WashPost Chat

Good job! 22 questions in an hour is quite a bit.

When talking about abortion, the pro-choice and anti-abortion groups have difficulty discussing the issue because of a difference in terminology. A fetus to one is a baby to another. Could something similar be happening with global warming?

One question asked about the "doom and gloom" crowd. Could it be that what "liberal" scientists see as an unacceptable deviation of the earth's tempuratue be for conservatives nothing more than hotter summer days? In other words, could one side be portraying it as worldwide extreme disaster, and the other side rejecting the idea out of credulity?

Hi Chris,
A couple of things came to mind while reading over your chat. First, on the subject of the bipartisan politicization of science, an issue occured to me that I don't recall being discussed in your book: depleted uranium. I have a background in environmental chemistry, so I feel somewhat comfortable arguing that, while this material poses real dangers, leftist environmental organizations and anti-war activists tend to exaggerate them. I find the argument that DU has cause widespread birth defects in Iraq to be spurious since its high molecular weight restricts its widespread exposure. I'd be interested in your opinion of the subject.

Second, the person from Alexandria, VA made the statement that "the cures for global warming happen to be things the left-wing advocates anyway". I really enjoyed your article about "Learning to Speak Science" but I'm afraid that your response in this case may be inadequate.

"Conservatives" such as this person have already decided that the IPCC and other elite scientific bodies are dominated by "liberal" ideology. There is a whole simulacra devoted to reinforcing these beliefs (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, 'State of Fear' and 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science'). Isn't it deficient to point such a person in the general direction of the IPCC and expect good results? Generally speaking, such persons will prefer to return to their habituated doses of political rhetoric instead of perusing the scientific reports.

I think it's crucial to point out the irrelevance of such questions when it comes to the science. It is equally true to say that the CAUSES of global warming happen to be things the RIGHT-wing advocates anyway but neither statement has anything to say about the factual truth of global warming. It is all well and good to point people in the direction of good science but shouldn't we also be pointing them towards refutations of bad logic?

With that said, I think the question was also bound up with non-scientific issues of equity. Instead of only dismissing enmity to the Kyoto Protocol as unscientific, shouldn't scientists and journalists also pay more attention to the difficult political challenges that it raises? For example, why should developing nations be obliged to restrict their carbon emissions when developed nations haven't?

I listened into your chat at the Post this morning and was struck by what I thought was ineffective answers to the challenges against global warming that were posted by folks who discounted it as "left wing" biased science.

Listing groups such as the National Academy or the U.N. Climate Change Commission as evidence of consensus is not sufficient (as these are obviously just more of the same left leaning organizations).

May I suggest that sometimes it is necessary to discuss the scientific evidence. Although the science is often difficult to summarize, the trick is to try to find nuggets of clear evidence which encapsulate the issue. In the case of global warming, the ice cores tested in Greenland and the Antartic go back hundred of thousands of years and show atmospheric CO2 levels never being as high as today. Clear evidence of how serious and unprecedented the problem we are facing today truly is.

But I give you a lot of credit for thinking about and tackling the issue of the politicization of science.

Dear Chris:First of all: i hate Mr.Bush and gang,and i hate too the Republican Party. It seems to me like the NSDAP(Nazi)Party. So ridiculous, absurd, risible. In every instance the Bush's administration is taking the USA to the top of world as ridiculous, absurd, risible! I think that Mr.Bush went back this great nation to Middle Ages (or Dark Ages?)with his christian fundamentalism as so reactionary, so badly, so evil as the fundamentalism islamic. Bible x Science! I can't to believe that your country is in XXI Century and that kind of discussion is happening over there! What is the Bible? Only history, only fables about one people! Please, ask to the USA scientists: FIAT LUX, and fight for the true:the science!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for my bad english. I'm from Brazil.

Thanks for coming over to continue the discussion, folks. I'll post some responses shortly.

Chris - as someone that has read your blog for a while, it was nice to see that your 'real time' responses were just as clear and succinct. I do echo the comments made above, though, that I thought your responses to the climate change skeptics weren't as good as what I would have expected. It would be good to find a few key facts that could be thrown out to clarify some of the talking points that kept cropping up. Keep up the great writing.

May I suggest that sometimes it is necessary to discuss the scientific evidence. Although the science is often difficult to summarize, the trick is to try to find nuggets of clear evidence which encapsulate the issue.

Yes, I agree. Ross Gelbspan has a page on what he calls "nine signature studies" that focus "solely on the scientific case for human-induced warming." They're a bit technical, but I wonder if there's some way to boil some of them down to layman's terms. You don't want to get too far into a technical discussion, but you can mention that they're out there and they're conclusive as far as the scientific community's concerned.

By the way, I like the article about Lakoff. I think that kind of analysis and a discussion of the climate change issue would make a great book. (Especially if you went into the hurricane science, which would be topical...)

One question asked about the "doom and gloom" crowd. Could it be that what "liberal" scientists see as an unacceptable deviation of the earth's tempuratue be for conservatives nothing more than hotter summer days? In other words, could one side be portraying it as worldwide extreme disaster, and the other side rejecting the idea out of credulity?

One should not forget that there are historical examples of doom-and-gloom predictions (allegedly science-based) in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. oil shortages, food shortage, rationing, etc.) that people can point to and say: "That's what happens when you are myopic; and/or only see what you want to see (i.e. working from a conclusion); and/or you underestimate the can-do spirit of Americans to find ingenious solutions that no one could ever dream of, etc."

Of course, for fundamentalist Christians who base their pooh-poohing of global warming on this line of thinking, it would be the height of irony since every generation has its share of doomer-and-gloomers that promise "honest-to-goodness, this really is the generation that Jesus will return." Yet, 2000 years of these failed predictions hasn't kept the True Believers from keeping the faith.

Chris - I enjoyed your chat with the WaPo readers. I think some points made by in the comments are sound. One cannot appeal to such things as peer-review literature (the left wing only publishes articles that it agrees with) or the impressive list of scientific organizations (taken over by left wingers) and expect the right to fall in line. (In fact, some never will no matter what.) But there is a mass of more moderate people who are more puzzled than anything. They see the artificial controversy and believe that a given position will change in a few years so why bother (and bring up the diet/nutrition fads or some such example). I think it is important to point out to those who will listen that the predictions have borne out. The average citizen will not believe the scientists until he or she is convinced of the success of science.

For example: Prediction: An increase in greehouse gases will lead to higher temperatures. Observation: It is getting warmer. Conclusion: The model was right. As we get more data, they confirm the model. Science 1, non-science 0.

I also think that it is important to point out that some oil companies have abandoned their opposition to the idea of climate change and are investing in the search for alternatives.

Thanks for all the comments. I understand what people are saying about the importance of giving explicitly scientific arguments, rather than appealing to the positions of scientific consensus bodies. However, remember, I'm not a scientist, and while I understand the basic science fairly well, I don't want to get too far out of my league. On the other hand, I do want to make a policy-oriented point about what kind of scientific information should be used in decisionmaking (i.e., whenever possible, well-established consensus positions). So that's where my emphasis has generally been.

Nevertheless, I see where you're coming from. And I do discuss the science itself, so far as I'm comfortable, in radio interviews and such. I think it was partly the individual questions that steered me away from doing that on the WashingtonPost.com site.

Re Chris: I see your point. This does make me wonder about the questions that the contrarians use to direct the discussion (and this is not just climate change). In addition to talking points there seems to be a set of "question points". Hmmm...So I guess the burden is on us scientists to address the technical points. I daresay, though, that you understand the science better than most of those who interview you, but there is always the chance that someone will research a certain point - and it is hard to anticipate just what that point will be.

Really, the idea that has been turning over in my head is the sowing of seeds of distrust of peer-review literature, consensus views and scientific authority by the various contrarians. We all have work to do.