Comments on: Obama’s endorsement of science — and what it means for the West

By: SantaFeScribe

SantaFeScribe — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:38:58 +0000

I'm hearing from documentaries (such as “Flow”) and other sources, just as CA. is predicted 20 years off from no water, New Mexico is 10 years! New Mexicans need to know if this is a fact — or factiod — pronto, as what's the plausible scientific limits we must take seriously in determining our water policy.
Can any of readers give some references on this question?

By: SantaFeScribe

SantaFeScribe — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:38:58 +0000

By: SantaFeScribe

SantaFeScribe — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:38:58 +0000

By: SantaFeScribe

SantaFeScribe — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:58 +0000

By: SantaFeScribe

SantaFeScribe — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:22:10 +0000

Delighted to see this article on juncture of water issues and science. Science is the only — but best – 'change I can believe in' so far in Obama administration. Like your important distinction between divergent and convergent problems and their necessary interplay here in designing NM hydrology public policy and funding . Viva la Science!

By: Jorth

Jorth — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:58 +0000

VB Price's claims that Obama's policies are based on science not politics is far fetched.
Having first hand knowledge of the science and engineering of the tests conducted on Yucca Mountain it is certain that Obama's rejection is based on political pressure from Harry Reid and Nevada politicians.
Since the federal government has net even read the Yucca Mountain study as part of its application for a nuclear waste storage license, It is hard to believe that his decision is based on anything but political speculation based on some ideological positions.
Knowing that one decision is based on political will, I find it difficult to believe that his decisions on Embryonic stem cell research and global warming are based on anything more scientific.
Science may be able to observe that the atmosphere is warming, but it is far from proving that
CO2 is causing it. If I had a disease with potential for a cure with stem cells I would certainly elect to use my adult stem cells which have far less risk of a biological rejection.
How about letting scientific experts make the policy concerning all of these and other technologies.

By: JoMa

JoMa — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:21:58 +0000

Scientific pursuits without any sort of moral and ethical compass (I said Moral, not religious) can be dangerous. Your point from Shumacher's book regarding convergent and divergent problems is interesting, but evidence shows that political views often drown out the quest for answers.

While you hail the "unbridling" of science under the Obama administration, I can't help but wonder if thats because he's catering to left wing liberal "beliefs" or because he really sees that science can find answers.

Here we sit in a place that literally forget more that the rest of the world has learned about nuclear energy and yet we can't pull the trigger (as it were) to move out on using this knowledge to help solve our energy problems. I guess we think the French and the Japanese are stupid to have safely relied on nuclear power generation for many years (nearly 80% of France's energy is from carbon-free nuclear sources) yet we insist on making this a "divergent problem" embroiled in politics, not on science.

The mostly political argument over the development of potentially huge deposits of brackish water found under the west mesa are another example. Some countries rely on desalinized water for their very existence but here the argument is over growth on the mesa and "what will happen in 100 years - when the water runs out?"

You and won't live long enough to see resolution of this "divergent problem" but I suspect it will still be an argument 100 years from now.