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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating