Well, it's official: Some of the paperbacks have started shipping from Amazon.com. If you preordered the book that way, you should get it soon. The official pub date is tomorrow, Monday, so this will be my last "countdown" post prior to the book release. Of course, I will have much to say after the release date as well.
With this last countdown post, though, I'd like to revisit a subject that just came up on this blog, and which relates to the book themes. On Friday I pointed out that former astronaut and GOP Senator Harrison H. Schmitt, recently named head of NASA's National Advisory Council, is also the former chairman and president of the Annapolis Center, a science policy think tank on the political right that has a history of questioning the scientific basis for concern about global warming. (Schmitt is now chairman emeritus of the group according to the Annapolis website.) I also noted that Schmitt himself had co-authored an op-ed that suggested he might be a climate skeptic. I did not assert one way or another what Schmitt himself currently thinks, given that the op-ed is now five years old and I am not able to get inside of his mind. I simply presented evidence that raises the question.
Now, why is this important? Well, given previous controversies over climate science at NASA, it seems pertinent to me to inquire whether one of its top science advisers disputes that humans are causing climate change. That's especially the case given that the Annapolis Center has bestowed awards upon members of Congress, like James Inhofe, who have gone on the attack against global warming science (and, indeed, against NASA's James Hansen himself).
One of the most prominent activities of the Annapolis Center has been its annual dinner. Each year, a member of Congress is awarded for "rational, science-based thinking and policy-making." So let's look at the three Republican members of Congress who got the award the last three years:
2004: James Inhofe. The most prominent global warming skeptic in the Senate, famous for suggesting that the whole thing might be a "hoax."
2005: Joe Barton: Infamous for using his political clout to launch an attack on the 8 year old "hockey stick" study.
2006: Richard Pombo: Chair of the House Resources Committee, and a key player in the "sound science" push to gut the Endangered Species Act. (See the revised and updated Chapter 10 of The Republican War on Science for more on this.)
Does anyone detect a common theme here? The members of Congress that are being awarded by the Annapolis Center for advancing "rational, science-based thinking and policy-making" are the same ones who are either attacking climate science or trying to shift the scientific burden of proof in such a way as to weaken a landmark environmental law (rather than calling for outright repeal or weakening of the ESA, which would be far more honest).
Now, I'm not assuming or asserting that Harrison Schmitt is directly responsible for all of this; after all, his position with Annapolis is now emeritus. But given that the Annapolis Center has so prominently supported members of Congress who have been attacking climate science--which NASA itself is conducting--it is fair to point out this connection.
In the context of my own writing, of course, there's a bigger theme here. Annapolis is just one of many think tanks on the political right--allied with religious conservatives, industry, or both--that collectively help to arm Republican politicians and conservative activists with arguments they can use to challenge the latest scientific information in certain politically sensitive areas. In general, it works like this: 1) The think tanks, often funded by or linked to special interests, generate the arguments; 2) the politicians, activists, political appointees, and conservative journalists pick them up and use them; and suddenly 3) we're mired in a science fight that fuels polarization, fruitless and often highly misleading technical argumentation, and policy gridlock.
I'm tired of this cycle, which is why I published The Republican War on Science in the first place--to expose it, to blow the whistle. Now, with the paperback release tomorrow, we're going to be talking more and more about solutions--and with that, I will leave you for now....
- Log in to post comments
I'd be very disappointed if Harrison Schmitt was a die-hard climate skeptic; he has a strong background in geochemistry (Harvard, I'm pretty sure, under Bob Garrels*) and was (of course) the only real geologist ever to walk on the Moon. I harbor a hope, which I may never know for sure, that his stance is more political convenience than an actual perspective on the science.
*I checked; I have Garrels' "Solutions, Minerals, and Equilibria' on my shelves. Fig 10.13 is taken from a college publication entitled "Equilbrium Diagrams for Minerals", published by The Geological Club of Harvard, edited by Harrison H. Schmitt.
So, speaking theoretically, Schmitt's from New Mexico, and in those Western states it's politically inconvenient to cross the oil/coal/gas/ interests, and they provide probably as much money as any group out West to politicians. So maybe his climate position is one necessitated by his political location. The problem is, because he's an ex-astronaut, scientist, and ex-Senator, anything he says scientifically-speaking carries a lot of weight.