Bishop Hill Top weatherman slams partisanship among scientists
William Hooke, an associate executive director the American Meteorological Society has written an excoriating critique of his colleagues in Eos magazine, taking aim at scientists' constant demands for funding, the nannying of the public that pays their wages, and the jettisoning of political non-partisanship.
The complexity and costs of science have been growing. Urgent societal challenges (in education, environmental protection, foreign relations, maintenance of aging critical infrastructure, national security, public health, and more) demand quick fixes even as they compete with the funding for science. Society has asked scientists for more help, even as research budgets have remained relatively constant. Relations have been strained on both sides.
How have we faced these new stresses? Unfortunately, many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.
At the same time, particularly in Earth OSS, as we’ve observed and studied emerging natural resource shortages, environmental degradation, and vulnerability to hazards, we’ve allowed ourselves to turn into scolds. Worse, we’ve chosen sides politically, largely abandoning any pretense at nonpartisanship.
When people like Mark Maslin are telling the public that their research shows that collectivism is right, it's hard to argue with Dr Hooke.
Reader Comments (16)
Thanks for highlighting this.
First Mike Kelly, now William Hooke. Have we reached a tipping point..?
Right. Science has turned it's back on the right. Nothing to do with the right being creationist, climate denying ideological ignoramuses.
And yes, we have reached a tipping point, but not the one you think.
" Right. Science has turned it's back on the right. Nothing to do with the right being creationist, climate denying ideological ignoramuses.
And yes, we have reached a tipping point, but not the one you think."
You forgot about Flat Earthers......
Cue comments from the warmists - something like this:
"William Hooke is a well-known denier. He lies constantly, and eats babies for breakfast. The Koch Brothers pay his wages, and he is a secret supporter of the Tobacco Industry. He has shares in Big Oil, and once drove past a poster advertising a Tea Party meeting...."
What odd logic you have, Gubulgaria. Very simplistic, too; would be interesting to see your rationale behind your rant, and an expansion on your denouement.
"give us lots of money and don’t ask too many questions, and one day you’ll be glad you did." This comment hits the nail squarely on the head.
Too often when I press warmists on the lack of systems and co-ordinated progress, the argument is always 'but scientists have always worked this way'. I think they see themselves are the frontiersmen of knowledge and rules put in place to stop mistakes and fraud are for industry and mere mortals.
Seriously Gubulgaria, you'll have to try harder with your insults than that. You're on very dodgy ground with 'creationist' on a web site in a largely atheist country. Even the C of E isn't big on creationism.
"Gubulgaria"
Any relation to Uncle B..?
Overground, underground.....
'You forgot about Flat Earthers......'
......he forgot tax-dodging warmongers too.
Alas without right-wingers there wouldn't be enough money accrued to waste on these angst-ridden, soft sciences in the first place.
William Hooke is most certainly not a "denier", he totally failed to call out the truly awful 2012 AMS Statement on Climate Change, read his article on it here: http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=714
but also read the comment left by an AMS member:
"To say that I am disappointed in the just released AMS policy statement on climate change does not begin to cover my feelings. This statement is an advocacy document pure and simple. As far as I am concerned the Society sold out to the Forecast the facts organization and their ilk.
I find it very disheartening that this statement is intended for policy makers and has removed the section highlighted by Ms. Klicka that “AMS membership represents a diverse set of viewpoints that are difficult to capture fully in a statement that attempts to portray a unified voice.” Her observations why removing this statement in this policy statement are unpersuasive and expose her unrelated background. That the Council approved this statement is incomprehensible to me unless it is yet another sign that advocates have a vested interest at stake in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scenarios.
I am sure that soon the statement “Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions” will be politicized to the point that anyone with alternate viewpoints will be demonized. I have to ask myself whether I want to be part of an organization that would publish that statement without caveat and then claim that these statements literally “show how the AMS speaks”.
For the record I provided comments on the draft which were ignored completely.
Roger Caiazza, CCM"
...William Hooke is most certainly not a "denier", he totally failed to call out the truly awful 2012 AMS Statement on Climate Change...
He has denied the party in this. Consequently he is a denier, and he has always been a denier. he is a traitor, and must be re-educated before being exterminated.
“You are a slow learner, William."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, William. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
― George Orwell, 1984
I would like to see a public account of the travel agendas of these academics/scientists for the last, say, three years. The agenda would suffice. No need to declare if the flights were 1st class or the hotels/spas/resorts 5 stars.
Since I've long been an academic, I know something of how these agendas have evolved over time in certain fields. The public dissemination of this information would be an enlightening experience for many "civilians".
Essentially all public statements by scientists translate as "Gimme da money". Sad, innit?
Essentially all public statements by scientists translate as "Gimme da money". Sad, innit?