1. Comment #197485 by Szkeptik on June 22, 2008 at 8:39 am

Aside from the badly hidden political endorsement of Obama, the idea sounds good.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

2. Comment #197490 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 8:53 am

The question is whether he is simply endorsing it or has an idea of how to do it. It would be virtually impossible without serious alternative energy technology and that would require a lot of research. Endorsing it in theory is not the same as endorsing it in practice.

Politicians, BAH!!!

Other Comments by TeraBrat

3. Comment #197499 by HourglassMemory on June 22, 2008 at 9:04 am

This reminds me....what ever happened to the Science Debate?

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

4. Comment #197524 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 9:36 am

Most politicians know jack-squat about science, and that is a damn shame. I think we need more science requirements in high school and college, so everyone that gets elected, at least the ones with a college degree, should know the basics.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #197546 by rod-the-farmer on June 22, 2008 at 10:05 am

Here are the seven questions....

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since World War II. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies would you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate changeâ€"a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, and research? Are there other policies you would support?

3. Energy. Many scientists and policymakers say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

5. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

6. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

7. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality, and availability of health care. How do you see science, research, and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

6. Comment #197608 by quill on June 22, 2008 at 11:23 am

I think an 80% carbon emission reduction by 2050 is achievable. For the most part, the technologies required have already been researched enough. It's just a question of production.

And by the way, most of those seven questions are extremely milquetoast - do you support research? How do you see technology contributing to health? - So it's no surprise they've gotten mostly milquetoast answers.

Other Comments by quill

7. Comment #197613 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 11:29 am

Not really.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

8. Comment #197614 by thewhitepearl on June 22, 2008 at 11:29 am

Hourglass,

I recieved an email from The Science Debate and from just glancing over it, it seems promising. They were asking submissions for questions. I presume it's on a roll...

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

9. Comment #197626 by EvidenceOnly on June 22, 2008 at 11:54 am

Hi rod-the-farmer,

Unfortunately, religion drives public policy in the US. Republicans cannot win without sucking up to the religious wrong (look at how McCain has EVOLVED from 2000 to 2008) and Democrats don't want to be labeled the party of atheists so they suck up to religion wherever they can.

Examples:

- When asked when the GWB administration would do something about global warming, a government official responded with: "that depends on when Jesus comes back".

- The religious care more about your body before you are born (anti-abortion) and after your're dead (Terro Schiavo case). While you alive you don't need healthcare, your suffering is for your salvation (and to pay for lower taxes for the super rich), don't try to be happy now because it is all about the afterlife.

- The unDiscovery Institute is working hard to change the definition of science to also include supernatural explanations, thereby totally undermining science and make it more like Fox news. They are succeeding in Louisiana.

We need to combat religion's influence on politics to win the battle for more science.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

10. Comment #197627 by Double Bass Atheist on June 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

I'd like to hear their public positions on the teaching of Evolution.
As evidenced by the recent events in Louisiana, the Discovery Institute's much publicized "Wedge Strategy" is gaining some momentum.

Since the Federal Government trumps the States, the positions of the Congressmen and Senators becomes increasingly important.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

11. Comment #197696 by Border Collie on June 22, 2008 at 2:02 pm

There's a new oil drilling "reality" show on Tru TV in the US. Their website is probably where most politicians in the US learn their science. Note the following Q/A quote from the site (How 'bout that last sentence?!):

Does oil really come from dinosaurs or is that just a myth?

They don't call it "fossil fuel" for nothing. Plant and animal life from about 300 million years ago was "cooked" beneath the earth's surface to create oil, natural gas and coal �quot; your basic fossil fuels. While dinosaurs were part of that fossil mix, most oil comes from prehistoric marine plankton and algae. Exxon may have claimed to "put a tiger in your tank," but it's more likely part decomposed saber tooth tiger.

Other Comments by Border Collie

12. Comment #197835 by acs on June 22, 2008 at 6:17 pm

*Scientists and Engineers for America*

Its good to see two diametrically opposed groups working together for once.

Its funny, round my way the split is almost always:-

Engineer: Theists
Scientist: Atheist.

Go figure.

Other Comments by acs

13. Comment #197838 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I've known quite a few engineers who were not religious and some who were outright atheists.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

14. Comment #197975 by King of NH on June 23, 2008 at 2:50 am

Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL), for example, has come right out in favour of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. That, incidentally, is presidential hopeful Barack Obama's position, too.

That was Bush's stance as well. Cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (by letting 80% of the population die in wars, natural disasters, and minimum wage jobs with no health insurance).

This is a nice goal, but one can't just support it, one needs to explain how they will achieve it to gain my vote.

Other Comments by King of NH

15. Comment #198017 by emmet on June 23, 2008 at 4:02 am

acs @#12,

Its funny, round my way the split is almost always:-

Engineer: Theists
Scientist: Atheist.

Watch your confirmation bias. I'm an atheist and an engineer. Most of my friends are engineers and atheists or, at most, very weak deists. I don't know a single engineer who's a religious theist. Not one.

Other Comments by emmet

16. Comment #198162 by schmeer on June 23, 2008 at 9:45 am

I'm also an engineer and rabid atheist. I know many atheist engineers, but I do also know religious ones. The religious ones seem to be very content compartmentalizing and trying not to think about the issue.

Other Comments by schmeer

17. Comment #198218 by TeraBrat on June 23, 2008 at 11:41 am

The religious ones seem to be very content compartmentalizing and trying not to think about the issue.

Of course, they're engineers...

(my father, three of my uncles and last boyfriend were engineers)

Other Comments by TeraBrat

18. Comment #198220 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 11:49 am

I'm an engineer (albeit with a science education) and I'm an atheist.

I can't really speak for other engineers.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

19. Comment #198224 by huzonfurst on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 am

My grandfather was an engineer. He drove a train.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

20. Comment #198227 by black wolf on June 23, 2008 at 11:57 am

It's obvious that looking at nature from a design and programming standpoint seems appealing to many engineers. Religious engineers think that fallaciously equivocating DNA with software is sufficient evidence for their worldview. I don't know if they willfully ignore the fact that the bio-chemical processes producing and caused by DNA produce errors of a sort that would simply not happen with properly programmed software, or if it just hasn't occured to them. As I said in a comment to a YouTube video, if their apologetics attributing these errors to sin was valid, they'd have to explain how and when sin does that. If they can't, it's just dishonest asstalk; just like stubbornly maintaining the phlogiston theory would be.

Other Comments by black wolf

21. Comment #198229 by Sciros on June 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Software engineer here. Atheist. (Granted with a family history of educated scientists and a thorough understanding of the scientific method.)

Many engineers (not software, though...) do have religious convictions challenged through their work the same way those in fields like physics, chemistry, and biology do. Essentially they are "applying science" and that can require understanding it.

Other Comments by Sciros

22. Comment #198262 by nathanthn on June 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I'm a chemical engineer and an atheist. I do have a number of religious co-workers, but since we generally don't discuss religon at work it's hard to tell the split. It's probably a good thing we don't discuss it since I'm sure I'd offend their delicate faith anyway :)

Other Comments by nathanthn

23. Comment #198406 by chuckgoecke on June 23, 2008 at 7:29 pm

I'm a former engineer(petroleum) and geologist(degrees in both). The few engineers that I knew that were very religious were heavy compartmentalizers, or they were business oriented and used religion as another networking method, ie utterly insincere.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

24. Comment #198916 by acs on June 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm

I think from the qualitative evidence alone, my observation of Engineers having theistic proclivities has been destroyed.

Well, thats the way we learn.

Other Comments by acs

25. Comment #199381 by Rational_G on June 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I'm an aerospace engineer and atheist. Not sure about some of my colleagues.

Other Comments by Rational_G

26. Comment #199397 by Goldy on June 25, 2008 at 5:23 pm

My old was an engineer (petroleum) and an atheist. I work in the the medical school of Auckland Uni - about half of the scientists are very religious (one PhD was actually a Bible literalist...).
Maybe in my case, acs, it's something to do with being in the southern hemisphere...you know, like the Coriolis effect or something ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy