Obama and McCain differ on several science issues

McCain IS McSame on NASA/manned flight; ScienceDebate asks a couple of iffy questions

ScienceDebate2008 has does a great fairly good job of comparing their stances on 14 science-related questions. After reading through the questions more, one question seemed just wrong to me, and second one not much better. More on that below.

One thing that John McCain flat gets wrong is manned space flight:
• It’s unnecessary.
• It could be dangerous, even lethal, viz a viz cosmic rays, to engage in it as far away as Mars.
• We can’t afford it.

And now, the two iffy questions.

National security:
• I feel uneasy about this question even being here.
Yes, our national security has become more and more technological. But, as a good left-liberal, this almost seems to me to be asking:
“And, how would YOU expand the military-industrial complex”?

Pandemics and biosecurity:
• I feel uneasy about this question even being here, at least as phrased, on similar grounds to the one above. Throwing in the “biosecurity” element seems to give more weight to the so-called Global War on Terror. That said, Obama actually went into that part of this issue before McCain did.

On to the other topics, though.

Nuclear:
• Both favor it, but only Obama adds the all important caveats about safe nuclear power that addresses nuclear waste, etc.

Driving:
McCain actually gets a point here, for talking about needing tougher penalties on carmakers who miss CAFE standard benchmarks.

Climate change:
• Similar in what they claim they will do. Obama aims to get 80 percent below 1990 emissions by 2050, while McCain aims for “just” 60 percent.
How realistic either one is, especially with the paucity of specific actions they plan, or details on cap-and-trade carbon plans as far as what baseline standards will be, is another issue altogether.

Energy:
• Obama talks about greener/more efficient building standards.

Education:
• As I said in a longer post specifically dedicated to this issue earlier today, both candidates hugely miss the boat by not pushing for a 200-day school year.

Genetics:
• Obama goes into more detail, and sounds more knowledgeable.

Stem-cell research:
• This is a clear McCain pander to the Religious Right, and, after the nomination of Sarah Palin, what did you expect? Basically, without calling it the “Bush policy,” he supports the Bush policy.

Oceans:
• Obama a winner for stressing we need to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.

Water:
• Both are shamefully skimpy, and neither connects future water issues to global warming and climate change.

Space:
• McCain writes three times longer, without necessarily saying a lot more.

Government science integrity:
• Obama goes into more specifics about finding scientists of integrity for top White House and agency positions. He also promises the nation’s first chief technology officer.

Research funding priorities:
• McCain basically dodges the issue; Obama commits to life sciences.

Health:
• Both talk, necessarily, about health care costs. Obama’s plan is and will be better than anything of McCain’s, but it won’t be what Obama claims it is, either.

Overall:
• On a 1-0 scale, I’ll give Obama a 7.75 and McCain a 6.5. They both get scored down on the education issues, which is a pet peeve of mine.

But, don’t be satisfied with my summary. Hopefully, I’ve whetted your appetite, without making your eyes glaze over, to read their answers for yourself.

Or, you can read the NYT take on their statements.

Obama semi-props — Sciencedebate 2008 questions answered

The folks behind Sciencedebate 2008 have been trying, with zero success, to get a presidential campaign debate specifically geared toward science and technology issues.

While that hasn’t happened, or, to put it in the active voice, while Barack Obama and John McCain have both refused to commit to such a debate, Obama gets semi-props for answering SD 2008’s 14 questions.

A few highlights:

1. On global warming, Obama claims he will have a market-based carbon cap-and-trade program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
That is the benchmark that many climatologists believe is necessary to keep global warming from being truly bad. Whether it is achievable, especially with as many voluntary approaches to different parts of the issue as Obama proposes, is another question.

2. On Question 3, re Washington investing in alt energy research, he says, First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years.
That's TO, not BY. Going by what he counts as clean energy research, what are the current numbers? I have asked Otto for that info.

3. He proposed to do this in part by: “Increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade, and taking other steps that will reduce the energy intensity of our economy 50 percent by 2030.”
Given that building codes are a local issue, the role of the federal government in this is minimal, and this sounds like a red herring.

4. Also on Question 3, Obama IS OK w/nuclear power, as long as a number of obvious issues are addressed, and gets a bonus point on that in my book.

5. On Question 4, education, I strongly believe we need a 200-day or longer school year, and that not having that school year is the No. 1 reason Western European and southeast Asian developed nations continue to show themselves more educated than our students, with the cumulative additional school days showing in a wider knowledge gap the older children get. It's sad that Obama says nothing about this; it's said that almost nobody in our country says anything about this.

Science policy questions for Cornyn and Noriega

And, Eddie Bernice Johnson and her challenger, Fred Wood, while we’re at it.

From the folks who TRIED to bring us ScienceDebate 2008 during the presidential primary season, but for the pointed lack of cooperation of both Republican and Democratic candidates, with the input of readers, here is the list of seven questions related to science policy that every candidate for the House or Senate should be asked.

The basic categories are innovation, climate change, energy, education, water, research and health. Read the whole thing for a detailed question in each category and more, as well as links to learn how to fire science-related questions at your candidates.

A list of questions for the presidential candidates is forthcoming.

ScienceDebate2008 appears dead

Why? Possibly because, Hillary Clinton’s call for a “Lincoln-Douglas debate” aside, it doesn’t fit the format of carefully scripted debates.

And, while Obama might eventually agree to an open-style debate about things like health care or Middle East foreign policy, neither candidate is going to openly discuss science policy in an unscripted debate. They wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot pole.

Why, in detail?

Well, it would be hard to pander to corn farmers about ethanol, for example. It would be hard to pander to Illinois or Wyoming coal miners about clean slightly less dirty coal-generated electric power.

And, yes, candidates can file position papers. And they do so safe and secure in the sense that John and Jane Voter will never read them.

Yet another reason to not vote either Clinton OR Obama

This time, it’s not about their weak knees on Iraq. It’s not about either one being two-faced on trade issues. It’s not about neither of them calling for a living wage, or a COLA on the current minimum wage.

Instead, while both will debate religion, neither will debate science.

A couple of science-related issues I’d like discussed are on my occasionally-updated Science and Reason Party blog, in my right-hand rail links.

Oh, no, Clinton and Obama can debate religion, as if that will help address global warming. (For those of you who are religious, I’ll remind you of the old anecdote of the couple stranded in a flood, and a rowboat, powerboat and helicopter coming by, with the couple saying “no thanks” to all three because “God is going to deliver them.” Prayer won’t address global warming, human action will.)

And, while the Green Party pushes for more action on global warming, and for getting us out of Iraq, nonetheless, a fair amount of Greens are New Agers, conspiracy theorists, or otherwise, if not hostile to science, dismissive of science outside narrow areas of their concern, or when it doesn’t fit their agendas.

The science debate is ON

Only thing missing so far? The candidates.

ScienceDebate2008 is set for April 18 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. That’s four days before the Pennsylvania primary. And, yes, the candidates have been invited. As of yet, none have RSVPed.

Of course, I’m sure just “major party” candidates have been invited.

Science’s biggest guns weigh in on need for presidential science debate

The American Academy for the Advancement of Science is calling for just such a debate.

“Science and engineering have driven half the nation’s growth in GDP over the last half-century,” said AAAS CEO Alan Leshner, “and lie at the center of many of the major policy and economic challenges the next president will face. We feel that a presidential debate on science would be helpful to America’s national political dialogue.” Leshner has also joined the group’s steering committee.

Between Mike Huckabee on evolution, incumbent George Bush on global warming, and just-dropped-out Dennis Kucinich on UFOs (hey, anti-scientism can be bipartisan), this is a needed clarion call.

Fortunately, the debate call is also bipartisan.

The effort is being co-chaired by Congressmen Vern Ehlers, R-MI, and Rush Holt, D-NJ, and is also being championed by Congressman Bart Gordon, chair of the House Science & Technology Committee. It includes several former presidential science advisers from both major political parties.

And, the need is definitely there:

There have been several recent reports warning of potential erosion of the American economy and recommending changes in science and technology policies, said Shawn Lawrence Otto, one of the group’s organizers. “A recent Business Roundtable report shows that if current trends continue, in another two years over 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia,” Otto said.

The bottom of the webpage linked above has several links itself, including to the Business Roundtable report and one by Congressman Bart Gordon, chair of the House Science & Technology Committee.

Update for Dennis Kucinich defenders who may be reading:To Barbara, in response to her comment to this post, I’m using “UFO” as shorthand, in the generic way, for people like Dennis, who claims to have actually talked with aliens.

So, it does make sense. Just about every “UFO” to “visit” has been scientifically proven something else; those that haven't actually been proven away have strongly been shown to be something explainable.

Yes, I’ve heard of SETI, but I think Drake, in his initial calculations, overestimated the likelihood of life in the universe, or our galaxy, at least as intelligent as us.

Beyond that, there’s two related psychological issues.

The first is psychological/technological/political. Would aliens advanced enough to have interstellar space travel just “bop in” in random individuals for short visits and then fly away? Absolutely not. They would either visit national and world leaders and share information, etc., or else find ways to shield their presence here from everybody, or else attack and invade (and, borrowing some susceptibility to Earth pathogens) easily conquer.

In light of that, here’s the second psychological issue. Many people who claim to have seen a “UFO” give detailed descriptions that indicate they’re not describing a “UFO” at all. For example, about 100 miles west of Dallas, people claim to have seen “UFOs.” However, at least one person described not a “UFO,” but a disc-shaped “flying saucer.”

In short, IMO, most people claiming to see “UFOs” are either lying, for their Warholian 15 minutes of fame, or delusional, the Harvard psych professor John Mack notwithstanding. Of course, from cognitive science, I argue the only difference between lying and delusion is ultimately that, in a delusion, you’re not even aware to yourself that you’re actually lying. (I’m distinguishing cognitive delusions from hallucinations.)