Science back in its rightful place?

posted at 10:30 am on June 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama promised repeatedly to “restore science to its rightful place” as President during his campaign, repeating the Left’s accusation that George Bush ignored scientific conclusions in favor of his own policy preferences.  How has that promise worked so far?  Ask Dr. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who saw his research misrepresented and manipulated to support conclusions on global warming completely at odds with his findings.  The New York Times relegated this to their science blog:

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?

The issue is the recent White House claim, in support of their push for a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions, that global warming has already begun damaging the US.  Pielke claims that Holdren uses unsubstantiated claims in place of actual peer-reviewed data that paints a much different picture than Obama does on climate change.  Pielke notes the difference in two years of reporting:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

Pielke doesn’t necessarily refute global-warming concerns, but he notes that the administration is hardly taking a scientific approach to a scientific issue.  Instead of focusing on peer-reviewed research, which has become increasingly inconclusive, the White House and Holdren have begun seizing on claims that are not scientifically derived, have not been tested, are out of date, and in many cases are simply false. That doesn’t give any credibility to the science of climate analysis, and instead gives critics the kind of ammunition that makes it look like phrenology.

Is that “restor[ing] science to its rightful place” in policymaking?  Or is it the kind of political hackery that Obama promised to end?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Or is it the kind of political hackery that Obama promised to end?

Obama mainly promised to make surprisingly good speeches in foreign countries like: Cairo.

The rest is all flying frizzy horse turds.

Mcguyver on June 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM

“Science” to Marxists (and many others) is simply what goes along with their personal beliefs.

Nature on the other hand just does its thing regardless of what we believe. Science is merely an attempt to describe what nature is doing.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM

I’ll believe in AGW the day someone can convince me that Earth’s temperature has risen above it’s basal temperature.

What is Earth’s 98.6? And where do we put the thermometer to measure it?

We know Earth has been warmer than it is currently. Vikings farmed in Greenland, grapes were grown in England, and we have no reason to believe Manhattan was underwater when those things were happening.

The entirety of mankind and our inventions amount to little more than a few fly specks on Earth’s “body”. We couldn’t effect the climate if that was our intention.

Wingo on June 21, 2009 at 2:03 AM

I guess when Obama made that comment, he meant to make science fit his own worldview.

Cr4sh Dummy on June 21, 2009 at 3:24 AM

What is Earth’s 98.6? And where do we put the thermometer to measure it?

Wingo on June 21, 2009 at 2:03 AM

Well … if it’s a rectal thermometer, it goes right in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

progressoverpeace on June 21, 2009 at 4:38 AM

Science won’t be in it’s rightful place until it goes back to reaching conclusions based on evidence & not groupthink. Especially in the realms of the environment, origin of life, & human health.

jgapinoy on June 21, 2009 at 9:57 AM

…disagree w/ the status quo, & you’ll be edited out, shunned, mocked, fired, & persecuted.

jgapinoy on June 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I’ll put my science faith in Bill Nye, never the goatman boy king. He’s beneath Pee Wee Herman

bluegrass on June 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Scientists are idiots! They fail to understand their limited understanding! We think we are so unbelievably advanced…in 50 years we will look totally lame…but they miss this point time after time!

sabbott on June 21, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Lets see,

1960’s thru 1980, GLOBAL FREEZING “Were all Gonna DIE!!!!

1980 thru 2005, GLOBAL WARMING “Were all Gonna DIE!!!!

2005 thru 2008, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE “I don’t know what that means but, Were all Gonna DIE!!!!

2008 thru Present, AGW “I don’t know what that means either but its much easer to defend and, Were all Gonna DIE!!!!

No, wait, I got it!

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE and AGW are like “Jobs Saved

No one can prove it
No one can disprove it
Because no one knows WTF it means! And Were all Gonna DIE!!!!

Is that about it?

DSchoen on June 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM

“Science” to Marxists (and many others) is simply what goes along with their personal beliefs.

Nature on the other hand just does its thing regardless of what we believe. Science is merely an attempt to describe what nature is doing.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Good point.Science to a Marxist like Obama is the social lever needed to obliterate God from this country.
Most science today is “junk science” where unproven & foolish theories are guarded by today’s scientists under the rule we must NEVER allow dissent for our theory, we must allow no other theory, we are supreme.

Jeff from WI on June 22, 2009 at 7:15 AM

You can tell when B. Hussien Obama’s lying….His lips are moving!

TrickyDick on June 22, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Uhhhbama will run America on sunshine and breezes. Just be patient, deniers.

darwin-t on June 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM