally:

          “Given these circumstances, even as the Obama Administration attempted to prioritize science and innovation funding – to a reasonable extent and within the context of their broader macroeconomic plans – the realistic fiscal ceiling was always going to be limited.”

          So Obama tried to up science budgets, but he was thwarted by Congress. I should say a Congress under Republican control; look at Figure 1 of that same article. Science funding went drastically up in the first 2 years, when the Democrats were in control (admittedly due, in part, to the fiscal stimulus after the great recession).

          Now we not only have anti-science leadership in Congress, we have it in the executive branch. And you wonder why there are protest marches? I don’t.

          (OK, I broke my own promise of not continuing this discussion. I really am going to stop now.)

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly, President Obama refused to spend his political capital to increase the budget since science was just not that important to him.

            But it also show the claim the cuts to science are unprecedented is incorrect.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            So you blame President Obama for the fact that Republicans in Congress reduced spending on science?

            Also, since Pence rejects evolution in favor of the Divine Creation of species, how can he explain GMOs? http://fortune.com/2016/07/

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      let congress decide they know science when they see it… https://uploads.disquscdn.c

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        And Democrats reject GMO science. So?

        https://www.geneticliteracy

        Democratic politicians’ mostly anti-GMO views lead list of liberal anti-science positions

        “Based on reviews of more than 900 studies, every major health organization in the world, from The World Health Organization to the National Academy of Sciences, has confidently declared GMOs safe to eat.”

        The reality is both parties pick and choose which science the “believe”. I wonder how of the March for Science folk, (AKA Earth Day march) had signs supporting Fracking, GMOs or Nuclear Power?

        • djschultz3 says:
          0
          0

          I was at the March and there were a few signs supporting GMOs, along with one that said “Kiss me, I’ve been vaccinated”. Liberal anti-science positions were also skewered, but the liberals are not in charge of the government at the moment and represent a much smaller threat to science at the current time.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            But were a threat when they were government with their anti-nuke, anti-fracking, anti-GMO views. Yet no march for science…

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The motivation for the March for Science is that the freedom of scientists to objectively study the world is being threatened by powerful members of Congress and the Administration who want to abandon reason and critical thinking in favor of political and religious bias. Where have I seen this guy before: https://www.youtube.com/wat

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          i do not recall any GMO snowballs on the floor of the senate

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          As a sometime scientist an Democrat, I do not reject GMO foods. In fact, scientists created GMO crops, and this is a march for science. I’m simply not aware of any leftist conspiracy to ban such products. I do feel there should be complete disclosure, and TMK this is all anyone with concerns on the matter wants. People have a right to decide what they want to eat. Don’t you agree?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The problem is what is a GMO?

            http://grist.org/food/mind-

            It’s practically impossible to define “GMOs”

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            True, at least in part; much of the opposition to so-called GMO’s comes from fear of and ignorance about science in general (fueled, at least in part, by breathless media reports about glowing kittens).

            If your point is that we’ve been tinkering with plants and animals through selection and doing it for thousands of years (I give you, for instance, that lovely paragon of beauty, the English Bull Dog, or the German Weiner Dog), then yes, ordinary food we consume ever day is quite far from what one would have found growing in anybody’s definition of ‘wild’.

            On the other hand, GMO is a big wide catchall phrase; it also includes something very different from Mendelian selection. To me, at least, just about any improvement made to a crop through Mendelian selection is just fine.

            Here’s where I start to get very anxious:

            The term GMO includes direct tinkering with nuclear germ plasm, a process that yields a zygote that could not have been produced in any “natural” way.

            The product of such manipulation, though, can be incredibly attractive, both the the discoverer and to humanity. This is because it can bring to a plant species characteristics never before thought possible. Who could imagine, for instance, a wheat or rice variety that tolerates high soil salinity? And yet, if the imagination wanders, such a plant would mean so much to so many millions.

            Scientists have attempted to extend the characteristics of a plant by introducing foreign genes. This type of genetic manipulation has been, until recently, something of a dice roll. Crudely described: to get genes from one plant to another, they would toss together genetic materials. It was pretty much a crap shoot, involving many thousands of trials. The problem? While science knows the locus of key genes for important plants (the height gene for wheat), it does not know how to “transplant” the soil salinity gene from a plant that grows in brackish water to wheat. This would be very desirable indeed. Cut and paste, right?

            If you have stayed with me to this point, here’s the payoff:

            Along came the magic of a technique called CRISPR, initially discovered in 1987 but not really understood until 2007, and still not fully understood by yours truly.

            It’s a technique that allows crafty lab scientists to precisely edit genetic material, and in the process insert new material; it’s MS Word for your genes (greatly summarizing). It allows, within some boundaries, cut and paste, Cut from one plant, then paste into another. Easy, peasy.

            There are all sorts of possibilities for improving our foods with genetic materials from other plants – or even animals – but here’s the thing: once the mutated gene is in the gene pool, it is IN THE GENE POOL. Precautions can be taken, but they are not fool proof.

            Does this scare you? It should. This is the kind of thing that cries out for regulation.

            And THAT is why it’s wise to be very cautious about unlabeled GMO foods.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            CRISPR is a game changer, beyond the dreams of Doctor Moreau. Some guidelines are needed, but the problem again is how to do so without being called anti-science.

            https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/46222

            Researchers Create Red-eyed Mutant Wasps

            But again, the free market is beating government. FYI

            http://www.mnn.com/food/hea

            Voluntary GMO labeling is moving quickly

            Personally I think an approach similar to Underwriters Laboratory with product safety might be quicker and more effective.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Very possibly; the chief advantage being speed. The downside though is lack of enforcement authority, which resides solely in the buying decision. Like, say, cigarette brands.

            This is a clear case where governmental regulation is needed: the issues are simply too complex.

            On the other hand, those glow-in-the-dark kittens are darn cute.

          • Fred says:
            0
            0

            My problem with GMO crops is that make the plant resistant to Roundup then spray like crazy.

  3. Steve Harrington says:
    0
    0

    Congressman Smith is an excellent example of behavioral science. He has probably noticed that every time he ridicules global warming, his campaign finance account goes up. Just like the pigeons in “SUPERSTITION’ IN THE PIGEON” (B. F. Skinner, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172.) he has found a key to peck.