Chris Mooney, who appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night, has written a very important book. I want to recommend that everyone pick up a copy of The Republican War on Science.
The reason why I am endorsing the book is simple: it addresses a very important part of the problem that we described on Spinsanity and in All the President's Spin. In the public sphere, PR-driven spin is increasingly substituting for reasoned debate, and that is a very bad thing for democracy. Chris was one of the first people to understand the importance of what we were doing at Spinsanity, and I think that perspective informs his take here. TRWOS takes a deeply reported and researched look at how conservatives are using PR to confuse debate over science and science policy on issues ranging from evolution to global warming to embryonic stem cell research.
It is true, of course, that Chris is a liberal, but I want to assure people that he is no hack. He takes science very seriously, and has criticized liberals for abusing science as well. He makes a strong argument in the book that conservatives have gone much further in politicizing science than liberals, and that is reflected in the unprecedented response to this administration from the scientific community. In addition, the book is very careful to differentiate the science from larger policy questions. For instance, Mooney grants that one can legitimately oppose efforts to mitigate global warming because of, say, cost-benefit concerns. But he is rightly insistent that the scientific consensus about climate change should not be distorted for political reasons.
The problem Chris addresses is that PR has shown political organizations how to manipulate public debate - by creating confusion over known facts and accepted conclusions, which are amplified by journalists who play by the "he said," "she said" conventions of "objective" journalism. (Mooney has written about this problem in the past.) And because corporations and the religious right have a shared interest in fighting back against the conclusions of scientists on a variety of issues, legions of conservative think tanks and faux-scientists are now waging a well-funded war to muddy the waters and promote their pre-defined conclusions.
TRWOS is a detailed takedown of this massive effort to distort and politicize science. Even if you don't agree with Mooney's politics, you should read this book.
Update 9/13: For those who are curious, Kevin Drum has posted a review that quotes part of Mooney's argument for why Bush is different from Clinton in his treatment of science.
Update 9/15: Mooney is scheduled to appear on NPR's "Fresh Air" today -- see their website for more information.
[Disclosure: I read an early version of the manuscript for the book and gave Chris feedback on it.]
Thanks, I'll have to give it a read.
I do agree that the Right has been anti-science in a number of areas, but I also think the left has been far more willing to abuse science for political/legal reasons. That's a subtle difference, but both are just as wrong.
Posted by: TallDave | September 13, 2005 at 09:06 AM
It sounds like an interesting book, but as reviewer Brin notes, Mooney's choice of title is unfortunate.
You do a passable job of defending the assertion that Mooney can be balanced, but I'll have to read his book to see whether he actually "makes a strong argument in the book that conservatives have gone much further in politicizing science than liberals."
I've read through the Mooney links you provided, and it seems he clearly believes the humans-cause-global-warming orthodoxy: "... the most rigorous peer-reviewed assessments — produced roughly every five years by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — have cemented a consensus view that human greenhouse gas emissions are probably (i.e., the conclusion has a fairly high degree of scientific certainty) helping to fuel the greenhouse effect and explain the observed planetary warming of the past fifty years."
Well, except that according to at least some of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report, there is no such "consensus view," as five minutes with Google demonstrated (Richard Lindzen is the most vocal figure but not the only one). And the statement that humans "probably help[ed] to fuel" the phenomenon is true, but just barely, and only with the help of the full report's carefully hedged conclusions.
The larger point to this is that the left is probably at least as guilty as the right when it comes to using science selectively to advance its own political and ideological goals. You can claim that Mooney "is rightly insistent that the scientific consensus about climate change should not be distorted for political reasons," but it would be good to see Mooney come out with a sequel that takes on the left's abuse of science with the same vigor as he takes on the right's.
So yes, I might find this book interesting, but I'm already preparing a few large grains of salt to keep handy.
Posted by: Paul in NJ | September 13, 2005 at 03:07 PM
The Mooney interview is online at ComedyCentral.com. Chris needed to speak up a bit. I thought Jon poked more fun than usual.
Posted by: rone | September 13, 2005 at 03:17 PM
Ahhhhh! What is it with this consensus thing? Is science done by popular vote? I must admit though, that it is amusing that in a post on the abuse of science you use this old chestnut.
Posted by: Steve | September 13, 2005 at 05:58 PM
Mooney's argument isn't against the "right." It details very specific abuses by the segment of the "right" that currently holds power, members of the Republican party.
The old "science isn't a democracy" canard. Somebody's been taking Michael Crichton's fiction too literally. The consensus represents the "the core that most scientists agree on."(1) In this case, the conclsuions of the IPCC TAR.
Citing Lindzen as someone that doesn't agree with the core knowledge of climate is absurd in light of the fact that he has signed onto the very documents that make up the consensus.
(1) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86
Posted by: Bob | September 14, 2005 at 09:46 AM
I'd like to address Bob's comment: "Citing Lindzen as someone that doesn't agree with the core knowledge of climate is absurd in light of the fact that he has signed onto the very documents that make up the consensus."
Lindzen has addressed this: "The NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=95000606)
Sorry, Bob, but the 'consensus' is the canard.
Posted by: Paul in NJ | September 14, 2005 at 04:32 PM
You need to read the NAS report. Lindzen is playing games with the term "consensus." The "full span of views" represented in the NAS is in agreement with the IPCC TAR. If Lindzen had a substantial disagreement with that report he had the option of writing a dissenting opinion or withdrawing from the committee. He did neither. For him to claim otherwise in anewspaper opinon piece doesn't do much for his credibility. You'll notice he doesn't put his credibility on the line by making such claims in the scierntific literature.
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."
NAS report available here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newsdoc060601
Posted by: Bob | September 14, 2005 at 08:00 PM