Science journalist Chris Mooney, author of the must-read Republican War on Science, has a post at Science Progress titled, “Enablers: Sometimes Refuting Unscientific Nonsense Reinforces It.” This is a provocative and timely post, given the recent tussles I’ve been having with deniers and delayers.

I’ve talked to Chris, and his occasional co-blogger, Matthew Nisbet (who has a related post here), many times. And while we are probably 95% in agreement on most things climate, I don’t quite buy their argument here:

So we’ve reached a point where we may well be wasting our energies if we continue to battle climate skeptics. Indeed, we run the risk of propping them up far more than they deserve.

For that’s the other problem with constantly rebutting anti-science forces–not only does it waste our time, but it may play right into their hands. Consider: Over at his blog Framing Science, Matthew Nisbet makes a very strong case that the rhetorical strategy of the Heartland Institute is exceedingly similar to that of the anti-evolutionist think tank the Discovery Institute. If so, it follows that the defenders of climate science ought to be at least as leery of outright engagement with Heartland as the defenders of evolutionary science are when it comes to engaging with Discovery.

The reason is that if you actually bother to rebut the Heartlands and Discoverys of the world, you instantly enter into a discourse on their own terms. The strategic framing these groups employ to attack mainstream science heavily features the rhetoric of scientific uncertainty….

The key issue is what Chris means by “battle climate skeptics.” I tend to agree it is pointless to debate them one on one, as the listening audience can hardly be expected to adjudicate scientific arguments, so it is a losing proposition, and I rarely waste my time doing it any more. And as I’ve recently blogged, I think it is also a waste of time (for me) to keep rebutting long-debunked denier talking points that someone posts in the comments of this blog.

But I do a lot of radio shows, and conservatives and libertarians (most, but not all, well-meaning people) inevitably call in, repeating old and new denier talking points. The same for lectures I give. I must rebut those points clearly and succinctly, or I will convince nobody. All progressives need to have that ability, even if they don’t give talks on the subject, but merely argue with a non-progressive friend or relative. So I feel some obligation on this blog to rebut new denier talking points — like the “Earth is cooling” crap. Indeed, that was one of the reasons this blog was created.

The other advantage of doing it on a blog is that one can build up an entire database of links about the problem and the solution, so I (and others) don’t have to keep rebutting the same points — you can just refer people to the relevant posts, either here or at the few other sites that do this.

That said, I am a big believer in strategic framing, which is why I use the word “delayer” more than “denier” [I still use the term denier occasionally, in headlines for instance, since it is better known]. Delayer or delayer-1000 focuses the debate on the need for action and makes clear that the goal of the deniers is to delay action. And that’s why I insist people who want to engage in a debate answer the question: “If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?”

Because if we go to 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, then all debate and uncertainty in the science disappears — the planet’s livability will be destroyed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

I do not believe the climate issue has much analogy to the evolution issue. The creationists/intelligent-designers are mainly arguing over science in the public arena primarily because they don’t want evolution taught. The stakes are very low — at best you end up with some poorly educated kids and the country falls behind in bio-tech research that someone else will do.

The deniers/delayers are mainly arguing over science in the public arena because they don’t want action on climate. The stakes are enormous. If they succeed in delaying action much longer, we will be condemning the next 10 billion people who walk the earth to untold misery and strife. The public (and hence the media) needs to get the facts on climate science and climate solutions, much more than they need to get the facts about evolution (don’t get me wrong, though — scientists need to vigorously defend evolution).

And that means everybody needs to be educated about the science. Matt writes:

Read more

Under subpoena by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to turn over documents involving the White House, the EPA instead requested documents from him, in a letter revealed today by E&E News.

On March 10, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson:

“I am writing to request that EPA provide to the Oversight Committee documents that the agency has improperly withheld from the Committee…relating to your decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

This request includes not only specific documents that EPA eventually turned over in heavily redacted form, but also “hundreds of documents” that involve EPA and the White House that top-level EPA officials told Waxman’s committee are being withheld.

On March 12, Waxman sent a detailed timeline of events to Johnson based on the EPA interviews showing that the EPA’s efforts to regulate CO2 stopped after the White House became involved.

On March 13, Waxman issued a subpoena for 196 of the documents.

The next day, the EPA’s Christopher P. Bliley — who was White House budget director Jim Nussle’s chief of staff when Nussle was in Congress — sent a letter to Waxman, saying that the documents “raise very important Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and that “we need additional time to respond to your request.”

Then he one-upped Waxman, making a document demand of his own:

EPA would also like to request copies of the transcripts from the Committee’s interviews of seven Agency employees.

His reason?

The Agency has an interest in ensuring that the information provided to the Committee by Agency employees in their official capacity is accurate and complete, particularly here where that information appears to be the basis for a new and expansive document request.

In other words, the White House wants to make sure their stories don’t contradict what Waxman already knows.

Needless to say, the EPA does not have oversight or subpoena power over the House of Representatives.

EPA LETTER (3/14/08) EXCERPTS: Read more

[JR: Geo-engineering is to mitigation as chemotherapy is to diet & exercise. You can find some more specific reasons geo-engineering is unlikely to make sense at these posts: "Geo-engineering remains a bad idea" and "Geo-Engineering is NOT the Answer." Note I will be blogging again on this shortly. Absent strong mitigation efforts, geo-engineering will not stop catastrophic outcomes, like the end of most ocean life.]

TIME magazine has declared geo-engineering one of “10 Ideas That Are Changing the World.”

“Messing with nature caused global warming,” TIME wrote. “Messing with it more might fix it.”

What are they thinking?

For the record: I have a lot of respect for engineers. They have taken us into space and landed us on the moon with incomprehensible precision. Every time we cross a bridge or speed down the freeway at 75 miles per hour, we trust our lives to engineers. Thanks to engineers, we keep our beer cold and our showers hot, and wake up every morning with confidence that our coffee has been brewed. There’s virtually nothing in our material life that has not been touched by engineering.

I should also define the type of geo-engineering I’m about to address. It includes attempts to mitigate global warming by deploying mirrors in space, using high-altitude balloons to inject dust and soot into the atmosphere, using aircraft to spray aluminum particles into the troposphere, burning sulfur to increase cloud cover and dumping iron oxide into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth.

Should we depend on measures such as these to reverse climate change? For ethical and practical reasons, the answer is no.

Read more