Chris Mooney wrote a book called “The Republican War On Science.”

While it was obviously (from its title) of partisan intent, it was well researched, and did make a good case for it. And it even purported to attempt to appear bi-partisan, by pointing out a few examples of political attacks on science from the left. However, it gave them extremely short shrift, in my opinion. Here’s just one example of the kind of thing with which he could have balanced the book, had he truly wanted to.

My problem with Chris’ book is that it was too polemical, when he had an opportunity to make a serious point–that science is continually under assault by people with an agenda from all points on the political compass. By attempting to make it a partisan issue, it results in a misdiagnosis of the problem. After all, if it’s only a “Republican” war on science, then the solution is simple–elect Democrats. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that, and the notion that it’s not holds us back from finding a real solution.

Chris Mooney wrote a book called “The Republican War On Science.”

While it was obviously (from its title) of partisan intent, it was well researched, and did make a good case for it. And it even purported to attempt to appear bi-partisan, by pointing out a few examples of political attacks on science from the left. However, it gave them extremely short shrift, in my opinion. Here’s just one example of the kind of thing with which he could have balanced the book, had he truly wanted to.

My problem with Chris’ book is that it was too polemical, when he had an opportunity to make a serious point–that science is continually under assault by people with an agenda from all points on the political compass. By attempting to make it a partisan issue, it results in a misdiagnosis of the problem. After all, if it’s only a “Republican” war on science, then the solution is simple–elect Democrats. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that, and the notion that it’s not holds us back from finding a real solution.

You’ll think better:

Scientists have suspected for decades that exercise, particularly regular aerobic exercise, can affect the brain. But they could only speculate as to how. Now an expanding body of research shows that exercise can improve the performance of the brain by boosting memory and cognitive processing speed. Exercise can, in fact, create a stronger, faster brain.

This theory emerged from those mouse studies at the Salk Institute. After conducting maze tests, the neuroscientist Fred H. Gage and his colleagues examined brain samples from the mice. Conventional wisdom had long held that animal (and human) brains weren

Don’t make biofuel–burn oil and plant forests. Wow, is that politically incorrect (but probably correct). Saint Al would have a fit.

The more I hear from James Hansen, the less impressed I am with him as a supposedly objective scientist.

The more I hear from James Hansen, the less impressed I am with him as a supposedly objective scientist.

The more I hear from James Hansen, the less impressed I am with him as a supposedly objective scientist.

OK, only one model has it going to New Orleans. Let’s hope that the consensus of the other models is right, and it’s heading for Mexico.

Or maybe Karl Rove is just revving up his black-killing weather machine one more time, for old time’s sake.

On science, society, and climate change. From Freeman Dyson.

[Update a few minutes later]

It slipped down the page, but I have an explanation as to why I think that Jim Hansen should have egg on his face, since there seems to be some confusion in the comments section there.

[Sunday morning update]

On this Robert Samuelson piece, I agree with Glenn:

Personally, as I’ve noted before, the whole debate seems to me to be a religious sideshow. Regardless of what you think about global warming, there are lots of good reasons to avoid burning fossil fuels. But the global-warming discussion in the media is a consensus identity narrative designed to achieve political ends, not an effort to find facts or protect the environment. And this also accounts for the backlash.

Looks like 1998 wasn’t the hottest year, after all. But it took a blogger to figure it out:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

Guess the trend wasn’t as trendy as they thought.

Hansen should have egg on his face. Someone from the MSM should ask him about it. But I doubt if they will. It’s another one of those stories that’s too good to check.

Now that they have the data right (assuming they do) they should rerun the correlation analysis for hurricane frequency and intensity.

[Update late afternoon]

Maybe I should have titled this post “An Inconvenient Truth.”

[Saturday update]

Since there seems to be some confusion in comments as to why Dr. Hansen should have egg on his face, Coyoteblog explains (with a lot of other commentary).

When a scientist refuses to reveal his algorithms or models, but simply insists, ‘trust me, the numbers are right,” and someone else has to go through the trouble of reverse engineering them, and finds that the numbers are in fact wrong, said scientist should indeed have egg on his face. As the blog notes, that’s not how science is supposed to be done. Research is supposed to be replicable. Hiding the ball makes this difficult, and it’s one of the reasons that those promoting (and often deliberately overhyping) climate change aren’t trusted. And it brings into question all of the data and casts doubt on all of the researchers, even the best ones.