In one of the previous posts I believe Roger said that he had no idea if the current administration is worse then previous. I find this somewhat of a cop-out.

This particular administration appears to be much worse then previous ones. It seems much more ideologically driven, and much more willing to lie and to ignore logic and facts. I’d welcome someone providing good evidence that this is not true. I wish Roger would spend more time on this question rather then attacking Mooney for giving a bad answer to it. For example in Roger Pielke’s response to Dave Roberts’ post, he corrects the reading reading of Mooney, but ignores the larger points.

Also: I don’t like calling this a Republican war on scientific. It seems particular to a small group of people currently in power. It is also not just about science it is about anything that gets in the way of their agenda or power.

http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/papers/scientizing%20politics2.pdf

the link to Dan’s review seems not to work. Either that or I have suddenly gone computer-illiterate.

Best regards,
Philipp

The first may be a legitimate belief that their analysis of climate change is correct. They may favor the school, (several of whom regularly visit this site), that says that AGW is indeed happening but that CO2 is not the only cause and that other natural and man-made ones must be considered. The simplistic idea of “pass a law” behind Kyota to them is not the solution. Their answer is to continue to spend billions on climate research (would science warring folks do that?), to enact incentives for conservation and alternate fuels, and to effect political iniatives like the recent Pacific protocol which shares anti-warming technology amongst the biggest energy consumers.

The second is the religious one again. Indeed we can thank Mr. Bush for bringing fundamentalism to the highest levels of government. The declared enemy of their ayatollahs is secular humanism (note the 65 million best-selling “Left Behind” series of books). That secular philosophy of life sits on the political left which happens to be where the warming “crisis” school also resides. You bet that the fundamentalists in power are not going to let secular views prevail. Do be aware, however, that even though these fanatics probably control the Republican party, other factions in that party are at last beginning to to wake up and assert themselves.

But that religious fervor is not exclusive to the right. There is a quasi-religious movement on the left as well. They subscribe to nutty environmental groups instead of religious sects; instead of mullahs and churches, they have websites and the streets of Montreal. Their beliefs are fervent and well-meaning but as scary as the other side’s. If you think this is a mischaracterization, then may I suggest reading, “Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century”. The editor presents thirty authors who talk about the New Age god, Gaia, whom they try to transfigure into science. The editor is one Stephan H. Schneider, which name should be familiar to global warming folks. Could “global warming” be the doomsday doctrine for the religious left?
Sorry to take up so much of your website, Roger, but indeed proper framing is important. I frame it this way. There is no Bush war on science. There is, however, a religious war going on and science particularly climate science is caught in the middle!!!

Chortling over, PZ Myers posts on strategy for the anti-ID movement:
I’ve heard [ID proponent Phillip] Johnson speak, and he’s smooth and confident, and slyly appeals to his audience’s prejudices. Of course, he also lies like a (censored) [sic]. It sim…

How can you say:
*********************************
Well, here is what Mooney writes in the intro to his book: “Companies subject to government regulation regularly invoke “science” to thwart federal controls and protect the bottom line. Religious conservatives, meanwhile, seek to use science to bolster their moralistic agenda…” SNIP
….
Pretty naïve and silly.
*********************************

Would you care to explain the devil’s dance this administration has been performing about Plan B going over the counter without Mooney’s assumption?

And while you are at it, put some effort into explaining the trove of documents turned up by the tobacco litigation which demonstrated that Philip Morris & Co were doing exactly what Mooney claimed at considerable cost to smokers. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/. Curious that many of the same players (Fred Seitz for example) transitioned over into the climate change debate and a similar issues. http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html There are lots of other examples

This is a simple demonstration that your argument is baseless.

More important, in my opinion (and also Mooney’s) is that the Republicans depend on an alliance whose members ARE, for financial and religious reasons, abusing science.

Democrats abuse science, en passant. Sometimes they don’t abuse it at all. For Republicans it has become a matter of existence. Unfortunate.

You write “I do not think he does, or would, argue that “one side has values and the other truth,” as Roger and another commenter implied. That would indeed be naive and silly.”

Well, here is what Mooney writes in the intro to his book: “Companies subject to government regulation regularly invoke “science” to thwart federal controls and protect the bottom line. Religious conservatives, meanwhile, seek to use science to bolster their moralistic agenda… this book explains how our nation gave rise to a political movement whose leaders, to put it bluntly, often seem not to care what we in the “reality-based community” know about either nature or ourselves.”

Pretty naïve and silly.

I’d encourage you to read what Sarewitz has actually written on these subjects, as well as the many relevant commentaries on this blog that provide a wide range of evidence contrary to the Mooney thesis. But most of all, I’d encourage you to read Mooney’s book, because it does not say what you think it does. It does say quite clearly that one side has truth, the other values, and there is no getting around that very basic point as captured in the Sarewitz review.

I’d also note that while Mooney is not shy about posting every mention of his book on his blog, he seems to have somehow avoided engaging the Sarewitz review, which may have something to do with the fact that Sarewitz nails the central inconsistency in the book.

I do not think he does, or would, argue that “one side has values and the other truth,” as Roger and another commenter implied. That would indeed be naive and silly.

The point is that both sides have values and policy preferences. Both sides argue for them. In the course of doing so, one side twists and misrepresents scientific consensus occasionally, and the other side does it A LOT and SYSTEMATICALLY. Doing so is an essential tool in their political arsenal. Their movement is, at least in part, built on it.

If you (or Sarewitz, or whoever) think that argument is false, then argue against it. But trying to put these goofy arguments in Mooney’s mouth does no one any good — it’s just a way to preen about your own elevation above grubby political debates.

Now, I don’t think Mooney explicitly says so, but I would add the following:

The reason Republicans rely so heavily on distorting science these days is that their values (far right Christian values and oligarchic corporate values) are not persuasive. They can’t win the value arguments on moral grounds, so they try to gin up bogus scientific rationales.

Most people wouldn’t accept that it’s a moral imperative to keep Terry Shiavo’s brain dead body breathing, so Frist has to lie and diagnose brain activity.

Most people wouldn’t accept that a clump of cells has the same moral status as a grown person, so Bush has to lie about the number of stem cells available for research.

Most people wouldn’t accept that the North American way of life is so inviolate that it should not be altered even if it is set to cause billions in damage and untold human suffering in poorer parts of the world, so they create and fund a group of contrarians to say global warming is a myth.

Most people wouldn’t accept that those who fail to follow God’s alleged orders to stay celibate until marriage deserve to contract AIDS, so they lie about the efficacy of celibacy-based sex ed programs.

The list goes on and on and on and on. At some point, y’all need to get a little bit more upset about that and a little bit less upset about Mooney’s willingness — a sin in the eyes of bourgeois centrist intellectuals — to call a group of venal scumbags what they are: venal scumbags.

Yes, “ultimately,” the problem of science politicization is deeper than mere partisanship. But right now, in *this* world, in *our* political situation, the problem is one side crapping all over science. After five years of this, I’m through trying to maintain credibility among the chattering classes by droning on about the “deeper” flaws of human institutions. It’s time to enter the temporal realm, the real world, and fight our way back to sanity.

(And yes, happy holidays to you as well, Roger, and to all your commenters!)

Thanks for your comments. Where I think you and Sarewitz would agree 100% is in your characterization of the Bush Administration. Sarewitz is hardly above partisanship, just ask him.

Where he and you appear to disagree lies in your simplistic, black-and-white description of science in policy as reflecting a “robust scientific consensus in various areas”. Sarewitz has written extensively about this subject and I suggest you have a look.

He suggests that if we want to debate our different values then we should debate our different values, rather than pretend, as Mooney does, that one side has values and the other truth. Such a framing does a diservice both to science and political debate. Have a look at the last paragraph in Sarewitz’s review.

FYI, word on the street is that Sarewitz will be entering the blogosphre in some fashion early 2006, and so you will be able to engage him directly. We’ll link when this happens.

Have a nice holiday;-)

Most of the anecdores mentioned by both reviews lead back to the dogmas of certain religious fundamentalists. Their objective is to have that dogma prevail. They do not call for a war on science. They are as dependent on science as are most modern folks. They go after science only on an ad hoc basis when it gets in their way. We all better realize that they are pushing their agenda from the highest levels.

Those anedotes that depict business interests within the administration as “warring” on science are silly. Science is the very foundation of modern business but where there is conflict, you can bet that business will loook after its own interests. It always has since the founding of the Republic. What is different right now is that it is on top and on the inside.

Framing an issue is important (thanks for the site reference, Roger), This is a religious attack on science not a war by the Bush administartion.