Comments on: So Long as We Are Discussing Congressional Myopia . . . http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154&cpage=1#comment-8627 kevin v Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:45:04 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4154#comment-8627 the beta I've heard is that the minority staff's only role is going to be pumping out Inhofe-style press releases to counter whatever the majority does. In other words, they're not staffing the committee with technical experts, which is exactly what the majority committee is doing. the beta I’ve heard is that the minority staff’s only role is going to be pumping out Inhofe-style press releases to counter whatever the majority does. In other words, they’re not staffing the committee with technical experts, which is exactly what the majority committee is doing.

]]>
By: Harry Haymuss http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154&cpage=1#comment-8626 Harry Haymuss Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:43:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4154#comment-8626 Gilchrest is showing his ignorance: "Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Gilchrest said. "Right there, holy cow, there's like 9,000 scientists to three on that one." He does not differentiate between via CO2 or via other reasons, for one thing. For another saying "causing some global warming" instead of "causing global warming" and he would be much closer. Or, are there still people who deny the presence of muons? Gilchrest is showing his ignorance: “Roy Blunt said he didn’t think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming,” Gilchrest said. “Right there, holy cow, there’s like 9,000 scientists to three on that one.”

He does not differentiate between via CO2 or via other reasons, for one thing. For another saying “causing some global warming” instead of “causing global warming” and he would be much closer. Or, are there still people who deny the presence of muons?

]]>
By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154&cpage=1#comment-8625 TokyoTom Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:48:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4154#comment-8625 Roger, Chait's commentary is here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,0,7434727,print.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions. Roger, Chait’s commentary is here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,0,7434727,print.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions.

]]>
By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154&cpage=1#comment-8624 TokyoTom Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:40:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4154#comment-8624 Roger, there was some interesting commentary on this by Jonathan Chait in the LA Times: "Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties. "The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way. "You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard." What is Chait's explanation of the motivations of the Republican party leaders? "The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement." This seems to tie into Matthew Nisbet's similar post that "As Fewer Americans Identify with GOP, "Republicans" as Measured in Polls Appear More Resistant to Changing Their Views on Science", http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/as_fewer_americans_identify_wi.php. My own view is that while there is some deliberate shilling going on, that our very real resistance to changing our minds and our penchant for choosing sides are also both at work. But there seems every reason to expect that the attraction of potential federal research dollars will start to entice the Republican legislators to play along - otherwise industry will simply cast them to the side. Roger, there was some interesting commentary on this by Jonathan Chait in the LA Times:

“Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

“The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It’s just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

“You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.”

What is Chait’s explanation of the motivations of the Republican party leaders? “The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.”

This seems to tie into Matthew Nisbet’s similar post that “As Fewer Americans Identify with GOP, “Republicans” as Measured in Polls Appear More Resistant to Changing Their Views on Science”, http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/as_fewer_americans_identify_wi.php.

My own view is that while there is some deliberate shilling going on, that our very real resistance to changing our minds and our penchant for choosing sides are also both at work.

But there seems every reason to expect that the attraction of potential federal research dollars will start to entice the Republican legislators to play along – otherwise industry will simply cast them to the side.

]]>
By: Markk http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4154&cpage=1#comment-8623 Markk Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:03:41 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4154#comment-8623 How did global warming become such a political hot potato? It's bizarre. How did global warming become such a political hot potato? It’s bizarre.

]]>