There is no "war on science"

[Locutus]

Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr

Pretty sure >50% of the anger, hatred, invective of some climate scis against their perceived opponents is just juvenille academic pettiness


Matthew C. Nisbet ‏@MCNisbet

GOP Science War meme tracked closely by liberal #AAAS members, but not others http://goo.gl/jkPP4Z @RogerPielkeJr

Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr The "war on science" meme. One day, hopefully, we'll look back at this era and ask "What the hell were we thinking?" http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-thank-you-to-rep-raul-grijalva.html …

Roger Pielke Jr. ‏@RogerPielkeJr New post--> "It is time to move beyond the toxic partisanship of the most recent science wars." http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-thank-you-to-rep-raul-grijalva.html?spref=tw …




With this post I'd like to express a sincere Thanks to representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). As most readers here will know, Rep. Grijalva is "investigating" me based on his belief that I do research and public service as a consequence of shadow payments from fossil fuel companies. Ridiculous, I know.

I'm thanking Rep. Grijalva not for the media exposure (e.g., NPR, NYT) nor for the bump in sales of my books (e.g., THB, TCF, D&CC), and not even for the many bits of fan mail via email and Twitter from the fringes of the climate debate. Rather, I am thanking Rep. Grijalva for doing more than his part in helping to kill a narrative.

For more than a decade, leading elements of the science and media communities have advanced a narrative which said that conservatives were stupid and/or evil and were singularly responsible for pathologically politicizing science. Reality, as the saying goes, has a liberal bias. It turns out that concerns over the "politicization of science" were themselves subject to politicization.

I wrote about this in 2003:

Politicization of science is a problem irrespective of the ideology of those doing the politicizing. Our scientific enterprise is too important to allow putative concerns about the politicization of science to become just another weapon in partisan battle.​

And in 2005:

It is clear that there is an ample supply of people willing to use concern over the politicization of science as a political bludgeon to score points on the Bush Administration. It is also clear that there are plenty of others aligned with the Bush Administration willing to do exactly the opposite. The question I have is, where are the analysts (including reporters) who care about the politicization of science irrespective of possible advantages that are lent to today’s partisan political battles?​

A decade ago the face of the "Republican War on Science" narrative was a journalist named Chris Mooney, then a fresh-faced 20-something who had capture the zeitgeist in a book by the same title. I offered a detailed critique of of the "War on Science" framing in 2005. I think that critique stands up pretty well.

more

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: A Thank You to Rep. Raul Grijalva, Narrative Killer

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: The Bush-Obama War on Science Continues

 

[darkbeaver]

I think that the case for war on science exists, in fact I'm dead certain that it does. Science is a powerful social lever and no one should think a struggle to control and contain it absolutely does not exist. The elements interested in successfully steering science exist at a level way above idiot politicians.

 

[Glacier]

I think that the case for war on science exists, in fact I'm dead certain that it does. Science is a powerful social lever and no one should think a struggle to control and contain it absolutely does not exist. The elements interested in successfully steering science exist at a level way above idiot politicians.

The thing about the "war on science" is that it is not a left-right thing, but it does seem that the left is the side perpetuating this meme. The reason they do is because they have a much harder time than the right at understanding that they too have a bias or an ideology. In other words, they believe that science always agrees with them, and thus any dissent is anti-science.