Bush attacks science...again.

[a_unique_person]

I agree. It's also the opposite of what those he's attacking are doing.

They are turning the scientific process into something resembling the system of appointing judges to the courts.

 

[shanek]

They are turning the scientific process into something resembling the system of appointing judges to the courts.

And the big surprise is...?

This is how government works, people. For awhile, you had something at least somewhat resembling what you wanted...but it didn't last, did it? It never does, does it?

Why do ANY of you think we can rely on government when it comes to issues of this magnitude?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The only solution I can see is to get politics out of science completely; it shouldn't even be there in the first place.

I find this ironic coming from you Shanek.

In any event, I don't think it's so much scientists being political, as politicians not liking or abusing science. This is very much the case with Global Warming, where the right is trying to bend over backwards to avoid the fact that we need to regulate gas emissions.

For the longest time the right denied the research (many still do). And now that the research is well known they through in red herrings like "it's too political".

Whatever Shanek, while I don't politics is a science, I think politics should be informed by science.

You can't just make a great divide between the two just because scientists don't agree with you.

 

[shanek]

I find this ironic coming from you Shanek.

Why? Is it not consistent with the positions I have presented here many times?

In any event, I don't think it's so much scientists being political, as politicians not liking or abusing science.

And how could it be otherwise? Politicians are going to abuse whatever power they have to their own advantage, and the advantage of those connected to them. It has always been this way, and doesn't show any signs of changing.

This is very much the case with Global Warming, where the right is trying to bend over backwards to avoid the fact that we need to regulate gas emissions.

And the left is assuming that gas regulations a) are necessary and b) will work, two facts very much not in evidence.

You can't just make a great divide between the two just because scientists don't agree with you.

I'm not. I'm making the divide because you simply can't trust politicians to act in accordance with what the science actually says.