Science Over Politics? I Think Not.

December 16, 2008 @ 9:45 am 10 COMMENTS

Barack Obama picked Steven Chu for energy secretary.  Chu is a winner of the Nobel Price for Physics in 1997 (although after this decision, I don’t know how impressed we should be with that). Steven Chu is hailed as the beginning of a new era: he’s a scientist, not a politician. Unfortunately, he’s a scientist who is an avid Global Warming believer, and as such is to be sure to implement Obama/Gore’s Climate Change policies.

In the announcement, Obama said:

“…send a signal to all that my administration will value science, make decisions based on facts and understand that facts require bold action”

See, the “bold action” in the quote above refers to Climate Change, and if something has nothing to do with science (or facts for that matter) and everything to do with politics, it’s Climate Change (formerly: Global Warming). GW is a movement based entirely upon junk science, incomplete computer models and incredibly inaccurate temperature readings.

In other words, Chu’s appointment has nothing to do with science or facts, and everything to do with being able to implement Obama’s Climate Change (formerly: Global Warming) polices swiftly, and without rebuttal. Policies that are written by Al Gore, a POLITICIAN and certainly NOT a scientist. 

Does that sound like science over politics to you?


Related Posts



  • No Related Post

10 COMMENTS

1 Joe
09:56:55, 16/12/08

Any “scientist” who becomes an ardent fan of a theory ceases to be a scientist and becomes a mere shill that whores his credentials.

2 x2para
10:02:52, 16/12/08

we need “bold action” because the average temp seems to be falling????

3 NeilD
10:38:33, 16/12/08

I have a different take on the press conference yesterday.
Obama never mentioned Kyoto or any targets regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions.

He didn’t talk at all about anything that the greenies usually rant and rave about.

No money to third world countries.
No CO2 credits.
No restrictions on industry.
No set goals at all.

What he did talk about was creating 2.5 million jobs through a green initiative that would include investing in alternate energies like solar and wind power.
He said that it’s important to move away from fossil fuels as much as possible and that makes good sense.

He said that all federal buildings would be retrofitted with green technology and others would be urged to follow suit.

No threats or targets.

Just good old common sense that says the price of such technologies will begin to fall once they move into the mainstream.

What was also noticeable were the speeches that were given by the new heads of the various departments, including the new “Energy Czar”.

They all mentioned climate change but that was only in passing. The focus of their speeches was the move away from fossil fuels and the creation of those 2.5 million jobs.
I think they’re going to be under a tight rein where if they even mention Kyoto their jobs will be in jeopardy.

Obama also did not discount offshore drilling, if necessary.

Personally, I’m all for a move away from fossil fuels.
Depending on oil can be expensive.

I’d love to utilize solar power in my home but the cost is prohibitive. Everyone seems to agree that the technology is there to allow homes to be heated using solar power but not enough units are being sold because of the cost.

With such a large move to alternate energy sources in the States that cost would surely tumble and more jobs would be created.

Seems like a win-win situation to me.

If this is indeed the way it’s going to play out then Harper would be well advised to climb on board now so that our industries can slice off a piece of the alternative energy pie.
NeilD

4 anon
12:56:52, 16/12/08

It’s a good think you spoke up when you did about this. I’m sure the rest of the world will be knocking down your door to hear your point of view, given that the alternative is just a Nobel Prize winner.

The right wing just keeps collapsing into intellectual bankruptcy. No bailout for them.

5 Erwin
14:00:54, 16/12/08

I think the Internet and indeed the world would be a quiet place if only Nobel Laureates were allowed to voice their opinions.

And at least I am writing under my own name, which is more than I can say for you.

6 anon
18:03:06, 16/12/08

Oooo, the ever-irrelevant “I’m more right than you because I post under my real name” reasoning. I fail to see what that has to do with the fact that your opinion on this matter means nothing whatsoever, as you are intellectually dwarfed by the person actually put in charge.

7 anon
18:07:06, 16/12/08

It’s also rather humorous when non-scientists decide what science is and is not, and/or construct a ridiculous strawman that they proceed to incessantly flail to pieces.

8 Erwin
22:03:54, 16/12/08

He may not say the words “Global Warming” but all his actions say it. He is surrounding himself with people who believe Human Induced Global Warming is real. His green jobs/energy programs are mostly related to trying to reduce/reverse Global Warming, not an economical reduction of oil-dependence. Just the fact he’s talking to Gore and Chu, both outspoken on the Gloval Warming front, is proof that is his main objective.

9 Erwin
22:06:56, 16/12/08

If my opinion “means nothing whatsoever”, what are you doing here wasting your time?

10 NeilD
11:47:08, 19/12/08

I hope you’re wrong.
I personally think Global Warming is a crock and I’d hate to see us kowtowing to Gore and his ilk.
NeilD

Leave a Reply