Politics and Science
cmooney | February 7, 2007
Jonathan Adler, a specialist in environmental law at Case Western who contributes to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, has written a lengthy and thorough, if pretty critical, review of The Republican War on Science for the journal Regulation.
I am here posting a reply to Adler's review, but first, a few comments about why I'm doing this. When the book first came, out there were so many reviews I couldn't even begin to tackle or process them all. Meanwhile, some negative reviews were so nasty, misrepresentative, and lacking in substance that I didn't want to dignify them with any response…
cmooney | February 6, 2007
Looks like, as Seed's Washington correspondent, I'm going to be spending a lot of time on the Hill this week. Look what we've got coming up:
1. Senate Commerce Committee: Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity, Wednesday, February 7, 10 am. Looks like we'll be hearing not only from whistleblower Rick Piltz this time, but also from Thomas Knutson of NOAA-GFDL, who has charged that he had press interview requests turned down on the subject of hurricanes and global warming (on which he's an expert).
2. House Science Committee: The State of Climate Change Science 2007, Thursday,…
cmooney | February 6, 2007
I'm told that some of the strongest reactions to our article have not been published...more on that at the end.
First, since Sunday's piece in the L.A. Times generated quite a lot of blog commentary, let me provide a brief (and necessarily incomplete) rundown--and have a little fun with it by doing a list of "bests":
1. Best Title: This goes to John Quiggin, whose reaction was entitled "Science Wars: The Battle of the Five Armies." (Geeks will get the reference.) Upshot of the post: Our op-ed signals a "realignment of forces" in which "previously discordant defenders of science" are now "…
cmooney | February 5, 2007Tim Lambert blogs about my recent op-ed with Alan Sokal, and notes that Norman Levitt--co-author of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, another key contribution to the old "science wars"--also seems more concerned today about rightwing abuses than left wing attacks. As Levitt put it in an e-mail to Lambert: "The book was written in 1992-93, at the beginning of the Clinton administration, when Creationism in any form was pretty quiescent, and before most of the Republican bludgeoning of science that Mooney addresses had really begun." Levitt adds that today's…
cmooney | February 4, 2007Folks: Today I have a joint Los Angeles Times op-ed with New York University physicist Alan Sokal, of "Sokal hoax" fame, about the left, the right, and the misuse of science. The piece can be read here.
What's significant about this, I think, is that Sokal is very well known for his criticisms of left-wing attacks on science, particularly those coming from the academic left, during the 1990s. I, meanwhile, am known for my criticisms of right-wing attacks on science, particularly those coming from the Republican Party and its base. But now, the two of us have come together and pointed out who…
cmooney | February 1, 2007
Guess you can watch it yourself. His remarks about The Republican War on Science are very complimentary.
cmooney | January 31, 2007Iain Murray is repeating the lame argument made by Darrell Issa at the Waxman hearing yesterday:
The UCS mailed out over 1600 survey forms to climate scientists and based their assertions of political interference on the 297 that got returned. That's a response rate of just 19 percent. OMB guidelines clearly state that a response rate of less than 80 percent requires an investigation of potential biases and an even closer investigation for a response rate lower than 70 percent. A response rate of lower than twenty percent is clearly vulnerable to the charge of a self-selecting sample,…
cmooney | January 30, 2007 Here's hard proof of the RWOS brandishing that I spoke of earlier. I assure you, I had nothing to do with this, but then, I don't exactly object, either.
Apparently Rep. Cooper also had some pretty revealing comments in his opening statement to the Waxman hearing. ThinkProgress has more.
UPDATE: Apparently the whole hearing will re-air tonight on CSPAN:
CSPAN tonight. 08:03 PM EST. 3:38 (est.)House CommitteePolitical Influence on Climate Change ResearchOversight and Government ReformHenry Waxman , D-CA
P.S.: It appears that Rep. Cooper also somehow got his hands on an early copy of my…
cmooney | January 30, 2007
Well, I got off jury duty and managed to get over to the Hill after all. As I write this, the Waxman hearing is still ongoing, and you can watch it here. I have it on good authority from three people that in the opening statements, Rep. Jim Cooper, a Democrat, actually waved a copy of The Republican War on Science around. I'll be looking for that on the replay. [Never mind, here's an image of it. - ed]
As I rode cabs to and from the hearing, I heard radio news coverage both times talking about it--and that itself is a big achievement, it seems to me. Finally, Democrats can set the agenda,…
cmooney | January 30, 2007
Oh well. There's a very important politicization of science hearing (PDF) on the Hill this morning in about an hour, and jury duty is going to prevent me from going. I haven't been picked for a trial yet, but my last "voir dire" also didn't end by the end of the day yesterday...and the Superior Court has some bizarre rule about not being able to pay staff for any overtime hours. So all the potential jurors have to come back and finish the selection process today instead.
Maybe I'll make it over for the end of the Waxman hearing if by some miracle I get off early. In any event, it looks…
cmooney | January 29, 2007While I was battling through the snow on my way to Ithaca to give a talk about my new book, my old one was prompting quite a stir over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Jonathan Adler has done a lengthy, critical review of the book for the journal Regulation, published by the Cato Institute, and that's what touched off all the commentary.
I've been off the "war on science" beat lately and am feeling a tad rusty, but I'm going to try to respond to Adler's review if I have time. Today I start jury duty, which is a bit of a complication, but I still may get around to doing a reply.
In the meantime,…
cmooney | January 24, 2007 I am a tad frustrated that I have probable jury duty next week. As result, I may have to miss Henry Waxman's January 30th scheduled hearing "regarding political interference in the work of government climate change scientists." I and many others have been pushing for the new Congress to use its investigative powers in this arena for some time, and I always knew that Waxman would make it happen.
Get ready to watch the Bush administration squirm.
In fact, you can already see how it's going to go down when you read Waxman's letter (PDF) to White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Jim…
cmooney | November 9, 2006With the Dems now about to assume control of both houses of Congress, science policy is going to change. Big time. Indeed, in The Republican War on Science I pointed out that one reason the Reagan administration never messed with science as much as the current administration was because the Democratic Congress helped keep it in line.
We can now expect the same thing to transpire with the Bush administration. The big changes I'm looking at will come in the following areas:
1. Committee Chairs. People like James Inhofe won't be able to build global warming hearings around people like Michael…
cmooney | November 8, 2006From CNN:
Republican Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri early Wednesday conceded defeat to Democrat Claire McCaskill after a hard-fought race, telling supporters that "the headwind was just very, very strong this year."
McCaskill was backed by actor and stem-cell-research advocate Michael J. Fox.
I leave it to more knowledgeable political analysts to determine just how much of a role stem cells played in the race--but it was undoubtedly a prominent issue. So in some sense, reaction against the "war on science" might have cost Jim Talent dearly.
cmooney | November 1, 2006From the transcript of the October 30th show; "INGRAHAM" is Laura Ingraham:
KING: Laura, would you agree that more than 50 percent of the public would support stem cell research?
INGRAHAM: I think more than 50 percent of the public would probably approve of public executions of child molesters but it doesn't mean that we actually do that, Larry, I mean please.
KING: But so the question is -- Laura let me finish. It's my show.
INGRAHAM: Thanks for clarifying.
KING: Laura, the question is if you came out for the public execution of child molesters you might win and that's the question. Will…
cmooney | October 10, 2006I know I am supposed to be working on my book, and indeed I am--a productive day today has made me feel less guilty about blogging.
Anyway, following on my last post, I'd like to go further. The earliest elephant's ass I've seen in the media (broadly conceived) is the following:
However, so far as I know, there was no influence of the above image (# 1) on this one:
I cannot be sure, however, that image # 2 (above) did not in any way influence image # 3:
So, where does that leave us? Well, first of all, the elephant's tail has moved to the center and then swung back to the left again…
cmooney | October 9, 2006
Um, maybe it's just me, but doesn't the above image look an awful lot like the image below?
What do you think, should I be annoyed by this, or flattered?
cmooney | September 28, 2006My piece in the latest issue of Seed--not yet online, but will be soon I hope--is about the scientist activism group that just announced its existence, Scientists and Engineers for America. As I argue in Seed, this could be the organization that finally brings the national scientific community out of its political torpor by targeting races and trying to actually unseat politicians who egregiously misuse and abuse science.
So far, though, the particular races that Scientists and Engineers for America will invest in don't seem to have been picked:
The group is looking at the Senate race in…
cmooney | September 25, 2006
I am a lucky author.
Anyone who writes a book hopes to avoid the fate that David Hume famously ascribed to his Treatise of Human Nature, which he said ''fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction, as even to excite a murmur among the zealots.'' I certainly have managed to make the zealots murmur--but I have also made the thoughtful argue, which is far more gratifying.
The evidence: Parlor Press, and specifically its imprint Glassbead Books, has now officially released a book about my book, The Republican War on Science. Entitled "Looking for a Fight: Is There a…
cmooney | September 20, 2006So: KAC got sent the Discovery Institute's critique (PDF) of my chapter on "intelligent design." Her very appropriate response: "(WTF?!)" She also claims I'm "blinding her with science" (and provides the classic Thomas Dolby video to prove it).
The video is quite a trip, you have to watch it. Anyway, I think I know how KAC feels. Who would want to walk into such an obscure back and forth, like my debate with the Discovery Institute, and try to make heads or tails of it? Face it, we ScienceBloggers do tend to get down into the weeds a bit at times.
KAC, I promise, our first conversation won't…