Sunday, March 15, 2009

Obama Moves Towards "Bias-Free" Science?

I nearly swallowed my tongue when I read this article, but it plays on a theme seen months ago in the media. The media--and their highly favored Democrats--will accuse of others of what they do themselves, in order to throw an easily manipulated public off the scent of a rat. Eventually, the public will grow tired of blaming every ill of the current administration on the previous administration; at some point, Obama will be accountable to Americans for his actions and results, whether the media cooperates or not.

This article focuses more on embryonic stem cells (something I have no interest in debating), but by merely observing reality, it's easy to determine that some in the media and left-leaning politicians openly espouse one side of global warming "science" while attempting to silence scientific and empirical criticism of climate alarmism. Heck, Bush himself was an advocate of this nonsense. There are political and financial costs if the theory is proven wrong. Science is and always will be about debate; it's not about declaring one side incorrect simply due to a collective majority opinion—the popular sentiment of the moment (something I still question as reality--thousands of scientists say AGW is bull but get no press coverage at all).

Consensus opinions in science have proven notoriously wrong in history, and maverick thinkers—those bucking the majority--are usually those who create science that is NEARLY impregnable (with the understanding that no science is entirely incontrovertible). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is nearly unassailable; global warming theory is NOWHERE near the quality of relativity theory (or even Marx’s evolutionary theory), and AGW involves MANY directly observable effects—empirical evidence. It's really quite sad that I even must type this for the morons out there.

Science must embrace debate; it's the only part of science that ensures continued advancement (i.e., criticisms of colleagues—REAL peer review, not cultish peer review). Labeling and name-calling the critics of scientific theories as an exercise in political correctness is absurd and will fail in the long run.

A move toward bias-free science

The 15,000 scientists and engineers who protested the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of research during the Bush administration no doubt welcomed President Obama's pledge last week to restore scientific integrity to the White House.


With earnest words and the stroke of a pen, it was goodbye to George W. Bush's "sound science," and welcome to Obama's "soundest science."


"The politicization of science is a risk across the political spectrum," said panel member Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The Bush administration had especially heavy-handed controls, but science and politics come into conflict in every administration."

No comments: