Slashdot Mirror
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist As Energy Secretary
bledri writes "Officials close to the Obama transition team say that
Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu is the likely candidate for Energy Secretary. Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough,
but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence.
Discuss among yourselves."
For the first time in *at least* 8 years, I am quite jealous of you US guys. If you ask me, people in senior positions are are not 'politically savvy enough' is *exactly* what the world needs right now.
It's dangerous to tear down someone who is vastly smarter than you, especially when they're right about something. The danger of doing it may temper some of the sillier political games.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Out of curiosity; do you think current politicians make good politicians?
So you'd prefer to see yet another career politician shoe-horned into a job which they are barely qualified to understand? I'd much rather see people who understand the implications of their policies. It's time to end the idiocracy and get on with fixing things.
Not really. Someone without political savvy won't see the games until it is too late. I hope that he does well, and that his experiences encourage this kind of meritocracy in the future. However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics. Let them provide him with the best courses of action, and let him go through the stupid political games to accomplish those. Of course, that requires a president who is willing to force their secretaries to listen to the academics. But if you are willing to appoint an academic to a cabinet post, then surely you are willing to make a cabinet secretary listen to his advisors.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.
So you mean this one can't?
Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments. These are things they may have found out before moving their eyes to this guy. I'm far from certain Obama in person looked at Nobel prize winners and said "Hey, let's try this guy!"
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That's Obamas job.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
we have to move beyond coal and oil, for all of the obvious environmental and geopolitical reasons. we can't keep dumping carbon into our atmosphere, we can't keep funding saudi wahabbism, russian neoimperialism, and venezuelan blowhards. the only we are going to do this is through science
so hopefully, we'll get the following out of washington dc:
1. more nuclear power plants
2. more funding for fusion research
3. now that we have nationalized the car industry, we put a gun to the heads of the fuckers and detroit and force them to make more, cheaper electric cars. force this on them as a priority
4. the infrastructure to allow for battery swapping nationwide
of course, the american consumer has to be dragged kicking and screaming out of his SUV and into a post-oil and coal future. so be it. the only person who is going to be the visionary to do this is a scientist. he has plenty of support in his bully pulpit role from those of us who "get it". we finally just elected an administration it seems that also gets it
where it= oil and coal need to go the way of history
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Chu must have reasonable political skills, as he the director of the Berkeley Lab, an organization with 4000 people and a budget of half a billion. The management of a scientific organization of this nature is usually quite challenging, if only because many of the people employed by it are (necessarily) independent-minded and headstrong. There is more back-stabbing in academic labs than in Washington DC.
Putting a scientist in charge of energy policy is a good idea. A factually justified, realistic energy policy is urgently needed.
Besides, during the last few years people in the public research departments have been demoralized by a political leadership that made it clearly felt that it couldn't care less about scientific data and factual reality. The DoE needs a leader who has the confidence of its staff. Chu could be that leader.
Plus he's got a Nobel prize. Do you realize how many scientists want that prize? I say that's his political qualification right there.
Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.
After seeing the corrupt and just plain old EVIL members of the senate and house, let along cabinet positions. If he does his job honestly he will be better than those that were in the position for the past 8 years.
Cripes we have people in other countries comparing Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein. And from some of his actions, I dont think a great scientist will have any problem doing a fantastic job in that position.
I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude to tell members of the congress and other parts of the government that they are flat out stupid when they make a suggestion that is absurd.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.
Try to put aside your prejudices and look at the actual facts on the ground.
If one were to draw a break between Secretaries of Energy, it ought to be drawn in 2004.
The Secretaries under Clinton and Bush's first term -- namely, Hazel O'Leary, Federico Pena, Bill Richardson, and Spencer Abraham -- were essentially a bunch of politicians and lawyers. They had little or no scientific or engineering background, and showed little interest in any matters far beyond politics or big business.
But the current Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was a professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. As a chemical engineer, his work had much to do with the practical side of energy technology. He's done a good job during the last four years.
Steven Chu is a Nobel prize winning physicist whose best known work is a technique for the supercooling of gases. As Director of LBNL, he must also have picked up quite a lot of administrative experience and political savvy.
They are both much more qualified and capable than their pre-2004 predecessors.
Certainly, there's a whole lot of skills there that he's not necessairly got. However he's not just some Nobel-winning basement-dweller as one might assume, he's got some serious credentials when it comes to organising and funding research efforts, which is a pretty substantial proportion of the DoE's work. I'm surprised there hasn't been a scientist of any kind in that position before.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer. Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line." Dell has always made good computers and was the leader in service. They have since moved the vast majority of those key advantage points out of the country and the result has made them less competitive. It is simply a bad business decision that has resulted in a loss of a loyal customer base. And I don't care what business school you went to, in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.
Placing experts in their fields in control of policy making is smarter than putting politicians in those seats for the very same reasons.
And to be fair, it is true that some people with one skill set may not often have others. But I have also known many technical experts ALSO have good skills with people. They are rare, but they exist. I work for an architectural firm. My CEO is an architect, not a marketer. He understands marketing and is also an outstanding speaker. But he will not compromise on quality nor on integrity because he sees clearly where that leads. And in today's business environment where construction is slowing and even halting, our office has work stacked up for the next two to three years to come. The reason for this is that he works and plans for the horizon and he has a reputation for taking very good care of his clients with non compromise in honesty or quality of work and he owns his mistakes completely. And yes, I thought he was too good to be true as well. But I have seen it all happen and there is no faking actions. My company has --zero-- debt. My CEO is a multi-millionaire. He is the unquestionable picture of success and he is an Architect, not a salesman.
I am not claiming that technical experts are ideal choices, but I will say that non-experts making decisions about things they don't fully understand is ALWAYS a mistake waiting to happen... and while the experts with social and political savvy are rare, they are not extinct. I've got one right here.
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
There's also the little matter of whether we should have such a thing as a Department of Energy in the first place.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency. That is especially so if he ends up being alone and politically isolated. This kind of thing takes different skills.
Because we all know, of course, that there are no politics in decision making at research facilities and educational institutions (or the research journals that help advance such careers).
Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
Probably somewhere in China or India.
Half of the world is there - statistically that is where the second coming should take place.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Well, administrating a company was considered a good enough proof of managerial and administrator skills even if a company is very different from a government agency. The result was that government agencies were managed like private companies. Now this man will probably manage a government agency like an educational and scientific institution. This will be different, that is sure, but how is this worse ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
He also has a Nobel prize and has become a moral authority on climate change and energy ever since his film, "Inconvenient Truth." He has deep experience in government and has done extensive thinking about energy and environmental policy. In short, he both knows what he's talking about and can get things done.
Perhaps Chu has that, too, but his lack of name recognition will constrain his effectiveness.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
If you mean what common parlance means by "politics" -- i.e. "getting elected"
If you mean "running a social unit, such as a state" then most of them suck.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
but all of the downside, including what you listed above, is not as big a downside as that of oil and coal
environment: we pollute our air
geopolitics: we fund our enemies
those two take the cake when compared to nuclear and electric being "messy" and all the other minor issues you list. especially regarding nuclear: lookup pebble bed reactors. we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years. nuclear is a no-brainer. the french and japanese have been doing it for decades, deriving most of their energy from nuclear
the french and japanese need to show the way to americans who, like you, seem to suffer from tunnel vision. it doesn't have to be oil and coal. we are using a suboptimal source for our energy needs. all of the downside to nuclear and electric do not stack up as much as the downside of oil and coal
and then we really need to master fusion, in a century, at least. because oil and coal sources are just going to get deeper and more expensive, and uranium and thorium sources aren't going to last forever either
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Just because someone has the ability to appeal to the majority of dumb voters does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Wait, what? Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols. Chu is one of the first appointments that more or less goes with the whole "change" mantra.
And another important point is that this appointment says quite clearly that Obama expects the DOE to use scientific methods and procedures as the basis for what it's doing. When you're charging an organization with the task of fixing the US energy problem, that's exactly what you want.
Imagine, if you will, a Department of Energy focused on keeping the oil, coal, and gas companies happy. Oh wait, you don't need to imagine that, because that's what we've had for several decades.
I am officially gone from
in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.
Yes, there is: making new ones.
where suburbs never developed, where cities remained small and compact, where we retained strong investment in our national rail and trolley infrastructure, you would have something valid to say about biking
but the automobile came and completely transformed our communities and how we live our lives. for the better? for the worse? doesn't matter. it's what happened. irreversibly
so now we are tasked with getting off oil and coal in the least painful way possible
oh sure, people will start biking more if gas goes to say, $100 gallon. but this is not an option for many people: the old, the out of shape, those who live in places that are very hot or cold, places that are very hilly, those who live 30 miles from their job, etc. that which works for the 25 year old marathon runner is not an option for most of us
of course the next step then is to see development patterns abandon the far flung suburbs model if energy sources remain difficult. but changing our lifestyles will take decades. it took decades to put us all in the suburbs, dependent on the car
but we just aren't going to abaondon the suburbs. people like their big houses, they don't like small cramped apartments. what will happen instead is people will simply use electric cars, and continue living in the suburbs. because when faced with the choice between:
1. abandoning the big house in the suburbs for a small city apartment and a bike on cold rainy days/ hot stifling days
2. using an electric car instead
people are going to pick #2, 99.9999% of the time
your doomsday scenario of everyone on bikes is just not going to happen. its not beijing, 1970. sorry to burst your fantasy bubble
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i suppose social darwinism is superior?
if a guy breaks his arm and is out of a job, what do you do? let him starve?
no, as a society you give him the healthcare he needs until he is back on his feet. are there those who abuse the system? welfare cheats? yes. so you find them and punish them
but because soomeone tries to cheat the system you'd prefer a world where society just lets people starve for the sake of setbacks in their life? setbacks we all suffer, including you?
where do you derive your support? are you very rich? do you have a lot of strong family ties? good for you! so someone who iw poor or has no family ties deserves to starve in the street? this is a superior moral or just plain logistical approach to the world in your eyes? really?
socialism is superior. wake up america
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If he is going to focus on using scientific methods and procedures an so on for policy recommendations, there no reason that the policy will move away from keeping the oil, coal, and gas companies happy. It will be most likely that any policy will favor them much more based around the scientific method then the politically religious methods of praying that 80+ year old tech will somehow becomes financially viable as well as reliable when it has failed to do that so far.
That's right, most of this alternative and green energy is surrounded by unscientific claims as well as exaggerations and a leading religious argument about the environment that can't be altered by human presence.
Don't mistake the cheer leaders as the players in the game. The oil, gas, and coal companies are in business because scientifically, they are the most productive and cheapest sources of energy. Add nuclear deregulation to the mix and it is most likely that making those techs cleaner is going to be more viable then anything else. In other words, you won't see any difference in policy.
you think some sort of agrarian utopia of everyone on bikes is superior? this is proof common sense has absolutely nothing to do with your thought processes. no, common sense says we simply modify our energy sources. we go nuclear, and we master fusion eventually (if we don't do that we ARE going to all be on bikes in a century or two)
the only future is more and more energy use. you seem to have this idea in your head that living large is wrong. no, the story of progress is more and more riches and energy use for everyone. we get temporary setbacks, certainly, but the only way to say your approach is superior is to abandon the notion of progress
everyone on bikes is akin to agrarian communist fantasies of everyone becoming farmers again. should we stop using lightbulbs too? candles? you're insane. its just not going to happen, it isn't superior, and to think everyone bikes is superior in any scenario is proof that common sense has nothing to do with you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.
You just described the vice president. And never was this description best fitted than in this case, with the VP being more experienced than the president himself.
I completely support the appointment of a Nobel laureate scientist to important govt positions. The problem is not the scientist's lack of political experience, the problem is the system - which is not just broken but fetid-rotten.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If someone in a government position takes the attitude that other politicians have no say because they aren't smart enough, I can guarantee that they will find themselves looking for employment fast.
This is not a post for a position at slashdot or some other anonymous forum where you can ignore something based on where it comes from or who said it. All the politicians- whether they are technically literate enough or not- have a constitutional obligation to have somewhat of a say at their discretion. If any appointed position attempts to take the position that the politician's voice in the matters don't count, they will be impeached and removed quite fast as well as finding their department underfunded severely.
This is why everyone is saying that it takes a politician to do man this position. The attacks will come from everywhere and they have to be very diplomatic in how they respond. If they are not, they will end up broken and ineffective like President Carter's administration and in the very next election, the people will run in mass to any opponent of the administration supporting these persons.
Having a politician do the job of a scientist is like having the politicians duties dip into scientific areas where the duties of the politician has expanded. You can't take the jobs of a politician away from them and expect to keep yours.
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.
One of these days when you grow up, try look past the last 8 years of your political awareness and look into the last 100 years of American history. Pay specific attention to the political portions of it and the Carter administration's push for increasing Nixon's alternative energy initiatives.
Then look at the entire taking from the poor and giving to the rich statement you made. See if you can justify it. I know you will fail trying now, but you won't understand why you failed until you learn a little more in life.
When I look at his appointments so far, I see three extremely respected economists, an absolutely superb and forward thinking Defense Secretary, a Nobel laureate for Energy, a woman with international recognition and appeal for State, a HHS secretary with a record of working for universal health care, and a tough bastard as CoS to push the agenda through. That's what I want.
I don't know what change you were looking for, but I'm happy.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
It's such a shame that he'll be unable to learn them, what with being such a notorious doofus.
We should instead continue to appoint loyal political apparatchiks who - as we all know - can pick up all that silly old "science" stuff overnight, should they ever feel the need.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
New laws always cause more crime (by definition).
To play devil's advocate, do we question whether politicians tapped for technologically related positions have enough scientific savvy?
Instead of appointing a politician who can listen to scientists, perhaps a scientist who can listen to politicians is a better idea for certain positions. Change we can believe in, anyone?
Plus Chu already has administrative credentials-- he is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab! He shakes hands, brings in money, makes deals, makes plans and gets the job done. What more could you possibly ask for?
I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer.
Such businesses don't usually last long. The reality is that you need both the inventor AND the marketer, as well as the salesman, the finance guy and someone to manage operations, and they should all be under the direction of someone who understands just enough of all of their jobs to make sure that every aspect of the business works -- which, unpleasant as it may be to geeks, means what you need is a person who knows business administration.
Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line."
Hmm. You started out talking about businesses run by marketers and here shifted gears to businesses run by finance. Which one are you complaining about? Marketing != finance, you know. It's also the case that marketing != sales, marketing != operations and marketing != administration. Marketing == marketing.
Dell has always made good computers and was the leader in service.
And now you shift again, to an example of a company that was founded on operations. Michael Dell was somewhat technical, but he wasn't an inventor. What he was really good at was designing and running a highly EFFICIENT assembly and distribution operation, allowing him to sell decent-quality, customized PCs at rock bottom prices. Oh, and he also did a decent job of marketing, sales and financial management, and as his company grew was able to make the transition to an effective administrator. No real invention, though; he didn't even invent his own business model -- just executed it very effectively.
My CEO is a multi-millionaire. He is the unquestionable picture of success and he is an Architect, not a salesman.
No, he's an architect, and an administrator, and maybe a marketer and salesman, too. Your company would not be so successful if he were a great architect, but a lousy administrator. You'd be better off with a great administrator who is not an architect. Better yet is to have someone who is both, of course.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So what you really want is the illusion of change. You want to see new faces, but don't care what actually gets accomplished. As for me, I want competent people who know how to get things done. I want action to meet the serious challenges this country faces.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But given the record high approval ratings we've seen for the Obama transition, I'd say most Americans see things my way.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
I think that having a scientist rather then an administrator is key for change in the Obama administration because it shows that people who actually know their fields will be chosen to lead them. Also, as a Nobel winner, he has been proven to be extremely intelligent and a good choice
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
I'd like to direct you to Dr. Chu's opening speech from UC Berkeley's California & The Future of Environmental Law & Policy event. While 45 minutes is far too short to go over everything (and far too long for a crowd that almost never bothers to RTFA), he addresses some of the points you make. This is from back in 2005 or so, I gather, but it's clear he has a good grasp on the challenges and potential solutions to be found. I can only imagine that he's refined his positions and proposals since then, but is the first related thing I found when I looked this morning. There's probably something more recent and relevant out there.
In any case, I applaud this choice. It sure beats the venture capitalist/CEO/treasury wonk we've got now (in his credit, he does have an Sc.D. in chemical engineering - but it seems like he's never used it, preferring to go into the financial sector instead). Before him, we had a law professor. Before that, someone who studied French/poli-sci/foreign affairs. Before that, another lawyer. I'm sure you get the idea... There has never been someone with anywhere near his credentials appointed to the job.
The costs of oil, coal, and gas start going up rather rapidly when you start factoring in the costs that are currently foisted on the public. Environmental damage, wars to take over oil fields, and drilling rights to name a few.
I am officially gone from
We're talking about the Energy Secretary. How much leading does that person do? What microphone are you talking about? Name two Energy Secretaries in the past 30 years (no cheating).
Let me explain something to you. After the U.S.A. developed nuclear weapons during WWII, they made a very smart decision, they decided that the potential destructive power of these weapons was far to great to entrust them to the military. Thus they created the atomic energy commission to be responsible for the weapons and development and to provide some checks and balances on the military industrial complex. The waste from nuclear power is goverened by the DOE as well, do you really want corporate america disposing of all your waste for you? Any sane person would look at how corporate america spends vast amounts of money to dodge responsibility for hard decisions and would say no.
All Carter did was roll this functionality as well as the nuclear power waste disposal into a single agency. As for the extended missions of alternative energy, I'd say we need someone to do this because private industry has been sitting on their ass for the last three decades and spending more time developing marketing campaigns about alternative energy than actually developing the energy sources.
I can't believe I bothered spending ten minutes writing this comment, libertarians are so blind, it's pathetic.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Wait, has anyone on this forum ever talked to Nobel Laureates in any sciences? Or read about them?
The vast majority (I'd ballpark it at 80% from completely non-scientific, anecdotal experience) of Nobel Prize winners IN SCIENCE are ego-driven megalomaniacs that are addicted to prestige and influence (since salary rarely goes into 7 digits for professors, its rarely the largest motivator). As such, they've dedicated their lives to feeding their addiction, working their way up from assistant professor to Director of [Weighty Gov. Funding Cash Cow], and navigating the political landscape comes as easily as breathing.
This is no surprise. In nearly any field, there are many more workers whose merit-based achievement qualifies them for advancement than open positions for advancement, so its the self-promoters who actually land the boss's job. Sometimes the value of the work is so strong it outweighs political maneuvering, but its the exception more than the rule. The fact is, every year there are a very limited number of Nobels to hand out, and MANY researchers who have done science of a caliber to deserve them.
The fact that Chu has a Nobel AND is a Director of a Gov. Cash Cow should indicate strongly enough his political experience. The only question remaining is whether he can transplant himself into a wholly new network of players in the politic game.
P.S. I've met Chu. He's a nice guy, and from my inexperienced scientist viewpoint, he's got what it takes to play with the big boys in Washington.
Thatcher also wanted to see fibre cable rolled out across the UK back in the 80s but was never given chance also.
Had she been allowed to push this through, the UK would've been a global leader in terms of broadband running alongside Sweden, South Korea and Japan in that area.
The decisions they made were really forward thinking and exactly the decisions needed to take the country forward, the downside is they also involved a lot of pain for many people, hence the reason she was overthrown. Sadly, these people are the people that somewhat deserve the pain- we're talking about people who believe the world owes them a job without them ever having to look for one, without ever having to change jobs, without ever having to retrain. These are exactly the type of people that have eaten away at the UK for over a decade now and are the people who overspend and have got us into such a financial mess.
But the Labour government still doesn't see this, they think no one is at fault, so they try and increase money available for loans, they try and reduce VAT to make people spend even more.
It's sad, because good politicians force people who aren't willing to play fair to play fair and that ultimately leads to their undoing whilst bad politicians protect the incompetent to keep their votes up or simply because they are themselves equally incompetent.
I'm not a Conservative by the way, nor would I ever vote Conservative or Labour. I'd just rather see people take responsibility for their lives somewhat and this is what Thatcher tried to make people do improving the country as a result whilst Labour has done the opposite, destroying the country as a result.
You hope the government fails because of a slashdot comment? Let me get this straight then, you want to "teach" the general public a lesson that scientists are fallible. In order to do this, you call for the failure of US energy policy through 2012. Nice plan.
You're deeply confused. "science" isn't going to make any decisions. Steven Chu is going to make decisions. From all accounts, he's a capable guy. I'll take someone with roots in physical science, a clear understanding of numbers, and the ambition to get stuff done over a clueless political gamesman any day of the week. I find irony in your description of "real policy" , as it sounds very similar, from my experience, to a description of "real research."
So you think a politician is better equipped to weigh long-term decision making in the realm of science, vs a scientist who might possibly understand the language, risks, methodology used in describing potential crises and future developement? Good luck with that. That's where we are today - crippled by the religion of politics where only the loudest hungry voice or needy lobbyist is heard. God forbid a person with knowledge earned is asked to weigh evidence and drive policy.
I think your exaggerating things quite a bit. I also think your doing it for your own self interest. First of all, environmental damages are already charged to the oil companies and spread across their costs. Unless your going to attempt to claim that some unseen damages are present because using oil does the same thing that being alive does- emite Co2, then there isn't really any costs not already covered. If you are going to invent a damage, the costs are still ofset by your ability to purchase products cheaper so you are already accepting and covering the costs yourself. As for wars to take over oil fields, Name one in the last 50 years where this has happened? And no, Iraq wasn't about oil, Saddam and Iraq wasn't hoarding their oil, they were forbidden to sell it except in controlled ways in which France and Russia were abusing for their own gain. Now that Iraq is under new and sovereign control, the oil is put on the free and open market and sold at market prices, not some secrete contract were we benefit. Drilling rights have little to no costs that aren't already covered either. There has been no major environmental or economic damage or costs that weren't already covered by the companies and taken care of in the last 30 or more years.
The costs of these are already figured into the costs of energy or the costs you pay at the stores. There is no advantages given to any oil product and there are no hidden costs that aren't already accounted for. When Oil jumped in prices it was nothing more then speculators using other people's money and when that source of money dried up, you can see what we were left with, oil selling for one third of the cost it was. But there are no hidden factoring of wars or unpaid for environmental claims or drilling rights and all. You need to look around a little more if you really think that way.
You're missing the point. In fact, the point that you got was the exact opposite of the actual point. We've had the One True Way for 8 years now. Evidence...hah! We don't need no stinkin' evidence, we already know we're right!
The scientist, having an understanding of the issues at stake, and the trade-offs in play, will be able to make informed decisions.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Many of you miss the point. Yes at one point Chu did science. But now he is an administraitor at one of the biggest labs in the contry. He has spend his later years working for energy related issues
we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years.
By the way, that's another way of phrasing "waste that is 50 times as radioactive".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think its more likely that Steven Chu was chosen to head the Department of Energy because he is an effective current administrator of a major Department of Energy research facility who, in that role, has done lots of work (including establishing partnership with outside entities) on policy issues that are important to the President-Elect than because the President-Elect views scientists as a mystical priesthood and Chu as the priest most in touch with the deity "Science".
Chu is a Nobel laureate, but he's not just a Nobel laureate.
well, part of the reason it's broken is because we have career politicians/lawyers/corporate executives running everything. i think one of the smartest moves made by India as a society was to elect a scientist as president. and while that may never happen in the U.S., having science-related cabinet positions filled by scientists is the next best thing.
in itself this may not fix all of the problems inherent to our political system, but it will at least put people who have some intelligence & integrity in positions of power. also, by putting policy decisions in the hands of scientists/academics rather than conventional politicians, you introduce the possibility of change/reform for the first time. otherwise, if every government official fits the same mold of the archetypal politician you're just setting yourself up for more of the same.
the idea that someone needs to be a career politician who knows how to "play political games" in order to be a good politician is patently false. you might need to be experienced in making backroom deals, giving kickbacks, pandering to interest groups, etc. in order to sleaze your way up to the top in politics, but if someone is simply being appointed straight to the top, then that clearly isn't requisite anymore. and in this case it would indeed be better to appoint a non-politician who hasn't been corrupted by years of being in Washington (and political fund-raising) and will not compromise their morals so easily.
I look forward to the day when people like you, who seem to hate scientists for no reason other than that they study science, are proved wrong.
When people who hate smart people for being smart are somehow put in their place.
When it is no longer okay to claim that dumb people are somehow more honest than smart people.
Oh wait - Obama got elected. Maybe we're okay after all. :)
world has seen LITTLE benefit from political savvy people up till today, since the DAWN of civilization.
sorry, your concern is bullshit, because apparently you dont know much about world history, leave aside political history.
to be able to be political savvy, you have to be a politician in profession. which, leaves little room for anything else. you end up basically being a tricky bastard that can get his way by compromising whatever they can, and in the end this profits noone but the politician and the interested party.
noone here can name 5 cases in which politically savy people did great good for the betterment of mankind. i dare you too.
Read radical news here
Someone hasn't heard of the Flobots.
The gas and oil industries are not lobbying against the development of alternative energy. They are lobbying against laws mandating their use instead of traditional energies. Oil and Gas dind't care when hydro power is being installed, they didn't care when nuclear power is being use, what they care about is a law that put them out of business because it mandate the use of something else. That is not lobbying against the development, that is lobbying against unfair disadvantages. There is nothing stopping the development of alternative energies and the oil and gas industries are funding a lot of research into them because they have the infrastructure set up to deliver it.
Do you realize that the so called alternative energy technology has been around and developing for almost a century or more? Solar cells date back to the late 1800's wind energy was in use in the 1930's and 40's until cheaper power sources started making it to rural homes. Methanol and ethanol alcohols have been around and in use long before that. The otto engines originally ran on different alcohols (coal gas contained methanol) but was later adapted to run on gasoline which was a by product of kerosene. The Diesel engine was originally introduced running on coal dust then Kerosene which later became diesel (names after the diesel engine's creator) which turned out to be a more practical use.
Wow.. I didn't realize how many people are truly drinking the coolaid. First, there is no more proof that global warming is causing natural disasters then there is for God creating the world. Natural disasters have always been here, always will be, and will always be random in their appearances as well as strength and/or devastation. I'm not even sure how you can say that with a straight face. Second, I have yet to see any wars over oil. You can repeat the notion that a war is for oil but it doesn't make it so. There has never been a quid pro quo established indicating that any war was over oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait because of claims of slant drilling, we didn't go in because Kuwait was had oil but because Kuwait had long be an ally of the US and in fact, our relationship with Iraq before this can be traced back to Kuwait and their fear of Iran invading them. Only if you close your eyes to everything else relevant, can you make the claim of war for oil (at least where the US is concerned).
Finally, we have enough oil to last several hundred years that we know of. It's possible that there are more deposits that we don't know about. The problem is that it will become increasingly difficult to get to it so unless breakthroughs and advancements happen, it will start getting really expensive. This is the only thing that lend truth to your comment on the viability of oil. Of course there is the problem with peak oil theory in that as soon as advancements make the extraction of oil easier, the peak moves and people don't like moving it because it turns their true statements of a year ago into fallacies of today.
Where are my mod points? Your final paragraph cut to the heart of the matter. Here's hoping you're right!
Not that scientists are clueless about politics, or immune to the sweet charms of petty backstabbing. But I suspect that a Nobel laureate would be (or at least feel) mostly above politics within a domain that is still, whatever else it is, a meritocracy first. I hope he realises that government politics isn't, and finds a way to be intelligent without being an idiot.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
But that's somewhat my point, you stress that he lost his lifelong job- why should anyone expect to have a lifelong job if their job becomes obsolete? Why should everyone else be expected to subsidise these industries just because these people have an expectation of a lifelong job without ever having to reskill or retrain?
Certainly part of the disagreement is a generation thing, people nowadays on average apparently change career 4 times in their working life but I still can't help but feel it's naive to expect you can just sail through life doing the same thing without ever having to put any effort in keeping your skills relevant.
I also don't see the issue with destroying our manufacturing base when there's absolutely no way our workforce could compete with Eastern countries in this area (Singapore, Taiwan at the time, nowadays India, mainland China) in what was and still is and increasingly global economy. Again, should other people work hard and pay to subsidise an industry that's no longer profitable or irrelevant just because the people in that industry don't feel they should have to adapt and keep their skills uptodate?
Ironically, I live on the Wakefield/Barnsley border so I know the communities all to well that were hit hardest and meet many people who were there at the time and as you say, I shouldn't generalise because there are two classes of these people- there are those who never bothered to retrain who are sat living off handouts to this day and there are those who got past it who did bother to retrain and are now working in other areas.
Perhaps the only mistake Thatcher made in this situation was not making more effort to help these people retrain but again, if you were laid off today because the industry you work in became irrelevant you have to ask, would anyone help you retrain? Would you expect everyone else to pay for you to keep your job? The same problem exists in France with it's heavily subsidised farming industry and it really hurts their economic potential.
While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
Wrong. Give me a cost function and I'll tell you which policy is best. Yes, I gave you all the hard work there, but a scientist--and apparently no politician--will clearly see that the costs are arbitrary (or axiomatic, perhaps), but that the probability distribution of various outcomes can be measured, integrated, and the plan with the best chance of success pulled out. It's not rocket science--it's rather more complex than that--but it is well enough understood to be very powerful.
I don't think the general public has the delusion you describe. I would say rather that the general public seems to think that God provides the One True Way, that science is the enemy of God, and that therefore science must claim the same thing and be wrong. Am I nit-picking? The result is about the same...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.
.
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that there is some sort of One True Way.