What Americans Really Want: Science, Candidates, Debates



I created some graphs that re-display the poll's results in a slightly different, and simpler, way than the original poll.






More like this

The latest publication of Issues In Science And Technology features an article I co-authored with ScienceDebate CEO Shawn Lawrence Otto. We discuss building the ScienceDebate2008 initiative, lessons from the election, and what's needed to create an environment where the public's understanding and…
In 2008, I was visiting the Nobel Conference held annually at Gustavus Adolphus college in Minnestoa. The conference was on Human Evolution. The college provided space in a large room for people to have their lunch, and while I was having lunch on the first day, I noticed a table off to the side…
Chris already listed several amazing new signatories who joined ScienceDebate2008 and now we can finally announce the most exciting news yet! NEW YORK - A Republican and a Democratic member of the United States Congress, who are each also scientists, are leading an effort to push for a presidential…
Yes! "A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology." Imagine a presidential debate focused solely on issues of science and technology as they relate to medicine, international competitiveness, terrorism, public health, embryonic stem cell research, bioethics of genotyping and other…

I have my doubts about science. And not only regarding US-Americans, but regarding the whole mankind.

I see no connection between what Science informs us of and how mankind operates (including any select geo-political subgroup)...


But, really, what DO you mean???

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Oct 2015 #permalink

I am afraid of the people who answered "Not important" to the question about the USA Congress and president being informed by and about science.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 13 Oct 2015 #permalink

They were probably Tea Bagger types, who want to eliminate the government, and hey, might as well ignore science and return us to a standard of living equal to that of the early Bronze Age. "A simpler life" which seems to appeal to them. (Less to keep track of intellectually? Something they require?)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Oct 2015 #permalink

Yes, everyone (nearly) wants politicians to act based on science. The problem is people don't look at science through an unbiased lens but a partisan one. They have desired outcomes and seek out science to justify their desires.

I mean, does anyone really think 80-90% of Republicans want government action to combat global warming? Of course not. They want their opponents to recognize the "real" science that shows that global warming isn't happening, will be good, etc., not the "phony" science of corrupt environmentalists and socialists.

It's jarring to see that for






That is not selfish; that is human nature.

The Bush 2 administration worked hard to indoctrinate the American public into thinking that "International Terrorism" is the most pressing issue they face -- and to be scared, to be very scared by it.

So that they could position themselves, their agenda, and their ideology as "The Solution", and dupe the public into throwing votes and money their way.

Propaganda works! (tm)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Oct 2015 #permalink

Dan #7:


You are absolutely correct!




A carbon tax just artificially attempts to make alternative energy cheaper - but humans will just figure out a way around that. Because you are right - that is human nature.

Remember the Italians (or was it the Spanish?) who used electricity at night to operate floodlights to generate solar power - because the subsidy granted was greater than the cost of electricity to generate solar power!

Human nature.

The problem is we haven't invented the solution yet.

Hopefully we will.

The other option is scarcity will drive up the cost of hydrocarbon power until alternative energy is cheaper - that will work also (once we run out of hydrocarbon sources).

Of course, history is full of cases of people coming up with useful inventions to solve society's problems... Only to fail because of lack of political will to implement their solutions.


RickA, you "+1" Dan who said, "The best way to get people [to ______] is to make it in their financial interest to do so" and then you immediately (and conveniently) discredit him by retorting, "but humans will just figure out a way around [attempts to make alternative energy cheaper]".

To paraphrase you, "The problem is we haven’t found the political solution yet."


That's what you "need to invent".

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Oct 2015 #permalink

Brainstorms #10:

Denial isn't really relevant.

If something is cheaper than oil, coal and natural gas - it will be used, without regard to whether people believe in CAGW or not.




It is like trying to fall up - it is very difficult and unnatural.

It is much easier to fall down.


This is a problematic claim on so many levels...

Let's start with humoring you and say there are two groups of people: those who do not believe in "CAGW", and those that do. The latter group will realize that their 'belief' means that oil, coal and natural gas are priced *artificially low*, as they do not include the hidden costs of fossil fuels (damages due to "CAGW"). The former group, not believing there is any "CAGW", will not consider there are any hidden costs, or at least much fewer (they may accept particulates and mercury emissions as an issue). This has a major impact on evaluation of the true costs and thus choices that are made (but see also below).


If humans were so economically rational, we'd e.g. have stopped eating beef a very long time ago. The only thing that beef does is give people a short-term "fix". From a nutritional point of view there are much cheaper options.

Marco #12:

I actually gave two options. #1 - invent something cheaper now. #2 - wait for shortages in hydrocarbons to cause prices to rise to the point where alternatives are cheaper.

And while the occasional person or two will buck the trend - in the aggregate people will act rationally (economically).

No - stopping beef consumption is not considered rational by consumers (in the aggregate).

Sure - you can make the case that eating beef is irrational - but you haven't convinced the vast majority of the world of this yet.

Take a look at meat consumption in China.

It is rising dramatically.

Why? Because more people can afford it.


What might be the top science-based challenge in
- healthcare,
- innovation,
- the economy?

By See Noevo (not verified) on 14 Oct 2015 #permalink

As if people haven't been trying to "invent something cheaper now" for decades.



And oh yeah, wind and solar have also received billions in government research funding, which people who don't accept reality of global warming are adamantly opposed to (Solyndra, anyone?)

And waiting for prices of fossil fuels to rise drastically will take even longer, especially because we're actively subsidizing them as well (another political problem).

"The way people spend their dollars defines what is rational to people."

Interestingly, this means you accept that choosing the cheapest option is not a given...which then contradicts your earlier suggestion that the cheapest energy source *will* be chosen.

He's a ball of contradictions. Typical of someone trying to sell an agenda of nefarious intent.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 14 Oct 2015 #permalink

Larry #!5:

I never said it would be easy - just that if we could invent cheaper energy, it would be easy to switch from hydrocarbon to non-hydrocarbon.

Marco #16:

I never said everybody always picked the cheapest option - just that in the aggregate that is what people do.

I am sure there are a few people who mail in more federal taxes than they owe - but most people pay what they owe, and not a penny more.

Not many people pay extra to their electric company to cover the externalities - most just pay what they owe.

I have no agenda - I am just trying to inject a little common sense into pie in the sky thinking.

... most just pay what they owe.

Nope. The problem is, most people (successfully, and for various reasons) evade paying "what they owe". I.e., the "true cost" of what they're buying/buying into.

This goes hand-in-hand with denying that this is what's going on. (As I'm sure you're about to join in on and illustrate adroitly...)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 14 Oct 2015 #permalink

Brainstorms #19:

Yep - you nailed it.

In my opinion the "true cost" of something is what is on the bill.



What will the rational person do?



Because people (in the aggregate) will always do what is cheapest. If natural gas and fuel oil is made more expensive than wood - people will heat with wood.

Will that externality be priced in? Nope.



Hydrocarbon based electricity provides a lot of benefits - do those get priced in? Nope.

So you are right - I do disagree with you about the "true cost" of what people are buying.



When one factors in status and other intangibles - meat or nike may indeed be the cheapest option.

But if everybody will always choose the more expensive option, due to their altruistic nature - why do we need laws to make cheaper things more expensive?

Problem solved - just need a tiny bit of education and whamo - everyone will do what you perceive as the rational thing.



That is, the simplistic view of "we humans choose the cheapest" is in reality "we choose the one we like best, and arguments for or against may include the direct costs, but this is far from a given".

A good example is given by the Danes, who obtain a significant proportion of their energy from wind turbines. Many Danes accept the associated increased price, because of 'green' thinking ("intangibles"), others accept it because it includes a substantial subsidy for local industry (Vestas), another form of 'intangible' benefit, and some like it because it makes Denmark less dependent on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia (yet another 'intangible' benefit). At no time point has anyone ever used the argument that it is cheaper now, although some have stated that a benefit may well be that it becomes cheaper somewhere in the future.


Well shit, look at what USA citizens pay for via taxation--- six trillion USA dollars is the latest estimate on what the Bush2 Regime's invasions will cost just the USA, not counting nearly one million dead people and the loss of wealth production.


By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Oct 2015 #permalink

In reply to by Marco (not verified)

Baa! Baa-baa!

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 15 Oct 2015 #permalink

Ric A,

You can't win here. You espouse realism, but this blog is dedicated to fantasy perception is reality.

Like, the blog rules that Mark Steyn is going to be crushed, Reality is, Steyn was worried at the outset, but when given the choice to issue a retraction and avoid legal harassment,or not, and be destroyed, he inventively rejected the harassment, and then made millions proving his position. Mann loses. Which could have been predicted from his 5-year bachelor's degree from Berkeley with only a B+ GPA, getting his first paper in engineering, getting admitted to second-tier Yale physics, then dropping down to Geology, taking 14 years from college matriculation to his PhD, granted by Yale, for work done at U Massachusetts. (Yale said, "we can't give him a PhD done for research done here at Yale, but UMass work deserves a PhD from us."


Doing your PhD-completing research at U Massachusetts, are you serious? Did you read, Mann, Bradley and Hughes--coauthors at UMass, and U Arizona, accepted before Yale gave Mann a PhD? Where is Mann's research-supervising Yale research advisor on this paper?


By Mark Schooley MD (not verified) on 18 Oct 2015 #permalink

Mark, how did you become such a blithering idiot?

If you've been reading this blog the past couple of months, you know: Practice!

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 19 Oct 2015 #permalink


If we were faced with an epidemic that left unchecked would kill off a substantial part of the population, we wouldn't count pennies or say that we shouldn't act until we develop an effective vaccine. We wouldn't wait for market solutions. We would expect our common voice, the government, to do whatever it could.



Moreover, the Danish investment in green technology isn't just a matter of cheaply produced electricity and low carbon heating. It also provides us with a significant number of well-paying jobs and increasing export revenues:

Eksporten af energiteknologi sætter rekord

(Export of energy technology sets record

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 19 Oct 2015 #permalink