in my field just as a scientist we view
politics as a barrier between where we
are and where we want to go but of
course in Washington politics is the
currency of interaction and so how do
you as a professional politician balance
what is objectively true about the world
with what people want to be true about
the world yeah there’s still a
surprising number of people who don’t
believe in evolution right and the
campaign against evolution has been
politically amazingly successful I think
I’m a good red-blooded American and I
will say I don’t mind that you don’t
believe in evolution you just shouldn’t
be on a science committee making
decisions that affect the entire country
or rewriting our textbooks against where
97% of the people are right the same
thing is true with climate change it’s
inconvenient for some people so they
just disavow it we maybe those of us who
believe in it may be wrong about how
quick the adverse consequences would be
manifest but I think with regard to
science we at least have to get those
people who have no interest in it to
adopt what is now my mode of thinking
the grandparent test that is you name me
one other risk related decision where if
95% of the experts were here and 1 to 5
percent of the experts were there any
grandparent which take his or her
grandchild future on the 5% how about
this suppose the guy wrote one article
in one journal and said you know I’ve
been thinking about these child
restraint seats and I think you know
there’s a one in a million chance the
kid could snap his neck so I recommend
just throwing the kid in the back seat
and let them roll around and 99 percent
of people said oh my god you can’t do
that these are working look at the help
much the fatalities going down name me
one grandparent who choose to 1% not one
but that’s what we do with climate
change I mean my theory is nothing would
create more new jobs and new enterprises
and changing the way we produce and
consume energy and
other resources and if you can do it in
a way that’s good for the economy it’s
probably something you ought to do
anyway scientists need to say look we’re
not being dogmatic if you can show us
we’re wrong we’ll admit we’re wrong
we’re wrong all the time
we’re still opening doors we’re opening
doors we’re opening doors and that these
fields of knowledge are coming together
in ways that are beautiful
politics as a barrier between where we
are and where we want to go but of
course in Washington politics is the
currency of interaction and so how do
you as a professional politician balance
what is objectively true about the world
with what people want to be true about
the world yeah there’s still a
surprising number of people who don’t
believe in evolution right and the
campaign against evolution has been
politically amazingly successful I think
I’m a good red-blooded American and I
will say I don’t mind that you don’t
believe in evolution you just shouldn’t
be on a science committee making
decisions that affect the entire country
or rewriting our textbooks against where
97% of the people are right the same
thing is true with climate change it’s
inconvenient for some people so they
just disavow it we maybe those of us who
believe in it may be wrong about how
quick the adverse consequences would be
manifest but I think with regard to
science we at least have to get those
people who have no interest in it to
adopt what is now my mode of thinking
the grandparent test that is you name me
one other risk related decision where if
95% of the experts were here and 1 to 5
percent of the experts were there any
grandparent which take his or her
grandchild future on the 5% how about
this suppose the guy wrote one article
in one journal and said you know I’ve
been thinking about these child
restraint seats and I think you know
there’s a one in a million chance the
kid could snap his neck so I recommend
just throwing the kid in the back seat
and let them roll around and 99 percent
of people said oh my god you can’t do
that these are working look at the help
much the fatalities going down name me
one grandparent who choose to 1% not one
but that’s what we do with climate
change I mean my theory is nothing would
create more new jobs and new enterprises
and changing the way we produce and
consume energy and
other resources and if you can do it in
a way that’s good for the economy it’s
probably something you ought to do
anyway scientists need to say look we’re
not being dogmatic if you can show us
we’re wrong we’ll admit we’re wrong
we’re wrong all the time
we’re still opening doors we’re opening
doors we’re opening doors and that these
fields of knowledge are coming together
in ways that are beautiful
Please follow and like us: