The Old War on Science Returns Under Rick Perry

authordefault
on

In an August post about the return of the โ€œwar on scienceโ€โ€”prosecuted by the political rightโ€”I drew a key distinction between attacks on knowledge that had occurred during the George W. Bush administration, and those weโ€™re seeing now. Toย wit:

1.ย ย ย ย ย ย Bottom Up v. Top Down Anti-Science Attacks.ย Clearly, theย U.S.ย Republican right has remained at โ€œwarโ€ with scienceโ€”at least on the most hot button issues. Were this not the case, Huntsmanโ€™s claim would not resonate, as it soย obviouslyย does.

If anything, however, I believe matters have gotten worse. Why? Largely because weโ€™ve swapped the relatively genteel โ€œwar on scienceโ€ of the George W. Bush administration (which was prosecuted in top-down fashion from the White House and administration, largely in service of what various staff believed that the president wanted, or what should or shouldnโ€™t be on the public agenda or in the media) for a more populist and bottom-up strain associated with the rise of the Tea Party. This is partly a function of the fact that theย GOPย is in the opposition right now, rather than running the country; and partly a function of the right moving further to, uh, the right; and partly also, I think, a function of the increasing influence ofย theย blogosphere.

Either way, there are lots of consequences. For instance, the attacks on science are now nastier, aimed at individual scientists and presenting direct assaults on their integrity and their work. This goes far beyond Bush vaguely mumbling that scientists donโ€™t have a consensus on climate change, or that it might be natural; or some aide atย NOAAย orย NASAblocking a scientistโ€™sย mediaย interview.

I think this distinction is fairly crucial. Itโ€™s one thing to attack science in a populist vein. You can probably get away with being nastier about it, but youโ€™re not necessarily wielding any power over scientists. You donโ€™t have, for instance, the ability to censor them, as you do when youโ€™re runningย things.

Most of the Tea Party and GOP-debate attacks weโ€™ve seen of late are clearly populist in nature.ย But letโ€™s not forget that one of the leading GOP presidential candidates is also a governor of Texas, who therefore does hold the reins ofย power.

And now we learn that not only does Rick Perry attack climate science in stump speeches; his appointees censor climate scientists in the state of Texas. Thus, Perry is responsible for both bottom-up and also top-down anti-science attacks,ย simultaneously.

Hereโ€™s the Texas story, courtesy of the Houston Chroniclemore reporting and actual (censored!) documents:

GALVESTON – A long-awaited report on Galveston Bay is being delayed by accusations that Texas’ environmental agency deleted references from a scientific article to climate change, people’s impact on the environment andย sea-levelย rise.

John Anderson, theย Maurice Ewingย professor of oceanography atย Rice Universityย and author of the article, accused theย Texas Commission on Environmental Quality of basing its decision to delete certain references on politics ratherย thanย science.

โ€œI don’t think there is any question but that their motive is to tone this thing down as it relates to global (climate) change,โ€ Anderson said. โ€œIt’s not about the science. It’sย allย politics.โ€

The article has several references to climate change but does not say it is caused by humans. However, other references to the impact people have had on the environment were deleted byย TCEQ.

If you go over to Rommโ€™s blog, you can see the actual chapter on sea level rise impacts on theย very vulnerable Galveston Bay, and the edits. (Or go here.) Itโ€™s staggering. There are massive deletions of discussions of sea level rise and its obvious anthropogenicย causation.

This is particularly nutty as sea level rise is one of the least controversial impacts associated with ongoing climate change. The only thing more obvious climate impact than sea level rise is probably, uh, risingย temperatures.

Given the near-monolithic dismissal of modern climate science by the current GOP contenders, we can probably assume that were any one of them to become president, censorious actions like this would likelyย ensure.

But as Romm notes, when it comes to Perry, we can do more than assumeโ€”we canย extrapolate.

Related Posts

on

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.
on

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.
Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.