Romney and Obama answer science questions

[monovillage]

This is an article where the candidates were asked the top ten science questions in this country and their answers. OK, probably they had experts and policy wonks actually answering the questions, but they're taking credit for them. They are politicians after all. It's a pretty interesting read, I doubt if it will change any minds, but at least they make a stand on various issues.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...1&posted=1&posted=1&posted=1#comments

Here's a sample from #4

4. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Recent experiments show how Avian flu may become transmissible among mammals. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from emerging diseases, global pandemics and/or deliberate biological attacks?

Barack Obama:

We all are aware that the world is becoming smaller every day. Advancements in technology allow Americans to travel internationally with ease, and allow us to welcome individuals from around the world. This fluidity also requires that we, as a nation, are cognizant to the threats we face and are prepared to protect against them. I will continue to work to strengthen our systems of public health so we can stop disease from spreading across our borders. It is also important that should these threats breach our borders, our communities can respond quickly, effectively, with the greatest impact, and with the fewest consequences. Lastly, to help our country prepare to meet these challenges, we have been working with the private sector to assess potential vulnerabilities. I have no doubt that we can counter any threat we face, but we cannot face it alone. We must continue to work with our international partners, remain diligent in seeking out new threats, and prepare to act should a need arise.

Mitt Romney:

Pandemics are not new — they have happened at different points throughout human history. And it is a certainty that, at some point in the future, they will happen again. Fortunately, America today is better prepared than ever to face a pandemic. In part, this is because researchers are learning so much more about infectious diseases, how they work, and how they spread. Unfortunately, globalization has enabled the spread of these diseases much more rapidly from previously remote corners of the world to the busiest airports and cities.

To further improve preparedness, we must continue to invest in the best public health monitoring systems that can be built. I will also encourage advancements in research and manufacturing to increase scientific understanding of new pathogens and improve response time when they emerge. The development of new countermeasures, from diagnostics to antibiotics and antivirals to respirators, will help protect human lives in the face of new bugs and superbugs.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has taken numerous steps that are stifling medical innovation. He has imposed new taxes on innovative companies. He has empowered bureaucrats to manage the marketplace. His FDA has slowed the drug development process and inserted requirements that drive up the cost of developing new antibiotics. A robust public health system is only as strong as the tools available, and I will empower the private sector to pursue the breakthroughs that will equip society for the health challenges of the twenty-first century.

 

[Rainsford]

Overall I was impressed with how much more reasonable (and similar) the answers sounded that the usual campaign rhetoric. I was also genuinely surprised that Romney acknowledged that humans contribute to global warming but that there could be economic concerns with some solutions to the issue, which is a reasonable viewpoint and standing in contrast to "man made global warming is a liberal conspiracy".

 

[MovingTarget]

Overall I was impressed with how much more reasonable (and similar) the answers sounded that the usual campaign rhetoric. I was also genuinely surprised that Romney acknowledged that humans contribute to global warming but that there could be economic concerns with some solutions to the issue, which is a reasonable viewpoint and standing in contrast to "man made global warming is a liberal conspiracy".

Agreed. This was encouraging. Science takes a backseat to politics too often.

Also, good thread monovillage! :thumbsup:

 

[Uhtrinity]

Rational answers from both sides, but didn't care how Romney took the opportunity to take a swipe at Obama.

edit: Btw, looks like he did it during almost all of the questions. Guess Romney gets extra points for having longer answers

 

[CallMeJoe]

Rational answers from both sides, but didn't care how Romney took the opportunity to take a swipe at Obama.

Methinks to mono that's the highlight of the quotation.

 

[cganesh75]

Overall I was impressed with how much more reasonable (and similar) the answers sounded that the usual campaign rhetoric. I was also genuinely surprised that Romney acknowledged that humans contribute to global warming but that there could be economic concerns with some solutions to the issue, which is a reasonable viewpoint and standing in contrast to "man made global warming is a liberal conspiracy".

Romney is a closet Democrat and Obama is a closet republican.

 

[monovillage]

For more discussion and other links you can visit The New York Times blog DOT EARTH by Andrew Revkin which is where I read it.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

Yes, Romney did take swipes at Obama, it is a political forum after all, but Obama also paraded his efforts and did a little politicking too.

 

[Uhtrinity]

For more discussion and other links you can visit The New York Times blog DOT EARTH by Andrew Revkin which is where I read it.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

Yes, Romney did take swipes at Obama, it is a political forum after all, but Obama also paraded his efforts and did a little politicking too.

My point was that it was on scientific american and therefore in poor form to make it a political grudge match. Just my opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They certainly say the right things.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama gives straight up answers, while Romney makes it a platform for an attack ad...

Anybody notice Romney's obvious swipe at net neutrality?

 

[zsdersw]

The fact that politicians can say all the right things should come as no shock to anyone.

Talk is cheap. Actions are where the costs are.

 

[tydas]

They certainly say the right things.

Exactly, but neither will take any political risk to actually address any of the issues...

 

[wirednuts]

Talk is cheap. Actions are where the costs are.

ive been trying to tell that to girls for over a decade.

 

[diesbudt]

This is an article where the candidates were asked the top ten science questions in this country and their answers. OK, probably they had experts and policy wonks actually answering the questions, but they're taking credit for them. They are politicians after all. It's a pretty interesting read, I doubt if it will change any minds, but at least they make a stand on various issues.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...1&posted=1&posted=1&posted=1#comments

Here's a sample from #4

You realized a large portion of what they say is done by experts and planned out between the party and the candidate right?

Also I researched more into it, but a lot of stances both parties and presidents agree on, just different ways to handle it. (Such as to attack Iran)

-Both presidents agreed if Iran was to start on Nukes they would attack. (Romney would probably do it if he just had a whiff they were close to getting all the materials they need.) (Obama would wait until they actually started building one, before he would want to intervene.)

 

[zsdersw]

ive been trying to tell that to girls for over a decade.

Works for guys

 

[diesbudt]

Works for guys

In my experience, girls fall for sweet talk more than nice actions.

 

[zsdersw]

In my experience, girls fall for sweet talk more than nice actions.

More than a fair share of gay guys do, too... in my experience.

 

[Atreus21]

In my experience, girls fall for sweet talk more than nice actions.

In mine, they fall for sweet talk and ignore actions.

 

[diesbudt]

In mine, they fall for sweet talk and ignore actions.

Yea. Not trying to convert this to a AT:LR thread or argue about what is/isnt a friend zone thing.

But its fun when on facebook I see :

"Such a great night, my best guy friend helped me (do something, anything). So amazing. Wish I could find a Boyfriend like that!"

9/10 he likes her more than a friend, and she doesnt return the feelings.

My mind goes all

 

[blankslate]

If only there weren't any Republican yahoos who were so disdainful of science that more Republican's could be reasonable when it came to science.

 

[diesbudt]

If only there weren't any Republican yahoos who were so disdainful of science that more Republican's could be reasonable when it came to science.

It is foolish to say blanket statements like this when it is not true.

I identify myself as a republican. I am also a scientist. I love/respect sciences and love to push forward to new ways of thinking.

I also see a lot of flaws in the republican party that I do not agree with, just as much as I see flaws in the democratic party that I do not agree with.

However the blind for either side will never admit or fully see these flaws for what they are, and thus the debates on here always turn into a carnival of debating even though the truth is inbetween.

hence why they are so entertaining to read. And thus I sometimes try and joke them into derailing, with little success because of I swear their blind hatred for each other.

 

[monovillage]

It is foolish to say blanket statements like this when it is not true.

I identify myself as a republican. I am also a scientist. I love/respect sciences and love to push forward to new ways of thinking.

I also see a lot of flaws in the republican party that I do not agree with, just as much as I see flaws in the democratic party that I do not agree with.

However the blind for either side will never admit or fully see these flaws for what they are, and thus the debates on here always turn into a carnival of debating even though the truth is inbetween.

hence why they are so entertaining to read. And thus I sometimes try and joke them into derailing, with little success because of I swear their blind hatred for each other.

Good post. One of the reasons I posted the article was to put on the record the stances of the candidates on some science issues. It will be easy in the future when lies are told (i.e. Republicans hate/ignore science) about either one in regards to these 10 issues where they stand.

 

[blankslate]

It is foolish to say blanket statements like this when it is not true. I identify myself as a republican. I am also a scientist. I love/respect sciences and love to push forward to new ways of thinking.

There aren't many members of the Democratic Party compared with members of the Republican party who think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as if it had been tested and checked as much as the Theory of Evolution has.

Note I didn't say everyone in the republican party is disdainful of science. I said if there weren't any who were, it would be easier the Republican Party as a whole to be more open about it.

However, when a proposal is made to introduce I.D. as a part of science curriculum I'm willing to wager that in a majority of those cases; the person who does so is almost always holds primarily conservative view points

The other example is Climate Change. We don't know enough about it as far what are the causes.
However, there is much debate about if it is happening when in my opinion there shouldn't be.


Here's an example of one person who was a skeptic and now isn't. I'm pretty sure that he was cited on climate change skepticism blogs because of his stature as a Berkley Scientist.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming.

The article was from Oct. 2011.


Now
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

I wonder if he's right? Who knows? Perhaps new data will come out that shows that Climate Change is entirely cyclical and humans have no influence on it.


However, it is my sense that between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, there are more people who will not change their views about issues related to science if it contradicts their world view.

However, I should perhaps have stated. "If there weren't some few members in the Republican Party who are disdainful of science...."

 

[mizzou]

While reading this thread, I just realized Mitt Romney was 65 years old. That is the only thing surprising to me.

 

[diesbudt]

However, I should perhaps have stated. "If there weren't some few members in the Republican Party who are disdainful of science...."

Basically this. Your statement blanketed every republican out there.

I took no offense, just don't like it when people are not careful with what they say, as generalizations can cause problems, when one ment a majority or a large portion of a group and not the group as a whole.

However science is a fickle thing. Theorys, even proven true over and over can be found false if new evidence shows up for it. Hence my love for Science.

And yes, same as politics, religions, sciences, whatever. people like to hold onto their views until there is drastically so much evidence to show the opposite of. If we didnt have politics or religions in this world, we would be starting wars on Sciences and which theories are right and wrong.