Hold Off Attacking Holdren
Appointment Has Riled Climate Deniers
SOURCE: AP
President-elect Obama’s pick for White House science adviser, John Holdren, has received numerous barbs from critics of progressive climate policy. Unfortunately, the attacks are a distraction from the real problems facing the planet.
Print
These are supposed to be “bipartisan” times—times for coming together to solve real, massive problems, and for leaving behind the nasty politics of the past. So you would think when president-elect Obama named a distinguished scientist with expertise in climate, energy, and arms control to be his presidential science adviser, that tone would continue.
Science, Cultured
Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.” (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)
You would be wrong.
“Junk science jihadist.” “Ecofascist.” These are some things right wing sites have to say about Harvard physicist John Holdren, who will head up a newly reinvigorated White House science office under Obama. Such noises from the ideological extremes, a kind of last hurrah for the conservative war on science, won’t have much influence. But when we move closer to the political center and read editorials in Investor’s Business Daily and the Rocky Mountain News also criticizing Holdren and his approach to science policy, it becomes apparent that there’s still a lot of denial out there about the reality of our massive climate/energy problem. Mountainous evidence aside, accepted scientific findings about the frightening sensitivity of our climate system remain difficult for many people to swallow.
Investor’s Business Daily, for instance, calls Holdren (and NOAA administrator nominee Jane Lubchenco, also a distinguished scientist) a “global warming true believer.” Well, actually, he’s a renowned scientist who served, in 2006, as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the leading member organization for this nation’s scientific community and the largest general scientific society in the world—not a post usually handed to “true believers” in anything other than the scientific method. Granted, Investor’s Business Daily thinks it’s actually cooling, not warming, globally. Perhaps it’s also telling readers to buy and hold coal and auto stocks for long term gains.
The Rocky Mountain News, meanwhile, suggests Holdren “lacks the temperament to be a fair arbiter when disputes arise about the economic and social trade-offs of environmental policies.” For instance, the paper charges that Holdren supports drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050—precisely the position supported by the incoming president, though the paper doesn’t mention this, thereby making Holdren’s stance sound far more extreme than it actually is. The Rocky Mountain News further charges that while this would result in “big-time increases in energy costs,” Holdren “has never suggested that those higher costs should be offset by lowering taxes elsewhere.” Well, I don’t know if Holdren himself has suggested it or not, but I would fully expect to see provisions to protect average citizens from rising energy prices included in any cap-and-trade greenhouse gas regime supported by the Obama administration (such protections could come through tax cuts or direct checks from the government the so-called “cap-and-dividend” approach). And I sincerely doubt Holdren would have a problem with that.
Perhaps it is becoming apparent that there’s plenty of misinformation, and incomplete or just plain biased thinking, to be found in these attacks on Holdren, and on the policies that he and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will be tasked with implementing. Many of the circulating critiques seem inspired by blog sources, most prominently a a post written just after the announcement of Holdren’s appointment by New York Times science contrarian John Tierney, who made much hay of a ten-year bet Holdren made in 1980 (along with Paul Ehrlich) about natural resource scarcity with the libertarian economist Julian Simon, and lost; and an August post by University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. (written before Holdren’s appointment), which critiqued a Holdren oped about human-caused global warming and those who continue to deny or reject its existence.
Because such critiques, once launched, tend to be repeated and circulate widely, I want to spend a bit more time answering some of them. But let me first disclose that I have met Holdren on several occasions, interviewed him, spoken with him, and always been very impressed by him. I also gave a talk in 2005 at the Woods Hole Research Center, where Holdren serves as director (a post he will presumably step down from to go to Washington).
An Ancient Bet. First, who cares what John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich bet about the price of chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten in 1980, or whether they won? It’s 2008. I’ve never talked to Holdren about the bet, but I’m sure he learned something from it. Pick any scientist with a long, influential career and you’ll find something he or she has at one point or another been incorrect about. Or if you can’t find it, be worried.
Use of the Term “Denier.” Holdren’s aforementioned op-ed, published in the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, is strongly worded about the problem of global warming “skepticism” or “denial”—and rightly so. It prompted a large volume of response, and Holdren has, in turn, answered his critics. It’s important to note that the op-ed wasn’t written when he was a representative of the president, and I would imagine that his language might not be as strong in the future. But in any event, I want to defend his, and anyone’s, right to use the term “denier” in a global warming context, something The Rocky Mountain News (among others) objects to. I am continually baffled by attempts to rule a perfectly good word out of bounds under the strange pretense that any use of it implies some type of connection with the phenomenon of Holocaust denial, which is the central complaint that global warming “skeptics” tend to make.
“Denier” is defined in the dictionary as meaning “one who denies.” You will note that there are no Holocaust references. The verb “deny” means (among other things) “to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate.” It does not specifically refer to the Holocaust either. Perhaps that’s because the word is massively older: As Dictionary.com notes of the etymology (relying on the online etymology dictionary):
c.1300, from O.Fr. denier, from L. denegare, from de- “away” + negare “refuse, say ‘no,’ ” from Old L. nec “not,” from Italic base *nek-”not,” from PIE base *ne- “no, not” (see un-).
Why should we not properly use this time honored word? In particular, the idea that calling someone a “global warming denier” is an implicit comparison with Holocaust denial is absurd. When one uses words like “denier,” “denial,” and “deny,” there is no necessary reference to one particular species of the broader phenomenon, and thus no more invocation of Holocaust denial than of those who denied Christ or those who are in denial about their crumbling marriages. Global warming deniers do not have the power to redefine words that long preceded them, and that will long outlive them.
The Difference Between Science and Policy. Many of the anti-Holdren commentators want you to think he’s just as bad a politicizer of science as the Bush administration has been. Here the critics rely strongly on Pielke, Jr., who in his post quotes Holdren stating the following—“the science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going”—and so proceeds to characterize Holdren as someone who thinks that information gleaned from science “compels political outcomes.” Or as Pielke puts it elsewhere in his post: “The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.”
I don’t know where this is coming from. But I do know that I interviewed Holdren for my book The Republican War on Science, and quoted him on this very question: Does the information gleaned from science—e.g., greenhouse gases are causing global warming—necessarily compel a particular political solution—e.g., a cap and trade bill? Here’s Holdren, from page 23 of my book: “I don’t think there are very many scientists naive enough to think that science should always determine outcomes, but you shouldn’t defend outcomes by distorting the science.” I like much of Roger Pielke, Jr.’s work, and relied on it heavily in my second book Storm World, but I just don’t get the above criticism. Obviously Holdren is not such a naif about the relationship between science and policy—how could he be? Obviously he knows, just as everyone does, that economic, political, and other considerations weigh very heavily on policymaking, which is rarely or never driven solely by scientific information (and nor should it be). Indeed, the quotation of Holdren above came from a part of our interview in which he was getting a very elementary distinction that we all recognize out of the way, so that our conversation could then proceed to discussing matters of actual interest.
I would very much like to have used this column to explain to you what John Holdren actually knows, and thinks, about climate, and about energy—two of the most massive intertwined issues of our time, and one upon which he’s a consummate expert. Alas, these various attacks prevent that; but I’m still glad to join the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, and others in answering them.
The nature of politics in the United States may be changing for the better, but there are also a lot of old habits that die hard.
Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Comments on this article
Chris-
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!
December 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pmIt would cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to charge and drive an electric car. The electricity to charge the car could come from solar or wind generated electricity. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don’t we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come. Why not invest in setting up some alternative energy projects on a national basis, create clean cheap electricity, create millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and get out from under our dependence on foreign oil. What a win -win situation that would be. There is a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in alternative energy. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
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.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pmSo you are a prescriptivist about “denier” and a descriptivist about “believer” (which has a valid non-religious dictionary meaning: “1. a supporter who accepts something as true” as well as a secondary meaning related to religious faith)? Dictionaries do not exhaust the meanings of words and utterly fail to convey connotations and metaphors.
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:
January 1st, 2009 at 9:25 amA 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.
Chris,
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.
January 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pmA pretty weak post, especially the section on “denier”. The word is a pejorative in the eyes of those who use it despite all the hand waving Mooney uses to try to show otherwise. It’s a convenient way to dismiss all the critics of anthropogenic global warming as somehow stupid or evil.
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
January 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pmattacks 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.
In support of Holdren and Mooney
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!
January 5th, 2009 at 11:46 am“Some ideas are simply better than others (more well-informed, long-range, etc.)” but we can’t tell if a person doesn’t or can’t present that idea in a coherent and persuasive way. However ideas may pre-exist the language used to express them, they are never any better than that language.
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.)
January 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pmWHY THE TERM “DENIER” MAY BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE – AND TWO VIGNETTES OF JOHN HOLDREN SUGGESTING THAT HE’S THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB
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.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:59 amSupplement to my previous comment.
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
January 8th, 2009 at 1:08 amEnvironmentalists are destroying this world more then helping it. As far as global warming goes, they are so far off the mark. Just in 2008 alone, the mean temperature of the earth cooled enough to completely wipe out, all the warming for the past 100 years. Your global warming people are dead wrong people are going to starve to death because of policies that will be introduced from these alarmist lunatics.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pmWho cares if denialists’ feelings are hurt by the use of that word? They are the one who conjure up 9/11Truther-style conspiracy theories that have cast the entire worldwide scientific community as part of a criminal hoax.
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.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pmhey, your a good looking kid, and I’m sure you mean well in your posts, but you’re way over your head on this one. Spend a _little_ extra time reading up on Holdren before you attack those which much more experience and open mindedness than you. As the fine scientist I’m sure you are, you will learn from your mistakes.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:06 amConsider what Holdren calls, in a 1995 article, “Underlying human frailties: Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness. Which collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.”
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.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm