[Vision2020] Nature Journal Article, "Into Ignorance": “...US Congress has entered intellectual wilderness.”

[Ted Moffett]

Some of the comments to this article, as named in the subject heading,
at the "Nature" website below, echo the thesis and title of the
article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

Journal Nature

"Into ignorance"

Volume:
471, Pages:
265–266
Date published:
(17 March 2011)
doi:10.1038/471265b
Published online 16 March 2011

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend
in US Congress.

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to
pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the
dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended
to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a
threat to public welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's
legal basis for regulation, so repealing the 'endangerment finding'
would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.

That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the
decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of
Representatives' energy and commerce committee have made clear their
disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March,
anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected
scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was
twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let
alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just
for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it
represents.

It is tempting to write all of this off as petty partisanship, a
populist knee-jerk reaction to lost jobs and rising energy prices by a
well-organized minority of Republican voters. After all, US polling
data has consistently shown that, in general, the public accepts
climate science. At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield
(Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed to
distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the science but
on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas regulation. “One need not be
a sceptic of global warming to be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory
agenda,” said Whitfield.

Perhaps, but the legislation is fundamentally anti-science, just as
the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful ignorance. One
lawmaker last week described scientists as “elitist” and “arrogant”
creatures who hide behind “discredited” institutions. Another
propagated the myth that in the 1970s the scientific community warned
of an imminent ice age. Melting ice caps on Mars served to counter
evidence of anthropogenic warming on Earth, and Antarctica was falsely
said to be gaining ice. Several scientists were on hand — at the
behest of Democrats on the subcommittee — to answer questions and
clear things up, but many lawmakers weren't interested in answers,
only in prejudice.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered
the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that
has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global
warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with
it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or
address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any
given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be
concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is
irresponsible.

That this legislation is unlikely to become law doesn't make it any
less dangerous. It is the attitude and ideas behind the bill that are
troublesome, and they seem to be spreading. Fred Upton, the Michigan
Republican who chairs the full energy and commerce committee, once
endorsed climate science, but last month said — after being pinned
down by a determined journalist — that he is not convinced that
greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming. It was yet
another blow to the shrinking minority of moderate centrists in both
parties.

One can only assume that Congress will find its way at some point,
pressured by voters who expect more from their public servants. In the
meantime, as long as it can fend off this and other attacks on the
EPA, President Barack Obama's administration should push forward with
its entirely reasonable regulatory programme for reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions where it can, while looking for ways to work
with Congress in other areas. Rising oil prices should increase
interest in energy security, a co-benefit of the greenhouse-gas and
fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles that were announced by the
administration last year. The same advice applies to the rest of the
world. Work with the United States where possible, but don't wait for
a sudden change of tenor in Washington DC.

One of the scientists testifying before Whitfield's subcommittee was
Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's global
ecology department in Stanford, California. Field generously hoped
that his testimony at last week's hearing took place “in the spirit of
a genuine dialogue that is in the best interests of the country”.
Maybe one day that hope will be justified.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett