Holdren is right. People who deny the science are greedy, selfish, intolerant and shortsighted, and that’s why science is not important to them. They can only be defeated by politics, and by the political tactics that we know will work to crush the false and the wicked.

GW denialists aren’t, literally, Holocaust denialists; but they are LIKE them, in that they are totally ideologically opposed to the truth, and the more reality is opposed to them the bigger the criminal conspiracy theory they will dream up to vindicate themselves. They are not honest or serious participants in any discussion; frankly, “kook” might be even better than “denialist” because it means the exact same thing but is shorter.

I think I went too far regarding the “endorsement” issue in my previous remarks, and would appreciate your deleting the rest of the title after JOHN HOLDREN, and the last sentence after Jerome Wiesner. That should leave the more substantive observations without implying advocacy.

Thanks

Several of the respondents have alluded to the downsides of using “denier” to describe global warming skeptics. Let me add my observations. Leaving aside echoes from the Holocaust connection, the term “denier” suggests someone who refuses to accept truth. Truth tends to be associated with poetry, figurative language, religion, or zealots. On the other hand scientists, ever mindful of potential for error or surprise discoveries, typically avoid claiming “truth” or certainty. In fact, they not infrequently frustrate reporters or trial lawyers by their qualifications in answering question.

Jim Hansen’s famous testimony in 1988 had great impact partly because of his uncharacteristically direct assertion (for a scientist) that global warming was here, and that human activity was involved. But it was also supported by Hansen’s career pattern and reputation for taking taking scrupulous scientific care in preparing models and documenting conclusions.

So when the general public or nonspecialist reporters hear someone call people “deniers”, it may suggest to them that an ideological controversy is involved. From long experience, as with the gridlock in Congress, they take what each side in such arguments with a grain of salt.

I have another problem with calling people deniers. This seems to me to be responding to people who hold unpopular (or wrong) ideas with an ad hominem attack, labelling the them as being intellectually dishonest or referring them in pejorative ways. To me, that kind of action also tends to label the attacker.

The number of global climate scientist skeptics(though larger than sometimes assumed) is very small in proportion to the number on the mainstream side. It is therefore astonishing how widespread their influence is – not least with influential media like the Economist and the Wall Street Journal. Because the conflict in the U.S. has such serious ramifications, I think rather than offhand dismissal, thoughtful analysis of the “whys” would be in order. Nuances and perceptions like those above might play a role.

Turning now to John Holdren, I want to share two observations. First was a fascinating “Conversation” between him and a high-ranking (and attractive) female executive from EXXON Corp last year, sponsored by the AAAS in Washington as a part of the Washington science policy series

This was the first time in my memory that a leader from EXXON had “gone public” in a head to head intellectual interchange with a global climate change scientist.

I was full of admiration for the intelligent, courteous and disciplined way Holdren conducted himself. Some might have wanted him to “let EXXON have it”. But this would have not only not gained nothing, before an audience overwhelmingly dominated by science mainstreamers. Recounted to the trade press and media, lack of courtesy would have surely furthered the image, widely held in industry circles, of leadership scientists as being arrogant.

Another very different side of Holdren came out in his item-by-item response to Bjorn Lomborg’s rebuttal on his web site of critics to “Skeptical Environmentalists”, especially his chapter on energy (Scientific American, 2002). What I felt was particularly important about this exchange was taking a highly-rated critic on in specifics.
There were at the time a number of points raised by skeptics, e.g. solar influence, lower temperatures in Antarctica, bias in temperature measurements, etc, that I felt were too often answered by attacking the messenger rather than addressing the.

By smoking out Lomborg in his website, Holdren broke the stereotype of supercilious scientists disdaining but not deigning to answer politically incorrect questioners. And he demonstrated a powerful articulateness regarding nuances that few people could have matched. Maybe his ardor got him a bit too far into personal attacks at times – but this could be justified by the fact that omborg had the informality of his own web site and respondents to his call for technical support in his favor, so that we weren’t dealing with a regular scientific debate.

I short, I suggest that in John Holdren President-elect Obama has gone beyond the credentialed, inoffensive but largely ignored science advisor choice that has often prevailed in administrations since John F. Kennedy’s active relationship with Jerome Wiesner. He has a man who can be diplomatic and has judgment. But Holdren, besides his scientific credentials, also has commitment to action, and will push the global climate change issue with special vigor.

It is not a case of semantics, it is a case of thinking.

As somebody who wants to argue for the importance of science (or is Mr. Mooney merely arguing a position on global warming?), which science prides itself on clear thinking and logical expression, Mr. Mooney might benefit from paying more attention to his language.

(And just to be clear, this comment makes no claims for or against the validity of any position on global warming.)

It must be gratifying to note that your critics (above, anyway) are focused on semantics rather than science. We need to dispense with is the tendency to give too much time and credibility to those who for whatever reasons don’t acknowledge how serious global warming really is.

Some ideas are simply better than others (more well-informed, long-range, etc.) Appeasement in an effort to include all sides in this particular “debate” will inevitably result in unsound ecological policy. As possessors of greater knowledge about the etiology and effects of global warming, scientists must act like parents for the good of all. They have to do what they KNOW is best, especially in a such a consequential scenario. You GO, guys!

And the whinny paragraph about not being able to use his column to “explain to you what John Holdren actually knows, and thinks, about climate, and about energy…” because of
attacks on Holdren by “deniers” is ridiculous. Holdren can defend himself (or should be able to). Mooney is turning into a politcal hack and is less and less interesting to read as time goes on.

Not defending the outcomes by distorting the science is not the same thing as arguing for a policy outcome by stating the science dictates it. Both are problematic, and both are trying to close debate over policy by claiming the authority of science. This is stealth advocacy, and the problem with that is the stealth.

I think some are wondering from what Holdren has done in the past whether or not he can function in the traditional role of the science adviser, which would preclude some of the kinds of advocacy he has done in the past. You may consider it unfair, but issues of perception aren’t always aligned with fairness.

If etymologies in dictionaries were the final arbiters of the meanings of words, “task” would still be a noun rather than the ugly verb “tasked” that it has become:

“c.1300, “piece of work imposed as a duty,” from O.N.Fr. tasque (13c., O.Fr. tasche, Fr. tâche) “duty, tax,” from V.L. *tasca “a duty, assessment,” metathesis of M.L. taxa, a back-formation of L. taxare “to evaluate, estimate, assess” (see tax).”

Fortunately for people who like “tasked,” three centuries later it begins to be used as a verb:

“Verb “to put a strain upon” is from 1598,” though it hadn’t yet acquired the sloppy meaning “to assign a piece of work to.”

(The equally ugly “critiqued” is also open to the same etymological ban: “Origin: 1695–1705; < F < Gk kritik the art of criticism, n. use of fem. of kritikós critical, skilled in judging; r. critic “)

For better or for worse, the term “denier” is frequently associated the Holocaust:
A quick google search for “denier” (filtering out sites with “holocaust” and other terms that point to the unit of currency and fabric related uses) returns roughly 2,500,000 sites; a search for “holocaust denier” returns about 1,280,000 sites.

if you think electric cars are way out there in some futuristic lala land please check out the web site for a company Better Place. http://www.betterplace.com/ they are setting up infrastructures in San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland as well as the state of Hawaii to accommodate electric car use. Their site is awesome, you can actually sign an online petition to bring similar projects to you area. Just click on the get involved button in the top right hand side of the page.

Of my comments on Holdren’s views on science and politics you write, “I don’t know where this is coming from.”

I discuss Holdren’s (and others) invocation of the linear model of science and politics in some depth in Chapter 8 of my book The Honest Broker. Have a look.

I don’t at all see it as an “attack” for me to discuss how prominent figures relate science and politics, as I have done about Holdren and many others across the political spectrum. It’d sure be a shame if mindless cheerleading is now all that is acceptable to you and Lambert and Romm . .

Next time you don’t understand a point I am trying to make, feel free to be in touch, I’ll be happy to respond, as I am easily found pielke@colorado.edu.

Happy 2009!