An ID Proponent Denies Global Warming

By Chris Mooney | November 16, 2009 7:44 pm

Wow. The Medved Show today went very differently than I expected. I was all prepared to talk about evolution and intelligent design; instead, Stephen Meyer of the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institute spent far more time attacking climate science than evolutionary science. In this endeavor, he pulled out all the old chestnuts: the Oregon Petition, cooling during the 1970s, the alleged end to warming in this decade, satellite versus ground temperature measurements…egads.

I’ll have more to say here about what I meant to say there, but for now, just an observation: If I were Meyer, and I wanted to make the case for intelligent design as good science, I would not tie my position at all to global warming denial, much less in such a close way as I heard him doing today. That’s two wildly controversial scientific positions to explain, instead of one; it starts you down the Tom Bethell road of denying almost everything, including HIV/AIDS and even relativity and even even Shakespeare’s authorship of his plays. Not good for credibility….and it makes me wonder, how many folks from the Discovery Institute also attack climate science?


Comments (48)

  1. John Kwok


    Well I’m not shocked by Meyer’s great disdain towards the notion of global warming. In fact, as you yourself may be aware, that is a “favorite” topic of “discussion” over at Bill Dembski’s former website, Uncommon Dissent (Need I add too that Bill is as ardent a global warming denialist as Meyer is?).

    Keep up the good work, even in the lion’s den.

    Appreciatively yours,


  2. My guess is that the overlap is mighty high.

  3. Travis McDermott

    Given that the Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank I wouldn’t be surprised if many of their folks are climate denialists.

  4. Erasmussimo

    The correlation between evolution denial and AGW denial is a strong demonstration of the underlying political motives of such deniers. How could such people be simultaneously so well versed in BOTH subjects that they are willing to go against the opinion of an overwhelming majority? Not bloody likely.

  5. SLC

    Mr. Mooney should be aware that the Dishonesty Institute includes AIDS/HIV denial , and in the person of John West, Holocaust denial. It would, perhaps, be more interesting to find out what they don’t deny.

  6. Scott

    The earths temperature has never been constant.
    When I was in school in the 80s we where told an ice age was coming.
    Many scientists dispute that C02 (let alone man made C02) is causing climate change.
    Al Gore is making a fortune in “green” technology investment.
    Climate scientists do not get grants to study climate change if they say “all is well” they get funding if they say “the world might be ending, we need more money to study it”
    These facts lead me as a thinking person to conclude that “man made global warming” is possibly phony science.
    This being said, I drive a small car and use as little energy as I can because I do want to reduce actual pollution and save money.

  7. Jon

    It doesn’t surprise me. Where does DI’s funding come from? If they really want to excite the donor base (as I assume movement conservative institutions are always looking to do) why not take potshots at as many economic and cultural “elitist” targets as possible?

  8. john

    Scott –

    I think you accidentally pressed “enter” in the places where you meant to provide arguments.

  9. AGW denial involves money, which is always more holy to Republican elites than is god, religion, etc.

    Not only is it a familiar refrain at UD, it shows up from time to time on the CSC’s own website. For instance:

    You can find more examples, too. I dare say that it’s pretty much unofficial policy at the CSC to deny AGW. And yes, it pretty much shows their general contempt for science.

    Glen Davidson

  10. Brian D

    This is a stellar example of Crank Magnetism – holding a crank position because of poor scientific reasoning leaves one vulnerable to other antiscience positions.

    Chris: Tim Lambert asked similar questions a while ago; did you see the results? (He also looked into another instance of crank magnetism that you might find interesting. Note the last line of that post as well.)

  11. danny roturra

    heard you on medved. it is always amusing, having advanced science degrees, to hear someone who has none argue science. take a course and then, perhaps, you’ll know what you don’t know. in life some of us go from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty. you’re stuck.

  12. John Kwok

    @ Stefan,

    Sadly there are many on the DI staff who question the reality of anthropogenic global warming with the same degree of intensity seen in their breathtakingly inane attacks on modern evolutionary theory and its important role as the key unifying theory for biology.

  13. Erasmussimo

    Scott, I suspect that you’re a drive-by paid sock puppet, mindlessly parroting all the standard arguments that have long since been disproven. You could disprove my suspicions by presenting well-reasoned analysis instead of merely your conclusions.

    Danny roturra, I find Mr. Mooney’s appreciation of scientific matters to be more than adequate to the task he has set himself. Were you not at least capable of noting the wide gulf in understanding between Mr. Mooney and Mr. Meyer?

  14. Mike

    It was fun to hear the debate but you got worked pretty severely Mr. Mooney.

  15. I’m surprised that no one has brought up Limbaugh climate guru Dr. Roy Spencer, another ID proponent who is one of the notable error-prone scientific climate skeptics. I mentioned this a short time ago, but it’s been noted before.

    Climate skeptic Propaganda at its worstest BEST from Dr. Roy Spencer

    I’m also curious about Paul Driessen, who wrote possibly the dumbest anti-global warming column EVER over at (November 16) — and that’s saying a lot, but if you read it, you might agree with me). Driessen allied with Spencer at the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.

  16. Marion Delgado


    This is the Discovery Institute’s Mission Statement in its entirety

    Discovery Institute’s mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute’s own publications and Internet website

    This is below the Mission Statement on the About the DI page:

    Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of “Cascadia.” The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute’s members, board and sponsors.

    They could be any libertarian think tank, with that. Not a word about religion or evolution or materialism. Yet another reason they wanted to work behind the scenes in Dover, PA, unlike the Thomas Moore Law Center.

  17. SLC

    Re Oakden Wolf

    As I understand it, Dr. Spencer is a young earth creationist

  18. Michael

    ID is, of course, pathetic nonsense. Unfortunately, so is man-made global warming. It’s interesting how the global warming issue has been so politicalized that there is now little chance of any real scientific debate. The tragedy is that as the earth cools down over the coming decades, as it is already doing, the proponents of ID, pseudo-science, and other anti-evolution and anti-science groups will hold up the man-made global warming fiasco as a prime example of how scientists have a non-scientific agenda, and how that agenda overrides the scientific method for theory formulation. Sadly, they will be right.

    The blind insistance, against an ever-growing body of measured evidence, that we humans are responsible for the increasing global temperature, which isn’t happening, will badly hurt the credibility of science in general, and scientists specifically. As folks experience the coldest winter among the northern tier of states in many decades, they will lose faith in science and scientists, and allow the forces of faith-based ignorance to prosper with a loud “We told you so!”

    At least the opppessive and economy destroying Cap & Tax bill is dead for sure. But a belief in science as an independent force for understanding our universe will also be a casualty.

    This is what happens when scientists, who should know better, clamor for the chance to climb onto the bandwagon of some pork-faced politician. When will we learn that real science and politics simply don’t mix.

  19. Sorbet

    It is appalling that anti-science crooks like Meyer would warp and distort the objective data for stagnation of temperatures in the last decade (which did happen but which does not disprove global warming) and use it for their pernicious political agenda.

  20. Jon

    Just in case anyone forgot (I’ve linked to it many times) one of my favorite Paul Krugman columns:

    I’d like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of “intelligent design.” No, he didn’t play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement – a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

    Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make “philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector.” That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn’t like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

    Irving Kristol–a man who converted his 1930’s class war into our conservative-media-and-think-tank culture war.

  21. SLC

    Re Michael

    It is always fascinating how global warming deniers like Mr. Michael, who insist that the earth is cooling, never propose that the cooling trend, which would be even more destructive then global warming, be combated by increasing CO2 emissions.

  22. Woody Tanaka

    Why would this suprise you?

    Let’s face facts: the DI, and ID proponents in general, are religious people who are accustomed to selective reading of the evidence, obfuscation and outright denial of reality in order to protect their baseless dogmas. These thinking and reasoning processes, such as they are, are inherent in religious belief.

    This is why accomodationism will never work. Unless you change the underlying religious-based thinking and reasoning errors, they will always find new and exciting bad conclusions to reach because the same faulty reasoning that leads some to ID, leads others to clamate change denialism, etc. You have to change the underlying reasoning pathologies, which means getting the religion out of their brains.

  23. John Kwok

    @ Michael –

    Unfortunately there is clear-cut, quite persuasive, evidence for anthropogenic global warming according to paleoclimatic data recorded in oxygen isotope data from foraminifera collected from deep sea drilling cores and, especially, ice core data from both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. I know of several scientists who contend that this started as far back as 6,000 to 8,000 years ago when you begin seeing widespread agricultural cultivation in the Middle East, Indus River valley of northern India and northern China.

    What remains contentious of course is how fast this anthropogenic global warming has occurred recently due to the rise of modern technological civilization relying upon coal and other fossil fuels. But I am inclined to subscribe to the worst models based on excellent data collected and analyzed by NASA climatologist James Hansen and his colleagues.

  24. John Kwok

    @ Woody Tanaka –

    Maybe you can enlighten the Dalai Lama, who has observed that if Buddhism is wrong and science is right, then Buddhism must change to conform with science. Or discuss this with the likes of Brown cell biologist Ken Miller, Vatican astronomer – and Jesuit brother – Guy Consolmagno, and Arizona ecologist Michael Rosenzweig, who think solely about science – not their devoutly held religious beliefs – when working as professional scientists. Just because the Dishonesty Institute “scientific” staff of mendacious intellectual pornographers insists on conflating their “scientific” with their religious views doesn’t mean that accomodationism can’t work.

    While I can usually count on you for making cogent, quite reasonable, observations (even if I disagree with them), I find this latest observation of yours, sadly, a perfect example of breathtaking inanity that I have stumbled upon all too often from Militant Atheists.

  25. Caleb

    I’m so confused!

    Are these 31,486 American scientists all dead wrong?

    As a non-scientist, do I stop trying to look into both sides of the argument, because all my friends liken me to a “holocaust denier” or something equally as evil? I fear a nasty personal attack, I am not taking sides – just hoping that the normal scientific method is not effectively being thwarted with regards to man-made global warming. I am all for looking after the planet, don’t get me wrong.. (yikes, why do I feel such a strong urge to defend myself already!)

  26. Erasmussimo

    Well, we’ve had two more drive-by AGW deniers pop in to make their claims. If the standard pattern is followed — and I’ve seen it dozens of times here — some of us will explain why their claims are wrong, but they’ll never reappear. Nevertheless, I’ll play Sisyphus and answer one of them, Caleb.

    Caleb, those 31,386 names are just that — names. They include football players, pop singers, and I believe at least one cartoon character. There is absolutely no verification of any of the names. The list is a complete fiction. If you want a reliable indicator of what real scientists actually believe, consult the National Academy of Sciences.

    Caleb, are you there?

  27. Mike

    Everywhere I read about the subject I can’t help but notice the global warming chicken littles are getting their panties bunched even more tightly. I guess they are feeling the…heat of sinking public support. The issue is already politically dead and will be a rotting stinking corpse in 2012 when congress swings back more to the right.

    The jig is up guys – your dreams of wrecking western economies will never come to fruition.

  28. Jon

    The jig is up guys – your dreams of wrecking western economies will never come to fruition.

    I think the fevered minds are in your camp:

    Conservatives like to think of anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “the Left”, as if that was some sort of monolith, and not separate communities just trying to go about their business and have a reasonably decent life. “The Left” as you know it today only became something because of certain actions by the conservative movement. If it weren’t for the obvious hash you’ve made of things in recent years, there would be no reason for Chris to write *The Republican War on Science*, and no reason for a lot of other books either.

  29. Woody Tanaka

    John Kwok,
    Thank you for your compliments, but you seem to have misread my post to be asserting a blanket claim that those who are religious must think irrationally all the time about everything. Not at all.

    What I am saying is that one should not be surprised where a religious believer, who is per se susceptable to irrational thinking, thinks irrationally about subjects other than religion; in this example, ID.

    And that is, in my opinion, the problem with accomodationism. If the goal of reasonable people is to eliminate irrational thinking from public discourse, then teaching ID in school, for example, is merely a symptom of irrationality, not the sum of the problem itself. The rational minded accomodationist should not then be surprised when even his ID-opposing religious compatriot turns around to, for example, irrationally deny the science of climate change.

    The problem, at heart, is the susceptability toward irrational thinking, of which religion is merely one type. (Cf., e.g., Mike’s post at 28, in which he seems to conclude that the science of climate change is a conspiracy to destroy the Western World’s economic power.)

  30. Erasmussimo

    Well, we’ve had “Scott”, “Michael”, and “Caleb” make their drive-by shots, and now “Mike” is here, although he has actually driven by earlier with another shoot-and-scoot post (#14). Mike, you’re welcome to your conspiracy theories, but if you think that most Americans share them, you’re REALLY out of touch!

  31. Mike

    “Mike’s post at 28, in which he seems to conclude that the science of climate change is a conspiracy to destroy the Western World’s economic power”

    There is no conspiracy – I know the do gooders feel like they are saving the world and have the best of intentions. But the fact is that if you were crowned all powerful king of the USA your reign may be a benevolent one, but in the end we would all be poorer and the global climate would not care a whit.

    I’m sure it’s frustrating but this issue is politically DOA. You should find a cause that actually has public support. My advice: Save The Whales!!!

  32. Jon

    I know the do gooders feel like they are saving the world and have the best of intentions.

    Yes, it’s a conspiracy of “do-gooders” bringing us to a fascist utopia blah blah blah (copyright 1980, Irving Kristol). The scientific method is just a cover for a New Class liberals who are coordinating their actions to bring a new dawn of socialist policies blah blah blah. We must defeat the radical scientists or we will be on the Road to Serfdom (points to a cobweb covered bookshelf that hasn’t had a mote of dust disturbed since 1981). We must defeat the evil communist enemies at their test tubes. Don’t look at their data! It’s a trick! A cabal of do gooders and their test tubes! Run away! Run away! etc. etc. etc.

  33. Erasmussimo

    Again, Mike, if you think that climate change is rejected by the American people, you are way off the mark. It’s true that the large anti-rational community rejects AGW, but the polls show that a solid majority embraces the notion, and the anti-rational community is definitely in the minority. Moreover, the rest of the world is much further along than the American body politic — they don’t have as many anti-rationalists.

    Just yesterday I noticed a story in the paper claiming that the Hawaiian islands are losing sand from their beaches, and further claiming that the appropriate scientists attribute this to AGW. I do not know if any of this is true (given the sad state of science reporting), but I do know that the steady stream of stories like this is grinding away at support for the anti-rationalists.

  34. Mike

    “but the polls show that a solid majority embraces the notion,”

    Maybe you missed this weeks rasmussen poll:

    This is all bad news for the Global Warming Creationists and even worse is the trending of the polls in that direction.

    And imagine how sharply those trends would turn against GW Creationism if dollars were actually about to be taken out of taxpayers pockets, especially when the country is trillions in the hole.

    You have huge congressional majorities and a politically gifted, rhetorically powerful Global Warming Creationist as president and you still can’t ‘git er done’. 2010 and 012 elections will be the final nail. So I stand by my earlier statement fellas – The jig is up.

  35. Jon

    Wow, Mike. You mean demagoguery proves there’s no climate change? Don’t make me get out my Orwell:

    Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston.

  36. Erasmussimo

    Mike, you’re relying on data from Rasmussen Reports, a polling group whose results are, shall we say, seldom in agreement with the results from other polls. For a much more reliable estimate of the true feelings of Americans, I suggest that you consult Here’s their page summarizing results of quite a few polls conducted by 8 different polling organizations:

    This presents questions from 30 polls during the calendar year 2009, with many different questions regarding the desirability of legislation to reduce carbon emissions, the existence of climate change, and the degree to which people worry about climate change. If you will examine these questions, you will readily note that most show strong support the theory of AGW. For example, a Gallup Poll taken in March included this question:

    “”Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? They have already begun to happen. They will start happening within a few years. They will start happening within your lifetime. They will not happen within your lifetime, but they will affect future generations. OR, They will never happen.” Options rotated”

    with these results:

    Already happening: 53%
    Within a few years: 5%
    Within your lifetime: 10%
    Future Generations: 15%
    Never: 16%

    This poll then suggests that only 16% of the American public deny the overall phenomenon of global warming. Here’s another poll question, from an ABC News/Washington Post survey in June:

    “Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?”

    Should: 75%
    Should not: 22%
    Not sure: 3%

    Once again, the dyed-in-the-wool people like you come out pretty small: 22%

    Next, some contradictory results from a Pew Research Center poll:

    “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?” If yes: “Do you believe that the earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, OR, mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?” Options rotated

    Yes, Human Activity: 36%
    Yes, Natural Patterns: 16%
    Yes, Don’t know why: 6%
    No: 33%
    Mixed/Unsure: 10%

    This one looks more favorable to your outlook, but that Mixed/Unsure element makes it hard to draw strong conclusions, especially when the results from the next question in Pew poll are considered:

    “”In your view, is global warming a very serious problem, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not a problem?””

    Very serious: 35%
    Somewhat serious: 30%
    Not too serious: 15%
    Not a problem: 17%
    Unsure: 3%

    That’s two-thirds of the people calling this a serious problem.

    I suggest that you go through the entire set of results. You’ll find that a strong majority considers global warming, whatever its source, to be a serious problem that the government should do something about; however, an equally strong majority are opposed to legislation that would cost them money.

    Moreover, your predictions for the future are off the mark. The evidence in favor of AGW just keeps pouring in, and the news media are treating it less as a matter requiring the airing of both sides’ views, and instead are treating it more as a foregone conclusion. And if you think the Republicans are going to make major advances in 2010 and 2012, I’ll suggest that you’re engaging in wishful thinking. Right now, nobody really knows what the state of mind of the public 12 months from now will be. If Mr. Obama and Congress pass major legislation that is widely approved, the Democrats could well widen their lead. If something goes seriously wrong, the Republicans could close the gap. And neither you nor I know what the next 12 months holds in such matters.

  37. Randy

    It is indeed fascinating how, in the United States at least, it is the right wing that has developed such an anti-science sentiment. You wouldn’t necessarily think that anti-science ignorance would have a right-left polarity, and you could even think the the right wing would be the political side that embraces science; what after all could be more free-market than the exchange of ideas in a scientific debate?

  38. Erasmussimo

    I agree, Randy; there is nothing intrinsically anti-rational to conservatism; the real culprit here is social conservatism, a creed that has little to do with classic conservatism. It is the social conservatives who are so strongly anti-rational. But their anti-rationalism has spread through the entire conservative movement like a virus. Conservatives, heal thyselves!

  39. John Kwok

    @ Woody Tanaka,

    Some of the most rational people I know happen to be religiously devout, beginning with a favorite uncle of mine who is a former Methodist minister in surburban Chicago. Have had the good fortune to work alongside eminent ecologist Michael Rosenzweig (a devout Jew) and to count as a friend, fellow Brunonian Ken Miller, and both are two of the most rational people I have ever met.

    I have to disagree respectfully with your interpretation, but I do commend that you have resisted the temptation of couching it in terms that could be viewed as extremely strident, unlike some others who have been posting here and elsewhere.

    Sincerely yours,

    John Kwok

  40. Woody Tanaka

    John Kwok,

    I guess we will have to disagree. I would say that I have no doubt that these poeple are very rational people, except for that part of their thinking which permits them certainty of the existence of personages and things for which there is insufficient evidence to justify such belief.

    Moreover, that’s a big “except” because, if the substance of the relgious beliefs are credited, that thing that they believe without sufficient evidence is the single, most important and most meaningful set of beliefs that they or anyone else can have. I can see no rationality in faith.

  41. John Kwok

    Woody Tanaka,

    Let’s keep our disagreement respectable then and not lose sight of our common goal to defeat at each and every opportunity, the nefarious mendacious intellectual pornographers from DI, ICR and AiG. Unfortunately too many of the Militant Atheists posting here and elsewhere online believe that I must be viewed as a “kook” simply because I don’t accept their worldview or because I have tried to make some valid points that they themselves seem all too willing to ignore.

    With all my best wishes,


  42. Woody Tanaka


    I would point out that my goal extends further than DI, ICR and AiG. While important, they are merely part of the problem for me. The problem is the influence of irratinal thinking on public life.

    And, of course, whatever others might say is their responsibility, not mine. It doesn’t break my back of someone doesn’t agree with me.

  43. TTT

    When I was in school in the 80s we where told an ice age was coming

    Of course Scott was never taught this, because nobody was. Yet he, like hundreds of other eco-denialists I’ve met on the internet, quite certainly believes it about his own past. He is so under the sway of an anti-science, anti-environment ideology that he is has not just invented a false experience from his own past, but also truly convinced himself of its veracity as well. He hates environmentalism so much that in order to denounce it, he was willing to literally give up a piece of his own real life.

  44. SLC

    Re TTT

    Actually, there was a hypothesis in the 1980s called nuclear winter, due to Carl Sagan among others, which proposed that an all out nuclear war would send clouds of dust into the stratosphere blocking out sunlight and causing the earth to cool, much like what happened 65 million years ago when an asteroid collision led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, this hypothesis was based on an all out nuclear war which thankfully hasn’t happened yet. There was no claim that such a cooling would take place in the absence of such an event.

  45. John Kwok

    @ Woody Tanaka,

    Despite our philosophical differences, I understand and appreciate what your ultimate goals are with regards to fighting all kinds of irrational thought, and do share your concerns, if not the very methods that one might use to contend with them.

    @ SLC –

    Carl Sagan’s notion of “nuclear winter” was based on the Alvarez team’s discovery of an asteroid impact at the K/T boundary, approximately 65 million years ago (Editorial Note: I understand that the term “K/T boundary” has been superseded by the term “K/P boundary”. The first refers to the older name for the lower Cenozoic, the Tertiary Period, while the latter refers to the Paleogene Period, which has supplanted usage of the term Tertiary Period.). Had the Alvarez team not discovered the first extensive evidence for the asteroid impact at the Gubbio, Italy stratigraphic section and written their groundbreaking paper, it is highly unlikely that Sagan and his colleagues would have considered the possibility of a nuclear winter scenario.

  46. Mike

    RESPONSE TO : 37 Erasmussimo

    Interesting site thanks for that. The polls vary wildly and illustrate that people who answer polls are generally confused.

    Now I can respect a serious liberal or conservative (and my libertarian bros:) but man do independents annoy me. They are the probably the same confused people who give contradictory answers to pollsters. Nevertheless they drive elections and when they see simple facts like these even they become skeptical:

    There has been no warming for nearly a decade,
    Last winter was the coldest in years
    China is building massive coal fired power plants

    …I could go on for days and you could rebut then I would riposte…but why bother because it all boils down to political feasibility

    Many Dems are on the run in their districts & repubs will win seats – probably a lot of them. The country is trillions in the hole and our unemployment rate is realistically about 17 percent. So climate change is a non issue for the next 4 years at least.

    And every time Prince Al’s conferences get snowed out, or we have ski resorts opening early, or basically people just not feeling the need to put on SPF 1000, you lose the independent voter’s willingness to accept crushing economic policy for some amorphous gains that China couldn’t give a sh*t less about.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.


See More

Collapse bottom bar