Featured Guest Writer: Chris Mooney - "The Courthouse Effect"
Submitted by Chris Mooney on June 28, 2006 - 11:56am.
Guest Feature | Climate Crisis | Front Page Story | Global Warming
 |
 Featured Guest Writer The Courthouse Effect |
Global warming can't seem to stay out of the news lately. Whether it's because of Al Gore's new movie, newly released reports from the National Academy of Sciences, or newly uttered flubs by our president, the subject has been everywhere. It's tempting to think that some critical mass is building--that the way we talk and think about this issue may forever change because of all the current attention and increased public awareness. On the other hand, the history of the global warming debate in the United States shows that there have been longstanding cycles of attention followed by inattention followed by attention again. Perhaps we're just in another attentive period at the moment.
One recent speck of global warming news has been different from all of the rest, however, and is of automatic and lasting importance. The Supreme Court will be hearing a global warming case, Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, brought by twelve state attorneys general and a number of environmental groups. The case was clearly decided wrongly at the lower court level, and if that ruling is reversed the implications would be huge: The Bush administration's EPA would no longer be able to get away with the dubious argument that lingering scientific uncertainty about certain aspects of climate change prevents the agency from doing anything about it.
The current case involves whether the Clean Air Act compels the EPA to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. Faced with a petition and then a lawsuit seeking to compel it to take action, the EPA argued that scientific uncertainty and complex policy considerations prevent it from doing so. Yet the claim that, just because we don't know everything about a particular environmental harm, we don't need to address it finds no basis in either common sense or (more importantly) the Clean Air Act. As the plaintiffs argue in their Supreme Court brief (PDF), the act compels the agency to take a precautionary approach to new dangers and not allow the mere existence of some uncertainty (which is typical of every scientific issue) to thwart action.
Nevertheless, EPA's dubious move was ratified in a 2-1 ruling by the very conservative leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where Judge A. Raymond Randolph distorted the state of scientific understanding of global warming to side with EPA in his majority opinion (PDF). Randolph had the audacity to selectively cite a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences on global warming in order to argue that the science is deeply uncertain. But in the process, Randolph took the Academy's language--stating that a "causal linkage" between greenhouse gases and global warming "cannot be unequivocally established"--out of context. The report's opening sentence clearly shows that the NAS believes that we're causing climate change: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." That is the scientific consensus and it has only grown stronger since the time when the NAS wrote these words.
I have written a great deal about politicians misusing science; but here was a sitting federal judge doing so, which is possibly even more outrageous. There is much talk about a need to improve scientific advice to politicians; perhaps we also need to improve such advice to judges. Indeed, in a concurring opinion in the case, Judge David Sentelle also paraded his scientific ignorance. Sentelle claimed that the plaintiffs in the case lacked "standing" to even bring the suit because global warming is not causing them a particularized injury--it doesn't affect them any differently than it affects anyone else on the planet. This is absurd: California, one of the plaintiffs, has to worry about declining mountain snowpack due to global warming and therefore a blow to drinking supplies; Massachusetts has a different set of concerns; and so does Connecticut, and on down the line. These injuries are clearly particularized, in a state-by-state fashion.
In any case, in a blistering dissent that may have caught the Supreme Court's attention, Judge David Tatel exposed Randolph's and Sentelle's distortions and errors, and gave an accurate description both of climate science and of why the law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to do something. If you read all of the opinions in sequence--see here (PDF)--it's hard not to be impressed by how much more intellectually rigorous Tatel's take is. Tatel couldn't prevail upon the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case with a larger panel of judges, but if the Supremes analyze the science and law in a similarly searching way, there's a strong likelihood that they will agree that the case was wrongly decided below. And EPA will finally have to start doing something about global warming.
The legal process, of course, is not the ideal way to address this issue: We need both national consensus and international cooperation. From a policy perspective, meanwhile, we are surely going to have to combine together adaptive measures, mitigation measures (such as cutbacks on emissions by the EPA), and quite a lot of technological innovation.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is not oblivious to the political environment in which it hears cases, and the current case comes up at a time when there may well be a change afoot in terms of how we as a nation grapple with (or fail to grapple with) climate change. Onetime global warming "skeptics"--Gregg Easterbrook, Michael Shermer, and even GOP pollster Frank Luntz--are converting left and right. Politicians are talking about the subject with renewed fervor. But the Bush administration still remains intransigent; and the president continues to question whether global warming is even caused by humans in the first place--something that was established long ago. In this context, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all if the Supreme Court were to take the lead on this issue for a short while. Everyone else, I suspect, would ultimately follow.
Given the track record of Republican appointments over the last couple of decades, Judges freqently tend to side with the "rights" of business interests rather than "the public" as a whole.
This may be a rare case where the Courts may push the executive branch to do the right thing on behalf of all Americans. I am concerned of the opposite happening however. While it has no direct environmental inpact, the recent Supreme Court ruling throwing out Vermont's election financing program is more what I have come to expect from the current court.
My question to you Chris is this, what role have you seen the Courts play regarding upholding true science in society, both in the abstract, and as the valid bench mark by which the scientific implications of government policies must be weighed? Have you noticed any legal trends?
If I recall from his confirmation hearings, pro-corporate leanings was one of the big issues with Alito.
Those who supported him said he took a rigorous approach to analysis, however. This might be a test of his analytical approach. How objective will he be?
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
Courts are mixed on matters of science. The judge in the Dover evolution trial did a wonderful job of defending scientific knowledge. On the other hand, it's true, many courts are corporate friendly and fall for industry spin on matters of science. A lot of science defenders are particularly worried about the impact of the Daubert decision on the courts. For more info see here:
http://www.defendingscience.org/courts/Science-in-the-Courts.cfm
I am not particularly knowlegeable about things scientific, but I do respect science immensely. Do you have any idea when they will hear the case?
I believe this will be during the court's 2006-2007 session. I don't know a precise date, or whether there is one yet.
That's ONE of the reasons for the regulatory agencies so 'experts' could do the science. Tragically, the agencies, 'independent' or not, have become so politicized that the 'remedial' branch is forced into a role it didn't want.
I agree that it's not ideal, but when the agencies misuse science as the EPA has in this case, it's heartening that someone like David Tatel can come in and set them straight (even if he's in the minority at the DC Circuit)....
The rationale for the old, 'conservative' approach seems to no longer exist, at least with this administration.
PS, Tatel's the one who provided the distinction between first amendment right to know/report and to deal with criminal matters in Judy Miller/Times decision (at very end.)
That was certainly a compelling entry - thank you...
As a layperson, I've been trying my best to keep up with the agw issue, but I have not been following this particular legal thread. I certainly will now. I'm particularly interested in Kennedy on this one. I imagine a lot of folks will be watching for his thinking on this.
Who/what team is arguing the case for the states/environmentalists?
And Luntz has changed his mind? Wow - if that's happened, maybe the times are indeed changing, ;-).
I was also encouraged by the following:
...Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system," the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.
~~~~~~~~~~
On a personal note, I so very much wanted to see your presentation in person when you were in my neck of the woods recently (Houston, Tx), but unfortunately I had a bad cold that night and couldn't make it.
Thank you so much for getting out there and talking to folks about what's happening on this front.
What a pleasure it is to be welcoming your work right here in our own CCN.
Here's to us all...
LindaG
LindaG,
Sorry to have missed you in Houston. It was a fun talk.
I'm not sure who's arguing the case because there are so many different states and environmental groups involved. I imagine they have a big legal team with a lot of talent. The role of the state attorneys general in particular in bringing climate change into the courts has been critical.
That's very funny & intersting about Luntz- earlier in your post the term "Clean Air Act" was making me giggle uncomfortably- so the polar opposite of what it suggests.
There's something so profoundly wrong at the bottom of all this - "Whatever the thinker is thinking, the prover will sort for evidence to support it" kind of mentality that so effectively sidesteps critical thinking not to mention the entire scientific method- but I detect some grounds for hope in your post, legislatively speaking.
A shame that we have to resort to actual lawsuits forcing the government to act like a.... responsible government whose sole justification for existing is ostensibly to protect us. There really is no shame.
I was lucky enough to see you at YearlyKos & enjoyed your clarity & sense of humor both equally well.
It is truly urgent that we as a species better learn to treasure & shepherd the illumination science brings to our understanding of the universe. Thank you for helping to engender enlightened self-interest with your book & continued engagement.
So many of our issues, challenges, problems almost seem to be created by or exist because of an overall lack of skepticism & curiosity. The pre-1776 mindset that Russ Feingold has mentioned exists in more than one realm, that's for sure!
Thanks for blogging with us. :)
Glad that you were in the audience there. It was a great panel.
I agree that the courts are a weird form of recourse, especially for something as big as global warming--but given how badly the DC Circuit botched the case, you've got to figure that even if the Supreme Court is very conservative, the judges there will handle it much more professionally....
Thank you for being here Chris Mooney.
I'm glad you are looking at the role of our courts, because they have often stood between what is right for America and the right. With those courts now packed with members of the Federalist Society, I'm not sure of our power of redress. Which leads us to Chapter 11 of NAFTA:
Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows a corporation to sue a government, contains a particularly disturbing "regulatory takings" clause. Under this "takings" clause, intangible property, such as a corporation's potential future profits, is considered private property. Any law or regulation that is imposed to protect the public interest is considered "taking" that company's potential to make a profit. Therefore, the government should be required to compensate the owners for lost property/profit. This expanded definition of private property goes beyond established terms in US jurisprudence and supercedes domestic law. NAFTA's investor protections and the "regulatory takings" idea mimic a radical revision of constitutional law that the right wing has been pushing for years.
I'm very concerned about how Federalist Judges will rule on what should be common sense. BTW, I live in Maine, the land of forget the jobs just send us your pollution.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I think there are definitely some conservatives on the Supreme Court; but politics alone do not dictate how judges decide cases. With respect to the global warming case, I think that the EPA is so far off the reservation that it wouldn't be at all surprising if the Supreme Court brought them back into line....
...and thank you for speaking out.
As nervous as the Supreme Court is making me these regarding some issues, I agree that they may find merit in the arguments put forward by the states armed with solid evidence. After all, they have to live here too.
Nevertheless, the difficulty with Chapter 11 rulings is that they are not subject to review by the Supreme Court. I do hope that some legislature, somewhere, can bring about the necessary pressure and alter this situation.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I used to know a lot more about this and even did an article on it back in the day...it has been off my radar for a long time. I'm not even sure what I think about it any more. But in the interest of providing a full paper trail here is the article:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/12/mooney-c.html
With so many battle fronts on the war on science, this issue is but a skirmish. My battles are closer to home in my "red" America, where the school board is effecting generations to come.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
"These injuries are clearly particularized, in a state-by-state fashion."
Chris, thanks for this article "The Courthouse Effect". For some of us true-believers (albeit non-science-types), it is sometimes hard to articulate an argument with non-believers when bu$h-courts "rule". Your comment above jumped right off the page.
oh, and viva Justice Tatel!
many thanks!
What would you do for a Klondike Bar?
And thank you for guest blogging today.
Unfortunately, from a political standpoint, I suspect that the recent NAS Committee findings to Congress will not necessarily lead towards any concrete resolutions at the federal level in the coming years. Furthermore, I expect that many in the Republican leadership throughout our federal government, who've distorted science in the past, will just say, "Yeah, so it is, but so what?", as they continue to belittle the science in policy making.
Although this case before the SC is an important step, categorizing CO2, as a man-made pollutant is apparently a tough case and it still allows the Bush Administration and GOP-led Congress to unconscionably neglect their duty to address the serious threat that GHG and global warming poses to our country, ....well, at least until after November.
I know that you've identified many key federal regulars, officials and "representatives" who are "anti-science," most if not all are Republican. But in particular, would you know those who are running for Congress re-election this November? Because in my view given todays political climate, science advocacy and integrity is now a partisan issue --- an alliance that must be forged between the science community, the overwhelming majority of the American public .... and theDemocratic Party this election year.
I think some science defenders may actually be targeting races this November. As for myself, I haven't surveyed the entire country to find out where all of the worst offenders against science are running. But Rick Santorum, the anti-evolutionist up for reelection in Pennsylvania, is one of them. And then--as I mentioned on the panel with General Clark in Las Vegas--there's Jim Gibbons who's running for governor of Nevada. He has absurdly argued that we don't need to worry about mercury pollution:
http://votegibbonsout.blogs.com/votegibbonsout/mercury_emissions/index.html
Well, hopefully little Ricky's going down...Sure looks that way...Does anyone know what kind of chance this Gibbons guy has?
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
Note to CCN: As you have probably noticed.... Chris appears to have "left the building". Just wanted to tell you all that he is very busy writing on a new book and all-- so in order to accomodate, I'd told him he could post and check back later for questions and comments. So let's hope that is what he will do!
In the meantime let me say what a pleasure it was to see your most eloquent and entertaining speech in Vegas on that stellar Science Panel and how happy we are at CCN that you stopped by to illuminate us on The Courthouse Effect (Love that title!).
And DonnaZ-- thanks for that pertinent NAFTA passage too, speaking of illuminating... Yet another Orwellian piece of legislation to inch us deeper into corpocracy.
Yes, here I am, sorry about that...I appreciate all of the comments. I'm trying to reply to as many as possible. It was fun to do this piece here at CCN, and as far as Vegas goes, I was deeply impressed by General Clark's presentation--when it comes to the importance of science to policymaking and the national future, he really gets it. It's very inspiring.
Inspiration is what beckons us all here on a daily basis.
And General Clark has it in surplus quantities.
I think part of that is his natural visionary quality; he seldom approaches any issue within the vacuum of the time it exists in, but instead within the framework of the bigger picture...the longer range. From foreign policy to economics to sciences-- he keeps one foot and one eye on the future and the consequences the actions we take today will have on it. That's also why he's such an uncanny prognosticator. We have a saying around here, "Right again, Sir!" whenever the news of the day echoes something Wes had already predicted a year or so ago!
I can only add that I find it deeply heartening that so many Democratic leaders are beginning to talk regularly about science. Somewhat amazingly to me, the politics of science has almost become a mainstream political issue. Sure, it's not quite up there with war and the economy, but it's on the radar. And if politicians continue to talk about it, to keep its salience high, we have a better chance that some of the serious problems in relation to the abuse of science by the Bush adminsitration will ultimately get addressed and resolved. So, I couldn't be happier to see Gen. Clark taking this issue on.
Isn't judge Tatel the same one who wrote the redacted decision in the Plame case that authorized the jailing of Judith Miller? He really seems to be a careful and thoughtful judge. I wish they were all like him. Maybe the supreme court will rule that the laws of science can't be ignored the way they ruled Geneva can't be ignored in cases of torture. Everyone wish Justice Stephens perfect health for the next 2 years!
And welcome to CCN. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to visit with us and share with us this informative post.
It is heartening to see all of the attention that is now focused on global warming. It's really scary to think what could happen if we don't do something to stop and possibly reverse some of the damage now so it's good that people are at least talking about it. Now we've got to start doing as well.
When I heard the Supreme Court was hearing this case my initial reaction was to despair of them deciding in any way except that which would be favorable to Bush...but look today they didn't! So maybe you're right. Maybe there is hope.
It's distressing to see the way the lower court decided, of course. It's maddening to see the way Judge Randolph distorted his source to make it fit his decision. Argh!
Bravo to Judge David Tatel for fighting the lies and distortions....
It's good to hear that some who were formerly skeptics are coming around...Let's hope the Supreme Court does the right thing.
Thanks for the links to the pdfs and Bush's comment. Oi! I'm sorry but that guy is just idiotic.
Good luck with the new book...and thanks again.
Carol
Thanks Carol. I do think the politics of this issue may be shifting, and there's no doubt the Supreme Court is aware of that. Remember the Bush administration didn't want them to take this case.
It's good to hear some who is more learned than I in the matter and whose judgement I trust give an at least guardedly optimistic reading of the situation....
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
How/ when did you first find yourself interested in the Sciences? As a kid I would guess? Just wondering what might have sparked that fascination and had you ever considered going into science as a profession rather than writing?
Just want to note one point of Chris's value to the science in general: Chris does his research exceptionally well!
Aside from his writings at The Seed and American Prospector which focussed mostly on the political machinery that drives the science policy-making process, his book, The Republican War on Science, has been praised by many notable scientists, including a Nobel Laureate and Presidential science advisors and experts. Chris, in my view, approaches the problems of our science policy making process from a scientific perpsective. As an anology, it's sick. And in his book he critically researches the facts and cites it with over 250 documents and references, which are representative of our top researchers and government officials from both sides of the issue. This is equivalent to how a doctoral student would approach his/her dissertation defense. Perhaps, he's disserving of a that title in science journalism. ;)
And speaking as a scientist, myself, I find that Chris' approach to science upholds the same principles and standards that we apply towards research. He approaches problems (in government) by first critically reviewing the totality of the background literature and scientific findings, prior to making a hypothesis or an educated opinion before formulating a thesis - "Republicans have engaged an all out war against science to fit a political agenda". The evidence is what we see today. And it's clear that he appreciates the essence of the scientific method towards his writing.
And on one other point, Mooney has successfully bridged the gap of uncertainty that often exists between the science community, government policy-makers and general American public with his exceptional ability to communicate complex science issues into a lauguage that most people can understand.
First I want to apologize for not being around earlier today to answer comments. I was confused and didn't realize what the timing was supposed to be.
Ms asked about my interest in science. It goes back to my grandfather Gerald Cole, a biologist and strong defender of evolution, to whom I dedicated the book. Despite his influence, I always wanted to become a writer, not a scientist --but then I found that writing *about* science interested me most. It was a best-of-both-worlds kind of thing.
Knightrider: Thanks for the praise. I greatly appreciate it. Because I am not personally a scientist, when I approach these scientific issues, I work hard on my ability to communicate, whether in writing, public speeches, or radio/TV appearances. So although I certainly cannot match the brilliance that so many scientists show in the lab, I think I can do a lot to help explain the knowledge they generate to the public. It's a good match, I think, because scientists themselves are often a bit mystified when it comes to public communication.
Chris - First, thank-you for joining us here!
I heard your YKos speech (streaming on AAR) and so appreciated your ability to present the facts and the issues clearly.
That's a critical skill - bridge-building between the important scientifc work and the lay people who need information to make informed decisions.
It's great to find a vocation that combines interests and passions like that. Your service in this area is so important.
I've worked hard at communications skills, but I've also been a bit lucky in terms of timing--several years back I picked an issue to write about that was on the rise, and so it turned out that a lot of people really wanted to hear what I had to say when the book came out. So I have tried to do the best job that I can. I'm glad you heard the YKos speech, it was one of my best so far. There was a certain energy in the room that day that can't always be duplicated.
You relate everything in a way that is so easy to understand....You've worked hard, you've succeeded. I didn't hear the Kos panel myself but I heard it was great and that you were brilliant.
And that's a great picture of you up on this blog. :)
recently, but usually it is quite easy to predict decisions based on their past performance. (Perhaps not quite so easily in 5-4 splits, though, which this will surely be.)
There are four judges, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who I assume we can predict will side with the lower court.
Ginsburg would surely take the opposite point of view, and Souter, I think, and I've forgotten who the rest are --- do you know about the records of the rest on such matters? Has the Court turned to the "dark side" or do we have reason to expect that there is an environmental majority still in place?
I'm not sure I have any deep insight here on how these judges will vote, except that Scalia has been continually restricting Article III standing to bring cases and I suspect he will question, as David Sentelle did, whether anyone can have "standing" in a global warming case. But as I said, such a bad job was done with this case at the DC Circuit, it may well be that even some of the conservative judges (like Roberts) feel they have to set the record straight in some way....
I guess I haven't trusted any of them to be non-political since Gore in 2000.
I'm guessing we probably have a majority at the moment, but that it's a slender one. The conservative justices are the younger ones, so it is entirely possible we might yet lose another liberal or moderate.
We all know that there are congressmen and pundits and even some scientists who are willing to argue that global warming is a hoax. I don't doubt that the Bush administration would happily appoint more such people to the Court and we could get stuck in the same kind of backward Court situation that FDR found himself in awhile back.
Okay, yeah, those sound like a good bet.
Just don't let any of them die in the next couple years.
He's going to try to come back and answer some more questions later this evening. So feel free to go ahead and post your questions here.....
He's got some very encouraging thoughts about the willingness of the SCOTUS to take the global warming case. We hope to hear about a few more encouraging signs that science is fighting back!
to answer some addition questions and share his insights!
An interesting observation in an e-mail today from Laurie David of StopGlobalWarming:
On the same day the Supreme Court accepted this court case, a bizarre tropical weather system drenched the nation’s capital, backing up traffic, closing federal buildings and toppling a 100-year-old elm tree on the White House lawn. Why the heavy rains? Warmer temperatures mean more evaporation and more humidity that gets released in the form of torrential rain.
Hmmmm. . .
some nice symbology in there, huh?
That elm tree had likely been overlooking that White House since 1906... planted around 1906 when Teddy Roosevelt, another very different sort of republican, was President.
This from Wikipedia on Roosevelt:
Conservationist
Roosevelt was the first American president to grasp the growing negative influence and long-term effects of human forces on the planet. This growing awareness was not accidental; Roosevelt had personally witnessed and commented on the extinction of the passenger pigeons that once blotted out the sun when migrating in flocks of tens of millions of birds. He had once described his brother Elliott nearly being trampled by a mile-wide bison herd in Texas. Now the "lordly buffalo," as he called them had plummeted to near extinction in only 20 years; to no herd larger than 100 and a total U.S. count of less than a thousand. Roosevelt had also seen the effects of uncontrolled and unregulated industrial growth on the environment. Assuming the conservationist role was a natural step for him, and he decided that it was overdue to put the issue high on the national agenda. He worked with all the major figures of the movement, especially his chief advisor on the matter Gifford Pinchot. Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park in the Badlands commemorates his conservationist philosophy. In 1907, Roosevelt designated 16 million acres (65,000 km²) of new national forests just minutes before a deadline. In May 1908, he sponsored the Conference of Governors held in the White House, with a focus on natural resources and their most efficient use.
In an age when the natural resources of the United States seemed almost unlimited, Roosevelt took much different approach, writing to the governors of all the states and territories as well as the 500 most influential men in the country and telling them, "It seems time for the country to take account of its natural resources and to enquire how long they are likely to last." Roosevelt delivered the opening address: "Conservation as a National Duty." On the subject of conservation, Roosevelt said, "There is an intimate relation between our streams and the development and conservation of all the other great permanent sources of wealth. In 1903, Roosevelt toured the Yosemite Valley with John Muir, who had a very different view of conservation and tried to minimize commercial use of water resources and forests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If fallen elm trees could talk. It's no wonder the poor tree collapsed.
Laurie David has it right, as I understand...this is pretty basic physics. It has very strong implications for rainfall from hurricanes, as well. In a globally warmed world, these storms should dump a lot more precipitation.
I was very interested in your article in Seed where you argued that scientists need to take advantage of research by social scientists on communication. I think this is a very important point. Are any of the scientific organizations trying to do this? I think all scientist need to learn how to communicate better, or we are going to lose out.
I can only say that there is a lot of behind the scenes energy about this very subject right now. I just got off of a conference call related to it earlier today. For the guy who is really doing the most thinking about how to communicate successfully on highly politicized scientific topics, let me refer you to Matthew Nisbet and his blog, "Framing Science":
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/
Looks like a lot of fascinating information there.
Today's post "Social Modeling Climate Activism" notes the importance of social pressure in changing behavior. By example, make it "cool" to be involved with the global warming cause.
So. . . someday, maybe Priuses will become the norm and Hummers will be socially unacceptable. . . :-)
...to effectively frame the issues.
But I'm somewhat disappointed by science organisations, like the AAAS, NSF, American Research, Union of Concerned Scientists and other mostly independent science organisations, who've been unable to assert more authority against the political leadership and media machinery of those in power.
I have this observation. Although many scientists are clearly disturbed with the political distortion of science, most become complacent about it, because they're often too self-absorbed with conducting experiments and collecting data. It's mostly a legitimate reason, because it's become a very competitive environment to produce publications, obtain funding and secure grants. So by training, scientists tend to think, behave and act independently. Which is why it's important that these science institutions support their members efforts outside the lab with a more official voice to the public and our legistors. This would help them achieve work collectively, as a political force. So, if you converse with any of these lead administrators of these organisations, I hope that you ask how they can best address this concern.
For example, one way is to have each science-based NGOs and institution hire national science spokespersons and staff who will effectively frame science to the public on an on-call basis for MSM. Whenever key science legislation comes up for debate at state and federal branches, like possibly the Stem Cell Bill later tonight, science pundits should be immediately available to articulate it's official position. In fact, according to George Lakoff, many concervative think tank orgs, like CEI or AEI, already employ a similar PR tactic (albeit totally spun), when they aggresively locate GOP pundits on short notice to appear on Sunday morning talk shows or primetime news shows to discount the science. This same tactic should be employed by science organisations, even if to legimate the legislators who appear on these programs with them.
I have to tell you that although I am reading this discussion with great interest and I do understand the value of science I'm not really that up on science myself...
But even I can see how god-awful this Administration is in regard to respect for science. Is this about as bad as we've seen it...Have there been other periods of time in the not too distant past when there was such disregard for science and scientific findings and evidence?
And why are these people so disrespectful of science? Is it because it's not telling them what they want to hear? Or do they just really have no regard for anything scientists say?
I hope that makes sense...seems a little disjointed upon read-back.
Carol,
Your questions make perfect sense. All of them are pretty much addressed in detail in my book, but here's a quick stab:
1. "Have there been other periods of time in the not too distant past when there was such disregard for science and scientific findings and evidence?" ANSWER: Yes, in other countries and other eras (think Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union); but this problem has not been nearly as pronounced at any other time in modern American history.
2. "And why are these people so disrespectful of science? Is it because it's not telling them what they want to hear? Or do they just really have no regard for anything scientists say?" ANSWER: In my view it is sheer politics; it is interest group driven. Republican politicans don't attack science except in areas where one of their constituencies--religious conservatives, corporate America--have an ax to grind against some particular findings. Most of science therefore goes untroubled by the "war on science"--but the areas where science comes under attack, aka global warming, stem cells, evolution, are some of the most important and contentious areas of them all.
Hope this helps
It helps a lot....That first answer is depressing....The Dems better start winning some elections....Thanks so much for all you are doing, Chris, to fight back against this...It is so important and you're out there fighting the good fight for all of us...
Yes, 'the most important and most contentious areas of the all'...how true...
And I will read your book...I promise...
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
How badly do you think science education of high schoolers, etc. are effected by this administrations strange arguements. In particular I find Intelligent Design a concept that is opposed to recent DNA findings and injurious to clear thinking.
Putting out misinformation is never a good thing and surely has some negative impact on the public understanding of science, though it's hard to quantify. That said, I think that science education is largely, but not entirely, a separate issue. Science education in this country is a massive long-term problem that we've got to fix. But even without addressing that incredibly difficult issue, we've got to more immediately act to make sure that at least our political leaders are getting good scientific information even if the general public isn't. They, after all, are the ones who need good science to make good decisions.
I recently heard someone on Air America talking about Jimmy Carter's commitment to solar power and how we were actually making headway in things like buiiding solar powered homes and such.
I knew about the solar panels in the White House and how Reagan got rid of them when he got elected. But I hadn't realized what a real setback his election was for the development of solar power. I hadn't realized how we were moving forward in that area. It's so sad to think of where we could have been now if that election had turned out differently.
Hopefully, with the attention to global warming, someone's out there developing affordable solar energy devices or whatever you'd call them. How do you see that devolping in the future?
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
I don't have any particular expertise on the solar energy industry. But I can say that it is obvious that a true solution to global warming will not arise until we find some alternative way of satisfying our energy needs so that we become much less reliant upon dirty fossil-fuel burning. The scientists and innovators who solve this energy problem for us will truly be heroes of all humanity. Let's hope they're out there right now and on the verge of a breakthrough...
Well, guess I sort of botched this by not being around to take questions during the day...who wants to chat at 7 pm on Thursday night? I am sure most of you folks are at Happy Hour right now.
Those of you who stuck around, thank you for being here. It was a pleasure to post and comment at this site, and I hope you will invite me back again. I'll just say it one more time: It is awesome and inspiring to find General Clark and his community of supporters getting so involved in the science issue. You are wonderful allies to have.
I was stuck at work late and didn't get home unitl after 7PM...so I, for one, am glad you were here late...
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
feel free to stop in anytime- the "tides" ebb & flow here & if anything strikes your fancy or you identify a hot science topic or helpful action we could take, do let us know. Drop by anytime! Thanks again!
...and thanks for your article. We're here anytime you need letters written or telephone calls made.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Thanks..and do come back soon....
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
We hope he'll agree to come back soon and talk with us again. In the meantime, Chris's blog The Intersection is at http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/.
We should go visit him there as well.
Guest blogging can be a real challenge for lots of reasons, in addition to having to be a speed writer.
General Clark was very impressed with the thoughtful message that Chris brings to the 'political' table. As you all know, it's a subject near and dear to his heart.
Again, THANK YOU, Chris, from all of us!
Sorry I missed you on the second round about, but hope you will come back again soon to join us and enlighten us further on the issues. And if you ever need to help get the word out on some pending topic or legislation, feel free to call on us -- we've got your back!
to the courts is not an appealing idea. I have doubt that this Court will act in any way other than political.
This issue (along with others) is a huge source of friction between the U.S. and the world. If the court acts as the politics would suggest, a rather large brick will be placed in the wall of American isolation.