Global leaders do not understand science

[ajb]

We all know that Trump has said some strange things about global warming, including it is a Chinese hoax to perturb US industry. His latest on twitter includes

 

'It's freezing outside, where the hell is "global warming"?'

 

Now, I think that it is not important that our leaders underststand global warming, but it is important that they listen to those experts that clearly do know. Trump of course has gone beyond not understanding and has landed in the crack-pot bin.

 

What are your thoughts in general on our leaders understanding science?

[swansont]

Justin Trudeau seems to be doing OK.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-17/justin-trudeau-explains-quantum-computing/7332904

 

Or at least he was well-briefed

https://twitter.com/orzelc/status/721147216879054848

[John Cuthber]

Former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, though her policies suggested that she may have been a failed human, had a chemistry degree from the University of Oxford.

The current PM- whose policies are worse, has a degree in philosophy politics and economics, also from Oxford.

 

Sounds like dumbing down to me..

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hmm... yes, the similar happened to priests and monks that were once above-average educated.

 

 

...but it is important that they listen to those experts that clearly do know.

I don't know what do you mean by 'clearly', but I don't think it is easy for a person without science education to understand who talks rubbish and who talks real deal. There are only two ways out, imo: a) to increase general population science education level, and b) to create infallible group of science people that others can ultimately trust... I have seen politicians asking experts for advice, only to be asking wrong experts.

 

(Regarding Trump in particular, I am starting to think that his 'dumbness' is not genuine. He makes too few mistakes. A scary thought.)

[John Cuthber]

It is, to be fair, unrealistic to expect all our politicians to be sound scientists.

The best that we can do is expect them to listen to the views of those who do understand it.

So the question is; how well are they doing that?

 

And the answer- at least in the UK at the moment- is that they are deliberately sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lah lah la I'm not listening".

 

Yes, really, they have explicitly pointed out that they do not want scientists to speak on such things.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements

[Bill Angel]

After graduate studies in nuclear physics at Union College in Schenectady, New York, Jimmy Carter was selected by Admiral Hyman Rickover to serve as engineering officer of the Sea Wolf, America's second nuclear submarine.

President Carter was not awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, but was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2002.

[Phi for All]

These politicians have a lot of PTPB (People To Pay Back), and a lot of those people don't want environmental regulations at all. I don't think it's a case where these politicians aren't listening to the expert consensus, it's that the other voices are louder, or at least more profitable.

 

Without those lobbying voices in their ears, I think they'd side with the professional experts that are trained to be aware of such things.

 

I keep thinking about what the Clintons have done to earn money since Bill left office. They were supposedly broke and in heavy debt in 2001, yet now they're worth millions. And from what I've read, the wealth came from speaking engagements to some of the very groups that would lose profit if tighter carbon regulations were in effect, if they were made to stop polluting our environment.

[Prometheus]

Angela Merkel is a published scientist with a PhD is quantum chemistry. I know little about German politics: it would be interesting to learn whether she is known to have a more sympathetic ear to scientists than other politicians.

[iNow]

I don't think it's a case where these politicians aren't listening to the expert consensus, it's that the other voices are louder, or at least more profitable.

This closely mirrors my take on the situation. I don't have enough information to comment on politicians understanding of science. I do have enough information, however, to know whether or not their actions align with or ignore that science.

 

In the end, their knowledge of science doesn't matter to me. What matters is how they act, what they support, and which advisors to them hold the most sway.

[Willie71]

Some politicians are simply doing the bidding of the donors, but the evangelicals and dominionists truly believe God controls the environment, not man. It's a scary thought.

[CharonY]

Angela Merkel is a published scientist with a PhD is quantum chemistry. I know little about German politics: it would be interesting to learn whether she is known to have a more sympathetic ear to scientists than other politicians.

 

In Germany the whole thing is usually a bit more obscure. There is a general fear of getting ridiculed (it seems) and you will see relatively few definitive statements from politicians that could nail down their position very strongly. A bit goes for the scientists, too. They tend to be less politicized than what I have seen e.g. in the US. However, if there is a consensus in the scientific community, you will generally not see a politician openly doubting it. It does not mean that they will react to it, as in Germany many decisions are actually made in closed meeting and are not that heavily publicized. While this could also be said to US politics, in the US politicians are far more to comment on the whole stuff, where in Germany they are much evasive and profilless. Partially this is a consequence as for the most part the votes go to parties rather than individuals. Although there are also direct votes, few people actually no the people and they also hardly advertise.

As such the politics is built around party consensus more than anything else.

Edited April 18, 2016 by CharonY

[studiot]

Thanks, Bill Angel and prometheus, I didn't know that about J. Carter and Merkel. +1

 

John Cuthber, yes M. Thatcher was a graduate chemist and whilst she may have done much to offend, she was in the forefront of restoring the ozone layer by controlling CFCs.

I put that down to the science element of her background, rather than the grocery element.