Media Matters has the video. See here. I’ve also embedded it below:
Meanwhile, Curtis Brainard, CJR’s science guy, has another analysis highlighting the way Post staff are coming out of the woodwork to critique Will.
Here’s my question: When is somebody gonna put George Will on television and ask him to further defend his insistence on wrongly interpreting these climate data? As per the Marc Morano post below, I for one would welcome the chance to debate this issue with Will on the air. I’m sure many other climate journalists, and climate scientists, would as well.
It’s April 9 today–the big extravaganza in New York is exactly a month away, May 9. It’s gonna feature E.O. Wilson, Ken Miller, Lawrence Krauss, Dean Kamen, and many, many others. It’s also going to feature both of your bloggers, fellow disco blogger Carl Zimmer, many other members of our ScienceDebate2008 crew, my Princeton history of science prof D. Graham Burnett, and many, many more.
We’ll have C.P. Snow experts, scientific experts, and science and society experts. We’re going to take a look at the “two cultures” through the lens of history first, and then we’re going to analyze the continuing gap between science and society as manifested through the media, politics, and education. And we’re going to propose solutions–indeed, how fitting that Sheril just today has posted an amazingly exhaustive list of policy fellowships for scientists and engineers, which are precisely the sorts of programs that we need to see thrive if we’re going to bridge the gulf between science and the rest of society.
Meanwhile, I’m mooting a kind of blog countdown to the conference here at the “Intersection,” and trying to think about how it should go. My attempt to blog about some of the other scientific classics I’ve been reading earlier this year didn’t necessarily succeed, but perhaps we should all read “The Two Cultures” lecture together over the next month? How many people would be interested in doing that? It’s not very long, it’s easy reading–no math or anything, heh–and this is the best edition.
Leave a comment if you think this is worth doing, and then we’ll decide whether there’s a critical mass. And meanwhile, if you want an early-bird conference rate, tomorrow is the deadline to register.…
After I recently spoke at AAAS, several graduate students emailed asking about a clearinghouse for science policy fellowships. I couldn’t think of such a list and inquired with many colleagues in and out of academia to no avail. Surely there needs to be, so I worked with a group of terrific staffers and interns at American Association for the Advancement of Science to come up with what follows. We’ll be making this resource readily available on our sidebar soon so please add any fellowships we may have forgotten in comments and we’ll update it regularly.
John A. Knauss Sea Grant Fellowship (Sheril did this one!)
Dear Reader: I encourage you to head on over to DeSmogBlog for the latest evidence of why it is that all our money spent on global warming research does not suffice to solve the problem.
Warning, it’s likely to make you angry.
Marc Morano has long been Senator James Inhofe’s top global warming spinmeister and talking head. His special ability is to argue super-fast, spewing out questionable claims, a kind of howitzer of climate “skepticism.” (Below, for example, see Morano’s recent debate with Joe Romm provided in its first installment, with the second here. Joe tries to be patient in debating Morano, and to correct him as much as possible–a valiant attempt, but it’s simply impossible to correct everything Morano says as he bowls you over with dubious assertions.)
I bring all this up because Morano has now left Inhofe’s service; instead he’s joined an anti-global warming think tank, the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has lost no time in pitching him to the media. DeSmogBlog has the email they’ve been sending out; it reads in part like this:
Here’s your counter guest debater to Al Gore and Global Warming Climate change disinformation plus how Obama’s Policies are affecting our economy.
For your on-air expert contributor talent files: Credentialed “Counter Guest” to popular global warming ideology: Here’s your anti-Gore Global Warming Expert who offers the science to counteract partisan and ideologically driven Environmental entities and issues.
If you believe most, or all, of the global warming dogma, you may use Marc as your “counter guest” to offer a lively, fair and balanced discussion to your audience. If you are a skeptic of the current doctrine, Marc can aid your program by clearing up the deception with the facts.
Marc Morano infuses the environmental debate with a balanced and truthful scientific perspective. Marc’s agenda is to revolutionize Climate and Environmental news dissemination to portray the accurate truth.
The thing is, this stuff is totally going to work. Morano is going to get on TV, and he’s going to sow more doubt about global warming. He’s quite effective at this–frankly, even as I lament it, I’m also impressed by his skill–and has a think tank behind him. And they’re willing to fight damn hard to get their point of view across.
In my view, while it may be justified (not to mention hard to resist), it’s rather pointless to get mad at Morano, or CFACT, over this. They’re playing the game to win, and they’re very good at it. Frankly, we should be paying close attention to their tactics, and even trying learn from them.
If we’re going to get mad at anyone, meanwhile, I can see two appropriate targets. First, there’s the media who allow this game to work, by creating environments (especially on television) where good science can easily get defeated by good rhetoric.
And second, there’s the wealthy philanthropists and well funded think tanks and interest groups on our side who, faced with this unfavorable media environment, have failed to adapt and equip us with counter-Moranos–intellectual warriors who are not only up for the task of setting the record straight, and defending accurate science, but actually have it as their full time job description. This is hardly impossible to do; you can learn to be a good TV debater, a stunningly effective advocate for your own side…but who has time to really make an art of it? Who is funded to do this?
So far as I can tell, it’s generally conservatives, that’s who. And that, my friends, is the latest installment of “why reason loses”….