Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[krispos42]

61. Oops, forgot about this discussion we were having

Sorry for the delay.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Climate science runs up against very serious issues with public will...

I think that what it runs up against is very serious issues with POLITICAL will, which is driven by $$$ and propaganda and Washington power-brokers. The politicians are scared to address it because of incurring the wrath of the carbon industry. This means losing campaign money, blackmail, the carbon industry supporting another candidate in the primaries or the general, vicious superPAC campaigns, and affecting their ability to get a cushy consulting job after elected office.

The people are there, the politicians are not. In terms of enacting new and restrictive gun laws... the politicians are there, but the people are not, you see.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't thing people would be very happy if any group of unelected technocrats were given a blank check to pass whatever laws they want.

I'm trying to say that if social scientists came up with a list of particular ideas that would save lives, and the politicians took that list and crafted laws that would accomplish the ideas of the social scientists, we wouldn't be very happy with the results. People don't think that way and would not be happy with the results, even if it meant that a lot of lives were saved.

Things like, say, banning tobacco and alcohol and transfats. Outlawing red meat. Mandatory GPS trackers on all cars, with a penalty if you drive less than 2 miles to a destination (walk, lazy-ass!). That sort of stuff.

I'm being a bit silly here, of course.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]For example, over 60% of Americans are in favor of a national handgun registry, something which the NRA crowd would deride as "draconian".

That may well be, but I think we both know that it would solve little if any crime. So it shouldn't be done simply because it won't work and it would waste money that could better be used by the police to stop more crime in other ways. If you asked a police chief "Hey, would you like a national handgun registry or 5% more police officers, either of which is paid for by federal funds?" the chiefs would probably pick the extra cops, because it would be more effective.