I fell asleep last night (and, coincidently, woke up) watching a hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on Energy & Environment chaired by Brian Baird (D-WA). The topic was climate change and there were three panels of scientists who discussed why they believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing global warming. The Republicans, still in the minority during this lame-duck session, were allowed to invite one witness per panel, and on the two panels I watched, they chose a climate change skeptic.
At one point, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked to enter Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address into the record, not for it’s warning to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” nor for his counsel that “[w]e cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.” No. Rep. Rohrabacher entered the speech into the Congressional Record to emphasize Eisenhower’s warning that “…in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Here are Eisenhower’s remarks in context:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The irony here, of course, is that the Republicans invited scientists to testify who are dominated by oil money. Their little projects at places like the Cato Institute are funded by Big Oil’s allocations.
Charles G. Koch co-founded the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, with Edward H. Crane in 1977. Recently, Koch Industries has become an aggressive opponent of climate legislation and a major funder of climate skeptics, including the Cato Institute.
It was nice to watch a (mostly) rational debate on climate change, but the experience was colored with the grim realization that future hearings in the House will have the ratio of objective scientists to bought skeptics completely reversed.
We are so screwed.
The path for progressive Dems is clear.
They need to craft progressive legislation that benefits Americans and let the Republicans knock it down. And figure out a means that the press actually reports it.
The right wing has spent the last 40 years building a lobbying, media, and ‘academic’ infrastructure that can basically create its own facts. At least 25% of the population will believe anything they say, and a large chunk of the rest will assume that if enough people say it, they must have a point. There is no comparable force on the left.
We can argue about Obama’s soul as much as we want, but this is really what matters.
Part of the problem is that there really isn’t much of a “left” (at least as understood by the rest of the developed world).
That aside, legitimate scientists tend to be great at generating data and presenting it in a manner that other scientists in their specialties will understand them, but they do a very poor job of marketing their findings to a lay audience. The anti-science zealots who seem hell-bent on returning to the Dark Ages on the other hand are great marketers. I think that climate scientists, for instance, are finally and belatedly waking up to that fact and realizing that the data, no matter how compelling they might be to fellow professionals and the small subset of a lay audience who subscribe to Popular Science, simply cannot speak for themselves. Some folks with some media savvy will have to do the speaking.
I was glad to see George Soros step up to the plate and basically say dems need a spine-especially Obama-and in turn he will start up a money machine to rival the rethugs machine for 2012. He also said he’s lost alot of fights but he hates the fact that certain people give up without a fight.
So you know when the money men, high dollar dem donors are pissed off at the WH and Congress critters for being such wimps, we’re in trouble. Personally if I was Obama and Reid, I’d be finding my spine real quick.
Until then as you say WE.ARE.SCREWED. I think Soros is spot on. Why should anyone donate to the dems if they won’t even put up a little bit of a fight?