Obama and Romney science talk focuses on climate change, spaceflight
There's at least one thing President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney can agree on: Science is pretty awesome.
In response to a collection of 14 of the most pressing science policy questions facing the country over the next four years -- topics as diverse as space exploration, energy, climate change, vaccinations, food safety and more -- the two candidates for president expressed strong support for the sciences.
“Sound science is crucial to good public policy,” said Mitt Romney. The current president agrees wholeheartedly.
“Our policies should be based on the best science available and developed with transparency and public participation,” Obama said.
But beyond that, the two could agree on no aspect of science, according to answers posted Tuesday on ScienceDebate.org. The site, founded four years ago by Shawn Lawrence Otto, worked with many of the major science organizations in the country to gather the science questions and pose them to the candidates.
…snip…
Climate change was an especially divisive area, with Romney acknowledging that the planet is warming, yet advocating caution.
“I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences,” he said.
He said there was a lack of scientific consensus on the issue and wanted to see continued debate and investigation within the scientific community. Obama, on the other hand, advised continued action in the face of climate change.
“My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the federal government,” he said.
“I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last.”
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Now I am not one for consensus science, but the AGWers keep going on and on about the 97% of climate "scientists" believe in AGW. (Non of which were influenced by the fact that if they didnt believe then they would be out of a highly paid job
The actual number for the 97% was actually less than 100.
This poll shows that over 30,000 dont accept catastrophic AGW and have bravely entered their names on the petition.
I dont think Drewski has realised yet that they stopped calling it global warming when the globe stopped warming 15 or so years ago.
You've heard it before, the "but they aren't climate scientists" as they conveniently ignore the fact that in one case it is a professional statistician that tore a hole in their statistics. Who better to analyze statistical flaws right, I mean he IS an expert. We know how much they tout and kowtow to experts.
In another case wasn't it a professional geologist who tore a hole in their data that relies upon (gasp!) geological samples. But of course a professional geologist, an expert in his field can't know anything about the geology of the planet they are talking about. We may both call it "Earth" but it's pretty obvious the one they refer to isn't the one we walk upon daily. At least not per their "data."
Oh yea, I'm in full blown sick of stupid shit sarcastic mode today...
It is amazing how you guys will regurgitate material that has been thoroughly discredited for years. I guess when the Arctic disappears, so does your memory.
It's amazing how you regurgitate the same old crap every time you come here when we can find just as much information if not more that discredits what you claim or cite.
Of course in your world anything that supports your beliefs no matter how poorly done, how biased, or how inaccurate discredits skeptics.
Yet when it come down to actual evidence all you have is word games.
If the ice dosent grow back over the next two then the alarmist predictions will be correct.
If it does grow back then alarmists will need to change their theory. (or the data)