Comments on: Science Debate: The candidates like you’ve NEVER seen them. http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them Rooting for Citizen Scientists! Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:47:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: sandrar http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-2404 sandrar Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:34:38 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-2404 Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post... nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

]]> By: sandrar http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-4224 sandrar Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:34:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-4224 Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post... nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R. Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

]]> By: Don’t Be SUCH A Scientist! | Science Cheerleader http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-1799 Don’t Be SUCH A Scientist! | Science Cheerleader Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:34:57 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-1799 [...] should mention that he and I are friends. He reached out to me after seeing this video and later (fortunately for me) was my key advisor on this one.  I snapped this picture of Randy [...] [...] should mention that he and I are friends. He reached out to me after seeing this video and later (fortunately for me) was my key advisor on this one.  I snapped this picture of Randy [...]

]]> By: History in the making: Both candidates answer the 14 science questions | Science Cheerleader http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-317 History in the making: Both candidates answer the 14 science questions | Science Cheerleader Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:49:37 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-317 [...] jumped on board and demanded answers from the candidates, particularly in response to this quirky youtube mock debate. And, kudos to McCain, Obama and their campaigns, for taking a bold step [...] [...] jumped on board and demanded answers from the candidates, particularly in response to this quirky youtube mock debate. And, kudos to McCain, Obama and their campaigns, for taking a bold step [...]

]]> By: You did it! Obama has answered the 14 science questions. | Science Cheerleader http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-253 You did it! Obama has answered the 14 science questions. | Science Cheerleader Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:31:49 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-253 [...] efforts pestered the candidates to respond to the questions. (The Science Cheerleader’s campy youtube skit–poking fun at the candidates for ignoring science–was only effective because so many of [...] [...] efforts pestered the candidates to respond to the questions. (The Science Cheerleader’s campy youtube skit–poking fun at the candidates for ignoring science–was only effective because so many of [...]

]]> By: Joel Stein’s warped (and very funny) advice for the candidates. | Science Cheerleader http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-240 Joel Stein’s warped (and very funny) advice for the candidates. | Science Cheerleader Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:42:43 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-240 [...] Times columnist, Joel Stein, tweaks McCain and Obama for not yet signing on to participate in the Science Debate 2008.  He provides some talking points for the [...] [...] Times columnist, Joel Stein, tweaks McCain and Obama for not yet signing on to participate in the Science Debate 2008.  He provides some talking points for the [...]

]]> By: Darlene http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-198 Darlene Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:06:52 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-198 Bart gets a good discussion going on the framing of the 14 questions. Sees a biased slant and isn't shy about explaining why here http://bartacus.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Bart. And here's Shawn Otto's (one of the founders of the Science Debate) response: Good discussion, interesting post. The questions were reviewed and refined by all the non-partisan groups signing, in multiple phone and email discussions, and then run past all their subgroups, and then after that, run past a major DC 501c3 attorney for impartiality, and then revised per his recommendations, and the the revisions he approved were run back by all the signer organizations. It’s very easy to read an agenda into something when you suspect someone is slanted and then go looking for confirmation. This is in fact applying one’s own agenda. For example, the climate change wording was initially something like “The National Academies has said that human-caused climate change is...” and we quoted them then posed the question what should be done. But we changed it to the current wording at the insistence of our more conservative signers, so it’s ironic he’s criticizing us for that of all things. The partisan political questions in congress are not over whether it is happening, but whether it is human-caused. We do not take a position on that (or any other issue), only that it is occurring and of the proposed options, we ask what the candidate thinks should be done, or whether something else should be done, which should be instructive. Our agenda is to promote the discussion, not to push particular solutions. Bart gets a good discussion going on the framing of the 14 questions. Sees a biased slant and isn’t shy about explaining why here http://bartacus.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Bart. And here’s Shawn Otto’s (one of the founders of the Science Debate) response: Good discussion, interesting post.

The questions were reviewed and refined by all the non-partisan groups signing, in multiple phone and email discussions, and then run past all their subgroups, and then after that, run past a major DC 501c3 attorney for impartiality, and then revised per his recommendations, and the the revisions he approved were run back by all the signer organizations. It’s very easy to read an agenda into something when you suspect someone is slanted and then go looking for confirmation. This is in fact applying one’s own agenda.

For example, the climate change wording was initially something like “The National Academies has said that human-caused climate change is…” and we quoted them then posed the question what should be done. But we changed it to the current wording at the insistence of our more conservative signers, so it’s ironic he’s criticizing us for that of all things. The partisan political questions in congress are not over whether it is happening, but whether it is human-caused. We do not take a position on that (or any other issue), only that it is occurring and of the proposed options, we ask what the candidate thinks should be done, or whether something else should be done, which should be instructive. Our agenda is to promote the discussion, not to push particular solutions.

]]> By: Darlene http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-4223 Darlene Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:06:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-4223 Bart gets a good discussion going on the framing of the 14 questions. Sees a biased slant and isn't shy about explaining why here http://bartacus.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Bart. And here's Shawn Otto's (one of the founders of the Science Debate) response: Good discussion, interesting post. The questions were reviewed and refined by all the non-partisan groups signing, in multiple phone and email discussions, and then run past all their subgroups, and then after that, run past a major DC 501c3 attorney for impartiality, and then revised per his recommendations, and the the revisions he approved were run back by all the signer organizations. It’s very easy to read an agenda into something when you suspect someone is slanted and then go looking for confirmation. This is in fact applying one’s own agenda. For example, the climate change wording was initially something like “The National Academies has said that human-caused climate change is...” and we quoted them then posed the question what should be done. But we changed it to the current wording at the insistence of our more conservative signers, so it’s ironic he’s criticizing us for that of all things. The partisan political questions in congress are not over whether it is happening, but whether it is human-caused. We do not take a position on that (or any other issue), only that it is occurring and of the proposed options, we ask what the candidate thinks should be done, or whether something else should be done, which should be instructive. Our agenda is to promote the discussion, not to push particular solutions. Bart gets a good discussion going on the framing of the 14 questions. Sees a biased slant and isn’t shy about explaining why here http://bartacus.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Bart. And here’s Shawn Otto’s (one of the founders of the Science Debate) response: Good discussion, interesting post.

The questions were reviewed and refined by all the non-partisan groups signing, in multiple phone and email discussions, and then run past all their subgroups, and then after that, run past a major DC 501c3 attorney for impartiality, and then revised per his recommendations, and the the revisions he approved were run back by all the signer organizations. It’s very easy to read an agenda into something when you suspect someone is slanted and then go looking for confirmation. This is in fact applying one’s own agenda.

For example, the climate change wording was initially something like “The National Academies has said that human-caused climate change is…” and we quoted them then posed the question what should be done. But we changed it to the current wording at the insistence of our more conservative signers, so it’s ironic he’s criticizing us for that of all things. The partisan political questions in congress are not over whether it is happening, but whether it is human-caused. We do not take a position on that (or any other issue), only that it is occurring and of the proposed options, we ask what the candidate thinks should be done, or whether something else should be done, which should be instructive. Our agenda is to promote the discussion, not to push particular solutions.

]]> By: John Reitter http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-193 John Reitter Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:29:39 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-193 Great fun video on the supremely important topics of science education, funding and public awaeness. Superstition and fear cannot provide the solutions to our present energy, environmental, educational and economic crisis. Only science can research, discover and impliment answers to our most pressing problems. Yet the candidates are still trying to avoid dealing with scientific issues. We cannot let them get away with this. Go Darlene. John Reitter Great fun video on the supremely important topics of science education, funding and public awaeness. Superstition and fear cannot provide the solutions to our present energy, environmental, educational and economic crisis. Only science can research, discover and impliment answers to our most pressing problems. Yet the candidates are still trying to avoid dealing with scientific issues. We cannot let them get away with this. Go Darlene.

John Reitter

]]> By: John Reitter http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2008/08/science_debate_the_candidates_like_youve_never_seen_them/comment-page-1/#comment-4222 John Reitter Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:29:00 +0000 http://sciencecheerleader.com/?p=96#comment-4222 Great fun video on the supremely important topics of science education, funding and public awaeness. Superstition and fear cannot provide the solutions to our present energy, environmental, educational and economic crisis. Only science can research, discover and impliment answers to our most pressing problems. Yet the candidates are still trying to avoid dealing with scientific issues. We cannot let them get away with this. Go Darlene. John Reitter Great fun video on the supremely important topics of science education, funding and public awaeness. Superstition and fear cannot provide the solutions to our present energy, environmental, educational and economic crisis. Only science can research, discover and impliment answers to our most pressing problems. Yet the candidates are still trying to avoid dealing with scientific issues. We cannot let them get away with this. Go Darlene.

John Reitter

]]>