Obama's Science Research Articles

Four ways Trump could unravel Obama's science legacy

Four ways Trump could unravel Obama's science legacy

Budget 2017: Read our roundup of Obama's science funding requests

Budget 2017: Read our roundup of Obama's science funding requests

BUDGET 2016 COVERAGE: A roundup of Obama's science spending request

BUDGET 2016 COVERAGE: A roundup of Obama's science spending request

The bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and our gamble over Earth's future

The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future Paul Sabin New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2013, 304 pp. Yale historian Paul Sabin's The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future is worth a read because of its detailed tour through world of environmental doomsaying. Yet, in end, I was profoundly disappointed, consigning this book to my very large Cassandra File because Sabin endorses that doomsaying as expressed by dreaded global warming. The Bet is about a very public wager between economist Julian Simon and serial apocalypse predictor Paul Ehrlich (cosigned with John Holdren, President Obama's science advisor). Ehrlich bet that price of five key metals would rise between 1981 and 1990, and Simon bet they would decline (in constant dollars). Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong, but nonetheless continued, and continues, to enjoy a substantial public presence despite virtually none of his predictions coming true. Simon, who died in 1998, was very poorly compensated and couldn't even get University of Maryland to give him a secretary. He found it increasingly hard to publish in academic literature, and he was confounded by durability of environmental apocalypse meme. In 1995, he wrote in San Francisco Chronicle: After 25 years of doomsayers being proven entirely wrong, their credibility and influence waxes ever greater. Indeed. Ehrlich has been showered with goody-goody prizes around planet. He's still a staple on dinosaur media. Being fundamentally wrong has been very, very good to him, and being right bought Simon virtually nothing. Sabin is far too kind to Ehrlich. One of few criticisms comes at end: Most fundamentally, human history over past forty years has not conformed to Paul predictions. Sabin cannot bring himself to say what can be said with more economy of words, namely, Ehrlich's predictions were wrong. Further, he comes perilously close to blaming Simon for another end of world--that is, mother of all environmental scares, global warming. Sabin contends that the most pernicious current reflection of Ehrlich and Simon's clash is ongoing political impasse over climate change. That's kind of fatuous academic blather we've grown to expect from global warming crowd. Blame Julian Simon's bet. Heck, why not trot out Koch Brothers while you're at it? Blame anyone but dons of environmental science, who every interest to hype every issue. What a spectacular misreading of recent history. The reason that Senate didn't pass House's 2009 cap-and-trade bill isn't because of Julian Simon. It's because Senate staffers read polls. Three days after House passed that infamous bill, Scott Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot switched from Democrat to Republican. Given that index is a three-day running average, this was as close to a single cause-and-effect poll shift as it ever gets. Did Julian Simon cause this? Sixty-five seats in House went from Democrat to Republican in 2010 mid-term, as did control of chamber. Virtually every close race was lost by a Democrat who voted for cap-and-trade. In Senate, every close contest was won by a Democrat. Both houses voted for oxymoronic Affordable Care Act, but only one voted for cap-and-trade. While trotting out his glib explanation for failure of his preferred policy, Sabin bemoans generic failure of environmental hype. Conservative commentators, he notes, have warned of 'apocalypse fatigue.' Fact check: According to wordspy.com, I coined term, and I'm no conservative. As I said on CNN's Crossfire (February 10, 1992), I think problem, Larry, is that we keep on seeing this science by press release with these apocalyptic pronouncements. …

Is Any Science Safe?

This month, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) will apply two criteria in its review of research proposals: intellectual merit and impact. One discipline, however, will have to meet a further test. In March, at the urging of U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Congress halted funding for political science—“except for” research that the agency's director certifies as “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.” This extra test might not stop with political science. Representative Bill Posey (R-FL), in an NSF oversight hearing on 17 April, asked John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, why Coburn's two criteria were not “a good and proper filter” to apply to all NSF grants, eliciting this response: “… it's a dangerous thing for Congress, or anybody else, to be trying to specify in detail what types of fundamental research NSF should be funding.” * The United States has benefitted enormously from a government/science partnership carefully designed by Congress over many decades. There have been bumps along the way; it is challenging to reconcile scientific autonomy with Congress's responsibility for public funds. Coburn's “except for” clause is potentially a very large bump.

Obama's science advisers call for new initiative to spur advanced manufacturing in US

The federal government should create a multiagency advanced manufacturing initiative to help US industry regain its competitiveness, says a new report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

Eos Interviews John Holdren, President Obama's Science Advisor

With the Obama administration about to face a Republican‐led House of Representatives in January, presidential science advisor John Holdren sat down with Eos for an exclusive and wide‐ranging interview following a policy speech he delivered on 13 December at the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. During the interview, Holdren, who also is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), focused on the challenging congressional and budgetary environment, the administration's priorities related to the Earth sciences, and the responsibility of scientists in helping to communicate the societal benefits of science, educate the public, and improve science education and literacy.Holdren said the Obama administration's top priorities related to the Earth sciences include improving observations of the Earth, making progress in dealing with climate change, and rebalancing NASA's focus.

Climate Adaptation Summit report released

“We understand from the science that we have no choice between mitigation and adaptation. We have to do both,” John Holdren, President Barack Obama's science and technology advisor, said at a 29 September meeting where he was presented with a new report about national and regional preparations for adapting to changing climate. The report is based on the National Climate Adaptation Summit, which was convened by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in May 2010.

Obama's Science Advisers Look at Reform of Schools

Confident that its opinions will be welcomed by the Obama Administration, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has launched a study of how best to improve U.S. science education.

Progress for Obama's science diplomacy

Progress for Obama's science diplomacy

Europe plays catch-up to Obama's science drive

Europe plays catch-up to Obama's science drive

Senate confirms Obama's science team, while UK calls for strengthened nuclear nonproliferation treaties

Senate confirms Obama's science team, while UK calls for strengthened nuclear nonproliferation treaties

Obama's science team choices bode well for research funding

Obama's science team choices bode well for research funding