E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSVideo clips from the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress contrast GOP hopeful Mitt Romney's statements on climate change in June and October.
GOP hopeful Mitt Romney slipped into scientific doublespeak this week when he told a rally that "we don’t know what’s causing climate change" — seemingly contradicting his earlier statement that "I believe humans have contributed" to the increase in global mean temperatures.
That’s par for the course when it comes to the intersection of politics and science, says Shawn Lawrence Otto, who addresses the topic at length in a new book titled "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America." Otto said Romney is simply betting that he'll be able to zigzag away from his previous views on climate policy, in order to appeal to the Republican base during the primary season.
"He's doubled down a little bit further," Otto told me today.
Will Romney win the bet? It's hard to say at this point, but the fact that Romney is backing away from a view that has a fair amount of scientific evidence behind it doesn't bode well for the state of science policy ... and politics. "That is clear evidence to me of the level of anti-science among the Republican activists at the ground level," Otto said.
The theme of Otto's book — that politics and science usually don't mix — isn't exactly a bolt from the blue. Other books in the genre include "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America," as well as "Merchants of Doubt," "The Body Politic," "Denialism" and many more. But Otto draws upon his experience on the front lines of the debate over science and politics. And when I say "debate," I mean that literally.
Otto's day job is in Hollywood, and he's perhaps best-known as the screenwriter and co-producer of "House of Sand and Fog" (and writer/director of the upcoming "Dreams of a Dying Heart"). But during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was the co-founder and CEO of Science Debate, a grass-roots effort aimed at getting the candidates to address the tough questions surrounding science and technology policy: What should be done about climate change? What about embryonic stem-cell research? How would you shore up American innovation and promote energy security and sustainability?
Otto and his colleagues didn't get the full-scale, onstage debate they were hoping for, but they did get Barack Obama and John McCain to answer 14 key questions about the science-based challenges facing America.
Otto thinks the candidates got as much out of the exercise as the voters did. "It's arguable that without that, Obama would not have had the science literacy that he had going into office," he said.
Three years after Obama won the White House, Otto says the president's record on those science-oriented issues is a "mixed bag." There are questions about environmental compromises, a less-than-transparent regulatory process and renewable-energy reversals. for example.
"We got on base, that's about all we managed to do," Otto said. "We didn't hit a home run."
But the big problem may be the state of the electorate. In his book, Otto outlines how today's political framework is based on "values" rather than facts, and how that has distorted the debate over issues that touch upon science and technology. If anything, America has slid backward over the past few decades, Otto said.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP
President Barack Obama listens to student Alexandria Sutton, 16, during his visit to a classroom at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., in September.
"In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy had to go out of his way to say that his religion would not interfere with his presidency," he said. "Now we're almost having candidates say the opposite: They're not going to let the science interfere with their religious convictions while they're in office. ... It's not family values that made America No. 1. It's our can-do spirit and our ability to deal with hardheaded science."
So what's the solution? Otto doesn't have any magic formula up his sleeve.
"To me, the question is whether knowledge is advancing to the point where democracy isn't able to handle making good decisions," he told me. "What happens when the level of knowledge required around all these issues that we have to be able to salve is so high that the general public really doesn't intersect with it? I don't really know the what the solution to that is, but it's very concerning."
He may not have the quick fix, but he does have some suggestions. For example, in the book he lays out an "American Science Pledge" that commits the signer to upholding scientific integrity and transparency, freedom of inquiry, open debate and policies based on knowledge rather than personal opinions.
To his credit, Otto avoids blaming religion for the sad state of scientific affairs. "This is a time for churches to reach out to scientists and to speak about science and politics, because these discussions are so important to the future," he writes. "We are in a moral crisis, and it matters little whether a preacher is conservative or progressive if he or she is incorporating knowledge into moral reflections."
Otto also calls upon scientists to get more involved in public engagement.
"I do think that scientists have the opinion that it's not really their job, but I think that's a mistake," he told me. "Right now, the public doesn't understand what they're getting for their money, and they don't appreciate what they're getting for their money. So right now there's a growing science gap, and scientists are the only ones who can do something about that."
You can bet these ideas will be coming to the fore during Science Debate 2012, which is just starting to get off the ground. How do you see the debate over science, technology, innovation and public policy shaping up? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
Further reviews of 'Fool Me Twice':
- Harvard Law and Policy Review: Stop the backward slide
- Science: Eagle Scout's prescription for democracy and science
- Point of Inquiry: Shawn Otto and the assault on science
More on science and politics:
- Climate controversy spotlights GOP science policy
- Funny science sparks serious political spat
- Will our 'Sputnik moment' fizzle out?
For more on the presidential campaign, check out msnbc.com's Politics section.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I strongly suggest that Yahoo or one of the search engines institute a basic course in science. Scientific theories are identified as "guess work". Nobody seems to know the difference between a hypothesis and and a theory. Global warming and climate change are a scientific theory and not just a hypothesis. Data collected over many years and many research studies have documented the global warming. The Koch brothers, who are not known for their love of global warming, helped fund the latest work on global warming. The conclusion, global warming is a fact and a scientific theory. The next phase of the research will be as to how much human contribute to global warming. Likely will take the group two years. However, 97% of the world's scientists have concurred that humans are raising the world's temperature. Right wing people trying somehow to blame liberals or socialisits or some other group for this view is ignorance. Americans have become people of self imposed ignorance.
Harry,
Thank you for providing the best reason not to take man-made global warming that seriously. The Al Gores of the world say global warming is a settled fact and the debate is over. How can a theory be off limits to debate? A theory is not reliable enough to make sweeping changes which can affect our standard of living. It is subject to falsified data and interpretation.
Good luck finding a job. You are not well informed about science.
David,
LOL.....Consensus is NOT scientific fact or scientific law. Would you care to show how much REAL science you know by having a little one-on-one discussion on chemistry, physics and thermodynamics?
What about the risk of massive disruption to human civilization caused by climate change? Wouldn't that affect our standard of living? There is strong evidence that changes are already happening. New research is published almost every day. Here's the latest study from NOAA (see noaa.gov): "Human-caused climate change a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts."
It is incontrovertible that the climate is changing. Why? Because the climate is always changing. That "change is the only constant" is clearly shown in the Greenland ice cores. Is the climate warming? Yeah, probably, at least for now. Has man added to the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Certainly. What has been the quantitative effect of that? No one knows. And the predicted effects in the future of everyone switching to Compact Fluorescents? Ditto.
The worth of any scientific theory (except maybe for string theory) is evaluated based on its ability to make testable predictions. In the last 30 years, average gas mileage has over doubled. Has there been any measurable effect? No. We brewed up an ocean of ethanol to burn in our cars. Has there been any measurable effect (aside from making food more expensive)? No. In 1995, Al Gore predicted that the North Polar Seas would be ice-free year around in 15 years. Has it happened? No.
The climate may be changing, but the nature and effects of those changes are still unpredictable.
As a consequence of fuel economy improvements since 1975 we are now buying about 70 billion fewer gallons of gasoline than we would have had we not improved the fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks. At $3.50 per gallon that is a savings to all of us car drivers of $245 billion. Real money. And, the effect is easily measured.
I agree with you completely David. Reducing our use of fossil fuels, especially oil, is a really, really good thing to do for a multitude of reasons. You mentioned one; another is to stop funding the people who want to destroy us. But those are not measured effects on climate. I don't believe that global warming will have any more dire consequences than the climate changes we have already experienced in the last few millennia.
I subscribe to the part of the Gaea hypothesis that suggests that the entire Earth's ecosystem has evolved in the same way as individual organisms - to survive. I believe that it is well adapted to to survive such frequent events as global warming and cooling, and will continue to do so.
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh was going on and on about how useless and lazy teachers are and about how colleges are just liberal indoctrination institutions.
There is a direct correlation between scientific illiteracy and watching lots of dumb FUX NEWS.
The dumb FUX fans are very proud of their beliefs and complete ignorance, to them it is irrelevant what scientific data teaches us...
Just vote the dip$hit$ out and let's go back to being the world's leader in research and development, technical superiority and scientific exploration...
TEA = The End of America
Talk about a dumb fuk, you are it! The kids in school today are a sorry example of what liberal dems have done to our schools. I agree with voting the dip$h!t liberals and socialists out. Obamanation must go!
So, is it the forces that profit from polution are fighting the forces that are harmed by their polution?
That certainly isn't up for debate.
Republicans = polluters. Democrats = clean it up.
Really?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44372992/ns/us_news-environment/t/obama-halts-tighter-smog-rule-citing-regulatory-burdens/
Imagine the following scenario: The year is 1280 AD, a 400-year warm period is ending and scientists are saying that if we don't do something, we will be facing a centuries-long Little Ice Age. They predict widespread famine and plague. They go on to say that we must burn everything we can to increase CO2 and drill gas wells to vent methane into the atmosphere so that the greenhouse effect will keep us warm.
What would you say to them?
In this case the science mentioned is made up and not fact! It is a socialist plot to achieve a one world government. The sun controls our climate and is in a warming cycle. The CLOUD experiment at CERN proved that, and they are trying to hide the facts from the public. They want to pass controls internationally. This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with world government. It is a ploy to gain the power over us all. Global warming is their tool to achieve one world rule! These are rapidly becoming the times of the End Times as foretold in the Bible.
Charliep. You should realize the most recent study MNBC has reported on was commissioned by the Koch brothers and got results exactly the opposite of what they wanted, the Kochs being leaders in the fight to disbelieve climate change. They had a lot of money, so they could execute theirs on a scale much greater than those commie liberals trying to steal your way of life.
You don''t mean to tell us that the American business world is the Republican base and that these same Republicans want to destroy our planet for their profit? Do these same Republican base own the coal company's who treat miners lives with a grain of salt and lie on all their documents. Does this same Republican base want to drive the final death nail into the heart of America's Labor Unions so they can make more profit and treat all workers like Mcsociets or Wallymart tech's. What a Country..
Glad I'm an Independent. I don't have to lie to go along with anyone elses 'party'. I can tell it like I see it.
I am tiring of the non-scientifically trained people (or, should I say sheeple) proclaiming AGW as fact. As a geologist that understands climate and climate change, I can say with nearly absolute certainty that human activity is NOT the largest cause of climate change.
Instead of worrying about global warming, can we worry more about REAL pollution?
I'm scientifically trained in thermal engineering (also aerospace engineering) and I certainly dispute what you're saying. If human activity is not the largest cause of recent climate change, then there needs to be an explanation of what is.
Do you really want to waste your time arguing scientific fact with people that believe in a mythical, magical man in the sky?
Excellent point, Derpy. While the topic is not specifically about the EPA the whole denialist thing is ALL about the destruction of the EPA for no other reasons that profit motive. This does not matter if it's CO2, H2S, or Hg, it's all about profit - and the perpetuation of fossil fuel consumption. Win-win in the lifetimes of the Koch brothers and shareholders in Exxon/Mobil and Halliburton, etc. By the time the mercury creeps up to their doorstep they'll have long been buried in their gold-lined caskets.
Unfortunately, when it becomes a dialogue between GOP and science, it does not mix, as the GOP will always put their political interests first, in this case appealing to their financial base, as well as the their perceived Tea Party base. Fortunately, their Right wing base only comprises 25% of the voting public, so sanity and rational solutions to our economic and environmental problems still have a chance, assuming we can survive until 2012, as the GOP House will do nothing to solve our problems, except to do nothing, which is their grand plan in making Obama a one term president.
Science does mix with Democrats but not with Republicans.
Republicans gave up science long ago and now just "feel" their way through decisions...
Science does not mix with Republican christo-fanatic tea-liban types. Most of them don't even know how birth control works.
The United States appears a hopeless mess. Ignorance, prejudice, stupidity, crudeness, and incivility triumph. Religion is favored over science, magical thinking trumps logic, candidates for public office cannot appear "too intelligent!" The knuckle-draggers seem to have the upper hand. The Republican Party is an intellectual and moral cesspool that makes France's Front National look respectable. Today's Democratic Party comprises a weak, spineless collection of politicians who, while not as revoltingly despicable as its rival, is unworthy of support, except as a force to block the worst excesses of the lunatic right-wing. It is very difficult to believe that American society has the resources and strength to overcome the forces of darkness dragging it down.
Well said, but I have renewed hope in the younger generation. The OWS movement is a step in the right direction.
You (Alan Boyle) say there is a fair amount of scientific evidence behind human induced climate change. I think you are part of the problem of misinforming the public. When the National Academies of Science of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Canada, Japan, China, Mexico, Brazil, India and South Africa all say that the climate is warming and humans are largely responsible and the need for urgent action is indisputable, that is a LOT more than a fair amount of scientific evidence. That is a global scientific consensus.
smart responses.
so what if it was true (as it obviously is), but stopping all US production and stopping all US traffic and taxing every US dollar to try to pull the CO2/methane out of the air/ocean/tundra didn't stop the rest of the coal burning, moped driving 6.65 billion world from causing the expected climate diasters. But then it won't be US citizens dying in mass (N.O. was nothing compared to pakistan floods, right) and US building codes will survive better than china, who has stolen more intellectual property than any crime ever anyway, would you still vote for the (in effect) huge tax burden, or tell the world the ugly truth about war, or would you just deny the science and buy beach front in Hartford and probably dress just fine most of the year in 40 years? We can't fix medicare why would you lie and say you want to save the world for your kids?
Hyperbole much?
That's not being asked of out government so don't pass that lazy crap off as how people who want to slow Global Warming are thinking. That's dishonest.
touch a nerve?
I'll rephase: given that the number of NEW cars in China is predicted to surpass total cars in the US within decades, and that even the greenest of scienctist acknowledge that oil will be needed for decades due to world demands, do you REALLY think the "much less requested (than my fantastical what if..)" Gov actions will even dent the warming effect? So honest question, why throw good money away? why not wait for better world leaders (and a world that is ready)? Don't you think we will need a crisis first? whether that is "too late" or not?
I personally try to be optomistic, but honest too.
Man-made global warming will be over on January 20, 2013.
Bush,
Actually, you are wrong. There won’t be any good paying “permanent” jobs until the right policies are in place for at least a year to two years. Obama has wasted the first two years and just now trying to “focus like a laser” on jobs. We will have to wait until 2014 for the really good jobs to materialize after Obama is booted out. In the meantime, we just have to do temporary contract jobs like I have been doing the last three years, living out of motels.
Willful ignorance and hatred of learning and distrust of competence are hallmarks of Republican politics. They think everything problem can be solved with two minutes of thinking in a closed room and boiled down into a 10 second sound bite that a grade-school dropout can chant.
Well it is Oct now after all. I mean back in June it was hot so the Republican mind thought, "hot = warm". Now it is cold and again, how the Republican mind works, "cold = ice age". So there you have it. Mitt isn't actually flip-flopping, he's dumb. :) ;)
GLOBAL WARMING MY ASS!!!
The northeast is experiencing record snowfall along with record lows in temperature! Al Gore should be whipped! His chicken-little crying personally profited him over $100 million dollars. What were his true motivations??
It doesn't matter if it is cold or hot, the man-made-climate-psychos will say it is proof of global warming. They have an agenda, and stand to make lots of money from it.
The facts are that record highs (remember last summer?) outnumber record lows, and that the global average temperature has been above the 20th century average for over 30 consecutive years.
To look at climate change, you must research long term trends, not just the past year.
The republicans stand to make alot more money by continuing the money-making (and polluting) businesses they own, and they think they will lose money if they do anything to reduce pollution.
Its too bad they can't see the bigger picture - which would also enable them to make even more money making and selling pollution-control devices as well as developing renewable sources of energy that can be sold to make a profit.
There is a difference between weather, local climate, and global climate. They are all changing. Global climate has been changing for billions of years and will probably continue to change for billions or years weather man is here or not. Weather man has had anything appreciable to do with it is debatable. There are giant forces at play of which man has no control. People always complain about the weather but very little is ever done about it.
And I think everyone notices that your contribution to the alleged debate is zero Will. You can't cite papers, you pull imaginary causes of global warming out of your rear, you're a poster child for willful ignorant denialism.
Man has everything to do with it- we've got a cause- rising CO2 in the atmosphere, an effect- rising temperatures, a verifiable mechanism and exclusion of all other causes... which you blithely pretend don't exist.
Most people would agree the earth is warming, as it has many times in the past, before man existed. The question is whether man is responsible, and nobody can say they know for sure. There is no proof. Did the caveman cause the ice age? Did the dinosaurs cause the earth to be warmer a few million years ago? Anyone who says they know for a fact is lying or has an agenda.
Cop out.
Can say and are saying; they just don't know the outcome.
Knowing the Earth is warming isn't conjecture, it's fact and the data, even from the Koch brother's funded study backs it up. It's not up for discussion.
What is, and still seems the real problem, is how bad will it be, what can man do and will do...
That's the only ambiguity there is.
I said that the earth is warming (did you even read my full post??) What I also said is whether we are responsible is up for debate. The Earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. It's not a cop-out, it's fact. Nobody really knows if we are the reason or if its just another sun cycle, as has happened in the past. I do agree however, nothing bad can come out of us cleaning up the environment.
If it's a sun cycle, then satellite measurements of solar energy should show that by now, but they don't.
Jeff-1857773
But we DO know. That is the problem. The scientists figure things out, and the politically =motivated people ignore them and pretend that "Nobody really knows."
Weather the earth is warming is itself debatable. Adequate data does not exist.
Will-
You wouldn't know adequate data if it bit you in the ass. If you did, you would have defined it and said why the data we have falls short. Exactly what qualifies you to determine what adequate data is? have you read the BEST pre-prints? Got solid objections to them confirming what a half-dozen peer reviewed papers before them have said? Now if it were me, and I had such evidence I'd be shoving it down your throat. You don't have it. You can't quote it. All you try to do is sow doubt, bluffing without an ace in your hand.
I would rather gamble on the scientists being right, and make the kind of changes in my activities that recognize the situation. We have been checking out the solar system pretty steadily, and there is no place else to go. It makes sense to me to try to keep the planet livable, rather than to keep on as usual and then find out we can`t make it here anymore and not have an alternative. It makes no difference if the rich stay rich or not. Money won`t do anyone any good if it comes down to survival. At my age I won`t be around, so I don`t have a personal axe to grind. But most of our wealth is in the form of data in computer systems. That has little practical value in itself We have put ourselves in the middle of some very thin ice.
There is no profit in finding solutions for environmental destruction. We will continue our path until it cannot support us anymore. What a shameful and irresponsible behavior from humans.