It was Reagan’s favorite joke. Worried that their son was too optimistic, the parents of a little boy took him to a psychiatrist. Trying to dampen the boy’s spirits, the psychiatrist showed him into a room piled high with nothing but horse manure. Yet instead of displaying distaste, the little boy clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to all fours, and began digging.
“What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked.
“With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.”
It’s only January 3, but I’m awarding John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, the 2011 award for unbridled optimism. Looking at the new Congress, some might only see a room piled high with nothing but horse manure. But in an EnergyNow interview, Holdren says he’s ready to dig for that pony:
Well, certainly, the process of educating folks about what we know about climate science, what we know about the options for dealing with climate change, that’s a continuing process. You’re never done with the educational dimension. I think in the new Congress, there will unquestionably be hearings on climate science — I think those hearings are going to end up being educational. I think we’ll probably move the opinions of some of the members of Congress who currently call themselves skeptics, because I think a lot of good scientists are going to come in and explain very clearly what we know and how we know it and what it means, and it’s a very persuasive case.
Sadly, the new leaders of the House of Representatives are not open to persuasion by the facts:
- House GOP leader Boehner on ABC: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical.”
- Global warming debate befuddles GOP: Joe Barton says regulating CO2 could ‘close down the New York and Boston marathons’
- Rep. Shimkus: “Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.” Rep. Barton: “I wish I had another dozen John Shimkuses on the committee.”
- Dana “dinosaur flatulence” Rohrabacher vies for House Science chair to put global warming on trial
- Dawn of the brain-dead House: Politico reports GOP stuffing Energy and Commerce with ‘Climate Zombies’).
Moreover, during House hearings over the next two years, other than the lead panel of administration witnesses, the GOP gets to cram the other panels with deniers and disinformers and confusionists. If the House GOP wasn’t persuaded by congressional hearings where actual climate scientists were in the majority, it is hard to see how they’ll be moved when the anti-science crowd is doing most of the talking.
I’ll just file this under ‘humor’ since I know John is a big kidder.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The likelihood of persuasion of those who choose to believe in nonsense is small, but what approach should science advisers called into these kangaroo court style hearings take?
The GOP congressmen may not be convinced but maybe someone watching the hearings might be. When I saw Rohrbacher questioning Alley the former didn’t come out of that looking particularly intelligent… kind of like the Scopes trial. Of course hardly anyone watches CSPAN so who knows how that got spun/edited on Fox/talk radio.
maybe if someone could show a connection between carbon pollution and increased crocodile tears at beltway latitudes
For every Michael Oppenheimer who testifies, you will also have a Fred Singer, who already has a new editorial from 1.1.11. That is the way committees work, making sure that the testimony delivered is the message desired. The Singer’s don’t have to be right, just to deliver enough doubt that the true believers can continue down their ideological road.
If the staff’s of these congressional offices are as loaded with industry lobbyists as your previous post regarding Sen. Lee indicates, then you know just how controlled the message will be.
I would love to have Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart molding public opinion on climate change and the politics of fossils. Their audience is much larger than Holdren’s, unfortunately.
Ben Lieberman wrote: “The likelihood of persuasion of those who choose to believe in nonsense is small, but what approach should science advisers called into these kangaroo court style hearings take?”
Just tell the truth. Honest citizens will do the rest, in time. (Of course, getting the truth into the microphones may require a certain unscientific combativeness.)
The hearings should be carried by CSPAN. It’s probably true, as Matt says, that relatively few people watch CSPAN. But the relevant portions of those videos will wind up on YouTube, where they’ll draw plenty of eyeballs.
I would have to agree “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen … is almost comical”. However, I am not aware of anyone claiming that CO2 is a carcinogen. Whether co2 is harmful or not–I’ll let Boehner try the experiment of breathing pure CO2 for an extended period.
Even the Democratic climate hearings were not done every well. They were organized around high profile scientists who were encouraged to speak outside their area of work. Maybe the White House can hold Climate & Energy briefings or presentations for House and Senate members of the relevant committees. These should be organized like the IPCC reports. First day have a panel on climate trends and projections with questions only on that topic. The next day have a panel on impacts: ecological, agriculture, sea levels, extreme weather, health, the oceans & national security. Then a day or two for energy technology and economics, adaptation and mitigation. Let each panel have 5 members; let the N.A.S. pick 3 members of each panel, the Dems 1 and the Repubs 1. Space these presentations a week apart so people have time to absorb the information. It could be a national teach-in. Have empty seats for members who don’t show up and provide snacks for those that do ;).
Let’s hope that the attempted bushwhacking of climate scientists will backfire. There’s a limit to how much the Republican chairmen can manipulate testimony.
It won’t be a sudden triumph, but these hearings will be good for public education. We still have kinda sorta democracy and free speech, more in committees than in the media. More people will catch on. I have to agree with Holdren here.
As for Republicans with a little knowledge and patriotism, maybe a handful will switch. Considering the attitudes of RNC, that may mean they will have to bolt parties, as Spector and Jeffords did. If enough of them do so, that could drive a small move toward sanity within the Republican Party.
Wes, I also wish Maddow and Stewart were more tuned in to climate science and its implications, instead of using it as an occasional throwaway line. Let’s hope it’s a matter of ignorance, and not that this knowledge is a controlled substance, even among liberals.
#6 Thanks for pointing out “I am not aware of anyone claiming that CO2 is a carcinogen” This is the logical fallacy of straw man-to claim your opponents say something they don’t.Deniers constantly do this. We need to point this out a lot more than we do and hammer home the fact that it’s a logical fallacy and shows that they really aren’t the paragons of logical reasoning they claim to be.
Also,could any of the REAL climate scientists testifying be pursuaded to read the Congressional morons the riot act ala some of the witnesses at the McCarthy Hearings?(The parallels are exact and the crisis to our democracy is much worse)Even to the point of being cited for contempt of congress(yeah I have nothing but contempt for these members of congress)
I think Holdren is great and I’m glad he is in there digging.
However, the idea that GOP is pro-climate-pollution because they don’t have enough data is just silly at this point. Everyone from military to utilities to insurance industry know that climate pollution is a real and growing threat to our future security. The GOP have more than enough info and more than enough friendly voices outside government telling them it is a real threat.
The GOP is just lock-step marching humanity off a climate disruption cliff in the full knowledge of what they are doing.
Trying to hide naked short-term greed by claiming ignorance in 2011 of the basics of climate science is laughable.
The GOP have the shot the climate albatross and it hangs clearly and stinkingly around their necks. The of us sailors on the rocking ship of civilization can see and smell it. Stormy weather clouds gather on the horizon…
RE # 8
Mike Roddy, you said “these hearings will be good for public education.”
Maybe. But there will have be a lot of chairs thrown around the hearing room before I would judge any hearings the House repugs stage being good for public education.
How about ten Lindzens, Singers and Michaels for every Mann?
Honest scientists, if they are called to the witness table, should be prepared to throw those chairs at appropriate moments.
John McCormick
Obama science advisor John Holdren thinks “…we’ll probably move the opinions of some of the members of Congress who currently call themselves skeptics, because I think a lot of good scientists are going to come in and explain…”
Good luck with that. Studies of human behavior suggest factual corrections to false beliefs generally don’t work and often backfire:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/fulltext.html
Commentary, in the context of climate science denial here:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/when-facts-fail-study-notes-that-facts-can-reinforce-false-beliefs/
The actions of the climate jihadists in the House may have an unintended benefit: by their very extremism, they may force climate onto the national political agenda in a way it has never been before, particularly if we climate hawks take take them on at every step. In other words, the more ferocious the debate in Washington, the more the public and the media may actually start paying attention to climate as front-burner issue, which surely will be to our advantage. Not only are the Republicans doubling down on bad science and climate catastrophe, but on old, dirty, inefficient forms of energy, on national dependence on foreign oil, and on a dead-end economy. Meanwhile, we stand for new, clean, efficient forms of energy, for energy independence, and for a prosperous future. We have to be tough, smart, and relentless, but this is a fight we can win, and that we have to win.
I hate to be a wet blanket, in the unlikely event that there are some Republican representatives who listen to the scientists who know what they’re taliking about, and even if they understand and are swayed by the science, there will be no “defections” on this issue. If climate change were perceived as an issue of high importance to these guys, the battle would be won already. It just isn’t that important to these people. A politician who thinks past the next election is rare no matter what his or her political views are. To expect these newly elected GOP mediocrities to have the integrity to both listen to the science and to act against the wishes of their paymasters is to expect a pony to spontaneously burst from a ten-foot-high pile of manure.
“Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”
“You’re never done with the educational dimension.”
ESPECIALLY IF YOU NEVER BEGIN!
I agree with Joe:
“…during House hearings over the next two years, other than the lead panel of administration witnesses, the GOP gets to cram the other panels with deniers and disinformers and confusionists. If the House GOP wasn’t persuaded by congressional hearings where actual climate scientists were in the majority, it is hard to see how they’ll be moved when the anti-science crowd is doing most of the talking.
I’ll just file this under ‘humor’ since I know John is a big kidder.”
I was fooled by his earlier joke published in the Scientific American special issue Earth 3.0 from 10/13/08.
The article was titled: “The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.’s Last Chance to Lead
McCain or Obama can end shameful U.S. foot-dragging and rally the world against climate change”
Then I was fooled again when the new president selected John Holdren as his science advisor.
What was it Bush said? Fool me once…oh well, whatever…
…and I really thought Bush had something to do with all the delay. Now I know better.
Dean #13, I think, if you’ll excuse my presumption in saying so, that your use of ‘climate hawk’ shows just what is wrong with this usage. ‘Hawk’ is confusing, in my opinion, because ‘hawks’ are generally Rightwingers obsessed with dominance particularly military dominance. I’m certain that ‘climate realist’ says it much better. As for the Repugnant Ones, I think that answering the question as to just why are they determined to destroy civilization, and possibly humanity, is central to any tiny hope of getting out of this nightmare. The thing that really dumbfounds me, but does not surprise me, is the near unanimity of the Right’s approach, particularly in the USA, but mirrored in Australia. I mean, I’ve always had a pretty low opinion of those on the ideological Right, since I was sent to an elite establishment school infested with them, but a few of them had cogent beliefs and arguments to back up their opinions. Some were even vaguely humanistic, if in a narrowly prescribed and proscribed way deriving from a less that totally misanthropic religious belief. But when I read Rightist agit-prop on this problem today, or read the lunatic blogs’ comments, or listen to Rightist politicians, I am overwhelmed by the sense that these are creatures who have lost all reason, are no longer able to discern truth or a close approximation to it, from lies, and who no longer care. All that they see, to care about is power and dominance, come what may. And they hate those on the other side, environmentalists and ‘greenies’ of every kind, with a truly frightening intensity.
It’s going to be the extreme weather over the next year or so which will have the deniers converting.
It’s started already.
Offering information about climate change to members of congress is like offering a glass of water to a fish.
I agree with Dean Grodzins (#13) that these hearings could force climate back onto the national political agenda, or at least onto the national stage. Even the news media might pick up the story for a day or three. Whether that is good or bad depends on the response of climate hawks (maybe climate watchdogs???). It is not just a matter of educating congress; it is also about educating the public. I think the majority of people are not closed minded about the subject in the way the right wingnuts are. However they are puzzled and, although aware that there is at least a potential problem, they are not quite sure how to react to the email flap or to a cold weather event. I don’t think most people have their minds closed to facts in this case, unlike many members of congress. So people concerned with climate should not depend on the hearings themselves to be educational. Think of ways to supplement them. For most of us that means blogs, letters to newspapers and/or congress, or calls to radio shows. For anyone with a lot of clout, that means getting onto a radio or TV panel. (Or, as Mike Royko used to insist as the proper usage of that word in Chicago, “Call your clout and get on TV.”) If you have clout to call. Anyway, the hearings might be turned into an educational experience for the pubic, and maybe even a fraction or congress, but not by just waiting for it to happen.
Holdren has a good point. The tea partiers and extreme right won’t be moved but there must still some Republicans open to rational, independent thought. I can’t believe that all of the Replicans have free time to sit around watching Fox “news.” Perhaps some will realize how deep they need to dig to even find “skeptical” scientists. And even the skeptical scientists won’t support the “hoax” paranoia. I also agree that putting climate back into the limelight is a good idea. Perhaps the main problem is our “balance” obsessed journalists who will report both sides as if they were equal.
I wouldn’t expect Holdren to say anything less, but it’s already clear that what he and others say (or testify to) doesn’t matter to today’s GOP. The ratio of legit scientists to hacks & spinners has been 4:1 or 3:2 in hearings the past 4 years.
G’day,
Let us not forget the democratic party in this deserved round of republican bashing. I think one major difference between them is that the democrats have a handful of intelligent politicans who occasionally press forward on important issues from a position that has the people in mind. That is their great selling point and they run and hide behind that maybe 5% of activity whenever the greater 95% of pro-business and pro-prolluter activities is raised.
I’m convinced by their history of action and legislation deemed important enough to get a big push and get passed that the priorities of a poliitcal party come into focus. It is easy to get distracted by what a few Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich’s have to say or even what the mainstream idea or Nationally Accepted Definition has to say about a party.
Obama and his triple crown, oddly I never heard that phrase for the dems a stylistic error I’m sure, chose to do what? They passed giant bailouts primarily for the plutocracy and ownership class, they oversaw the handing out of 14+ Trillion dollars in cash at 0% or near 0% interest to the big banks. They intensified the war in afganistan and have been war mongering against Iran and actually launching military assults into Pakistan. They included a few small consumer protections in a healthcare bill that will probably be a handout to the insurance industry in the end. They kept up a big tax cut for the wealthy, took money from social security to do it, and actually increased taxes on the poor from what I understand. I don’t think Bush could even get away with this sort of thing, only the democrats can legislate this kind of pro-business and pro-big money legislation.
I’m not out to attack Obama and I’m glad for the things that have been getting done, but aside from some small programs and endless silly debate about the 5% of good things getting done. Can anyone really argue about where the focus of the democratic party is? What are their main legislative acitivites and who do they look after most of the time in most of what they do? I’m thinking the whole lot of them are powerful, powerfully entrenched in what they’re doing, and powerfully compelled to say whatever as long as they actions financially benefit their benefactors who paid for them to get into congress and will pay them fat checks as lobbyists and consultants once they get out of congress.
Look at what they do most of the time and you’ll see it is just like what the republicans do almost all of the time.
I think one of our strongest abilities and one aspect of science we praise endlessly is the ability to critisize our own side of things and reform our opinions based on facts, actions, and events. Let’s not be blinded by a political party selling us a message about being for the people. These are people in power we’re talking about after all. Let us not be weak and weaken our message by letting power peddlers ‘negotiate’ away the salient points of action just so we can keep saying how they’re on our side. As Joe has said many times about the failed presidency of Obama and his perhaps most powerful 2 year period right after his first election…Climate Change isn’t important to the democratic party any more than it is to the republican party. It is wedge issue both sides use to get votes, all the while giving away the public commons for free to the wealthy.
Cheers,
spiritkas