Interview with Brad Johnson, Center for American Progress

February 25th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Brad Johnson, of the Center for American Progress, contacted me to ask if he could ask a few questions. The Center for American Progress is a Washington, DC think tank that describes its mission as follows (emphasis in original):

CAP is designed to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement. Our ability to develop thoughtful policy proposals and engage in the war of ideas with conservatives is unique and effective.

Here is my interview with Brad:

1. When you told John Tierney you’re an “Obamite,” what did you mean?

The Urban Dictionary defines an “Obamite” as:

One who supports Barack Obama in his Quest for change.

I strongly support Barack Obama, did so during the campaign, and will continue doing so. His election was a great moment not just for the United States, but for people everywhere.

2. How regular is your correspondence with Marc Morano?

I suppose you are referring to the email from Mark Morano (a staffer for Senator James Inhofe, R-OK) that you “exposed” as representing a list of “climate denial jokers” (cute!). Looking back over my email records, it appears that I was asked in January, 2008 by Mark Morano if he could periodically send me an email newsletter. I replied “Sure.” As a blogger and policy analyst I am on many (too many) email lists, and I am happy to receive all of these emails from many different groups and perspectives, as they collectively give me a sense of what people are thinking and reading, as well as giving me pointers to information that I might not otherwise see. Our Center has an email list which we use to send around a Briefing every few months (sign up here). Such lists are part of the process of communication, so I am quite happy to receive Marc Morano’s emails.

3. Are there other “Obamites” who participate in discussions with Inhofe’s staffers like you do?

I am not sure what “discussions” you are referring to, but if you are asking if there are other people who support Barack Obama who receive emails from Mark Morano, then I am pretty sure that the answer is “yes.” Morano did not ask me who I voted for or support when he asked if he could send me emails, so I don’t think that is a criteria to receive them. If your question is whether or not Senator Inhofe’s staff participate in discussions with people who support Barack Obama, then the answer is of course they do. I’d wager that Senator Inhofe’s staff talks with many Democrats on a daily basis. In fact, Republican and Democrats often participate in discussions together, and sometimes these discussions include Independents.

As far as your line of questions so far, they are evocative of how, in the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy went after people he thought associated with Communists. Here is an excerpt from one of McCarthy’s congressional hearings, this one with Aaron Copland:

McCARTHY. — Mr. Copland, have you ever been a Communist?

COPLAND. — No, I have not been a Communist in the past and I am not now a Communist.

Q. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer?

A. I am not sure that I would be able to say what you mean by the word ‘’sympathizer.” From my impression of it I have never thought of myself as a Communist sympathizer.

Q. You did not.

A. I did not.

Q. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?

A. I never attended any specific Communist Party function of any kind.

Q. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?

A. I am afraid I don’t know how you define a Communist meeting.

Q. A meeting you knew then or now had been called by the Communist Party and sponsored by the Communist Party.

A. Not that I would know of. No.

Q. Did you ever attend a meeting of which a major or sizable number of those in attendance were Communists?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist Party?

A. No.

Q. Did anyone ever discuss with you the possibility of your joining the communist Party?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. I know that every man has a different type of memory, so we can’t ask you to evaluate your memory. Would it seem logical that were you asked to join the Communist Party, you would remember?

A. If I had been asked to? Not unless it had some significance in my mind.

Q. So your answer at this time is that you can’t say definitely whether you have been asked to join the Communist Party or not?

A. No.

Q. Are any of your close friends Communists?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you know any members of the Communist Party who are Communists?

A. I don’t know any member of the Communist Party, as far as I know.

4. John Tierney asks: ” Can these scientists be honest brokers?” Do you believe Drs. Chu and Holdren are dishonest?

I believe that Drs. Chu and Holdren are scientists with remarkable records of achievement who are to be admired for taking on the challenging task of public service. I do not think they are dishonest. It is possible to differ with people’s views on policy and decisions while at the same time respecting them as individuals.

More basically, your question indicates a misunderstanding about the title of my book, The Honest Broker. The honest broker is not characterized simply by honesty (I argue that all four categories need to be honest), but by a willingness to present a range of options for decision. This is why I argue in the book that the honest broker role is best filled by a group of people (e.g., a committee) rather than an individual.

5. Do you identify yourself as a political scientist?

I have a Ph.D. in political science with specialization fields of public policy, American politics, and quantitative methods. I am currently a Professor of Environmental Studies. My expertise is in science and technology policy. So calling me a “political scientist,” “professor of environmental studies,” “expert in science and technology policy” are all fair.

Here is how I identify myself on my web page:

By some combination of nature and nurture I am an unreformed pragmatist, an unabashed policy wonk, and trained as a policy scientist.

6. John Tierney wrote: “To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”” Do you yourself believe Dr. Chu and Holdren are exaggerating their expertise?

I discuss John Holdren’s role in the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist in Chapter 8 of The Honest Broker. I argue that scientists (on all sides of political debates) tend to engage in battles over science as a proxy for open debate over policy options. This dynamic intensifies incentives to cherrypick or selectively present information, which includes emphasizing the most (or least) extreme possibilities, and sometimes going beyond what can be legitimately supported. People then argue over the science as a proxy for what they really care about. Recently, I questioned several assertions made by Steven Chu about the future of cities and agriculture in California (discussed more below).

7. On “The Skeptical Environmentalist”: Do you believe that TSE does not contain significant scientific errors of the types discussed by Holdren at al.?

For about five years I used The Skeptical Environmentalist (TSE) by Bjorn Lomborg as a text in my graduate seminar, “Policy, Science and the Environment.” The assignment that I gave to the students, who were divided up into groups, was to evaluate one of Lomborg’s chapters in direct comparison to an alternative interpretation of the same issue. For the most part, this exercise revealed that the debates over TSE mostly revolved not over specific facts, but the presentation and interpretation of those facts. In many cases both Lomborg and his opponents got data from the exact same sources (often the UN or other international bodies).

Ultimately, the question of whether or not things are getting better or worse depends upon how one defines what it means to be “better” or “worse”. Similarly, even if people agree on the question of better or worse they might disagree on the reasons for that trend. Virtually all of the debate over TSE is a debate about politics, with the political questions displaced onto questions of science. And most of the questions of science are irrelevant to the larger policy questions, except as a basis for asserting who has authority in the political debate. In this debate we typically see people question views on science in order to impeach an opponent’s political perspective.

8. Do you believe Dr. Chu misrepresented the science in his LAT interview or otherwise deserves criticism for it?

Dr. Chu is of course entitled to his own opinions on how the future climate will evolve and how climate changes will interact with society leading to impacts. But I think that as a prominent public official he should be very careful offering up scenarios that are “worst case” or, less charitably, not supported by relevant research. Just as easily as one could challenge the future habitability of California, one could say that California will do just fine under some scenarios of future climate change and societal response, and after saying so find some bit of literature that ostensibly supports such claims. That sort of presentation would be equally misrepresenting the science. In this case Dr. Chu engaged in a bit of hyperbole — unnecessarily in my view.

20 Responses to “Interview with Brad Johnson, Center for American Progress”

    1
  1. stan Says:

    “Just as easily as one could challenge the future habitability of California, one could say that California will do just fine under some scenarios of future climate change and societal response, and after saying so find some bit of literature that ostensibly supports such claims. That sort of presentation would be equally misrepresenting the science. ”

    WOW!

    You would be very hard pressed to find many scientists who think there is any scientific support for what Chu said. There are thousands upon thousands who think there is substantial scientific support for the position that “California will do just fine under some scenarios of future climate change and societal response”.

    Roger, you’re hemorrhaging credibility here.

  2. 2
  3. jae Says:

    LOL. It seems to me that Mr. Johnson is having a hard time understanding how you can be an Obamite and yet dare to disagree with some parts of the creed.

  4. 3
  5. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Brad Johnson decided not to run this interview. So I posted this comment over at where he blogs, somehow, I doubt he’ll allow it:

    4. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Brad Johnson contacted me to do an interview to clarify some of my views. Yet, when I responded, he decided not to run it, instead, deciding to smear me on this post by referring to his enemies list.

    Here is the interview in full:

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ prometheus/ interview-with-brad-johnson-center-for-american-progress-4991

    February 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  6. 4
  7. David Bruggeman Says:

    Roger,

    Where might this comment show up, should Brad deign to run it? Climate Progress?

  8. 5
  9. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Good question:

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/revkin-dead-wrong

  10. 6
  11. solman Says:

    Dr. Chu and Holdren are deliberately distorting our present understanding of climate science in order to create public alarm and thereby advance their political agenda.

    In my opinion this puts them on the same level as Senator Inhofe. They are politicians who use deliberate misrepresentations to push their own agendas. At least in Inhofe’s case an argument can be advanced that he is too ignorant to realize that he is dissembling. Chu and Holdren have no such excuse.

    Dr. Chu may have once been a scientist of extraordinary caliber. But he is not any more. He has become a politician, and has chosen to deliberately betray the most cherished scientific principles in pursuit of a (marginal) political advantage.

    I understand why, politically, it would be bad for you to attack these individuals directly. But, in my opinion, such criticism is both deserved and necessary.

  12. 7
  13. Mark Bahner Says:

    “Just as easily as one could challenge the future habitability of California, one could say that California will do just fine under some scenarios of future climate change and societal response, and after saying so find some bit of literature that ostensibly supports such claims. That sort of presentation would be equally misrepresenting the science. ”

    “WOW!”

    Yes, “Wow!” How in the world do you equate, “California will do just fine under some scenarios of future climate change and societal response” as being “equally misrepresenting the science” with:

    “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.

    ???

    Roger, the *median* value of *world* per-capita GDP under all scenarios of the Third Assessment Report was approximately $45,000 (in year 1990 dollars).

    In the incredibly unlikely event that California’s per-capita GDP fell down to the world level in 2100, California would STILL have a higher GDP per capita than it does now.(!)

    P.S. Presently, California’s per capita GDP is slightly more than 4 times the world per-capita GDP. So if California grew at a rate equal to the world, the per-capita GDP of California in 2100 would be over $180,000 (year 1990 dollars).

  14. 8
  15. C3H Editor Says:

    Since you’re an avowed ‘Obamite,’ why are you making an issue of this type of treatment by a “progressive” representative? Your raising “McCarthyism” complaints against this individual really seems kind of lame since you knowingly elected this type of M.O.

    My impression is that you have an expertise in political science, but yet you seem surprised by this type of leftist treatment that you’ve personally experienced. Honestly, did you expect better from an Obama administration, liberals/progressives, and their surrogates?

    (FWIW, I’m curious about your thoughts, and thought process on this. I’m not the least bit interested in a worthless comment debate, which I would lose. And, I am not interested in playing “gotcha.”)

    BTW, I link to your postings (and your fathers?) and will continue to do so. Your father always has interesting insights about the details of climate science that other blogs don’t discuss or share.

    C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com

  16. 9
  17. rbradley Says:

    Is John Holdren honest? I would like to submit this for the record.

    Holdren under oath at his 2-12-2009 confirmation hearing did not back off of his 1980s statement that as many as one billion people could die by 2020 from the effects of anthropogenic climate change. He backtracked, however, in the hearing and a bit more in his post-hearing answers to questions posed by Senator John Vitter, dated February 19, 2009.

    But here is what Dr. Holdren said in 2000:

    “That the impacts of global climate disruption may not become the dominant sources of environmental harm to humans for yet a few more decades cannot be a great consolation.”

    - John Holdren, “Memorandum to the President: The Energy-Climate Challenge,” in Donald Kennedy and John Riggs, eds., U.S. Policy and the Global Environment: Memos to the President (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, 2000), p. 23.

    Holdren is not a scholar. He is an agenda-driven scientist who lawyer-like makes his case. He does not seem to be interested in opposing viewpoints and often attacks the person. I do not think he will debate a quality opponent before a neutral audience for this reason.

  18. 10
  19. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    C3H-

    Yes, I am surprised at the actions of the folks at Center for American Progress, which I think results from the folks at CAP, not progressives generally. They are not really a think tank, more like a don’t think tank.

  20. 11
  21. David Bruggeman Says:

    Roger,

    Do you extend that criticism to all of CAP? My reading of their work suggests that your criticism is more accurate for their climate folks, who seem to borrow their style points and tactics from folks at Gristmill or Real Climate.

  22. 12
  23. Kmye Says:

    Funny…when I first read this post, fresh, my initial impulse was to comment asking how likely people thought it would be that this interview would ever be published elsewhere but here. I refrained, thinking it was a bit of a petty thought, but then, per #3, it turned out, petty or not, that intuition was correct.

    FWIW, it appears, at least for the time being, that Dr. Pielke’s comment @ Think Progress was allowed. Still, as demonstrated by the choice of interview questions, and the editorial treatment of the resulting answers, it’s sobering to be reminded how certain politically motivated groups respond to ANY deviation from their accepted line of thought. That this type of thinking and action is tied by them to science…

  24. 13
  25. stan Says:

    Princeton physics prof, Will Happer, testified yesterday. “Happer’s statement summarizes his views on the current state of climate science, concluding that there is little basis for the “frightening scenarios” of the future.” http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJhMDUzMTVkNzY3ZjVlYTAwOTkyMjk1NzUzZTFkMTc=

    “Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is ‘positive feedback.’ With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.”

    It would appear he thinks that California may manage to remain fit for humans. Is he misrepresenting the science?

    This appears to be a clash between the climate models and the climate. Happer’s making the politically incorrect choice of going with the climate.

  26. 14
  27. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    11- David, My sample size is small, I would hope that the methods of Joe Romm and Brad Johnson are not SOP at CAP

    13- Stan- Is Happer “misrepresenting the science”, well that depends on whether he was presenting his views as his views or those of the scientific community at large. If the former, then no, if the latter then yes.

  28. 15
  29. Maurice Garoutte Says:

    You support President Obama but are opposed to the actions of his idea factory CAP (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1861305,00.html).

    You say that you plan to continue to support President Obama but you are opposed to a Cap and Trade plan that is central to his plan to increase government control of society and industry.

    Compartmentalization keeps us sane but you might want to reconsider some of those conflicts.

  30. 16
  31. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    15- Maurice, yes it is possible to support a president and disagree strongly with some of his proposed policies.

  32. 17
  33. Maurice Garoutte Says:

    It’s not only possible to disagree with some policies of a president you support, it’s absolutely necessary; unless of course you have a few hundred million dollars to run for the office. But you should agree at the core.

    Spreading the wealth around is a central theme to President Obama’s agenda. The motive for cap and trade is more to spread the wealth not to control CO2.
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2b04b3e135c9639d2bbf7a45f32c5bad.201&show_article=1

  34. 18
  35. Parse Error Says:

    The problem with liberals “spreading the wealth” is that they lead one to believe they are spreading it from the obscenely wealthy down to the middle and lower classes, while it seems to me that more often than not, they are really spreading “wealth” if one can call it that from the working poor down onto the non-working poor. Some sort of tax rebate scheme seems to be gaining some popularity, but it’s only stated purpose is to offset some of the economic impact of other policies. The issue barely touches the wealthy, if at all; they can or already have purchased the latest and greatest in energy-saving appliances and put solar panels on the rooftops of their well-insulated homes, and so on. Businesswise, where it cuts into the bottom line just lay people off and cut pay for the rest. The people who are down low enough to qualify for government assistance and/or private charity can lean on that. Everyone in between gets a raw deal, and the further you go down on the income spectrum before reaching that point, the more desperate the situation becomes, leaving many people to wish they had never bothered to join the workforce at all since the people who didn’t usually become better off than those whose income they live off of.

  36. 19
  37. Politicizing Science - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com Says:

    [...] (Dr. Pielke Jr. has some thoughts at the Prometheus blog on doomsaying scientists and other questions raised by my column about his book.) [...]

  38. 20
  39. Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Climate Furies Says:

    [...] spokesperson and others.)  So let me direct readers over to Prometheus, where Roger has posted the entire interview with Johnson. I think Wonk Room readers would find it interesting [...]