Scientists including 20 Nobel Laureates Accuse White House of Distorting Facts for Policy Goals

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Take for example. There isn't good science behind a 65 mph speed limit saving more lives compared to 70 or 75mph(on interstates) yet our gov't still sets it at 65 in order for states to get highway money. Is that right? The data doesn't directly back up the policy but yet there is policy.
Actually the good science with regards to highway safety is quite complicated.

Fatalities fall under all of these conditions in isolation:
Fewer big rigs
Lower speed differential
Better maintained roads
Improved safety features on vehicles
Fewer teen drivers
Fewer elderly drivers

Rate of travel is a difficult variable b/c 65 to 75mph likely doesn't matter much on the interstate. But the higher you set the limit the greater the differential between the slowest and fastest vehicles . . . which will definitely increase the risk of accidents . . . particularly if some people insist on driving slowly on the left AND others insist on passing on the right. Toss in some k-rails for good measure.

While your statement is essentially true it ignores the clear effect that increased speed limits will have on other factors that may negatively impact highway safety. Bushies act likewise . . . except they often don't bother with citing the very limited evidence that would support their position. They usually just criticize some small aspect of available data and then claim that's reason enough to do nothing.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Witling
National Public Radio had an article on this tonight (Wednesday 2/18). One of the guys who signed this letter was the National Science Advisor for the Nixon and Ford administration. He said that during that time, neither administration even suggested how a regulatory ruling should be constructed, let alone ordered it. To round up a few other stray thoughts, who in the world could round up and convince 20 Noble Laureates to do something if they didn't want to? These people didn't do this for money, the lesser lights, and there were a total of 60 scientists, are risking careers and funding. And finally, to turn to Dissipate's original foot into mouth insertion, I've got a dollar that says you aren't into the sciences in your education. Then there's the subject of elitism. I would surely hope that both professors and scientists would know more about their fields than I do. When they speak about something on which they have acquired expertise, I listen and integrate it with other concerns and values in my life. If some people knowing more than other people or some people's opinions being more noteworthy than others be elitism; Elitism Live On.
I'm doing Comp Sci. I want my dollar.

 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.
So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.
No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.
Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS. :D
col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.
Just because a person is willing to accept a freebee doesn't make them a collectivist. Nor does taking steps to make sure that a safety net exists for those who are TRULY in need. That these programs have grow to include people who should simply get their asses up and find jobs in no way invalidates their existence. Cut the fat? For sure, but reserve a place at the table for those in this country who can't do for themselves.
There are a few simple ways to avoid poverty in these modern times in America. First and foremost is to not have children you cannot afford, second is do not go into debt and I would say the third is avoid criminal activities. If you do these three things, you can support yourself even without a college degree.

The problem is that people do not do these three things, they have kids, they go into debt and then their house is forclosed upon or whatever and then they go running to the government for bailouts. My question to you and anyone else who supports "income security" is why should the government reward irresponsible behavior? Especially with regards to bearing children. It astonishes me that people who are living from paycheck to paycheck because they never save any money start popping out babies, then they want public education, free lunches, healthcare provided by the government etc. etc. etc. Its bogus.

Living within your means is not rocket science, its a simple matter of being realistic about what you can and cannot afford. If I was financially irresponsible and or living off of low wages fathering a child would be the LAST thing on my mind. Poverty is usually not some out of the blue , spontaneous thing. Especially in this day and age where just about anyone can get a few jobs at fast food joints and at least support themselves.

However, I want to be clear about one thing. This precludes people who are truly disabled either mentally or physically, these people obviously have an excuse. Most other people on the other hand, get in bad financial situations because of their irresponsible behavior. This is something I would never want to reward.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Dissipate

Nope. Just common knowledge around these parts in Kalifornia. The public universities here have always pursued liberal agendas. One of the colleges of a nearby university even has a course requirement for diversity in America.

BTW, where have you been living for the past few decades? In a cave? hehe.
I can vouch for you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY