I’m going to be focusing on my latest American Prospect piece and its implications–but the new URL is here. I guess it changed for web purposes.

I also got the cover image wrong so here is the right one.

Meanwhile I note that the central personage with whom I begin the article, Kerry Emanuel of MIT, recently had a great letter in the Boston Globe, debunking Jeff Jacoby, who had rewritten some skeptic talking points as a column. Here’s Emanuel:

Assessing and dealing with climate risk in an environment of highly uncertain science and expensive options is challenging enough without having to entertain the flippancy of your columnist. There is no scientific basis for his certainty that we have nothing to worry about.

It’s that old point about not being certain about uncertainty….unwarranted certainty is not a good thing on such a complex issue.

Given all the attacks on history lately (see here), I couldn’t let this topic lie any longer. Airing next week, the next Point of Inquiry will be about the ideological rewriting of history, and it will feature as a guest historian and journalist Rick Perlstein.

Perlstein is the author of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus and Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. We’ll talk about anything from Sarah Palin’s recent flub to claims that the U.S. is a “Christian Nation”–and of course we’ll also consider whether there are also leftwing forms of inaccurate or ideological history.

The show airs a week from today. Please leave questions or comments for Rick Perlstein, or myself, as these often get asked on the air and help shape the show.

How do you explain the current factual and scientific divide that separates the two U.S. political parties today? In the latest American Prospect, I’ve taken a stab.

The explanation isn’t simple–there are many moving parts–but also some key fundamentals: 1) Democrats have vastly more Ph.D.s and experts, and seem to be more factually correct about contested issues; 2) Republicans nevertheless have enough of their own experts and aren’t giving up; 3) neither Democrats nor Republicans are inherently anti-science or anti-expertise, but they rely on these for very different reasons, and do not both share the “Enlightenment ethic” of using science and reason to forge a better society; 4) all this is set against a rightward shifting political backdrop since about 1970; 5) all of the foregoing, in combination with psychology and media, leave us with a “postmodern” discourse that helps nobody.  Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness,” writ large.

Anyway, that’s the very, very brief rundown. Here’s how the piece opens:

In March, it was Kerry Emanuel’s turn to do what so many of his colleagues have done before: defend their knowledge and expertise against congressional Republicans. (more…)

Following on my last post, I want to do a show that really gets into the political left and its relationship with science. That relationship is not without its problems–GMOs, nuclear, vaccines–though I believe it is nothing like the current relationship with the political right.

But the question is, which guest would have the most insight into this question? I’ve already interviewed Yale’s Dan Kahan so he’s out, though obviously he has much insight.

I would welcome your suggestions. I’m very open to interviewing a conservative who has thought deeply on this question. In fact, that would be the ideal choice.

The latest show is up, and I am confident it will be much discussed. Here is the write up:

Our guest this week is Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and head of the Skeptics Society, and a longtime commentator on issues relating to science, critical thinking, and the paranormal.

Chris asked Michael on to discuss his new book, which is entitled The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them As Truths.

Clearly, much of what Shermer has to say here will be of great relevance to skeptics and freethinkers—and along the way, Shermer also discusses his views on global warming (real, but not such a big deal) and how to promote evolution in a religious America.

In addition to publishing Skeptic, Michael Shermer is  a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University. His other books include Why People Believe in Weird Things andWhy Darwin Matters.

In a series of posts this week, I’m going to say more about at least 3 parts of the interview that I think will prompt discussion–our exchanges on global warming, “accommodationism,” and the differences between liberals and conservatives.

In the meantime, you can listen to the show here and order Shermer’s new book here.

For some time, I’ve been meaning to do an organizational post about where this blog is headed now that it is back to being a one person blog, as it has not been since 2007.

The first thing is that it is going to remain a one person blog–but with more contributors. Let me explain.

While I plan to remain the central emcee here, you probably have noticed that Jamie Vernon has been blogging a lot, and that will continue as he sees fit. Jon Winsor, a frequent commenter here for many years, will also be doing some posts soon. And there may soon be others.

Currently I am experimenting: If it works, I hope to go towards a model a bit like Joe Romm’s–where there is both one central blogger and also additional voices, so we will have a steadier stream of content, especially for times when I am traveling. Needless to say, the other contributors will share the broad interests and perspective that the blog has always had.

And what are those? Well, “the Intersection” started out as a blog about the intersection between science and politics, and the launching pad for my first book, The Republican War on Science. That interest has never really faded–if anything, it is stronger than ever. But of course, along the way the blog has also covered hurricanes and weather, focused heavily on climate change, and in the broadest sense of “intersection,” it has at served as a blog about science as it relates to all aspects of culture.

Recently, though, you have probably also identified a new focus–I am writing more about the psychology and the neuroscience of science denial, as with my Mother Jones piece, “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science.” Get ready for much more along these lines as well.

Finally, I may as well reiterate that we have a comments policy here, and are pretty strict in enforcing it, up to and including permanent commenting bans. Here’s the policy:

While we encourage and appreciate commentary from readers, we cannot allow the tenor of dialogue to be lowered or debased, or for one individual to ruin an otherwise constructive dialogue. Our general rule is that comments must be substantive and on topic, and must avoid profanity, personal attacks, and hectoring. It is for us to judge who has violated these principles; and if, after a warning, behavior doesn’t change, we reserve the right to moderate comments at our discretion.

Our policy is, in general, much the same as that of Carl Zimmer–”light but firm”–though he’s more eloquent. But the same basic principles apply. We are not responsible for any comments other than our own.

Thank you for reading and participating here at The Intersection, and I hope you like what you find.

I’m a bit late on this, but Naomi Oreskes, the co-author of Merchants of Doubt and a Point of Inquiry guest last year, has been recognized as “Climate Change Communicator of the Year” by the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication. The Alliance for Climate Education, as an organization, was also recognized.

I’ve known Naomi Oreskes for a long time, been on panels with her, interviewed her, spoken to her classes. She’s a fearless historian of science who has done pivotal work to defend the idea that the scientific consensus on climate change is robust and should be listened to–and in Merchants of Doubt, she and Eric Conway took it further by exposing the long history of how a small group of scientists moved from being Cold Warriors to, essentially, the first generation of climate “skeptics.” It’s a must read.

I congratulate Naomi, as should we all. She very much deserves this honor.

Interestingly, by the way, her book could be classified as being part of a “war on science” narrative, which Matthew Nisbet doesn’t like. And yet it is winning a “climate communication” award!

Listen to Naomi’s Point of Inquiry appearance here.

On Friday I’m off to Buffalo for these two back to back events, one at SUNY-Buffalo and one at the Center for Inquiry.

At 2pm (at the Buffalo campus) there will be a talk on “Unscientific America.”

Then at 7 pm, at the Center for Inquiry, there will be a talk on “The Science of Denial.”

The latter event has a Facebook event page, here, so say hello if you’re coming.

Look forward to seeing the familiar crew in Amherst/Buffalo….

Tomorrow I’m interviewing Michael Shermer, author of the hot selling new book The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

This will be for the show to air on Monday, June 6.

If you have any questions you think I ought to ask Michael, post them here.

I’m reading the book and it is really good so far, though I think I disagree with Shermer slightly–only slightly–about the psychologies of liberals and conservatives. But that’s probably no surprise, as I’m a liberal and he’s a libertarian.

You can order the book here.

I should have blogged this a day ago but I was too tied up at our communications training in Norman, OK. But the latest Point of Inquiry is up, and here’s the write-up:

From Birthers, to Truthers, to Deathers—to occasional Liars—America seems to be crawling right now with fevered conspiracy mongers. What’s up with that?

To find out, Point of Inquiry turns in this episode to Jonathan Kay, author of the new book Among the Truthers: A Journey into America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground. In it, Kay provides a fascinating look at some of our indigenous kooks, and why they seem to be thriving right now.

Jonathan Kay is the managing editor of Canada’s National Post newspaper and a weekly columnist for its op-ed page.

Kay’s writing covers a diversity of subjects, and he’s been published in a variety of outlets including Commentary, the New York Post, Reader’s Digest, and the New Yorker. In 2002, he was awarded Canada’s National Newspaper Award for Critical Writing, and in 2004 he won a National Newspaper Award for Editorial Writing.

Once again, you can listen to the show here and you can order Kay’s book here.