The Scientific American asked the question what three scientific questions should be asked of the Presidential candidates? Of course the ones presented had an extreme leftist spin. Here are are a few examples.
How important do you feel science and science related education is in young children and how would you affect change so that U.S. students are competitive with the rest of the western world in these key subjects?
Some other examples are:
Do you think that promotion of critical thinking is a primary goal of education?
What role does the federal government play in supporting scientific education, infrastructure and research?
The critical thinking part was in my mind when reading the rest of the article. For example.
Do you support evidence based education? If not, how are we to improve education? If so, how soon can we get rid of No Child Left Behind, which had no pilot?
Of course critical thinking says “no pilot”? No it’s the proximity of the pilot to the plane. Carter created the Department of Education in 1979 and education has been on the decline ever since. The decline started in the 60’s but the more government intervention the sharper the decline. Using critical thinking this makes sense. Prior to Federal government mandated and state negotiated Union contracts schools were under local control with heavy influence from the PTA’s. When a local school was failing heads would roll!
They then go on to say:
Can the decline in U.S. ranking in science be directly attributed to the anti-science policies of today’s conservatives, and what affects will the continuation of these policies have on the standing of the U.S. as a leader in science in the future?
What government body do we have to thank for the most inventions applicable to modern daily life in the last 50 years? (Answer is NASA)
Then of course there were a whole slew of them on global warming, which is now called climate change since they got caught cooking the science.
The third most exciting topic to our readers, with 17 questions clearly and solely in this category, is Climate Change. The most representative question comes from our reader is:
Is global warming and climate change significantly and negatively affected by human industrial and fossil fuel consumption activity and if so what is our Government’s Role and Responsibility in mediating a solution?
Some more examples:
What should the US role be in controlling climate change and what would you do to advance it?
Even the most devout global warming advocates grudgingly admit that proposed regulations would only delay the inevitable (if global warming is in fact occurring), while the political/economic costs of such regulation would be devastating to the United States. Are you factoring the cost vs. the benefits of global warming regulation in your policy decisions? Will you publish this analysis?
How does the greenhouse effect work, and do you think that humans are interfering with its proper function?
Do you accept the scientific consensus on climate change and what policies do you propose to prevent and mitigate its effects.
Do you agree with over 90% of the world’s climate scientists that humans are at least CONTRIBUTING to global warming?
Now I suppose the person who posted the question about conservative so called anti-science policies is in respect on the call to dismantle agencies such as the EPA. Use some critical thinking. Take the question about the advances over the last 50 years and most of them are a result of the advances in electronics. And all of that was the result of research done by Bell Laboratories not some government agency. And the government broke them up. Which brings us to the EPA and climate change. Critical thinking people, if a business had scientist cooking the numbers how long would a business keep those employees? If the business pushed false science how long would they stay in business. This is what happened with “global warming” aka climategate. So the politicians changed the name and still pushed the agenda. This type of science by political agenda has gone on since the EPA’s inception as Edmond Contoski writes about. And has been frequently reported in the news. But again some critical thinking is needed here. CO2 emissions are part of the natural cycle. One would think that if the earth was going to warm because of CO2 emissions it would have done so during the 1800’s when factories were steam powered fueled by wood or coal, cooking was done by wood or coal. And of course these fuels burned until the fuel was exhausted, not on demand as today. Farming and personal transportation were done by beasts of burden who also emitted CO2 24 hours a day. Homes were heated by coal or wood again emitting CO2 24/7. Why wasn’t there massive warming then? Simple photosynthesis. Any increase in temperature would result in a longer growing season which would increase the oxygen level and reduce CO2. You see there is very little that man can do that mother nature can’t undo.
As Gallileo found, government, religion and science do not make good bedfellows, true science has to be independent.