Final reflections on this morning's Waxman hearing

Quit arguing about the science already

Posted by David Roberts at 4:13 PM on 19 Mar 2007

Read more about: politics | Congress | climate | climate change skepticism

I just got done talking with Betsy Rosenberg at EcoTalk about the Waxman hearings. More on that in a sec, but first of all: EcoTalk is one of the only national radio shows that focuses purely on environmental issues. It's a fantastic source of commentary and ideas on green topics. Right now, the show's in a bit of a crisis and needs to raise a chunk of money by the end of the week. Please read this and consider helping out of you can.

Now, the hearing. I missed the beginning -- a good chunk of the Cooney and Deutsch testimony -- so when Chris Mooney says "there were a lot of new revelations and developments," I'll have to take his word for it. I certainly didn't hear any.

The meta-point I'd like to make is: so what? Even if Waxman found a smoking gun -- a case where a political appointee altered an unambiguous truth to become an unambiguous falsehood, or violated settled law or regulation -- what would come of it? At best, the Bush administration would be further discredited. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but I don't see how it would affect the climate change debate.

After all, Bush administration climate policy proposals, and proposals from most conservatives in Congress and think tanks, are predicated on the notion that global warming is real, human-caused, and a threat. Yes, there are still skeptics, and yes, Bush and his bunch still make ambiguous statements, but in terms of policy, most alternatives on the table already take their cue from the settled science.

I've made this point before, but once more for the cheap seats: progressives and greens seem to think that if we can finally, once and for all, win the science debate, in a way that forces all our opponents to cry Uncle, we'll have won the war. Once people accept the science, they'll accept our way of framing things and our proposed solutions.

But it's not so. Re-legislating the science, over and over, benefits the deniers and delayers more than anyone else. They love to get into lawyerly debates over scientific technospecifics, while the public tunes out.

Meanwhile, their conservative brethren have already pivoted and started framing the next debate: policy. Already conservatives are busy establishing baseline conventional wisdom. "Addressing climate change would cripple the economy." "Some people will benefit from climate change." "People worried about climate change are alarmists." "We don't have the means to beat the problem right now, but in 10 years some new technology will come along and save us."

While they're injecting these talking points into the political bloodstream, we're niggling about the troposphere and cosmic rays and sun spots, taking the bait every time a message board dimwit wanders along with some stock skeptical talking point. We're clinging to the illusion of objectivity science offers us, while they're out making the crucial policy and values arguments.

I agree that Bush has politicized the entire federal bureaucracy, and that efforts should be made to establish some degree of independence in scientific and fact-finding agencies. But in terms of the climate debate, nothing more is to be gained by bashing Bush over the head with science.

We need to be out there arguing that beating global warming will make us more prosperous, more healthy, more just, and happier. We need to make this fight appealing. Science is not going to do the work for us.

For story: Final reflections on this morning's Waxman hearing
6 Comments | Post a Comment

um what he said

I only caught the first half of the inquiry, and was singularly unimpressed by the whole affair. A lot of finger pointing and not much else. Perhaps there was some substance to the exhibits and depositions, but it didn't seem all that shocking.

by Kif Scheuer at 4:40 PM on 19 Mar 2007

Part of the problem...

The other day, on Bloggingheads, Mickey Kaus said it hurt to declare the debate over because some scientist might pop up and discredit global warming.

I think he's wrong, because I don't think he understands where the debate is taking place, or what it has aligned. It has long ceased to be a scientific debate, and has become a science vs. politics debate (I think this is David's point).

It's time to declare the debate over, and to declare anyone who insists on keeping it going to be the obstructionists they are. I think there is good potential for adopting an angle of Republican debating ... making the person arguing the topic of the debate rather than the topic. Why address Michael Crichton's arguments when he can be dismissed as an unqualified physician who takes vengeance on his "enemies" through his fiction?

I also think there needs to be more emphasis placed on how contrarianism isn't a conservative position. A conservative position would be to endorse cap-and-trade programs. Attacking the science is an argument of science that most of these clowns are simply not qualified to make.

by ebaerren at 5:13 PM on 19 Mar 2007

talking points

I agree that Bush has politicized the entire federal bureaucracy, and that efforts should be made to establish some degree of independence in scientific and fact-finding agencies.

And that's really the point of these hearings. It's not about climate change; it's about embarrassing those who are complicit in the perversion of our institutions. Of course, it'll miss the big cheese. But it might be enough, soon enough, to shake up the politicization of federal science at bit.

We need to be out there arguing that beating global warming will make us more prosperous, more healthy, more just, and happier. We need to make this fight appealing. Science is not going to do the work for us.

Two points we can make here, that undercut most of the obstructionist viewpoints:

We can do it. It's technically possible, and we won't be shivering in the dark. Europe uses half the energy we do.
Someone's going to get rich off of clean tech. Some folks already have. One way or the other, it's going to be one of the next big tech booms. The US can play, or we can get left out. Our choice.

by GreenEngineer at 9:37 PM on 19 Mar 2007

"more just"?, "happier"?

DR's final paragraph, which caught the attention of our wise and thoughtful GreenEngineer, is astonishing. It is not false, I think, but it is astonishing, because this is the first time in Gristmll, so far as I recall, that this kind of huge recommendation has been made.

And, adding to the confusion, the terms and the argument are not clear. The recommendation indeed has an evocative effect which lends it rhetorical power -- and that is not unfitting, since, as we all know, DR is an unabashed friend of rhetoric. It would have been more comforting, had DR added at the end something like "To be continued," or "More on this later," as he sometimes does.

Perhaps it has been suggested obliquely before now in Gristmill that the systemic changes in government (especially in this country) and in global business practices that are required for any truly effective mitigationist activities to be carried out are likely to increase the wealth (= "the prosperity"?) of the underdeveloped countries. But if so, I do not remember.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, let us assume that those changes do indeed result in an increase in prosperity, in the persistently underdeveloped and poorer countries. Then it could be argued that we would all be "more just," by reason of our participating in a redistribution of wealth. And then, we in the rich countries would be "happier," because we have done something good; and our brethren in the poor countries would be "happier," because they have started being prosperous.

But that is just a guess. Really, we do not know what DR is thinking, do we.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 8:05 AM on 20 Mar 2007

Happy endorphins

Grist consumer reports can talk about me, my food, my car, my house, and all about my favorite consumptions and favorite politicians. Such stimulates happy neurotransmitters in my happy brain but I disagree that this is the same as genuine happiness. Hope, security, good health, and a sense of a just community are perhaps much more important. Especially important is a sense of empowerment, a voice, and an ability to contribute. The gotcha Waxman debates were disheartening to say the least.

Global warming mitigation will have the side affect of not exporting scarce community resources for the imports of fossil energy. Improved efficiency and renewable energy will preserve community prosperity and community self-reliance thereby enabling sustainable community happiness. The alternative is hell on Earth.

by sunflower at 9:07 AM on 20 Mar 2007

empowerment, voice

That is brilliant, Sunflower. You see, you write such brilliant things, then you wonder why I call you a prophet! : )

I like very much your repeated use of "community," as a nominal adjective. It appeals to that glorious ethical tradition in American civic ideals represented for example by Frank Capra in "It's a Wonderful Life." George Bailey may himself not have had anything to say in that movie about local agriculture, but there can be little doubt that that is something that he would have strongly supported.

Your sentence in the first paragraph, beginning "Especially important," is more surprising. I agree with you, actually, in principle, but voices are not an easy thing to manage. And anyway, as the Internet richly demonstrates, the opportunity to express our opinions freely hardly translates into our being "empowered."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 9:41 AM on 20 Mar 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.