I would look to the emerging interests looking for progressive policies regarding climate change. Some of those interests are not very established, like solar energy. But look at all the names in this article, for instance. These companies all have an interest in accurate science winning out, plus who could fault them for supporting it? Especially if we’re talking about reputable scientists. (My two cents anyway…)

I’m kinda surprised Gates hasn’t done it. But that would only draw the same animosity the current associations with Gates yields.

http://food.change.org/blog/view/science_front_and_center_at_usda Mistrust by association.

But the really important issue is 4): will journalism save us? I’d like to think that it will, mainly because someone has to, but that may be wishful thinking (and self-serving at that, since I’m a science writer).

I acutely share your concern that the internet has made it easier than ever for people to surround themselves with opinions that reinforce their own, and that this is a particularly worrisome when traditional journalism is under such stress. I’m still hoping for a new business model that provides authoritative, quality journalism.

Or maybe a charitable model? I donate to NPR, and subscribe to the New York Times in paper even though I’ve often read the interesting stories the night before on the web. Will that be enough?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/10/marc-moranos-salary-134000/

I’ve said it before, and will say it again–there is no money, no career, in being a “counter-Morano.” So why would anyone do it?

Jon–yeah. I think Milton is wonderfuly poetic and stirring…and tragically naive, in retrospect.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…

…From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

Madison and the rest were concerned about this sufficiently that this matter was debated quite a bit. They didn’t say “let Truth and Falsehood grapple” and that was that…

I do blame scientists for not being there. And I spoke with a guy from CDC about that, and he said scientists have been absent from this sort of thing for years. So part of this is our fault. We’re letting the conversation be driven by activated cranks.

On the other hand–let’s say you open the conversation. You’re gonna get the same thing. This kind of discussion doesn’t draw the middle/undecided/unaligned. I’ve seen it.

We need to create a science defenders network that works like the crank bat signals.