ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY APRIL 23, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The idea that the Bush administration has placed science under attack is so commonplace now that it's almost cliché. It's hard to think of a government agency staffed by scientists that has not seen voluminous scandals over the past several years involving either the suppression and twisting of information or the intimidation of researchers. The most explosive instances involve climate change and reproductive health, but more obscure matters--like, say, how to protect the threatened marbled murrelet--have scarcely been immune.
So scientists are resisting, right? Well, there are a few pro-science organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, that ritually denounce the abuse; angry statements have been signed by Nobel laureates and other eminences; congressional hearings have been held; and government reforms have been proposed to curtail future misbehavior. But, when it comes to real political action--engaging in strategic communication campaigns on hot-button issues, rating politicians based on their science records, even trying to unseat some of science's greatest enemies and support friendlier candidates--scientists have traditionally tended to back away, and the last eight years haven't been much different. If the science community wants to reclaim the ground lost during the Bush administration--and there should be opportunity--it's going to have to accept that the old policy of political disengagement is showing its age.
To understand how American science wound up in this predicament, you have to hearken back to another era: the post-World War II peak of science's influence and popularity, following the creation of the atomic bomb and radar, when scientists were invited into the highest levels of policymaking. The political courting of science only increased following the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957. President Eisenhower, who spoke fondly of "my scientists," brought them into the Oval Office through the establishment of the high-level President's Science Advisory Committee. President Kennedy and his science adviser Jerome Wiesner, an MIT electrical engineer, also enjoyed a close relationship. Meanwhile, from the other side of the Atlantic came a famous cry that epitomized the zeitgeist: In a 1959 lecture, the British novelist C.P. Snow, who had been trained in physics and served as a government technical adviser, decried the "two cultures" gap between scientists and literary intellectuals and called for greater scientific influence in policy-making.
During these halcyon years, American scientists grew accustomed to public praise and government dollars. And, so, in an era of broad bipartisan consensus about the importance of science to the national future, a strategy of political detachment on the part of scientists themselves probably made sense--and, accordingly, took root.
Before long, however, science became a casualty of the increasing divisiveness of U.S. politics. In 1973, President Nixon fired his science advisers in part over Vietnam-era political differences--one Nixon insider had labeled the scientists "vipers in our nest"--a severe blow to science's advisory status in government. President Reagan's own science adviser, physicist George Keyworth, further diminished the credibility of the restored office by his staunch defense of the "Star Wars" missile defense program, which most scientists considered infeasible. By 1995, the Gingrich Republicans had waltzed into Congress and killed its scientific advisory office; they then proceeded to attack the conclusions of mainstream science on climate change and depletion of the ozone layer.
The world was changing; the government had not only stopped adulating scientists, it had actually begun working to diminish their influence. But, instead of ramping up defenses in response, scientists allowed themselves to be bullied, perhaps concerned about losing research dollars and programs if they went against the political tides. To be sure, there was one abortive attempt at a different, more directly political approach: In 1996, a group called Science Watch organized a system to rate members of Congress based on their science-related votes--precisely what any number of other interest groups on both sides of the aisle do, and unapologetically so. But, when the scorecard emerged, Democrats generally garnered considerably higher ratings than Republicans, leading--all too predictably--to charges of politicizing science. Once again, the science community retreated from political engagement; no further scorecards from Science Watch were forthcoming.
And so, even as the world has changed around them, too many scientists continue to behave as if it's still the late '50s--as if they have little need to press a political case. Unfortunately, the reality is that science finds itself in a pretty vulnerable position. It isn't just the Bush administration, either. At the state level, the whack-a-mole game with the anti-evolutionists never seems to end. The public, meanwhile, knows little, if anything, about science: When asked to name a scientific role model in a recent survey, the best Americans could come up with were the names of people who were either not scientists, or not alive: Bill Gates, Al Gore, Benjamin Franklin, and Albert Einstein. Nor is the press any help: A Pew study recently found that, if you watch five hours of cable news, you can probably expect to see one minute devoted to science and technology.
But, despite these worrisome facts, science has probably never been more relevant to policy-making. Which means that, on contentious issues like climate change and stem-cell research, the science community's public reticence can have dangerous results.
Consider climate change. As has now been well documented, fossil-fuel interests have sponsored a sweeping campaign to sow doubts about the basic science linking human greenhouse gas emissions to rising global temperatures. It's the strategy the tobacco industry employed over many decades--special interests, supported by choice politicians, casting the scientific endeavor and its conclusions into disrepute and even, in some cases, attacking individual scientists. Yet, with some key exceptions, American scientists have been mostly flat-footed, letting their opponents shape the debate.
So how can scientists strap on the gloves? They can start by investing, through their major organizations, in mass-media initiatives to communicate the facts on issues like climate change. At the same time, through auxiliary groups, those who care about science should directly take on politicians with the most outrageous anti-science stances, such as Oklahoma senator and global-warming denier James Inhofe, while working to elect better candidates (including more scientists). Elected representatives ought to know there are consequences for attacking scientists and undermining scientific knowledge.
In an admittedly fledgling way, this has been tried--a group named Scientists and Engineers for America organized to target select races in the 2006 election and, more recently, has been training scientists to run for office and disseminating information on nationwide candidates' science policy stances. Meanwhile, an initiative with which I have been involved named Science Debate 2008 has organized much of American science in a call for the presidential candidates to debate science policy. (So far, no takers.)
Scientists seem able to organize behind the prospect of a science policy debate; but a still more overtly political tack will probably worry many researchers, who recoil from the messy political process--and who fear attacks on their carefully guarded objectivity. Furthermore, there has long been a culture in the world of science that disdains mere "popularizers" and those who shirk research for less "pure" activities: Everyone in science remembers what happened to the great public communicator Carl Sagan, who was denied membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Certainly, these kinds of changes could have trade-offs and negative consequences; and they might well bring science itself under political attack. But science is under political attack anyway, which is precisely the point. The only question is how long researchers are going to sit and take it.
Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and th author of The Republican War on Science.
30 comments
The difference between influential organizations such as oil and tobacco companies and scientists is directly attributable to the source and amount of funds available. Science is mostly a grant driven enterprise, and where it is for profit, such as in biotechnology or the communications industry, the political influence is quite obvious.
- S.Y.
April 6, 2008 at 12:27am
Scientists are just as prone to arrogance and groupthink in the "certainty" of their knowledge - just like any other group. They don't like to be questioned on their "expertise" - even when it later turns out to be wrong. Bring up the scientific community's hyperventilating about global cooling in the mid-70's and they brush it off; the consensus is now "man-made global warming." Global warming or not - there is no clear evidence that it is caused by man, how long it may last, or what systemic self-moderating may compensate. Mathematical models (the basis of computer models) are based on assumptions - we don't have enough actual knowledge to even know if the basic parameters are estimated correctly or if the basic underpinnings are correct. E.g, does carbon increase precede or follow warming? It's unknown.
- REB
April 10, 2008 at 10:42pm
The general educational level of the US population, particularly influenced by religious extremists and aided by the Catholic Church, is far below that of all developed countries and is closer to the levels of poor countries like Italy and Portugal. Such a population cannot be expected to appreciate an appeal to reason and science. The fact that Kansas has to struggle with board of education members who deny evolution tells us almost all we need to know. The previous period of respect for science was really an awe at the atom bomb and space travel. Scientists would need some new wonderous act to get the public's attention today.
- oxheadone
April 10, 2008 at 11:01pm
"Bring up the scientific community's hyperventilating about global cooling in the mid-70's " Reb there wasn't a scientific consensus about "global cooling." It was the brain child of two scientists who were challenging the global warming consensus. That' why it was written up in Newsweek. Turns out those two guys were conducting science by press release and they were wrong. "Mathematical models (the basis of computer models) are based on assumptions - we don't have enough actual knowledge to even know if the basic parameters are estimated correctly or if the basic underpinnings are correct." I guess the fact that the models have accurately predicted climate for the last 5 years means nothing to you.
- Brian Despain
April 17, 2008 at 12:22am
The US Ethanol Program is being called a crime against humanity by the UN. This was a policy created by politicians pretending to understand science. The result is global CHAOS; 40 countries cited by the UN as possible to fail; food prices over 80% in 3 years; soaring fuel prices; loss ag export income; and increased deficits. These politicians mandated a corrosive solvent into a fuel system comprised of the metals, plastics, rubber, and fiberglass ethanol deteriorates. The result is more pollution, fuel leaks into ground water, loss of habitat, and much more. Be glad Bush held back on the idiotic pseudoscience. Sometimes we do best when government does NOTHING.
- RD
April 17, 2008 at 2:19am
When is TNR going to finally make these posts for subscribers only again?? You too many nutjob/whackjobs commenting here If REB doesn't doubt global warming, I suggest he/she check what Venus looks like. The atmosphere is mostly CO2 and has been known for DECADES by studying that planet that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In that case, the planet is several hundred degrees hotter than could be explained just by direct solar radiation and it's due to the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (C02 and methane). Get your fact straight before you spout off blather from the head in the sand types. C02 has been a known greenhouse gas for decades pure and simple. Sheesh. The right wing stupidty and ignorance is too much in display.
- tnmats
April 17, 2008 at 9:30am
This is another thinly-veiled, cynical attack on scientists. Blame the victim! The author of the piece seems not to be aware of the major efforts of science societies to influence government policies through the meager legal methods open to them. The American Physical Society, for example, plans annual visits by their members to Congressional offices when physicists are in the Washington area for a professional meeting. They have workshops at professional meetings around the country where the processes of running for local, state, and national offices are explained in detail, including setting up campaign committees, etc. The fundamental problem, however, is that science is not like a corporation; it is a community of individual scientists who work very long hours conducting their research. Most don't even have secretarial support, let along the financial resources for effective lobbying. Those of us in academic institutions spend many volunteer hours educating the public on the role of science by visiting schools and holding science fairs. The scientific enterprise, like so many others in a democracy, must and should depend on an informed electorate.
- David Gavenda
April 17, 2008 at 9:59am
REB, your statements are exactly why they don't want to get involved. You have completely bought into the statements of lobbies that want to prevent the US from taking action. Global cooling was mentioned in something like 7 papers out of 40 during the seventies, and was not seriously considered. Scientific models have more than concluded that humans have contributed to global warming. Do you actually go to the doctor? I'm curious because when you report a runny nose, the doctor has to guess on the evidence as to what it is: could be a cold, could be sinus infection, could be something else entirely. How do you trust the engineers who make your car? Cars are built with tolerances, but they could just as easily fall apart.
- anonevent
April 17, 2008 at 10:17am
REB - I believe you are working from a deliberate misrepresentation to the theory of anthropomorphic warming. The ice core data shows that C02 levels following temperature rises INITIALLY by around 800 years (which is geologically a snap of the fingers). This makes sense as during an ice age things are pretty inert and it's probably methane from decomposing matter as ice recedes that's the initial global warming gas. As things start to grow, however it's all carbons show. Today's problem is that we're pouring unbelievable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (an effectively closed system) AFTER an ice age. It would defy credulity to suggest that C02 is NOT a warming agent today without an amazing new discovery. Thus any talk of C02 leading or following INITIAL temperature rises is a deliberate distortion of the current situation.
- Nari224
April 17, 2008 at 10:34am
Thanks for the great article. In my opinion, scientists tend to believe that there is something inherently dirty about politics that is fundamentally in opposition to scientific research, which is purely fact-driven and objective. While nothing is without bias, they believe that peer-reviewed scientific research is the least biased of all options. Therefore, since these are two diametrically opposed worlds, most scientists don't even consider the idea that we need more scientists in government. (We were just discussing it in our lab yesterday.) Furthermore, I don't think scientists politicize science; it's the people who have no clue of what they're talking about who do so. Case in point is commenter REB. It's a valid argument to discuss what a given model's assumptions are, whether they make sense, and whether varying those assumptions yields a chaotic or convergent theory. It is not valid to say that since science doesn't understand everything, it must be wrong and therefore we don't need to look at the issue rationally. It's fact-driven rationality, not scientific knowledge, that is really lacking in the government. There are plenty of non-scientists who are influenced by facts, but there are far too many who twist the facts to suit their argument.
- Michael S
April 17, 2008 at 10:41am
This sounds like someone with a very political axe to grind. Here in Europe the scientists are mostyly state funded so they ahve to have 'problems' to research to justify their existence. This means they play politics worse than the commercial interests - and it is all unseen. Climate change is the current leader for this and if anyone tries to question the orthodoxy it is brushed away, as in this article, as fossil fuel industry espionage/propaganda. Science is political and always will be. If we forget that we will be suckered into wasting resources with every change in the wind. Science is essential, but so is political scrutiny and accountability for the money thrown at it, based upon what science 'sells' to the politicians.
- Ian Campbell
April 17, 2008 at 11:17am
It's a little dismaying that the American public can't name a living scientist and unless I'm mistaken TNR included a picture from a movie instead of a few living scientists with the article. We're giving into pop culture even here. No pictures of James Hansen, Laurence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Phillip Gingerich or anyone especially with a label would have made a great article fantastic
- lisa smith
April 17, 2008 at 11:27am
This article offers a limited vision of the assault on science, and what's really needed to rejuvenate science's role in society. The global warming skeptics, like the anti-evolutionists and anti-abortionists who have inserted themselves into the political process to undermine science, are agenda-driven special interests whose influence would quickly disappear with a change in administration. What won't disappear is the fact that scientists essentially have two places to go to pursue funding for their work: government and industry. And the government has been systematically starved of both funding and purpose, largely due to undue industry influence over government for the past 30 years. Look at the level of alternative energy research funded by DOE in 1979, and look at it today (in nominal terms, it's down about 80 percent). The EPA's Office of Research and Development, at one time a major source for extramural grantees, has not had a raise in 20 years. As one commenter pointed out, scientists have been involved, by lobbying for more money. That's failed. Why? Where they have fallen down on the job is in restoring public purpose to the nation's scientific endeavor, which inevitably challenges the industrial interests who currently steer the direction of scientific inquiry, both through their own funding and control over government. Until scientists challenge that paradigm, there's no reason to think political activism around "depoliticizing science" will have much impact on the overall direction of the nation's scientific enterprise. It will just get a few monkeys off their backs. These issues will be discussed in more detail at the Center for Science in the Public Interest's fourth national conference, "Rejuvenating Public Sector Science," which will be held in Washington on July 11. For more information, go to http://www.integrityinscience.org.
- Merrill Goozner
April 17, 2008 at 12:47pm
REB: You obviously have little or no contact with real scientists and science. While they certainly are prone to the human failings of arrogance, a desire to be "right", science as a whole possesses something no other knowledge system can claim: a self-correcting, self-evolving method that defines its activities. Unlike all religions and most political platforms. The scientific method requires all adherents to make a case, replicate results, and always consider faslifiability (see Karl Popper. Please.). The very straw man you complain about is, in its actual form, one of the shining and noble attributes of science: that it can and does adjust, adjust again, engage, temper findings, reverse direction, not occasionally but daily, and thousands of time in thousands of labs, sites, conferences and facilities world-wide. The assertion that scientists "don't like to be questioned on their "expertise"" is laughably ill-informed. Malformed, to be precise: while individuals might take umbrage, temporarily, it won't have anything to do with what you deride as "expertise". It will almost always be as a result of their careful case and evidence, and vigorous defense of good science by two sides yields better science. Ya dope ya, you reveal your meagre political agenda with this "expertise" in air quotes; I suppose you eschew airliners, emission-controlling cars, plasma screens, electric toothbrushes and the internet as "so-called expertise", too? If so, good luck with the mud-hut thing. Otherwise, go back to spin school, 'cause no one here believes you are a "principled anti-scientist" for real. Just another rather inept huckster for inane neocon hooey.
- gcorrell
April 17, 2008 at 1:13pm
I think this improperly conflates the role of science -- establishing our best theories of the world around us, and that of politics -- how we, as a society, want to deal with those facts. The most accepted theory of climate may say that assuming a doubling of CO2 will result in a range of temperature changes and associated potential changes in the world we live in. It's not the job of science to say what we should do about it, nor the job of climate science or scientists to determine the costs of adaptation or mitigation. This doesn't justify government actions that deny or ignore the best science. One would prefer government arguments that accept the best science to whatever degree of confidence is warranted and use that as the basis for determining appropriate policy. Whether it's muddled in the policy-making, the descriptions of the policy makers, scientists assuming political positions, or the descriptions by journalists, is not something I know. I didn't gain much insight from this article, though.
- Dave M
April 17, 2008 at 1:32pm
The article seems to suggest support of a new science based organization to educate politicians in science. Oh lord don't give us one more organization. What is sorely needed is consolidation of such organizations as the NRDC and UCS and their related environmental and science organizations It should be up to a science organization to allocate resources to their branches most suitably. Think of the dilemma of the donors trying to figure out a reasonable allocation. Succumbing to a soft heart for a pika brings a deluge of mail and calendars that soon exceeds the donation.
- John Lindberg
April 17, 2008 at 2:02pm
This was a good article as a whole. Having just finished the Bird/Sherwin Oppenheimer biography, I was wondering what the author's take on the effect of Oppenheimer's hearing and his loss of security clearance had on the scientific community. My impression is that influential scientists got the message that anything beyond purely scientific issues was none of their business. In order to get the riches that atomic research had brough the community, most ambitious scientists have felt the need to keep quiet about politics. This has persisted to this day. Many scientists (I among them) harbor libertarian leanings, and desire to have as little to do with government as possible, so long as they can get work done. The societies to which I belong (Optical Society of Americal, APS, etc.) have fellowship programs and keep tabs, but rarely present any forceful response to an issue.
- rlgordonma
April 17, 2008 at 2:34pm
The inconvenient truth is that the global warming skeptics are often scientists like Lindsen of MIT or Singer, the former head of NASA's satellite temperature program. An even more inconvenient truth is that according to some reports I'm getting on campus that some science professors are very, very quietly coming onto the side of skepticism.
- cthulhu2008
April 17, 2008 at 3:12pm
Oxheadone- You said *The general educational level of the US population, particularly influenced by religious extremists and aided by the Catholic Church, is far below that of all developed countries and is closer to the levels of poor countries like Italy and Portugal* How exactly do you support an argument that religious extremists and Catholics have any effect on general educational level in the US? I have never heard of any Catholic group that tells people to drop out of school or to not get post-secondary education. Maybe you mean that they influence people to get business or liberal arts degrees rather than going into the sciences? Further, Italy and Portugal are not developed? You must believe that is because of all of the Catholics living there. I generally regard Rome and Venice as fairly developed, civilized places. If you are going to pick on the influence of Catholics, how did you forget about Ireland? More of your quote,*Such a population cannot be expected to appreciate an appeal to reason and science*. I guess the rest of us cannot appreciate you lack of grammatical and epistolary acumen. Maybe you should put down your Dawkins, and take up your Hitchens; at last he is a literary critic, and might be able to teach you about clear writing.
- hepneck
April 17, 2008 at 3:28pm
test comment
- test user
April 17, 2008 at 4:44pm
I know some scientists (including my wife who is a medical researcher). As someone mentioned above, a large chunk of the money to research comes from government grants and non-profit organizations. The competition to get this money is fierce. With the Bush administration, researchers have seen funding levels drop to all time lows forcing many of our smartest citizens to either find jobs in industry or move to other countries - for example, Singapore has huge research facilities (and they are allowed to do stem cell research to boot). Since there is limited funding, scientists find that they have to work very long hours in order to stay competitive. There is little time (or money) left to play politics. On the topic of global warming, what do scientists gain from making predictions about the future of the planet? It's not like they are going to make money by saying that the ice caps are going to melt. They are paid with public money, so they have the best interests of the public in general in mind and that's how it should be. Why would you believe a report saying that global warming is not happening if it came from a oil or coal company (or a politician that is backed by the 'friends of coal'). But people do because they don't want to spend a few extra bucks on a light bulb, or give up their SUVs ,or whatever.
- Andrew W
April 18, 2008 at 10:05am
Right now most scientists are struggling to just keep their heads above water. I am working on my PhD in a biophysics lab. Grad student regularly have access to talk to researchers from around the country who come to give seminars. They all say the same thing. Money comes and money goes, but right now the funding situation is as bad as it has ever been. The "pay line" for grants keeps getting higher. Grants are awarded by ranking all the applicants, and then funding the top X percentile. While X might have been 18 in the past, today it's probably closer to 9. I'm told that with the pay line that high, there's a significant amount of luck involved in getting funded. So scientists tend to just submit more and more grants to try to improve the odds. When they aren't working on grants, they are trying to publish papers that will make their grant applications look better. Or recruit more students and post-docs to do more experiments to put in the papers. And let's not forget, many scientists are at universities and have teaching duties on top of this. So no, they probably aren't spending their time pushing a political agenda.
- Sarah S
April 18, 2008 at 11:35am
This post is hilarious: | Posted by oxheadone The general educational level of the US population, particularly influenced by religious extremists and aided by the Catholic Church, is far below that of all developed countries and is closer to the levels of poor countries like Italy and Portugal. Such a population cannot be expected to appreciate an appeal to reason and science. The fact that Kansas has to struggle with board of education members who deny evolution tells us almost all we need to know. The previous period of respect for science was really an awe at the atom bomb and space travel. Scientists would need some new wonderous act to get the public's attention today. Poster starts out complaining about the "educational level" of Americans. It's "education level" plutard. "Wondrous, " not "wonderous" "In awe" not "an awe." (I'll give you the benefit here that this was a typo.) Reminds me of John Kerry - "elitist. " "Halp us John Carry. Were stuck hear in Irak! "
- JWL2672
April 18, 2008 at 3:14pm
My girlfriend used to work in a hospital research lab. Many instances she performed experiments that turned out results that were unexpected. Her lab director told her to run the experiment again. And again and again. She was usually proven correct but I wonder what results would have been used if, on the fifth run, the results flipped one time versus the previous four. Would they have cherry-picked that data? Me thinks yes. Scientists these days (especially in academia) are nearly as political as lobbyists. Imagine you're the dude whose research shows - "the world's in great shape! Nothing wrong here!" You think you'd get more attention and grant money than Mr. Chicken Little's "Sky is Falling!" theory?
- JWL2672
April 18, 2008 at 3:22pm
Well, in the defense of scientists, many elements of the American institutional landscape have fallen down on the job in the face of the current administration. To name just one example, the Fourth Estate has consistently failed in its responsibilities to the American public and to the American political discourse, and even after all the lessons of 2001-2004 they still continue to do more harm than good far too often. America was just not prepared for someone to question every assumption they had about the limits and functional methodology of the system, and they got played. Scientists are just part of a larger trend. The way out of this is through exactly what you say - showing more backbone. But it's also about moving beyond "outrage" and starting to assert qualitative differences of opinion, rather than condemning the held opinion. http://www.getsolar.com/blog/
- Eric
April 19, 2008 at 6:36pm
I posted a rejoinder on this idiotic article last week but apparently, Mooney or the other greenie/lefty gatekeepers deemed it not worthwhile to post any disapproving responses. Whatever dude. Just goes to show that liberals are only "open-minded" when it comes to people who agree with them.
- jwl2672
April 21, 2008 at 1:55pm
Ignorant, self-satisfied public. Spineless intellectuals and postmodern waffling on the value of reason and scientific method. Projection of 'religious' demands for certainty onto scientific method. Opportunistic politicians and "experts". Superstition. Our problem is that the Enlightenment was not carried far enough. Just read some of the comments above.
- jon
April 23, 2008 at 1:47pm
The Scientific method is really this, how can I get funding to support my research and life style. The federal government funds science to the tune of hundreds of billion dollars, that a long with private money adds up to trillions in funding, the problem is there is never enough money to make everyone happy. The trick is to convince enough people the life it self will stop because something you're working on. Global warming has become a issue. All research must somehow be connected to the evils of global warming. So much so the belief in global warming has become a Religion. The proponents can not see any flaws in their arguments, have thrown out the scientific method, and replaced it with faith. If you want funding you better bow down before the sacred hockey stick graph, pronounce your research as a solution to the end of humanity while calling all doubters evil heretics and burning them in a carbon neutral fire.
- Allan
October 11, 2008 at 2:47am
I really agree with the comment that science needs to be separated from its political implications. So long as funding is in any way associated with the political usefulness of the conclusions those conclusions are suspect. Moreover so long as scientists are allowed to have a political opinion in a matter that is associated with their work they are suspect. Basically, a system needs to be devised which can report information with a good degree of accuracy under the assumption that all involved will lie, cheat and steal.
- JHW
November 14, 2008 at 9:33pm
I am an admitted conservative and global warming doubter. I cannot say that it is absolutely untrue, but I am concerned that the believers cannot accept that some of us have doubt. I am not a religious nut, although that is the label "progressives" place on us. I just am not convinced that (1) the earth is warming, (2) it is caused by human behavior and (3) we should change behavior to try to fix it. By the way, the comment that the models have predicted the temperature is not fair. There are many models and they suggest many results. I am sure there are models that predict we would be frozen or boiling by now. The models are continuously revised to improve them. So if you know of a model that was good in the 70's and has not needed revision and is still accurate today, please let us know. When I have a discussion with my liberal friends, whether it be regarding politics, economics or science, I at least understand that they have the belief that they do. We try to explain our views and why we hold them. Present arguments supporting our view and at least enlighten each other on why we have our beliefs. We don't change our minds, but we have a better understanding of why we think what we do. Reading the comments above, I wonder why we can't have serious dialogue. Whenever one expresses doubt in global warming, the believers say he's a heretic, or subversive with big oil background. Oh yeah, or he's just a religious right kook. It's almost like reverse of the very thing progressives preach against. Why can't you accept that some of us are not convinced? I doubt that many here (if any) are actually privy to the data that is needed to make absolute opinion. It is mostly based on fundamental belief. Humans = bad. What is the threat in having an actual debate? Geeze. Bottom line, the lack of honest debate is where true science is being lost. In my not so humble opinion.
- Russell
May 29, 2009 at 7:38pm