[Post your picks below.]
In my defense of Obama science pick John Holdren against the deniers and delayers, I wrote:
Amazingly, [NYT science writer] Tierney quotes CEI attacking Holdren. Now CEI is itself probably one of the top five anti-scientific think tanks in the country. It has taken $2 million of ExxonMobil money in the past decade to run an anti-science disinformation campaign with ads that claim the ice sheets are gaining mass when they are losing it and ending with the absurdist and suicidal tag line, “CO2: they call it pollution, we call it Life!” And those are only some of their ads aimed at destroying the climate for centuries. No reputable science journalist would quote CEI’s opinion on science or climate issues.
Science blogger Joshua Rosenau, who spends his days at the National Center for Science Education defending the teaching of evolution, emailed me a question about the second sentence, which led to this post:
That comment about the “top five anti-scientific think tanks” got me thinking. Clearly the Discovery Institute deserves a place on the list (and in private email, Romm agrees). But who else should be on the list, and what criteria should we use to decide which think tank is the very most anti-scientific?
Other likely selections include Heritage, George Marshall, Heartland, Cato, and AEI. The Annapolis Center for Science-based Public Policy never quite took off in a big public way, but has been working away behind the scenes for a while to promote “sound” science. The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has worked behind the scenes for years to undermine effective regulation of pollutants, including second-hand smoke and carbon dioxide. Several of these are well-documented in The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.
Personally, I’m not certain Heartland has the mojo to make the top 5 — I was thinking top 5 in term of impact as opposed to, say, the most egregiously wrong — but I’d like to hear your list. You should rank them (with #1 being the worst), and you don’t need a full list of 5.
Joshua took my suggestion and emailed Chris for his nominations, and also queried his readers. So I’m planning to take all the votes together to come up with a final list. As Joshua says, “this is your chance to make a nomination for the top five, and to make your case for the top anti-science think tank of 2008.”
- The intellectual bankruptcy of the Cato Institute
- The American Enterprise Institute: Still crazy with denial and delay after all these years
- The intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism: Heritage even opposes energy efficiency
- Krauthammer, Part 2: The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science
- The Deniers are winning, but only with the GOP
- Can This Planet Be Saved? Not if conservatives rule
- Notes from the conservative stagnation, Part 10: Grover Norquist
- George Will nails the difference between conservatives and progressives