Climate Change And Skepticism Of Scientists

George Marshall is the founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network and founder in England of what he refers to as a climate change charity. His "blog explores the topic of the psychology of climate change denial." Back in July, he analyzed the inability of scientists to convince the British public that changes in climate are due primarily to greenhouse emissions, commenting 'polls over the past five years have shown that 40% of people in Britain resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. In the US it is over 50%. He observed

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a particularly poor job of promoting itself as an authoritative and trustworthy institution. It should be telling the story of how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, and enabling its most presentable participants to speak directly to the world.. At present, under sustained skeptic attack, it can’t even provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all – the only images on its website are the covers of reports or the beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.

The single greatest quality of the people we trust and believe is that they appear to be like us and understand our needs and values. We badly need to widen the range of voices speaking on climate change and, inevitably, this means that climate experts relinquish some of their dominance and become more concerned with enabling others to speak.

That was more than three months before the servers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were hacked. Discovered were millions of e-mail messages, which climate change skeptics claimed (largely unjustifiably) showed a conspiracy among scientists to suppress evidence contradicting the evidence of the human origin of global warming. In November, Marshall recognized it as "an organized smear campaign" but lamented

climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.

Climate change deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free-thinkers, standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.

It may, however, not be only climate scientists who (unfortunately) lack legitimacy with, at least, the American public. It may seem odd- and probably is- to cite the writings of George F. Will as a voice bolstering the credibility of scientists, given his ham-handed attack on climate science early last year. But back in 1982, when there existed a more sensible Will, the long-time syndicated columnist set out to do just that in a column "Well, I Don't Love You, E.T." Identifying the bias of the popular movie about the lovable extra-terrestial, Will noted

Throughout the movie they have been hunting the little critter, electronically eavesdropping on the house and generally acting like Watergate understudies. They pounce upon E.T. with all the whirring, pulsing, blinking parapernalia of modern medicine. He dies anyway, then is inexplicably resurrected. He is rescued from the fell clutches of the scientists by a posse of kid bicyclists and board a spaceship for home. This variant of the boy-sundered-from-dog theme leaves few eyes dry. But what is bothersome is the animus against science, which is seen as a morbid calling for callous vivisectionists and other unfeeling technocrats.

A childish (and Rousseau-ist) view of children as noble savages often is part of a belief that nature is a sweet garden and science and technology are spoilsome intrusions. But nature is, among other , things, plagues and pestilences, cholera and locusts, floods and droughts. Earlier ages thought of nature in terms of such afflictions. As Robert Nisbet says, this age can take a sentimental view of nature because science has done so much to ameliorate it.

Disdain for science usually ends when the disdainer gets a toothache, or his child needs an operation. But hostility to science is the anti-intellectualism of the semi-intellectual.

There are those, such as this freelance science journalist, who would doubt that denial of global warming is encouraged by a general disdain for science. Further, much of the resistance to the extremely strong case presented by scientists is attributed to the strongly religious/Christian nature of the American populace- but how then to account for the skepticism of residents of Great Britain, a highly secular society? Hostility toward scientific inquiry and intellectualism, even among individuals who steer clear of all churches on every day but December 25, clearly does play a role in skepticism about the predominately human nature of climate change. It's something we ought to remember as progressives/liberals go about criticizing charges of the deniers while the mainstream media attribute to the latter equal credibility as of scientists.

Making It Up

On January 7, MSNBC anchormen/women/persons David Shuster and Tamryn Hall were discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent treatment for chest pains in Queens Hospital in Hawaii. After playing a tape of Limbaugh saying "Real reform of the health care system would involve nothing like we have done in the House and Senate: Cost control, increasing access to health care," Hall commented "Is Rush kind of changing his tune? At first it was nothing was wrong with our system, and now he is bringing up what the Democrats have said all along: It's a cost issue."

This really got Rush's dander up and he claimed

Now, the real funny thing in this sound bite was that they quote me as saying, "There's nothing wrong with the US health care system," but what I was talking about in Honolulu was private health care. I got private health care.

As the video (below, but choppy) indicates, Limbaugh at the press conference upon his discharge stated

The treatment I received here is the best that the world has to offer. Based on what happened here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy and..... I got no special treatment.

Nothing in there about his care having specifically been "private health care." Nothing about the private sector, the public sector, fee for service, insurance companies; only "the best that the world has to offer," a system "working just fine, just dandy" and not just for him ("no special treatment.")

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh, inexperienced at speaking into a microphone, singularly inarticulate, and unfamiliar with health care issues (well, that part may be true), really had intended to talk solely about "private health care," as he claimed.

Or maybe he was lying. This is not so extraordinary in GOP-land. On November 24, former Bush 43 press secretary Dana Perino told Sean Hannity "we did not have a terrorist attack on our cuntry during President Bush's term" (video way below). On the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union, veteran GOP operative Mary Matalin imagined "I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." On Matalin's calendar, September 11, 2001 preceeded January 20, 2001.

Now along comes former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who on ABC's Good Morning America on January 8 asserted "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

As tristero notes January 8 on Digby's Hullabaloo blog, there are the complicating matters of the anthrax terrorism, Richard Reid, the July 4, 2002 on El Al at LAX, and attacks on abortion clinics in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And those do not include the attack on the World Trade Center and related effort to hit Congress with a plane, which thankfully ended in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Presumably, Giuliani did not consider the 9/11/01 incident a "domestic attack" or forgot about it. He was only mayor of New York City at the time.

There is a point to the sarcasm. Rudy Giuliani did not forget, nor is his definition of a "domestic attack" idiosyncratic. He is not stupid, crazy, or being ironic. He was l-y-i-n-g.

And as if to confirm that impression: minutes earlier, at 3:33 p.m., CNN's Rick Sanchez read a release he received at that moment from a spokesman for Mr. Giuliani, who claimed the latter had been "clearly talking post-9/11 about Islamic attacks on our soil." Post 9/11? Clearly?

It's not just Rush, or about health care, anymore.

Intimidating Terminology

The Republican Party generally seems to be exorcised about President Obama's terminology when he addresses the issue of terrorism.

On the Today show on January 5, RNC Chairman Michael Steele criticized the President:

If you can't call a thing what it is, then there's a question about what do you think it is? You, you can't look at this as, as a, as an intervention. You can't look at this as dealing with criminals as you would the guy who robbed the 7-11, you know, where you're trying to hijack a plane or bomb a plane or something like that....

I think the American people know full well what it is, they view it as a war against terrorism.

And Steele argued that the former

Vice President has, has made it very clear and I think he's been very consistent and correct in saying that the inconsistency in, in the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy, particularly with respect to terrorism is a concern. If you can't, if you can't call a thing what-

After the President's statement on January 6, New York's Peter King, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Daily News

He seems to be genuinely angry and I would think that's paving the way for someone to go (but) "He still refuses to use the word 'terrorism.'"

President Obama does seem to prefer the appellation "extremist" but does not ignore the term "terrorist" or "terrorism."In his remarks, Mr. Obama had referred to "suspected terrorist" and "individuals with terrorist ir suspected terrorist connections" and to the "list of state sponsors of terrorism" and the "terrorist watch list system" (twice).

The tendency of some conservative Republicans periodically to make things up is curious. But of particular interest as applied to terrorism is their tendency to use the word "war"- against terrorism, against Islamic extremists, or just plain "war."

Because it's not. George W. Bush consciously decided not only not to declare war against Iraq (securing an authorization to use force instead) or against Afghanistan (fought with one hand tied behind our back) but also against Al Qaeda. President Obama has followed suit.

And it's not as if we are precluded by morality or legality from declaring war against terrorists or, specifically, Al Qaeda. Three days after the attack on the World Trade Center 8-9 years ago, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote:

If Osama Bin Laden's group al-Qaida proves to be responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, can the United States declare war on him and his organization?

Yes....

Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war on terrorists and is not obligated to name a host country. Article I authorizes Congress to "define and punish Piracies, Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.

Lithwick might have been right when she contended declaring a "war" on terrorism sounds as toothless and vague as declaring "war" on drugs." But it is not as toothless, vague, and evasive as dishonestly claiming the President does not use the word "terrorist" or that he wants to treat terrorists as common thiefs. Or that we are in a war. If Obama's opponents believe that the President is insincerely claiming that he is appalled by terrorists and terrorism, they can call his bluff and introduce a resolution to declare war, or call upon Congress to do so.

Blaming The Senate

Ezra Klein of The Washington Post usually is a sane and sober analyst of health care reform. And in "After health care, we need Senate reform," he notes

The Democrats ended up focusing on health-care reform's low-hanging fruit: the bill the Senate ultimately passed does much more to increase coverage than it does to address the considerably harder problem of cost control, it strengthens the existing private insurance system and it does not include a public insurance option. And Democrats still could not find a single Republican vote, which meant they had to give Nebraska a coupon entitling it to a free Medicaid expansion and hand Joe Lieberman a voucher that's good for anything he wants. If the Senate cannot govern effectively even when history conspires to free its hand, then it cannot govern.

The Senate bill does: increase coverage more than it addresses the more complex problem of cost control; strengthen the existing private insurance system; and lack a public option. Moreover, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have intimidated Democrats, ultimately controlling the process and, apparently, the eventual outcome.

But who are these "Democrats?" It was not Harry Reid's decision (video below) to endorse single-payer health care in 2003 (whether in June or December). Nor was it Harry Reid's decision to cede ground to the right. As in football, field position is critical. Kick the ball into the end zone and require the opposition to go 80 yards to score. Or deliberately kick the ball out-of-bounds, allowing the opposition to start its drive at the 40-yard-line. The Democratic Party could have proposed a single-payer system initially, forcing the GOP to push back and accept a robust public option Or it could have started by proposing a relatively weak public option, eventually taking solace in the hope that sometime, somehow, the bill could be improved. President Obama and his chief of staff chose the latter path and it has led to this.

Some elements of health care reform could not be approved without a sixty-vote majority. However, with only 50 votes (plus Vice-President Biden) necessary under reconciliation, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, sufficiently increased revenue, and a government option could have been secured. Medicare would not need have been threatened, taxation of generous health insurance programs (many of them gained by collective bargaining) could have been averted, and there might have emerged real competition for the health insurance industry. But Rahm Emanuel, the power behind the throne, would not have been pleased.

The Byrd Rule prevents the Senate from passing non-budget items without at least 60 votes. Klein identifies "a coming budget crisis, catastrophic climate change and an archaic and inefficient tax system" as among "a few" other problems which won't "be solved until we fix the dysfunctions of the Senate."

Here is one other "problem," as the wealthy and well-connected see it: the rising cost of entitlement programs. "Fix" the Senate, get a 51-vote Republican majority in the Senate (or 50 plus a GOP president), and watch them go to work against programs which help the elderly. Means-test Medicare? No problem. Privatize Social Security, enriching Wall Street at the expense of older Americans? No problem.

As Drew Westen implies, President Obama's strategy has been to "Let Congress work it out, and whatever comes out, call it a victory." And then, evidently, sit back and watch the pundits blame Congress for the failure to secure effective health care reform.

Off The Mark, Completely


Tom Shales had a lot of things to say in his column of January 5 about Britt Hume of Fox News, and none of it good.

Hume has shocked the sensibilities of much of the media elite and drawn considerable criticism for a remark (video below) he made about Tiger Woods on the January 3 Fox News Sunday. A panel discussion typically closes out the program and host Chris Wallace asked the panelists to give their "fearless predictions for 2010." The first category was politics and the second, entertainment. Then, after Wallace turned to Hume and said "sports, Britt," the veteran newsman responded

Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question and it's a tragic situation with him. I think he's lost his family. It's not clear to me whether he'll be able to have a relationship with his children. But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of the scandal- the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So My message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Shales complains that Hume

doesn't really have the authority, does he, unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize?

Witnessing to one's faith is not a requirement of Christianity and if it were, most Christians, reluctant to make enemies of individuals to whom they speak, would not remain as Christians. But as for Hume, or any other Christian, having no right- or "authority"- to "proselytize," some fellow reportedly exhorted his followers to

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you....

You may not believe that actually happened- but Britt does, and his "authority" comes from a pretty high source.

Shales demonstrated not only intolerance toward his target, but also of a whole class of people- ironic of his charge that Hume "dissed about half a billion Buddhists." Not content to quote Hume as saying at the 2008 Republican National Convention "I'm 65, for God's sake," the critic later quoted him as saying at the convention "I'd like to walk away while I'm still doing okay and not have people say 'he was fading.'" It was Shales' cute way of saying "He's old- he says stupid things."

Intolerance for the aged- or what Shales believes is old-age- not surprisingly segues into a kind of elitism. Hume, he writes (or types), "seemed so bolstered by Christianity that he just had to go tell it on the mountain." That would be a backhanded swipe at "Go Tell It On The Mountain," traditionally referred to as "an old Negro spiritual" but also a classic Christian hymn. Continuing to apply religious terminology, Shales warns Hume not "to turn a bully pulpit into a pulpit, period" and instead "First off, apologize. You gotta." Not can or should but "you gotta." Presumably, because "I said so and I'm Thomas Shale." Shales counts the remark among the "looniness" and "madness" he has found among those with whom he disagrees.

Shales claims Hume "should do it ('spreading what he considers the gospel') on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it."

As individuals- but not, one would expect, a Washington Post reporter- often do, Shales confuses opinion with objective news reporting. The remark came not during a straight news segment or an interview, but during a panel discussion. Participants are expected to give their opinion. That could be why when Shales argues "Hume knocked his fellow 'Fox News' panelists for mortified loops," he seemed to be imagining a reaction- a reaction which did not ensue, but which Shales believes, oh, they must have been having.

All of this is unimportant- at least compared to the charge that Hume "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet with the remark, 'I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.'" If the Fox newsman had intended to insult Buddhists, that would have been clearly wrong. If he had inadvertently made an inaccurate comment that insulted Buddhists, that would not have been as egregious as intending to offend- but still improper.

But where is the claim, by Shales or any other critic, that Buddhism "offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith?" Nowhere, apparently. If Buddhism did "offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith," it would be almost unforgivable that Shales and others didn't cite inaccuracy as the basis of their criticism. And it appears, further, that any concept of forgiveness and redemption in Buddhism is unlike that in Christianity.

That doesn't make Buddhism wrong, or right. But it does make what Hume said accurate; and his advice to Tiger Woods stands as his opinion, wise or unwise. His remarks were highly unusual for national television, but hardly worthy of distortion, ridicule, or derision.

Oh, Sure

The Senate health care bill, according to David Dayen at Firedoglake, would "ban undocumented immigrants from purchasing insurance coverage on the exchange, even with their own money, and which would delay legal immigrants from using the exchanges for five years."

Have no fear. Representative Luis Gutierrez (D.-IL) of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus won't let that happen, according to his office's statement, itself collared in November by Firedoglake:

It is no secret that I have been critical of proposals that would exclude our nation’s hardworking immigrants from the health care exchange, and I would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care,” said Rep. Gutierrez. “If we bar the immigrant community from buying private insurance with their own money, we relegate them to emergency room care at the highest cost to taxpayers and deny them the important opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a healthier America. Immigrants are prepared to pay into the system. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will defer to the language in the House bill on this issue and bear in mind that excluding immigrants from the private marketplace runs counter to the very goals of health care: containing costs, increasing the use of preventative care and streamlining the health delivery system.

He "would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to vote for" such a measure. Would find. Extremely difficult. It sounded a little weak at the time- hardly a Shermanesque statement. And now we read that sources have told Talking Points Memo

that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.

A source familiar with the negotiations between Congress and the White House told TPMDC the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will demand an agreement from Obama that health care coverage for illegals who earn a path to citizenship will be addressed in an immigration bill.

The Senate's health care bill bars illegals from any sort of coverage, a provision embraced after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You lie!" during Obama's address to Congress when the president said that illegals would not be able to get health care under the legislation.

Those familiar with the talks say any immigration legislation will include various amnesty provisions to allow for health care coverage.

Lawmakers want to be careful they aren't viewed as giving up on a key goal, but have said they are confident the White House is being honest that Obama wants to see a comprehensive bill this year.

A source told us that members who have championed immigration reform "aren't actually conceding, just changing tactics" to secure coverage for illegal immigrants whatever way they came.

The good news is that permitting illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance coverage with their own money (if that is the outcome) in the exchange would avail them of cheaper insurance with more options than otherwise in the private market. And help keep them out of the hospital emergency room, which would benefit them, and everyone.

But relying on inclusion of such a provision in a bill providing comprehensive illegal immigration reform faces at least two obstacles. If the Obama administration pushes for illegal immigration reform, Congress, led by the GOP, will balk and may eventually vote down the measure, assuming it even makes it to the floor. And then there is the matter of placing faith in one President Obama (let alone averting the roadblock which is his chief of staff).

As Politifact has noted, the President has followed through on some of his promises. One of the more brazen inconsistencies with objective reality, however, is in the matter of health care deliberations, for which candidate and President Obama said he would

have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.

And about that public health care option, negotiation by Medicare of prescription drug prices, importation of prescription medicine from abroad, and lower health insurance rates? With the (unlikely) exception of the first: not happening. Not now. Not under this President. Perhaps we will get those things promised by candidate Obama when there are a Democratic President, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate.

Perhaps the Congressional Hispanic Congress will get comprehensive immigration legislation providing adequate access to health care for immigrants, legal and illegal. But the members would be wise to take their cue from Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and, well, Joe Wilson and leverage their influence. As to the alternative- relying on any promise from Barack Obama- good luck.

Dredging Up The Past

It's the end of an old year and the beginning of a new one, and time for retrospectives. Daily Kos presents "This Year In Science," a takeoff on its "This Week In Science" and Taylor Marsh has "Best to Worst from Decade to Year's End." Open Left goes further, with its "golden oldies" from Matt Stoller, Paul Rosenberg, Daniel Degroot, Mike Lux (2), David Sirota(2), and Chris Bowers (4).

If big-time blogs are looking back, is it illegitimate for a small-time relatively unknown blogger to do the same? In this case, it's a comment on a column written in April by Carrie Sheffield of the conservative daily, The Washington Times.

Sheffield draws a parallel between a remark made by vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and one made by First Lady Michelle Obama. In mid-October, John McCain's choice as running mate boasted at a fund-raiser in North Carolina

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Palin was roundly criticized and sort-of apologized (real apologies from politicians aren't terribly common). Six months later, Mrs. Obama spoke at a girls' school in London while her husband attended the G-20 summit in the English capital and remarked

I was not raised with wealth or resources or any social standing to speak of. I was raised on the South Side of Chicago – that's the real part of Chicago.

To the best of my recollection, the First Lady didn't apologize- nor was she asked what she meant.

Chicago has a history of almost unparalleled segregation and the southside of Chicago has a reputation of being disproportionately black, poor, and crime-ridden. The Southside, expansively defined, actually comprises over half the land area of the city and, according to Wikipedia, is

further divided into a White and Hispanic Southwest Side, a largely Black South Side, and a smaller, more racially diverse Southeast Side.

However, Chicago itself is an extraordinarily diverse city ethnically and is

41.97% white, 36.77% black, 4.35% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 0.36% Native American, 13.58% from other races, and 2.92% from two or more races. 26.02% of the population were Hispanic of any race. 21.72% of the population was foreign born; of this, 56.29% came from Latin America, 23.13% from Europe, 17.96% from Asia and 2.62% from other parts of the world.

The exact boundaries of Southside Chicago apparently are open to interpretation and there is no way to determine for certainty whether Mrs. Obama was referring to the entire area or the "largely black South Side." She may have been referring to the latter (video below), in which case she was suggesting that the non-black portion of Chicago was not "real;" or the former, a large, fairly diverse area which might be differentiated from the traditionally more affluent north Chicago, in which case the Obamas' $1.6 million Georgian revival home may be seen as an anomaly. (This might have been determined by whether the home is in the traditionally black portion of town, an issue the mainstream media, frightened by racial issues, never chose to explore.) Either way, as Sheffield implies, it is not a comment to be proud of.

The election was held, the Democrat (fortunately) won, and perhaps this is only a matter of theoretical (or no) interest. But, as Sheffield's column inadvertently highlighted, we can, two months after Thanksgiving 2009, be thankful for this: Barack Obama, rather than Sarah Palin or Michelle Obama, holds the reins of power.