Comments on: 61 Nobel Laureates can’t be wrong

By: Lo que la victoria de Obama puede significar para la Ciencia « La Singularidad Desnuda

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:08:51 +0000

[...] hubo una clara toma de posición de numerosos grupos científicos a favor de Obama. Por supuesto, ganar el premio Nóbel no otorga omnisciencia, aunque algo de clarividencia si es de [...]

By: JS

JS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:19:00 +0000

if you happen to be a physicist and support Obama:

http://picasaweb.google.com/combopak/PhysicistsForObama#5260612642253420450

By: David McMahon

David McMahon — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:18:42 +0000

For the record, I already did “absentee voting” and voted for Obama. That being said, I couldn’t care less what “Nobel Laureates” endorse. Nobel prize winners are just ordinary people like I am, and because they happen to be successful at some obscure scientific calculation or measurement, that doesn’t mean their judgment in political or life affairs has any relevance or carries any more weight than say, Sarah Palin. Scientists need to get over their arrogance.

By: 15 seconds of fame | Cosmic Variance

15 seconds of fame | Cosmic Variance — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:50 +0000

[...] In two weeks the United States will pick a new President. This is certainly one of the most important elections in recent memory. We are a nation facing economic and environmental catastrophe. And although these issues are clearly linked to science and technology, the voices of scientists are, as usual, somewhat muted (notwithstanding 67 Nobel Laureates [including all of this year's American laureates] endorsing Obama). [...]

By: Back to Politics… « blueollie

Back to Politics… « blueollie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:32:42 +0000

[...] Personally, I like it that we have a smart person at the top of the ticket and I love it that 61 Nobel Prize winners in science have endorsed him. [...]

By: George Smiley

George Smiley — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:24:57 +0000

Eugene @ 11: I should be more explicit. You don’t know the quantum efficiency of Nobel endorsement. That is, you don’t know the rate at which Obama-supporting Nobel laureates are willing to sign an endorsement letter. Perhaps the quantum efficiency is only 56%, and they all support Obama…

By: George Smiley

George Smiley — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:20:30 +0000

Eugene @ 11: Gell-Mann is now a signatory, and the overall list is now up to 65 Nobel Laureates, with 50 living U.S. Laureates not having signed. At least one of these is unable to sign (or abstain) due to health issues, and there is not a comparable letter signed by McCain supporters.

By: clazy

clazy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:35:41 +0000

Looks like I messed up the first link. Go here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07303/pdf/tab38.pdf

By: clazy

clazy — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:34:44 +0000

Actually, 61 Nobel scientists are wrong. The letter says: "During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support." I suppose it's arguable that "parts" have been damaged, but the letter doesn't offer any specifics that would allow me to determine how "vital" they are, and the fact is, R&D funding has increased massively over the entirety of the Bush administration. The last few years have been lean, but in the first several, the numbers doubled on both the civilian and defense side. You can see the figures for yourself here and here. The whining of these guys is embarrassing.

By: mathematician

mathematician — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:26:22 +0000

I have ZERO confidence that science will improve in America with Obama being president. Obama’s education platform is nearly identical to that of McCain’s, except Obama is determined that keeping kids in failing schools is worth it as long as kids don’t have to be subjected to the horror of daily prayers going on in private schools. That, and he wants more money for the epic failure that is no Child left behind.

And I still don’t see any discussion on either side about getting more American students into math, physics, engineering programs. More than likely with both candidates we will continue the proud tradition of being the world leader in entomology, ecology, and evolutionary biology – and continue being the laughing stock when it comes to sciences that actually matter.

By: 62 Nobel Prize Winners endorse Obama-Biden - US Message Board

62 Nobel Prize Winners endorse Obama-Biden - US Message Board — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:22:36 +0000

[...] a more direct link: 61 Nobel Laureates can’t be wrong | Cosmic Variance Probably doesn’t help McCain-Palin to believe fossils are a myth or that we walked the earth with [...]

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:56:55 +0000

If Palin gets elected along with John Mccain… ati-science will be taught in our US schools. My job as a scientist will last for a while, but we will slowly be ostracized from academia because of the rise in teaching whatever comes to your mind. Call it “intuition” or “instinct” – most of these impulsive reactions are not grounded in reality and do not seek truth. They are impulsive, and thought by misguided minds, which provide the illusion that it is ok anyway, because if someone can think of things, then it is clear that it is correct. Wlecome to the post-modern world folks… we are consumed with stupidity… it is all around us… watch the movie “Idiocracy.”

By: Who is supporting Barack Obama? « blueollie

Who is supporting Barack Obama? « blueollie — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:42:45 +0000

[...] is supporting Barack Obama? Who Supports Barack Obama? 1. 61 Nobel Laureates (all whose prizes were in medicine, physics or [...]

By: Sean_M

Sean_M — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:27:05 +0000

Lawrence, I think I mentioned before that I am for conservation (ie making sure we dont’ tear things down at a rate faster than they can be regenerated). A specific example where we need to do some work is the area of overfishing.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, you must be aware of the fact that there are vast untapped energy resources still available to us in the form of raw sunlight, nuclear fuels, and even the lowly fossil fuel. Again, if we are unable to gain additional energy, the system will adjust (population and technology decrease).

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:37:05 +0000

When it comes to the planetary biosphere there are just two things to keep in mind. The first is that the rate we are tearing it down is simply faster than natural open systems can regenerate things. The second is just the second law of thermodynamics: dS/dt >= 0. The obvious problem is that we do not know what maximum entropy is and when we will reach it. Yet it is bound to happen sooner or later. When that happens Homo sapiens will share the same status as T-rex and the dodo bird.

Lawrence B. Crowell

By: Sean_M

Sean_M — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:36:56 +0000

Lawrence, I guess I’m just not convinced the situation on spaceship earth is that dire…

Count Iblis, it appears to me that each party is expert at creating the illusion of imminent disaster where there is none. Maybe I’m just jaded and maybe it will blind me from seeing true disaster staring me in the face. I’m just a real skeptic when it comes to long term predictions of complex systems like weather, climate, economics, and society.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:54:04 +0000

The problem with the conservatives is that they want to decide for themselves what the alarming issues should be. Global Warming cannot be an alarming issue for conservatives, because the measures that we would need to tackle that issue contradicts their ideology.

If the conservatives feel strongly about some issue, like attacking Iraq, they’ll invent a story to make it seem to be an alarming issue, like e.g. WMDs and the prospect of a mushroom cloud over New York.

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:04:43 +0000

It is interesting you keep bringing up corn ethanol. BTW 10 years ago I had arguments with environmentalist friends over bio-energy. I did some calculations to show how the bio-energy planetary system could never be put to the task of powering our technology. Secondly, it was not Congress who thought up corn based ethanol. Congress only legislated for this after considerable lobbying done on behalf of Cargill, ADM and others who made $billions from it.

As for environmental issues, the problem is extremely dire. The main uncertainty is the time frame involved. In general it would be irresponsible for the crew of a spaceship to start pulling out systems and components in order to fashion entertainment systems. I think anyone would agree. If I were on that ship I would try to kick their asses to make them stop. I might not know how long before the spaceship would have some critical failure, but eventually that will happen. This is Earth writ small. We face much the same problem with tearing up the life support system on our “spaceship.”

Lawrence B. Crowell

By: Sean_M

Sean_M — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:28:28 +0000

Come on Lawrence, is it really silly to ask what the extent of a problem is and what is the most cost effective way to handle it???

As far as resource depletion, I think a combination of market forces and good policy work could definitely handle the problem. The market has a better past record than Congress (corn based ethanol) in that area.

What is your solution to these potential problems? How is Obama going to save us all from imminent destruction?

BTW, I don’t claim to understand the recent financial market fiasco enough to place any real blame if blame is even warranted? Time will tell if it was the result of some government regulation or lack thereof, an inevitable market correction, media/public hysteria, or some other force in the realm of economics. I do think alleviating the current energy crisis by whatever means necessary will go a long way in helping our economy and our economic confidence. It does seem to me that confidence is a strong force in the economy and I know cheap plentiful energy can’t hurt either!

By: Lawrence B. Crowell

Lawrence B. Crowell — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:46:43 +0000

Sean_M:

It appears that with your discussion on global warming that you have bought the whole GOP approach to it, which is now silliness about the cost of working on it being worse than the problem. These issues of resource depletion and environmental collapse are not going to be handled in any rational market adjustment scheme. It will no more happen than free market ideology has proven very workable with the investment or derivative markets, where now the once proud free marketeers and Wall streeters are scurrying behind the skirts of Washington DC.

I suspect the question to my mind is which of the two movies “On the Beach” or “Soylent Green” will turn out to be the most accurate depiction of how our species is shitcanned off this planet.

Interesting, while writing this Jimi Hendrix doing “Along the Watchtower” came on the radio.

Lawrence B. Crowell