Paul Douglas’ powerful Op-Ed piece of last week, pointing out that science is neither liberal nor conservative, went seriously viral, pushing Douglas into the ranks of the strongest voices calling the GOP back to reason. He follows up with this addendum.
My recent Op-Ed gave me a chance to summarize how I feel about the politicization of climate science in recent years – how it’s become a bizarre litmus test for conservatism.
As I describe in the piece, my “belief” in climate science had nothing to do with Al Gore, and everything to do with what I was seeing with my own two eyes: on the weather maps, and out my window.
I’m not running a popularity contest. Q Ratings were important when I was in local broadcasting, but no more. This issue is too important, and I’m hoping I can encourage other moderate voices out there to step out from the shadows and speak up about your concerns. Contact your politicians. Assume nothing. D.C. is hopelessly deadlocked on climate science and (clean, carbon-free) energy policy.
I have no idea what it’s going to take to move things along and start a rational national dialogue (without shouting at each other and the name-calling…I swear we’re still in 7th grade, with slightly better wardrobes), but the status quo is not good for our country.
If this keeps up we’ll be buying all our wind farms, solar panels and hybrids from China and other countries that (amazingly!) aren’t still “debating the science.”
Are we really going to drill and mine our way to prosperity – indefinitely? I have nothing against drilling and tapping the resources we have, so long as it’s not the only way forward.
The trolls can rant and rave all they want – I don’t care. Do me a favor and keep track of who the (professional/persistent) deniers are today. Let’s come back in a few years and see what they have to say – what excuses they have for ignoring the science and putting our kids at risk. That should be interesting.
Here is a link to Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth Blog in the New York Times. Shawn Otto posted the full Op-Ed at his Neorenaissance Blog, which can also be found at Huffington Post. (Ed: it was also reposted at ThinkProgress.)
And to those of you who have e-mailed, tweeted, texted and called in your support and encouragement, thank you.
I’m no meteorological martyr or Paul Revere – but I’ve seen enough evidence to make a call on this one. It’s either the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on the people of Earth or the climate scientists are correct. Call me crazy but I think it’s possible to lean to the right, and still care about the environment andsound science. If that makes me a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) then I wear the badge proudly. The forecast calls for more rinos.
without shouting at each other and the name-calling…
If only
Please somebody with time and resources to do so set up a robust system that we can all subscribe to where we can list the deniers by putting up their profiles along with statements they have made or video they have shot in support of their position. Please also set up a parallel system where those of us who are supporters of the AGW position can put up our own profiles, or those of known fellow supporters.
Then lets see what happens. Thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of people should put their profiles up on the supporter side, while maybe a few hundred put their profiles up on the denier side. I may be wrong, but I bet people will be increasingly embarrassed to see their names up as deniers, as the press gets ahold of this phenomenon and broadcasts it to the World, letting friends and family and constituents know what anti-scientific hateful people these folks are.
You will need to have a method to allow deniers to remove their profiles if they recant. This way we can leave a legacy to the next generation of those who destroyed the Planet for their own gain, out of ignorance, or out of cussed obstinacy.
There have been rogues galleries posted by Joe Romm and by Rolling Stone Magazine, but nobody has yet made it an open system so that new villains and heroes can be added.
The simple answer: Demand that news reportage contain verifiable facts. When statements presented are found to be inaccurate, retractions/corrections are required.
The non-simple answer is that the GOP needs to change its values. One that should be abandoned post-haste: Cultivated ignorance and the mindset that considers one person’s lack of knowledge on a topic irrelevant when they enter a debate with another who has made it a life’s study. People who dedicate their career to the pursuit of science are treated with disdain by many conservative voters – but why?
“verifiable facts”
see
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/03/28/the-daily-mail-major-fail-scientist-sets-record-straight-on-medieval-warming-research/
Here in the UK, I would like to believe that we are no longer “debating the science” but, if that is the case, someone forgot to tell Simon Carr in the Indeterminant, Melanie Phillips in the Daily Fail, or James Delingpole and Christopher Booker in the Torygraph stable – not to mention the all the purveyors of inverted reality currently still languishing within the Murdoch Empire…
Not to mention the Rev Phillip Foster, Lord Monckton, Sir Nigel Lawson, Dr Benny Peiser, and everyone at Repealthefacts, the Global Wonky Policy Foundation and the Institute of Uneconomic Affairs…