Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Trump finally picks a science adviser -- and people are delighted

#1
C C Offline
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...er/566543/

EXCERPT: . . . Though late, [Kevin] Droegemeier’s nomination comes as a rare spot of welcome news for the scientific community. Many of Trump’s choices to lead or advise scientific agencies have been criticized either for lacking relevant qualifications, or for being diametrically opposed to the organization they were tapped to run.

By contrast, Droegemeier has impeccable scientific credentials. “I’m pleasantly surprised,” says J. Marshall Shepherd, a meteorologist at the University of Georgia. “Up to this point, many of the appointments on the science side have been odd, but Kelvin is solid on all grounds. He is very well respected in our field and has spent a career teaching the fundamentals of climate science.”

Having been at the University of Oklahoma for 33 years, Droegemeier co-founded the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, or CAPS, in 1989, at a time when few scientists believed that storm-scale weather could be accurately forecasted. CAPS showed otherwise. Its prediction system was the first to calculate the location and structure of storms several hours in advance. It’s now used around the world.

Droegemeier’s expertise will be useful, since the United States has just faced its costliest year of extreme-weather events, with wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters building up a price tag of $306 million. “His atmospheric-science background is key to understanding and estimating growing costs of weather and climate events,” says Rosina Bierbaum, a former OSTP member who now holds appointments at the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan. She notes that a report that Droegemeier chaired, in which the words weather and climate are frequently used together, “is indicative of how Kelvin thinks—weather and climate are a continuum.”

Moreover, his scientific clout is paired with deep political experience....

MORE: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...er/566543/
Reply
#2
Magical Realist Online
So...uh...does he believe in man-caused climate change?
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Aug 2, 2018 07:03 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: So...uh...does he believe in man-caused climate change?


In light of all these scientists claiming they hold him in high regard, many of the them are curiously in the dark with respect to that. One has to surmise that he accepts climate change, but often keeps rather publicly mum about assigning blame for it (shies away from a crusader spotlight). If he is dodgy or an anthropogenic obscurantist, then his flying under the radar like that might have had something to do with Trump selecting him. Others, however, believe he's going to firmly balance things out about climate change.

Carl Zimmer: Dr. Droegemeier will also have to contend with a boss who has called climate change a Chinese hoax. As a meteorologist studying short-term weather patterns, Dr. Droegemeier’s thoughts on climate change are not widely known, and his name is not familiar to many researchers in the field.

“No clue,” said Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution, said he only knew of Dr. Droegemeier from a few comments about climate change he had made to the media. “His statements make him sound extraordinarily sensible, compared to other Trump nominees,” said Dr. Caldeira.

J. Marshall Shepherd, a meteorologist at the University of Georgia, said that Dr. Droegemeier had a firm grasp of climate change and how it can supercharge extreme weather. “Just having a voice in the room on climate that understands the equations, the scientific process and what is at stake is a huge win for science and the earth,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/scien...viser.html

~
Reply
#4
Yazata Offline
I'm not interested in reading, thinking about or responding to material published in opinion publications like The Atlantic or the New York Times. (I already have plenty of opinions of my own.) But given that the subject line was presumably written by CC herself, I'll post a few ideas about that.

Quote:Trump finally picks a science adviser -- and people are delighted

1. People are delighted? Who is "people"? Everyone? Some elite whose opinions are the only opinions that count? The editors and writers at these particular publications?

In real life, everyone doesn't agree on anything. (There are people who post on this board who believe in ghosts.) I'm not sure that it's a good thing to demand that they do. (The expectation that everyone must think alike sounds totalitarian to me.) If we are really going to pay homage to our current shibboleth of "diversity", diversity of opinion would seem to be the most important of the diversities to encourage and to foster. Especially in a democracy where freedom of thought is supposed to be a fundamental principle.

2. And why does a President need a "science adviser" in the first place?

Certainly no single individual can be up to speed on all areas of science. A "climate scientist" isn't going to be particularly helpful on recombinant DNA, on funding particle physics experiments or on choosing among possible NASA deep space strategies. It seems to me to make more sense to bring in specialist advisers from each area. And then, to get a variety of opinion about whatever it is, particularly if it's controversial.

If Trump is serious about "draining the swamp", maybe he needs to clean up the... crust... of unnecessary and occasionally even harmful positions like "science adviser" that have built up around the Presidency like toxic scum. The President shouldn't be in the position of viewing science through a pin-hole, with everything filtered through the opinions of a single individual (and with "the press" ready to pounce if he doesn't do as he's told).
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Aug 3, 2018 04:04 PM)Yazata Wrote: I'm not interested in reading, thinking about or responding to material published in opinion publications like The Atlantic or the New York Times. (I already have plenty of opinions of my own.) But given that the subject line was presumably written by CC herself, I'll post a few ideas about that.

1. People are delighted? Who is "people"? Everyone? Some elite whose opinions are the only opinions that count? The editors and writers at these particular publications?


That's the title of the Atlantic article, with many other publications echoing the same. Apparently due to most expecting scientists (endorsing climate change) and "some elite" to universally detest whoever Trump finally chose (if ever). Thus the surprise or emphasis in the headlines on such being otherwise is hardly surprising itself or a mystery to ponder.

~
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Who Will Advise Trump on Science? + When Science Went Modern C C 1 626 Nov 22, 2016 12:06 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Why do people read science blogs? And who are they? C C 0 494 Oct 2, 2015 06:54 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)