 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
October 06, 2005
More on the Mooney Thesis
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Science Policy: General
Earlier this week I raised some general issues that I had with Chris Mooney's thesis of a "Republican war on science." With this post I'd like to get more specific, with some comments on Chapter 7 of his book which focuses on climate politics and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) in particular. Mooney argues that Senator Inhofe is "probably the Republican Party's leading environmental spokesman" and thus focuses his critique of Republican climate policy on a July 28, 2003 speech given by Senator Inhofe on climate change and a congressional hearing called by Senator Inhofe the very next day.
Mooney is perfectly justified in excoriating Senator Inhofe for cherry picking and selectively choosing his experts. But so what? This is a member of Congress acting in a political manner. Congress is a political place (shocker), always has been always will be. There is absolutely nothing unprecedented about Senator Inhofe's intemperate speech or his stacked hearing. Floor speeches and hearings are political theater. They are certainly not fora for scientific discourse, and often not even policy discourse. A 1954 study of congressional hearings provides a glimpse into how little has changed over a half-century,
"Each group seemed to come into hearings with a ready-made frame of reference. Facts which were compatible were fitted into it; facts which were not compatible even when elaborately documented, were discounted, not perceived, or discounted."
(R. K. Huitt, 1954. The congressional committee: A case study, American Political Science Review, 48:340-365.)
Further, Mooney's argument adopts the exact same tactics of cherry picking and relying on convenient experts as does Senator Inhofe.
For example, Mooney is quick to tell us of linkages between scientists that he disagrees with and right leaning groups, i.e., Willie Soon (Marshall Institute, TechCentralStation, Frontiers of Freedom) and David Legates (Marshall Institue, National Center for Policy Analysis). But Mooney seems to think that his readers don't need to know a scientist that he agrees with, Michael Oppenheimer, serves as a "science advisor" to a left leaning group, Environmental Defense, which advocates as its top priority passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. At a minimum the selective presentation of information distracts from Mooney's argument, because it leads one to ask why the author doesn't trust the reader with this information.
Mooney also argues that "climate change has become an issue on which conservatives have elected to fight over science ... " Well yes, but so too have liberals. We document this quite clearly here (PDF), and it goes well beyond just climate change. Mooney neglects to discuss how liberals have in many cases adopted the mirror image strategies to conservatives, arguing that a consensus on climate science compels their favored actions. Just like uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, nether is certainty a reason for action.
Also, Mooney quotes Tom Wigley as not liking how Senator Inhofe used his work. Wigley is perfectly legitimate in saying so, but I study climate impacts as well and I see nothing inaccurate or misleading in how Senator Inhofe cited Wigley's work. Mooney's citation of Wigley strikes me as a convenient reliance on an agreeable expert, which is exactly what he accuses Senator Inhofe of doing. Again, I have no complaints about this, as this is the nature of political debate. One cherry picks and relies on dueling experts at the risk of being called on it. But it represents no "war on science." In fact cherry picking and selective use of experts depends upon science.
So it's fine with me that Senator Inhofe and Chris Mooney are both selectively marshalling information to put the best spin on their argument. As far as their arguments, I find neither Senator's Inhofe's thesis on climate change nor Mooney's thesis that there is a misuse of science going on here to be very convincing. (I should say as an aside I found Mooney's disrespectful characterization of a fairly elected U.S. Senator completely offensive, e.g., calling him an "absolute know-nothing." Even in the face of ideological disagreements, if we want to be constructive we should at least be civil in our discourse.)
Let me be unambiguous. I disagree with Senator Inhofe's characterization of climate science as a "hoax" and it seems clear to me that he is cherry picking and relying on experts that happen to mesh with his perspective, i.e., he is using "facts" and scientists selectively. He has every right to do so, and Chris Mooney has every right to call him on it. This is called political debate. If you want climate science, go to the Journal of Climate.
Crucially, Mooney provides no evidence (because there is none) to support the most important claim in this chapter: "Not only do [the conservatives] strive to prevent the public from understanding the gravity of the climate situation, but in sowing confusion and uncertainty, they help prevent us from doing anything about it." This statement is demonstrably false. As I have documented here frequently, the public overwhelmingly believes that humans cause climate change, that its impacts are serious, and that the United States should take action. See here and here (PDF). There is absolutely no evidence that scientific uncertainty (manufactured or otherwise) is an obstacle to action on climate change. The real obstacle is a lack of politically viable actions on the table.
Consider that last June, 11 Democrats voted against the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship amendment to the 2005 energy bill and 6 Republicans voted for it. Had the Democrats voted partyline, the bill would have been very close to passing. If the Left wants to make scientific issues partisan, then they'd better figure out how to win some more elections. If in the face of Republican control of government the Left wants to enact policies that advance their interests, then they'd better come up with some options that their own party can support unanimously and continue to find some bipartisan support. Complaining about the misuse of science will be effective only as catharsis.
There is no war on climate science, just your standard political machinations involving cherry picking and dueling experts. If those wanting action on climate change want to see different outcomes in the future, they would be far better served working to develop viable, bipartisan policy options rather than pursuing the impossible task of enforcing some sort of unanimity of views and statements on climate science. If the reality-based community really believes in its own moniker then it should hear these very real, but probably uncomfortable, words from Dan Sarewitz:
"It is not productive to blame politicians for manipulating or distorting objective science to support partisan positions. Of course politicians will look for any information or argument that they can find to advance their agendas -- that is their job. While politicians may not be above playing loose with scientific truth, more often they can and will simply search out -- and find -- a legitimate expert or two who can marshal a technical argument sympathetic to the desired political outcome. It is the job of politicians to play politics, and this -- like the second law of thermodynamics -- is not something to be regretted, but something to be lived with."
Appendix
To be fair there are some other issues that the chapter discusses, and some of these I have addressed elsewhere, but in a way unrelated to Mooney's thesis.
On NYT reports on the editing of agency reports see here and here.
On uncertainty as a red herring, see this post.
On the role of prediction in policy, see this book and here is the last chapter in PDF.
Posted on October 6, 2005 07:32 AMComments
Roger,
I really appreciate you providing a forum to discuss this.
You wrote: "Mooney neglects to discuss how liberals have in many cases adopted the mirror image strategies to conservatives, arguing that a consensus on climate science compels their favored actions."
This is contrasted with the conservative approach of literally using science fiction and non-peer reviewed science to support their approach to policy. How is this even comparable? In terms of strategy, yes... but the point is that Inhofe is basing his policy positions on what clearly amounts to misinformation. I find his Senate floor statements entirely reprehensible... especially coming from the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Inhofe has decided to use fringe science over consensus science while proclaiming that, "I have insisted that federal agencies use the best, non-political science to drive decision-making."
You wrote: "Mooney is perfectly justified in excoriating Senator Inhofe for cherry picking and selectively choosing his experts. But so what? This is a member of Congress acting in a political manner."
Call me naive (you wouldn't be the first), but I am surprised that anyone could consider this to be acceptable behavior... political or otherwise.
You wrote: "If those wanting action on climate change want to see different outcomes in the future, they would be far better served working to develop viable, bipartisan policy options rather than pursuing the impossible task of enforcing some sort of unanimity of views and statements on climate science."
I agree with the first part (and I look forward to your upcoming book), but I have a hard time understanding why scientists should not be vocal when their consensus view is misrepresented and made a mockery of.
Inhofe:
"...the debate is shifting away from those who subscribe to global warming alarmism. After studying the issue over the last several years, I believe that the balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the overwhelming factor influencing climate." - July 28, 2003
Posted by: James Bradbury at October 6, 2005 09:51 AM
Though I doubt the thesis of your book will get you on the Daily Show, I am as eagerly anticipating its arrival as I was Mooney's.
I think my major disagreement is with your characterization that politicians are supposed to cherry pick and distort data to back their side up. This is, as you say, unavoidable. But those aren't the examples that anger me.
What I find out of bounds and unacceptable are rewriting abstracts to say the opposite of what the paper says. Thus, research showing "increase" becomes "decrease", decreased birthing rates of Carribou "inside" a drilling area become "outside". Where exactly does cherry picking come in? Yes, politicians will always lie, just as people will always steal, but that doesn't mean you don't put the bastard in jail.
I'd like to see some study on whether there is less accountability now. I get the feeling that in years past, people would be upset if they were lied to, or found out a politician was corrupt. Do you think Nixon would be forced from office today?
What seems different now is the level of acceptance and cynicism that shruggingly accepts these things as par for the course. Once we expect our politicians to be dishonest, corrupt and self-serving, then it becomes an expected, necessary part of politics, rather than a dirty little secret. Not only that, it makes it that much worse for a politician who doesn't "play the game" because they have scrupples. They will automatically be suspected of being just as guilty. Like the wounded chick, they will be the one torn to pieces. Have we always been this jaded?
Posted by: Dylan Otto Krider at October 6, 2005 10:47 AM
Dylan- Amen. Policy oversight by congress is sadly lacking. Consider this recent article from the WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401426.html?nav=hcmodule
"Government scholars and watchdog groups say the decline of congressional oversight in recent years has thrown out of kilter the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers created to keep no one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Whether the Pentagon or the Environmental Protection Agency, if a department does not think Congress is paying attention, it could be more apt to waste money or allow problems to go unaddressed. "There's a tendency to blame this on the bureaucracy, but this is the leadership of the Congress and the administration," said Joel D. Aberbach, a political scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in government accountability."
It is the job of Congress to make sure that the justifications given by agencies for action match up with what actually happens via policy implementation. Congress has be asleep at the switch. Part of this has to do with the departure from divided government, part with the centralized power structure of recent Congresses, and part has to do with the ideological coherence of Congressional leadership and the Bush Administraion. Congress needs to reassert itself.
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at October 6, 2005 11:15 AM
Simple math: You say
"Consider that last June, 11 Democrats voted against the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship amendment to the 2005 energy bill and 6 Republicans voted for it. Had the Democrats voted partyline, the bill would have been very close to passing."
That means 11 Democrats voted against the amendment, and 49 Republicans voted against the amendment. On the other side 6 Republicans voted for the amendment as did 34 Democrats.
Let us do some more simple math ~ 33% of the Democrats in the Senate voted against the amendment and 89% of the Republicans.
Do you perhaps begin to sense why people bring their calculators to your comparisons?
Posted by: Eli Rabett at October 6, 2005 11:39 PM
Perhaps you and your readers recall a recent incident in which three academic climate scientists were subpoened by a conservative congressman and told to present all of their notes, data, calculations, computer files, etc. collected over 10 years of NSF funding because they has published an article that ruffled the feathers of the Right. It was clearly an intimidation tactic and I think this kind of thing could be construed as a war on science. If you disagree, fine, but imagine if it happened to you. If I remember correctly, the congressman eventually backed down, but the threat was implicit in the subpoena.
I know nothing whatsoever about climate science. However, in other domains that are close to my own academic area (life sciences) I think the case that the GOP wages a war on science can be substantiated. This is clearly the case in the debate over teaching of evolution vs "intelligent design", in that case it cannot be reduced to "dueling experts".
Posted by: Ba'al at October 8, 2005 05:57 AM
Ba'al- Thanks for commenting. We discussed these subjects in some detail, e.g., here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000480on_the_hockey_stick.html
and here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000530why_id_wont_go_away.html
Look in the archives for the thoughtful posts of my colleague Tom Yulsman.
Posted by: Roger Pielke Jr. at October 8, 2005 06:57 AM