The journal Science made a comparison between the current platform and that of 2008 and found that the anti-scientific direction is not accidental in certain areas, and by the way there is no section dedicated to science. The issues had to be fished out all over the platform
The platform of the Republican Party brings with it new approaches to science and technology policy compared to the one with which the party ran for elections four years ago. Checked it this week The website of the scientific journal Science.
Dealing with climate change and reducing the demand for greenhouse gases out, and more research in the field of nerves and space missions. This is according to the platform that was approved at the Republican Party convention that ended in Tampa Florida at the end of the week.
Every four years, the two major parties formulate their position regarding the important issues of the day and outline the differences between them and their political rivals. The laundry list - this year the Republican platform includes more than 50 pages and is also an opportunity for different currents within the party to publish issues that may get the attention of the voters or even of the standard setters within the party.
The Republican platform is about "big dreams and opportunities that have always been in America and must remain the essence of America for generations to come," the introduction reads. Six changes in the party's position regarding burning issues, from same-sex marriage, through abortion to taxes and health care. And the whole journey also touches on small issues such as reforming the US Postal Service and the Open Market Commission.
Surprisingly, science and technology do not receive a chapter in the platform, but reference to the subject is scattered within sections such as education, natural resources and government reform.
The big missing is climate change. While the 2008 platform devotes almost two pages to "responding and taking responsibility for climate change" and reducing the demand for fossil fuels in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions, these issues were hardly mentioned in the current version. Also missing was the proposal in the 2008 platform to establish the climate prize, which would offer millions of dollars to scientists who would solve the challenges of climate change."
Instead, the 2012 version said we should "use all the resources God has given us in America" and the need to use more domestic oil, gas and coal resources. The party opposes "any legislation for trading carbon quotas that could lead to a system of trading pollution rights. Also, swift action must be taken to prevent the EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency - the equivalent of a government office in other countries) from promoting new regulations in the field of greenhouse gases that will harm the economy and threaten millions of jobs in the next quarter of a century."
The platform also criticizes the Obama administration which, in the context of the national security issue, fears the effect of warming to the level of a serious threat similar to that of violence by a foreign power. "The term 'climate' actually appears in the president's strategies more than al-Qaeda, the nuclear arms race, radical Islam or weapons of mass destruction," the Republican platform claims.
In general, this language changes the changes that have taken place within the party and in the national political landscape since 2008. The presidential candidate was Senator John McCain who proposed federal action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mitt Romney, the current candidate, used to share McCain's position, but he backed away from a policy calling for government action to reduce emissions. Alternative energy however has received little support. The 2008 platform claimed that alternative energy sources must enter the mainstream and called for planning policies in the area of taxes and in other areas to develop sources of fuel and electricity.
The 2012 Republicans "encourage cheap and efficient development of renewable energy sources, but in their opinion the taxpayer should not be used as a venture capital fund for these risky initiatives. It is important to create an approach that will encourage the free market to support the development of alternative energy sources and aggressively develop alternative sources of electricity production such as wind, hydroelectric stations, solar, biomass, geothermal energy and tidal energy."
The platform criticizes President Obama for "using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the energy sector and not bankrupt anyone who builds a new coal-fired power plant." The platform also declares that Obama has "stopped the Keystone XL oil pipeline" (from Canada to Texas). And that he "wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize his favorite companies such as Solyndra that created bankruptcies instead of kilowatts." On the other hand, the platform says that the Romney administration "will not choose winners and losers in the energy market. Instead, it will allow "a free market and public preferences to determine the outcome." while responding to a wide range of possible energy. The Republicans prefer a diverse approach that utilizes all the resources that God has given us in America and that is the best way to promote energy independence."
Strategic migration of scientists and engineers is prioritized in the 2012 platform much more than in the previous platform. The platform encourages the granting of visas to people who have studied advanced degrees in science and engineering at American universities. "We must encourage them to stay here", when the government will help and provide more work visas, but does not go so far as to adopt Rotsni's statement to attach a work visa to every academic degree and finally also give them citizenship."
In general, the platform encourages research in the field of neuroscience, which has the potential to cure diseases such as autism, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, but not through research in fetal stem cells due to the ban on the use of fetal parts for research. However, the platform encourages research in adult stem cells.
One closed sentence in the platform talks about preventing the politicization of science by favoring certain studies that are close to the heart of the decision maker.
Withdrawal from the manned space program
While the 2008 platform suggests that Republicans share the vision of putting Americans on the moon as a step before a mission to Mars, the 2012 version is less specific. The new platform boasts of "NASA's spectacular results over the past decades" but warns that "today the American leader in space is being challenged by countries that want to imitate and even surpass NASA's achievements. In order to protect the interests of national security and promote innovation and competitiveness, we must maintain our primacy in space, launch more scientific missions, ensure independent access and maintain a source of highly valuable American jobs." The platform is silent regarding the Obama administration's decision to cancel plans to return astronauts to the moon and cut Funding robotic missions to Mars.
In the immediate area, the platform agrees with the Obama administration's cuts in the development of military missiles, and the cancellation of the construction of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as the over-reduction of the nuclear weapons stockpile precisely at a time when the threats are multiplying.
Additional sections deal with aid to Africa in the fight against AIDS, and tax exemption for R&D investment for private individuals as well.
The anti-scientific impression created by many statements by senior members of the party, including the member of Congress and a candidate for Sen. Todd Akin who invented a new biology in which the woman's body differentiates between legitimate rape and other rape
31 תגובות
anonymous-
1) I was not taught creationism - are you talking about the United States? - The USA is a big place - where exactly is creationism taught there? (meaning in state schools)
2) Prove that the government - the same one that subsidizes ethanol and "renewable" energies is also trying to convince that the warming is not the result of human activity.
3) The unemployment figures are not related to the issue at all - where exactly are they plastered and what do you think they should be?
4) Yes - Galileo just finished denying himself so that he wouldn't be burned said this - only no one heard - right?
1) The government did not act against evolution. He cannot act against evolution. Just as it cannot act against gravity.
The government only made sure that, as a subject taught in schools, the subject of evolution is extremely marginal.
The government also made sure that, as a subject studied in schools, the subject of creationism occupies a highly respected place.
2) The government and its associates invest a lot of money in trying to convince that the warming is not the result of human activity.
3) The unemployment data is well covered. The government's treatment of data is really an insult to science and human reason.
4) That's exactly what he said! But the question is not whether he said or didn't say.
The lie simply has no legs. And the end of the truth to come out. Even if at some point it is impossible to tell the truth without suffering because of the statement. Yet the truth will undoubtedly emerge again and again. And it is impossible to get rid of it.
Anonymous - Where has the government acted against evolution? (in recent years?)
Where did he act against scientists who support anthropogenic warming?
What about security data?
And there is no way that Galileo Galilei really said that.
From time immemorial the government's way has been to trample its opponents, this is nothing new.
A scientist who discovers a scientific discovery is not necessarily against the government.
But the truth in the discovery is what the government cannot tolerate.
It is always difficult for the government to deal with the truth.
The truth is a source of weakness for a government based on lies and power.
The case of Galileo the Galilean: "Nevertheless move move" is just one case out of many.
The case of evolution is also nothing but another case where the truth interferes with the government and therefore the government does everything in its power to deny it.
Also the case of global warming.
And even if we consider what is happening here and now in Israel. For example, regarding the unemployment data.
The father of the problem is that the creationists do provide an alternative - and the alternative is not scientific.
Since a hidden intelligent planner that cannot be discovered is not something that can be established (and is unlikely to be confirmed unless you find verses of yours encoded in the genetic code or something crazy like that) this is the problem - questioning parts of the theory of evolution is a completely normal scientific process that will make the theory of evolution stronger or ( in the unlikely event) will replace it with a better scientific theory (note I am not really familiar with the theory of evolution and therefore I am speaking in very general terms). The problem of creationists is, among other things, that they think that if they succeed in casting doubt on the theory of evolution, they are actually confirming intelligent design - which of course is not true
Even if the theory of evolution falls apart and many holes are found in the theory, this does not mean that intelligent design is a stronger theory - they do not understand this because they do not think as scientists but as missionaries who try hard to push their faith into science.
———————————————————————————————————
It's exactly the same problem with the creationists who have no alternative, only grievances that evolution is wrong. Science doesn't work that way. Science has to work according to evidence provided by nature through measuring instruments. Everything else is politics.
My father - this is not how most people who doubt the theory talk -
Of course there is politics on this side of the debate as well - but that doesn't mean that everyone acts this way and it also doesn't mean that their arguments are unscientific.
When someone proposes a certain theory, it is allowed to doubt it even without providing an alternative - that is, there is warming - we don't fully know why - but your theory is not good for such and such reasons.
This is completely behavioral science.
In addition to this, there are alternative theories that explain a good percentage of the warming - such as the theory that Nir Shabib promotes in connection with the effect of magical (cosmic) particles on cloudiness - a relatively new theory as far as I understand - that gives a real alternative to the theory of the greenhouse effect.
Regardless of all this - as soon as a scientist wants to sell his theory to the general public, he needs to know how
To explain his theory even to people who are outside his field - because he actually expects everyone to participate in order to save the world from the danger he allegedly found - he is the one who has to convince the public.
Scientists do not have a mandate to decide the laws and regulation - the mandate is given to elected members of the public -
Science cannot be a pure tooth grower entirely out of political considerations (the academy is full of political considerations in any case in many cases) and also expect politicians and the public who elect politicians to line up according to every study that some scientists, however important they may be in the mainstream, have published.
So maybe I'm a layman when it comes to complicated climate systems but that doesn't mean I can't tell a good argument from a less good one. This does not mean that I cannot - based on behavior - decide which of the scientists is more reliable-reliable on purpose that he did his research without bias and a desire to reach a certain result.
From what I have read and heard I am more inclined to believe that the scientists on the side of the doubt are more consistent more convincing more reliable and more humble.
In other words-
The scientists failed to sell me the theory - if they want me to see it as a threat - they should
Because I (meaning politicians who are elected by the public) is the one who will decide in the end.
And we are not satisfied with "the most important scientists in climatology determined that this is the reality beyond any doubt"
You need to convince me (and the public) of the following:
There is global warming - I agree that there are findings that indicate there is warming - but I am not sure how good these findings are as an indication that the world as a whole is warming.
That the warming is due to FADH - you failed to convince me of that.
That the damage will be catastrophic - may be if the warming continues regardless of its cause.
And that it can be prevented - despite political pressure and cooperating governments, the savings in fillets is small
And in any case, it matters little against huge countries like China that do not line up in any case.
What's more, the solutions that have been implemented until now - some of them not only cost a lot of money and saved few emissions - some of them also cost money and caused more pollution due to the crooked nature of trading in emission credits.
I know the opposing arguments, they are not scientific because they do not offer another solution but only "the warming cannot be man-made". This is not science but politics.
You happen to the skeptical global warming deniers. This is unfortunately not true, they do not doubt it. They decide that the warming if it exists is not man-made and around that they mark the goal. Exactly the opposite with the real scientists - who check and come to a conclusion after analyzing the facts.
I also look at it from a scientific point of view
My problem with the "Khammist" movement is that it is anti-scientific and full of politics.
The dismissive attitude of many supporters of your side of the argument.
The anti-skeptical rhetoric, the absolute admissions that you are in - for me, this is a sign that you have lost touch with science. I tend not to trust a scientist who doesn't understand how science is supposed to work to do his job faithfully.
As soon as I see his fanaticism I (and many others) begin to think that maybe he first shot the arrow and then marked the target.
I am disgusted by politicians who take a ride on the green wave and promote programs that do not help the environment either but help their pockets or their political status.
I don't know how you don't see it.
You know the counterarguments - how do you simply dismiss them as lies of bought scientists?
I do not support the American left per se but because it supports science and does not deny science like the right. And science is the main thing on this site.
By the way, a website - not a blog. I don't know any blogs with 80 thousand uniques per month.
Well, it's common knowledge that you hate Republicans, but you don't have to lie to hate people.
Anyone who doesn't like the government subsidizing failed green energy companies is a free market supporter and not against green energy. They specifically write that the administration will encourage the development of green energy but, unlike Obama, not every clown who claims to have green energy to offer will receive funding and waste public money.
A good example of this is the subsidy for solar panels in Israel, whose production pollutes almost as much as the electricity they save, but I have to reluctantly finance this madness.
Whoever does not mention flights to Mars in his platform is not against the development of science. By the way, the one who canceled the manned flights to Mars was Obama and no one else.
In short, start a political blog. In that blog you will explain why you support the American left. Although you have the right to use your website for political blogs as well, but at least don't present them as pure concern for science and humanity.
My father, there are enough ads that no one pays for.
You know the green blog - and I see you comment there sometimes - that means you can listen and you know at least some of the arguments against.
Basically, there is also a lot of money in promoting the idea of ACAGW (emission visas, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies) which means that there are also economic stakeholders here who want to promote this theory and impose themselves on the economy under claims of saving the world from ACAGW - it is not only oil suppliers who prevent Here from money.
And even if we say that many scientists are paid by stakeholders - how does this affect their arguments?
You have to look at their arguments and try to understand the science.
You claim that you, as someone who is not a climatologist, cannot really understand the science and cannot judge it - you fully trust the official institutions and the major magazines and their explanations and proceed from the assumption that those who go against the 'consensus' are either motivated by right-wing ideology or under the payment of them Koch brothers. In my opinion, trusting an authority in this way is not the scientific way - it is possible and desirable to get into the thick of the beam up to the level you understand and see for yourself what makes more sense - it is much more important to find holes in a theory than to build it and much more important to understand observations that did not come true than to predict observations
-For example- the warming in the last ten years was slower than most models expected - this is about a warming of one degree Celsius in fifty years or so (compared to models that would talk about an increase of 4 degrees).
First of all, you pay scientists (the Koch brothers offer a lot to climate scientists in the US and there were probably some who might have been tempted) to say what you want and then try to force me to listen to them?
Lucky that these are few.
Abi - I never claimed that politicians are on the side of science - they are on the side of their ideology and usually will naturally choose to believe a scientist who will tell them what they want to hear - this is the problem in a situation where scientific discussion finds itself within politics where it has no place.
Your problem is that you believe wholeheartedly and with complete faith in ACAGW and moreover you believe that most of the scientists who doubt the theory do so for extraneous reasons - that is, you believe that it is an obvious truth that is impossible to doubt and therefore anyone who doubts it is a "denier".
To an outsider, this is the chanting of those who lose in the debate. - As long as you do not give respect to scientists who question your theory - you will not receive respect from the public and more politicians will turn against you. - And the scientific debate will only suffer.
It will not help you to argue that politicians are on the side of science, because they are there because of the loud right-wing politicians who spread the Koch brothers' lie and they need to be balanced otherwise the public will think like you that the warming is not man-made. The politics were forced on those people by your friends.
One of the dumbest things in Romney's speech is that Obama wants to stop sea level rise and save the planet, while he (Romney) wants to help people achieve their goals. The audience laughed. But the people there are stupid and don't understand that without a planet the humans will have nowhere to live.
What you are trying to do by claiming that the public has a perception that the warming was not caused by a person, is both murderous and inherited. First of all, they activate a mechanism of huge dimensions and a lot of money to introduce this doubt that has no place in science, and then they say that the doubt exists and that it should be taken into account.
Avi Blizovsky- It's been a long time since our last debate on this topic- I know you know the green blog and I don't have many arguments that haven't been presented there in a similar way. But regardless of the hand washing of the skeptical scientists (or "deniers" according to your opinion) regardless of their scientific abilities - I was talking about the public opinion that changed due to all kinds of reasons and not about the science itself.
If you still want to exchange opinions about therefore not preventable catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
(Avoidable Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) or ACAGW
So it is possible:
In general, it is very unscientific to rule out an opinion outright or to accept a certain theory as absolute reality - the world of science is a world of doubt and every theory is nothing more than a model that describes reality in a manner consistent with the given observations. A good theory is a theory that gives predictions with which you can confirm the theory or disprove it - a good theory is a theory that explains in the simplest way the behavior of processes and allows a prediction for future events - general relativity for example had to replace/upgrade Newton's laws if we want to operate GPS.
The problem in the case of ACAGW is that not only scientists are in this story but also politicians and apparently also the common destiny of humanity.
Indeed, there are quite a few scientists - who will say openly and without shame that scientists who claim the opposite - express doubt in part or all of ACAGW's theory. They are dangerous because "the debate has already been decided" and they "confuse the public" and follow the implementation of preventive actions against the approaching disaster.
In addition to this, they also team up with politicians (like Al Gore) who know nothing about science and are not really green themselves (like Al Gore) who take advantage of this angle for political revival and maybe even money through subsidized green industry, trading in emission credits or donations from people overwhelmed by emotions Blame for the pollution they produce.
On the other hand, there are those who cast doubt, perhaps some of them are indeed motivated by political opinion or the money of interested parties (which also exists on the side of the supporters of the opinion), but a large part of them believe in the rightness of their way and are convinced that they are right, and even some are not only not satisfied with criticizing the ACAGW theory but also provide alternative theories. Indeed, those who are outside the field of climatology have more opportunity to categorize it from the outside - if they are in another department, they are less dependent on internal politics and their main studies are not checked by the climatologists whose opinion they argue against. In addition it means that they probably learned the material themselves and were not trained to learn the opinion in their first degrees and are therefore less biased.
It is not that difficult for a professor in one field of science to study another field in a relatively short period of time and reach a high level where you think an astrophysicist needs to redo his bachelor's degree to understand something about climate?
Science magazines are not free from bias and regardless there is such a thing called - the fallacy of appeal to authority (the fallacy opposite to ad hominem) which says that if A said B then B must be true because who are we to argue with A.
The opinion that man does not affect global warming originates from the oil gods and I can even tell you exactly who they are - the Koch brothers, who invested 100 million dollars in propaganda and worked for everyone who ran for any office on behalf of the Republicans - so that within two or three years they kicked all the supporters of science to hell, and so Only anti-climate scientists remained in the party. And please stop with the false propaganda that scientists support. There are right-wing scientists whose opinion outweighs their science, and they are also not climate scientists but all around (astrophysicists for some reason). The climate scientists are unequivocal, it is also a fact that most of the opponents of evolution among the scientists are not biologists, for exactly the same reason. Those who know the truth will find it difficult to deny it.
A nuclear physicist's opinion on the climate and also his opinion on evolution are irrelevant, and he must not flaunt being a scientist when he expresses them.
And besides that, if scientists treat global warming as a phenomenon that humanity caused, who am I to say that it's not true, I don't have the tools they have.
On the right side of the political map are indeed the majority of modern creationists, which can lead to many politicians being tempted to give them favors such as schooling, etc.
The change in climate policy is the simple reason that the attitude that promotes human-caused warming has weakened greatly in public opinion (especially right-wing public opinion) and many more politicians (and scientists) feel free to go against the more widespread opinion and question the theory of anthropogenic warming.
In regards to investing in ambitious plans in general - everyone pretty much runs out of money so everyone tries less pretentious statements.
The question is whether cutting the space program is really economically correct. The space program provides work for thousands of people, trains professional personnel in sought-after technological fields, creates new developments and technologies, and is a symbol of the superiority of the United States technologically and as a power...
Avi Blizovsky, both the scientist and Science are science websites. I guess you won't represent the Science website...
My father, a new planet, what does this have to do with the article?
How many fathers are here???
Hi, a new planet has been discovered, gliese 163, where life can be found. This is the 6th planet where life can exist.
A distance of 48.9 light-years is in the life zone, a radius from Earth relative to Earth is 2.4
778 planets have been discovered so far! And 6 of them can sustain life
The USA began to sink starting from 9/11. Since that day, the Americans have really been going through a process of trauma and choosing a Muslim president was like the battered woman syndrome.
What should have happened 5 minutes after 9/11 was raining neutron bombs on Afghanistan and wiping it off the map.
Such a thing would send a clear message to the whole world who is the boss and a clear and clear message that you should not mess with the USA, in any way. Not even to try and it is generally better not to stand in the way of the USA and that it is better to align a political line with it.
Now the USA has become a beaten dog and they behave like impotents, in every field, military, economic and scientific. Everything affects everything.
It's not him who cut it, it's the Republican-controlled Congress.
At the end of the day, you can understand Obama, he is after a deep economic crisis, a crazy slowdown in growth.
Just as Israel is not trying to put a man on the moon - because it does not have the resources to do so, so is the United States.
If you look at the cost in relation to the return invested by the United States government in space, you see that, at least directly, there are smarter investments.
Do you mean the science site or the science site?
I don't understand why a scientific website should get its hands dirty in politics...
Maybe if science didn't choose political sides, then it would find a place in the hearts of more people around the world...
But if we are talking about politics, then despite everything that has been said, I support the Republicans in these elections, because it is good for Israel...
Selfish and myopic? Maybe, but unfortunately the rest of the world behaves this way, and I believe that right now it is an existential necessity for Israel...
I also remember Obama's promises before the election to support space exploration and development, which were then not only broken, but he also cut the budget and canceled the Constellation program...
It's a scavenger and it's a romp
Excuse me, everyone, but:
1. As mentioned above. Bush invested more in science and space. Bush announced the ambitious Constellation program and Obama canceled it.
2. 5 years ago when Bush was president no one even thought that the USA was in decline. The reason why people think about it today is that Obama "has no balls". He is a president who talks but does not act. He surrendered to the Russians (with the placement of the missiles in Poland) and abandoned his allies (Mubarak for example) when they needed him. He only tried to avoid conflicts (such as the intervention in Libya in which the US was a side force compared to France and Great Britain), he let North Korea make the whole world laugh (they shot at South Korea and in South Korea reprimanded soldiers who responded) and now the same with Iran.
Don't eulogize the USA so quickly because after this you will eat your heart that they will come back in a big way!
It seems to me that it is all politics and election propaganda
Because according to the statistics of the federal science and research budgets, the administration of George Bush Jr. spent much more on science and research than the administration of Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._research_funding.png
Amperes rise and amperes fall
The United States' time as a leading empire is running out
The United States is still ahead of China in terms of academic and technological research and development
But the Chinese are a very smart people
Little by little they are catching up
In my opinion, they are much more tolerant and less driven by momentary impulses
The Chinese will be the first to establish a colony on the moon and they will be the first to send people to Mars
Let's just hope that the United States clears the arena in peace and not in military confrontations
Shabbat Shalom
"Approved at the Democratic Party convention that ended in Tampa Florida" I think you meant Republicans.
It is no secret that we are witnessing the sunset of the United States, the sun is going to rise over China very soon.