A theme we’ve been exploring at the Intersection is the Republican tendency to reject or disregard expertise, particularly scientific expertise, and also settled facts among experts on US history.
“This is probably the most whip-proof Congress we’ve seen in our lifetime,” said Mike Franc, a former aide to then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who is vice president of government studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “They don’t defer to credentials and expertise very easily. You have to earn it big time with them. Whipping almost by its nature requires a certain amount of trust and deference that someone really knows what they’re doing and is part of a team, and in that way you’re dealing with a different kind of Republican Party.”
…[T]roubling to anyone fearing a U.S. default is the growing chorus of Republican lawmakers and leaders who openly and defiantly question whether the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling needs to be raised at all. (more…)
This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and policy wonk, who encourages the scientific community to get engaged in the policy-making process
Few things bring me as much pleasure as delivering good news. Today, the science headlines include two stories that fit that bill.
“Candidates of either party who take an environmental stance on climate can gain the votes of some citizens while not alienating others.”
According to researchers at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, in the eyes of the American electorate, “there’s no heavy penalty or reward that will be attached to taking a position one way or another on the issue.” In fact, voters tend to favor political candidates who believe that humans have contributed to global warming and that the nation should move away from fossil fuels by investing in renewable sources of energy.
Global warming and the candidates’ reactions to it have already emerged as issues that will affect the 2012 Presidential Race. The fact that the public prefers candidates who embrace the science of anthropogenic global warming bodes well for political remedies as we go forward.
The second bit of good news that I’m pleased to deliver involves public opinion on embryonic stem cell research.
A study published in Nature Biotechnology this week has found that many Americans support the use of embryonic stem cell research for curing serious diseases. The researchers found that:
More than 70% of respondents support the use of therapeutic cloning and stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos to cure cancer or treat heart attacks.
The study sheds light on how Americans make their decisions on this issue. Less than half (47%) of respondents support the same research for treating allergies. This suggests that the decision to support the use of embryonic stem cells is highly influenced by the potential benefits of the controversial research. Further, the respondents largely base the decision on their personal judgment rather than deferring to the will of authority establishments such as their Church or government ethics committees. Interestingly, though, more individuals (21%) did follow the will of their church than followed the recommendations of their medical doctors (15%) or the U.S. National Institutes of Health (13%).
Both studies offer insight into the current American psyche in regards to controversial scientific issues (perhaps things aren’t as bad as we thought) and will surely be the subject of future posts here at The Intersection.
Michelle Bachmann resolves this by drafting John Quincy Adams as a founding father:
John Quincy Adams is not too credible a founding father, considering he was only eight years old in 1776. But that didn’t stop a Bachmann supporter from backdating J. Q. Adams’ credentials as a founder on Wikipedia, or radio host Mark Levin from taking up her cause. (Somehow, for Levin, while Washington owned over 200 slaves, he “worked tirelessly to end slavery?”)
Chris wrote last week that Gore was “operating, big time, in liberal enlightenment mode.” This is true, no doubt. Gore himself seems aware of a mismatch between the way he communicates and the demands of the media environment, saying, “I don’t think I’m very good at some of the things that the modern political system rewards and requires,” and that the way the system operates presents “real problems for a politics based on reason.”
Al Gore’s new essay in Rolling Stone, about impending climate disasters, is mainly about the failure of the media to direct adequate attention to the issue, and to call out paid propagandists and discredited phony scientists. That’s where the essay starts, and what it covers in its first 5,000 words. The second part, less than half as long, and much more hedged in its judgment, is about the Obama Administration’s faltering approach on climate change. But of course the immediate press presentation on the essay has been all “OMG Gore attacks Obama!”
…Yes, the news value here is Gore-v-Obama; yes, that’s part of the story. But the theme I tried to lay out in that essay is that the media’s all-consuming interest in the “how” and “who’s ahead” of politics, and “oh God this is boring” disdain for the “what” and “why” of public issues, has all sorts of ugly consequences. It makes the public think that politics is not for them unless they love the insider game; it makes the “what” and “why” of public issues indeed boring and unapproachable; and as a consequence of the latter, it makes the public stupider than it needs to be about the what and why.
The reaction to Gore’s essay illustrates the pattern: from his point of view, it’s one more (earnest) attempt to say “Hey, listen up about this problem!” As conveyed by the press, it’s one more skirmish on the “liberals don’t like Obama” front, and one more illustration of the eyes-glazing-over trivia and details about melting icebergs and scientific disputes.
Remember Jon Stewart’s argument, that the real bias of the mainstream media is not “liberal” but in favor of conflict and sensationalism. Hmmmm. (more…)
“We know our climate is changing, the average temperature of the earth is rising, and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.”
Who was that person? None other than the CEO of ExxonMobile, Rex Tillerson. He went on to say,
“Our industry has a responsibility to contribute to policy discussions on these important issues – and to take concrete actions ourselves to reduce emissions.”
Without getting into the issue of why ExxonMobil has failed to seriously commit to this responsibility, I’m more concerned at the moment with Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum’s statement that “There is no such thing as global warming.” In an apparent attempt to garner favor from Right Wing Looney Glenn Beck, Santorum trumps even ExxonMobil’s position on climate change with this statement.
What is the strategy behind such a fringe statement? Are there seriously enough voters out there who deny that climate change (ignoring the cause) is occurring at all?
Accusations from my side of the political spectrum usually claim that candidates who oppose the concept of human-caused climate change are trying to win campaign contributions from the oil industry. Santorum has gone above and beyond the call of duty on this one.
I think Santorum has officially disconnected himself from reality. It is unlikely that the oil industry will find this to be a tenable position for a candidate to defend on the campaign trail. Therefore, I think and I hope he has assured himself a position on the sidelines of the 2012 elections, as if that wasn’t already the case.
This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action
Recently, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that there is no evidence that the “fracking” process has lead to contamination of ground water. In response to a question from the U.S. House Oversight Committee, she said,
“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing.”
The term “fracking” refers to a process of extracting natural gas from wells drilled deep below the Earth’s surface. The technique is officially known as hydraulic fracturing and involves pumping a water-based fluid into a well under high pressure so as to cause the formation of cracks in deep rock layers. The cracks and the chemical ingredients in the fracture fluid facilitate more efficient extraction of the natural gas.
Critics of the process have made claims that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated aquifers and other water sources with ingredients from toxic fracking fluid in areas where natural gas drilling is occurring. A documentary entitled “Gas Land” recently sensationalized the story by showing scenes in which drinking water had become flammable. Here’s a famous scene from the movie:
The problem with the critics’ argument is there is insufficient evidence to prove that the contaminated water is indisputably due to fracking. The process has been used for many years and has not been scrutinized until recently. Despite the scrutiny, no one has carried out thorough investigations to determine whether the process is likely to lead to water contamination. Sure, there have been cases where it is suspected that the process has contaminated ground water. Indeed, I have blogged about it here at The Intersection, but with no analysis of the ground water prior to drilling, one cannot be sure that the contamination is directly caused by the fracking industry.
Personally, even though the evidence is sparse and inconclusive, I still believe the risks of contamination are too high for us to continue drilling for natural gas without significant oversight and regulation. A recent blowout in Bradford County, Pennsylvania has contaminated the immediate surrounding areas and three private wells with chemical-laced water. I feel strongly that fracking is unsafe as it is currently being carried out.
Fortunately, the Obama administration has made it a priority to take a look at the hydraulic fracturing industry. On Thursday, the EPA announcedthe seven natural gas drilling sites where it will conduct case studies. The investigations will look at the impact of hydraulic fracturing on local drinking water.
The sites include drilling in Haynesville Shale in DeSoto Parish, La., Marcellus Shale in Washington County, Bradford and Susquehanna, Pa., Bakken Shale in Kildeer and Dunn Counties, N.D., Barnett Shale in Wise and Denton Counties, TX, and Raton Basin in Las Animas County, Colo.
Here are my concerns about the EPA’s plan:
First, there is little or no evidence that the toxic ingredients in fracking fluid have contaminated drinking water directly from the below-ground wells. Dangerous chemicals like benzene and acrylamide are known to be part of the fracking mixture, but legislation has protected the industry under intellectual property rights from fully revealing the contents. Therefore, investigators have been unable to do proper testing for all the chemicals contained in the mixture. Regardless, it seems that the fracking fluid and, in fact, the fracking process is not the problem.
There are numerous physical arguments against the possibility that fracking fluid will find its way into drinking water during the hydraulic fracturing process. The pressures at those depths are so high it is unlikely the chemicals will be able to flow upward into the aquifer. Also, the permeability of the shale is so low it seems unlikely the chemicals will penetrate the rock. Of course, there is the possibility that the cracks created by the process could connect with natural cracks in the rock formations leading to a direct connection between the well and the aquifer, but this is statistically unlikely. My point is that if the EPA focuses on the fracking process alone it is unlikely that they will find a connection between drilling and contamination at the 7 selected sites.
As described in the PNAS paper, the problem of contamination is most likely due to leaky gas-wells, not the hydraulic fracturing itself. The EPA investigators will need to look at the wells as well as the fracking process. However, because the sites have been announced ahead of time, the drillers can take special precautions to ensure high quality wells are drilled and that the concrete is poured properly so as to avoid any leaks or spills. If so, investigators may not find any contamination.
Second, there are millions of natural gas wells across the country. Very few of them have been linked to any contamination. Statistically, for the EPA to choose only 7 wells, I believe it is highly unlikely they will find a correlation between drilling and contamination.
For me, the issue of water contamination due to the fracking process is not simply a yes or no question. It is a matter of risk. We must ask ourselves if we are willing to risk the possibility of water contamination occurring in our neighborhood. Given that few of the natural gas sites across the country have caused contamination, I think it is unlikely that the EPA study will demonstrate a direct correlation between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. If this is the case, this study will do more harm than good by providing evidence, albeit faulty, for the gas industry to argue that fracking is safe. The real question is whether you are willing to take the risk of having undrinkable water. Are you?
I guess we can be thankful that the fracking process as it is being done today is very different from the plowsharing process proposed in the 70′s.
Let’s keep our eyes on this study and hope that it yields the results we need.
This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and aspiring policy wonk, who recently moved to D.C. to get a taste of the action
I remember the “Smokey” the bear commercials very well. They usually appeared during my Saturday morning cartoons, back when kids actually sat and watched cartoons each morning while slurping a bowl of Honeycombs. The commercials often involved some terrible scenario in which an absent-minded person committed a stupid act that destroyed an entire forest. In the end, “Smokey” would appear, sometimes with a tear in his eye, to say, “Only you can prevent forest fires.” The message was clear and powerful. Even as a child, I felt responsible for protecting the forests. I dared not leave a hot fire pit after a night of camping. It was an effective campaign the likes of which we could use today.
I believe a recent report from the National Research Council makes a compelling case for the need to create a modern day “Smokey” the bear campaign. Only this time, Smokey will encourage us to reduce our carbon footprint.
The report makes recommendations for the best “Policy Options to Reduce Petroleum Use and GHG Emissions in the U.S. Transportation Sector.” Much of the report covers the issues with which we are all very familiar, improving fuel economy standards, increasing investments in public transportation and infrastructure and even increased fuel taxes.
One section of the report that jumped out at me was entitled “Measures to Curb Private Vehicle Travel.” According to the report, there are more than 225 million private automobiles in the U.S. that account for about 40% of all CO2 emitted from transportation.
The authors state:
“…any serious effort to reduce energy use and emission from transportation must cut the amount of energy used and GHGs emitted from private vehicles, especially those in metropolitan areas.” (more…)
In Monday’s piece on Rush Limbaugh, Chris mentions Rush’s confidence—that Limbaugh has psychologically “seized and freezed” on “climategate”, using it for his go-to excuse to end all discussion on climate.
It’s true that Rush is nothing if not confident. But this is partly a matter of what Rush Limbaugh does all day, nearly every day. As Nate Silver pointed out, there are certain demands that the medium of talk radio makes. Uncertainty and shades of grey don’t play well to Rush’s audience, who are often mowing their lawns and channel surfing through stations. So Rush has developed certain professional skills and habits to give his audience what it wants, which isn’t trenchant analysis of a topic, isn’t a discussion informed by reliable sources–Rush is above all an entertainer, as he often reminds us. And it seems he doesn’t feel he owes his audience much more than that.
…Which has me thinking of the conservatives who didn’t think of themselves as entertainers, who probably served as Limbaugh’s inspirations, and who originally worked in the medium of the essay and op-ed, not radio. Recently, a number of columnists have been reflecting on the work of the late Irving Kristol (whose work will be published soon in a new collection of essays). Most of the columns I’ve read make the following two points: 1) that Kristol was immensely influential (and not just an essayist–the word impresariooften crops up), and 2) that Kristol continually drew conclusions that oversimplified his subjects—but drew those conclusions in so confident a way, so unacknowledging of other views, that his work seemed designed to simply end productive discussion.
A frequent theme in Chris’s reporting on the Republican War on Science has been the dissent of rank and file “empirical professionals” against politically motivated activities of the people they report to (often Republican political appointees). Something like this appears to be happening with the large consulting firm McKinsey & Company, which recently published a study finding that, “once fully implemented, the health care reform law will drive huge numbers of employers to drop or dramatically restructure their companies’ health care benefits.” The study “was devised by consultants without particular expertise in this area, not by the firm’s health experts,” reports TPMDC, which has gotten multiple sources to comment on the study:
Multiple sources both within and outside the firm tell TPM the survey was not conducted using McKinsey’s typical, meticulous methodology. Indeed, the article the firm published was not intended to give the subject matter the same authoritative treatment as more thorough studies on the same topic — particularly those conducted by numerous think tanks, and the Congressional Budget Office, which came to the opposite conclusion. And that’s created a clamor within the firm at high levels to set the record straight.
“This particular survey wasn’t designed in away that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically,” said one source familiar with the controversy…
Another keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release [the study's] survey materials because “it would be damaging to them.”
No surprise, but Rick Santorum appeared on Rush Limbaugh today and made an effort to scoop up Mitt’s lost support:
The argument is a familiar kind, which I’ll have more to say about in the coming days:
“To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’”
“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life…”
