Banner
Would President Donald Trump Be Good For Science?

In USA Today, Dr. Alex Berezow and I ask what a Trump presidency might mean for science. The reason...

After Losing In Government, Environmental Groups Embrace The Free Market

Environmental groups, who ordinarily love centralized government and social authoritarian mechanisms...

What Environmental And Pro-Science Groups Agree On: Ending A Government Carbon Sequestration Facility

Friends of the Earth, an activism group generally devoted to impeding science and progress, is...

3 Reasons EPA Sided With Environmentalists Over Science On Methane

The Obama administration released new limits on methane emissions from oil and gas wells that are...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Alex Alanizpicture for Camilo Tabinas y Apita
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I'm the founder of Science 2.0® in 2006 and, since June of 2015, the President of the American Council on Science and Health.

Revolutionizing... Read More »

Blogroll
The federal government rarely succeeds in its attempts to legislate what I would call positive things - this is because the government has no power beyond restricting money and every effort to exceed that is met with resistance by constitutional scholars and states.

A progressive culture like the US wants more government whereas a liberal culture like the US wants freedom, and I would argue the best way to implement both goals is that, rather than attempting positive change (and failing - see American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Affordable Health Care for America Act) , government stick to punitive actions.
US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, according to a bold statement published in a BMJ press release.    The press release is about a paper called 'Retractions in the scientific literature:  do authors deliberately commit research fraud?' in the Journal of Medical Ethics.   How did he arrive at that conclusion?   Language and apparently poor understanding of statistics.
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had a life-changing event occur almost one year ago.   On November 19th, 2009, a thousand e-mail messages and documents, many his correspondence, were released to the public.

Many stressed that those messages were stolen(1), as if the process vindicated the content (would it do so if damning emails had been from Exxon or BP?) but that was small solace because climate science was already suffering backlash and climate science detractors had a field day alleging the entire process was tainted.
Blogging really only became a communications whirlwind when President George W. Bush was in the White House so, for the most part, science blogger outrage focused on his actions as President, and those of the Republican Congress.

Criticisms of Bush were so prevalent it seemed like Republicans must be anti-science because so many Democratic science bloggers said so (and there were no Republicans in science blogging to dispute it), with charges of reports being edited and various unpopular (and later, it turned out, not evidence-based) restrictions on areas like human embryonic stem cell research.
Let's be honest; life began on land.  I know, I know, that is blasphemy and Neil Shubin will stand on high and strike me down with my inner fish for saying such a thing, but while life began in water, life began on land.   

And that took land plants.  Thanks, embryophytes!

Generally, I have never cared much about plants.  I am kind of an anti-vegetarian in the sense that I don't eat plants, instead I regard plants as those things food eats in order to become bigger food.  I get the importance of plants scientifically, though.
Hurricane forecasts were way off again last year so if you're still wondering if a trained chimp 'can predict hurricanes better than NOAA'(1) a Nature Geoscience article has good news for you; forecasts can still be wrong 75% of the time but now can be wrong for years in advance too.