

The Holdren nomination: Obama politicizes science - miked
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/science/24tier.html?_r=2&ref=science

======
earl
Short summary: the author of this opinion column disparages Obama's science
nominees because when they weigh in on global warming and CO2 accumulation in
the atmosphere, they don't treat ignoring the problem now and removing CO2
from the atmosphere in the future via technology to be developed at unknown
expense and feasibility as a perfectly rationale alternative to emission cuts
now. Because everybody knows when you wave the magic technology wand, what you
want always pops right out at a price and opportunity cost that you are
willing to bear.

~~~
gruseom
Actually, the article (among other things) expresses concern about one of
these nominees having taken part in one of the most notorious acts of
scientific censorship in our time. I didn't know that, and the author's
concern seems reasonable.

Edit: I'm talking about _Scientific American_ 's vendetta against Bjorn
Lomborg, during which they not only refused to publish his response, but
threatened to sue for copyright infringement when he put it online, denying
him permission to quote the passages he was defending himself against. If I
recall correctly, Lomborg did as _SA_ demanded (crippling his own rebuttal),
which prompted one of the founders of Greenpeace to put the whole thing up on
his own website, saying that while he didn't agree with Lomborg he disagreed
with censorship more.

~~~
Retric
At the cost of ~5% of the US GDP/year for 20 years we could get our net carbon
emissions below 10% of where they are today. Granted few people seem to think
this is a worthwhile investment (I don't know), but it's not like it's pie in
they sky fairyland talk either.

One approach would be:

Solar home / hot water heaters for every home / building in the continental
US. (Pointless in Alaska) This would pay for it's self fairly quickly so IMO
it's a good idea.

Power the grid with a combination of Wind, Thermal Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear,
with large grid connected energy storage systems. This pays off in the long
term, but it's expensive.

Electrify the nations highways, so electric cars can cross the country without
backup power. Also add charging stations to most parking lots. This is where
things get really expensive and there is not an off the shelf solution for
this.

So, the real question becomes how far down that path you take before the costs
outweigh the benefits. Which is where knowing how much damage you get based on
what level of carbon output. While politicians might not like the answers,
it's a reasonable scientific debate, with a definitive answer.

~~~
gruseom
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.

~~~
Retric
"author's concern seems reasonable" though I read it as concerns implying you
agree with the articles ideas. If your are only talking about that one point I
am sorry.

------
newt0311
A far better analysis of the issue (with primary sources!!):
[http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_a...](http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_and.html)

------
icey
Why do people insist on bringing politics to HN?

