Presidential Science Debate (1 Viewer)

Heathen Saint

"Socially distanced"
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
7,728
Location
The Desert
Offline
:9: Love it. I would hope that our presidential candidates are scientifically literate to be leading the most powerful country on earth
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,805
Offline
When you use scare quotes in replies to questions about science it's like using the words ****, ****, and **** to talk about Christianity.
 

Heathen Saint

"Socially distanced"
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
7,728
Location
The Desert
Offline
It's disheartening that the majority of voters today still care about the outcome of a football game, what dress some celebrity is wearing, etc. much more than the potential Leaders of the free world's views on scientific issues that could impact generations to come..

The general population has to be more well-versed scientifically and must understand the issues we are facing: from climate change to energy to medical research..there are huge implications with this election. We are "getting there" but still a long way off. Be aware of these important issues and vote for who you think makes said issues a priority. Your children and grandchildren will thank you.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,407
Reaction score
39,990
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
It's an interesting read. I haven't gotten though It all. There is some nugget of everyone's answer I usually can agree with. But it is interesting seeing the contrast between answers.

For example.

7. Energy

Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will your energy strategy be?

Clinton:

The next decade is not only critical to meeting the climate challenge, but offers a tremendous opportunity to ensure America becomes a 21st century clean energy superpower. I reject the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment, and our security. The truth is that with a smart energy policy we can advance all three simultaneously. I will set the following bold, national goals – and get to work on Day 1, implementing my plan to achieve them within ten years of taking office:
•Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
•Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
•Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.

My plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. This includes:
•Defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
•Launching a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families.
•Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
•Ensuring the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
•Reforming leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
•Cutting the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
•Cutting methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
•Revitalizing coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations.


Trump:

It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.

Stein:

Our Green New Deal plan prioritizes a rapid transition to 100% clean renewable energy. Our energy strategy will also include:

• Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.

• Redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy and conservation. Build a nationwide smart electricity grid that can pool and store power from a diversity of renewable sources, giving the nation clean, democratically-controlled energy.

• End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines. Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants. Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies. End all subsidies for fossil fuels and impose a greenhouse gas fee / tax to charge polluters for the damage they have created.
The level of specifics is vastly different.
 

Boondock

Veritas Aequitas
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
5,056
Location
California
Offline
I hope the Republicans realize this isn't a debate on whether science is real or not....
I dislike it when people talk about science like its man-kinds "magical wand." People believe that the natural world yields to human scientific discovery. No! On the contrary, science is simply humanity's observation of the natural world via a highly specified process we call the scientific method.

That being said, there are things such as dark matter, that we cannot see. However, scientific observation has deemed it a real, naturally occurring phenomenon. Even when we utilize all of our naturally acquired sensory input there are still things that we cannot see, touch or hear, but are still real nonetheless.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
46,407
Reaction score
39,990
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Well, the point of this questionnaire isn't really to test their scientific literacy or "gotcha" quotes on climate change or whatever. The point is government's role in scientific research, and taking discoveries to the next phase - practical usage.

Government has a role in direct funding (research grants), incentives toward goals (clean energy, etc), mandates (gas mileage for cars), and competitions. Not only that, they have a role in taking a new discovery to the next level.

I'll use an example I'm kind of familiar with (but haven't paid enough attention the last few years). Additive manufacturing. Basically, it's 3D printing, but for metals. Most use some form of laser welding process with powder alloys. But there are other variations.

3D printing is cool. It's a great way to make a prototype or maintain a lot of flexibility in components you can create with a single piece of hardware. A CNC machine would probably be the next closest thing, but it has limitations.

However, since you're essentially creating either a powder or "welded" part, the mechanical properties just aren't as good as parts machined out of bar, plate, forgings. It's basically a casting (to me at least). So, not all critical parts could be made out of this. Also, if you're going to make 10,000 small parts, it's still going to be cheaper to hog it out of wrought material vs doing Additive Manufacturing.

So, the government, though the DoD/DARPA, NASA, etc can do research projects looking for examples where AM might fit. I know the military was looking at a way to quickly retrofit (or tack on) better armor piercing resistant plates to tanks. One method was to AM a modified Titanium alloy that could be "welded on in place) that had very good ballistics resistance. However, it would look pretty ugly. Imagine slamming a bunch of big snow ball on the side of your tank. I believe the F-35 project was looking at Additive Manufacturing to make certain Titanium alloy parts, mostly because Boeing was buying up a bunch of Titanium for the Dream Liner, so they were having sourcing issues. They didn't want to wait around for a year or two to get raw materials. So, the DoD with Lockheed Martin was looking into the viability of AM to make these kind of parts.

If it weren't for that, these type of new technologies wouldn't get started. Ford isn't looking into this, until they see it proven elsewhere. My company isn't going to start making parts using AM, until we see Boeing, Pratt and Whitney, etc start using this. Even then, we'd probably look at standard machining when it's viable, because it's less of a headache (process design, quality, etc).

I know there has been work on Smart Road technologies.. either sensors, or ones that absorb/retain salts better for winter. The problem is that when states start Salting the roads, it mostly washes away every melt. So, the next freeze, they're throwing more salt out there. It costs millions of dollars (maybe more, every year). So, if the Salt would stick around better, it would save the state a lot over the life of the section of road. So, those ideas at the University level, turn into whatever state DOT funded projects and test areas.
 

Heathen Saint

"Socially distanced"
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
7,728
Location
The Desert
Offline
I'd like to encourage people down voting to actually respond to whatever it is you don't agree with. Opinions are gooood:9:
 

V Chip

Truth Addict (aww ^&%$ I got a head rush)
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
12,923
Reaction score
17,129
Age
52
Location
Close enough to ATL to smell the stink of Falcons
Offline
I dislike it when people talk about science like its man-kinds "magical wand."
I dislike it when people deny science because of ideology. Science is no magic wand, and if you take that away from recent discussions or what I just posted, man... {shrug}

Science is self-critical. It's central to the idea of good science to test and verify and doubt and double-check everything science stands on, and to admit when it is wrong. To deny that to make ideological points is destructive.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
18,184
Offline
After reading it I was struck by two things:

First, already mentioned by Ward, the vast difference in specifics and detail in the answers between the candidates. Clinton lived up to her reputation as a policy wonk by giving pretty detailed, specific answers to every question. Stein was next, her answers impressed me. And Trump gave very vague, generally non-specific answers, which was expected since one really valid criticism of him is that his candidacy consists almost totally of platitudes without any real substance.

Second, was that both Stein and Clintin recognize the government's role in advancing scientific discoveries, and while Trump did seem to recognize it in some answers, overall he was advocating letting industry lead and letting the markets go their own way.

I think that's short-sighted and futile, as we've seen in the past. Industries and corporations aren't going to fund much basic scientific research, as much as just looking for small tweaks to give themselves a slight advantage over competitors. Plus, we've all seen major corporations twist science to their own advantage (tobacco companies come to mind). I do think funding basic scientific research is a great use of tax monies to benefit everyone. I don't want to trust the corporations to be in that role.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,805
Offline
Private enterprise would never have created the Internet with 100 Trillion Dollars and 200 years.

The Internet never would have become much more than email and file sharing if it stayed in the hands of the government.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,342
Reaction score
18,184
Offline
Totally. We have a system that works pretty well with government funding basic research and then corporations finding real life uses for the discoveries. I would argue that is one reason for the US having such a strong economy. I'm just not willing to say that industry would be willing to fund the basic scientific research that leads to the discoveries that benefit us all.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
bonnjer Science nerds are the best Everything Else Board 4

Similar threads



Headlines

Top Bottom