Jonathan Katz: Member Of Science Team Tasked With Gulf Solution Is A Homophobe, Climate Change Denialist [UPDATE]

UPDATE: And now, Katz has been dropped from the oil spill task force.

--------

Wow. So, remember earlier when I made note of the team of scientists that has been put together to solve Oil Crisis 2010: Panic In The Gulf Of Mexico?

Well, my tidy little hack Hollywood storyline is getting a major rewrite, courtesy of John Aravosis of AmericaBlog. Jonathan Katz, the Washingon University physicist billed in this TPM piece as the "What Am I Doing Here Guy" on the team, is a virulent homophobe and a climate change denialist.

How virulent a homophobe? This virulent:

The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet. It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.

Unfortunately, the victims are not only those whose reckless behavior brought death on themselves. There are many completely innocent victims, too: hemophiliacs (a substantial fraction died as a result of contaminated clotting factor), recipients of contaminated transfusions, and their spouses and children, for AIDS can be transmitted heterosexually (in America, only infrequently) and congenitally. The icy road was lined with unsuspecting innocents, who never chose to ride a motorcycle. Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves.

That's Katz, opining on AIDS, in an article titled "In Defense of Homophobia". As Aravosis points out, he's really not the ideal sort of person to be participating in an administration that's seeking to pass an important climate bill.

AmericaBlog has a "public letter" up, urging President Obama to get rid of Katz with all deliberate haste. It reads, in part:

While we all agree that our country should use all of our best minds to resolve this catastrophe, it is difficult to believe that the Obama administration could not find anyone other than a man who proudly authored an essay titled "In Defense of Homophobia," and who denies the negative impact of climate change. This man is not, as Energy Secretary Chu recently said, one "of our best scientific minds." He is a bigot who should not be elevated by the President of the United States as a representative of the best minds in America.

President Obama would never appoint a "proud racist" or a "proud anti-Semite" to a panel of experts, and showcase him as one of the best minds in our country, and he shouldn't appoint a proud homophobe -- or a global warming denialist -- either.

I think that maybe the Obama administration can find another top-flight physicist to help out.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Randy Shepherd]

06:14 PM on 06/08/2010

i'm gay, and i really could care less if the guy likes me. can he do the job or not? my concern is about is global warming denial. if he doesn't see our eco system as fragile as it is, can he really be the right person to assess the situation and deal with it correctly.

[LHathaway]

08:43 PM on 06/03/2010

"those of you who are protesting that his 'political views' don't diminish his scientific capabilities, you should read his statements. They are totally UNSCIENTIFIC. His political views in fact HINDER his ability to be OBJECTIVE"

Do his statements really hinder his ability to be scientific or do they hinder his likely-hood of voting for Obama?

[edensaunt]

11:27 AM on 05/23/2010

by his logic, hemophiliacs and others who needed transfusions were designed by nature/happenstance to die

[ColosslFup]

10:52 AM on 05/20/2010

I guess this is what a "relentless" government effort to clean up the spill looks like. Firing a guy who could help cause you don't like his personal views on an unrelated topic. I love watching the Left. They keep boxing themselves in a corner, day after day after day.

[Fred VonHayek]

09:12 PM on 05/20/2010

FANNED !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[getsgarth]

03:13 PM on 05/21/2010

true!

What does a personal view have to do with science?

[EarlVanDorn]

06:48 PM on 05/19/2010

While this man is clearly not "politically correct," his viewpoints aren't all that extreme. His views on affirmative action are right on and hard for any person to argue with. As for his views on homosexuality, clearly they are at odds with current liberal and even moderate thought. But let's remember that until about 10 years ago, homosexual behavior was punishable in many states by long jail terms of up to 10 years. Whatever one's opinion, this man has a right to his.

This issue is, did this man have scientific knowledge that could have helped our country deal with this crisis. Apparently the government thought he did. Then they decided they would rather have the crisis continue unabated then have it solved by a non-PC person. That's not only bad public policy, but unpatriotic, in my book.

[Ben017]

07:19 PM on 05/19/2010

I agree. His views on moral or political matters are irrelevant to resolving an oil spill. Removing him is insane.

[Giverny]

10:16 PM on 05/19/2010

But a global warming denialist? I mean maybe he thinks the oil disappears with dispersant too?

[PlatoSunTsu]

06:30 PM on 05/19/2010

You know this guy had an "assistant" from rentaboy.com carry his luggage to the gulf right? All these 'proud' homophobes are cowardly closeted.

[Changeizgood]

06:15 PM on 05/19/2010

What a finaticized jerk.

[frug]

05:16 PM on 05/19/2010

He's a kook. "Fortunately, global warming is probably good for humanity. Sit back, relax, and watch it happen."

The National Research Council, in a landmark two year study, disagrees...

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/national-research-council-calls-for-climate-action/

[Dave Bee]

03:53 PM on 05/19/2010

is there a petition someplace that I can sign to get this freaks fired?

[PlatoSunTsu]

06:31 PM on 05/19/2010

"UPDATE: And now, Katz has been dropped from the oil spill task force."

[bswell]

03:07 PM on 05/19/2010

As much as one may agree with these conclusions, why inflict a word like "denialist" on us? Pretension does not strengthen an argument when the perfectly adequate "denier" would work as well.

[PlatoSunTsu]

06:31 PM on 05/19/2010

That's all you got?

[Ian Llangan]

01:19 PM on 05/19/2010

Naturally, as a homo, I find this man's comments on homosexuality to be repugnant, & quite in-credible, in the original sense of the word.

Further, I think he, like many others who use their bullhorns to condemn homosexuals (often under the ruse of condemning only homosexuality), is really quite fortunate that (out) gay folks, as a matter of general disposition, tend to be a rather peaceful lot. Were there to be a gay Unabomber (or perhaps, in this case, a gay UNI-bomber) I suspect this fellow would have been an early target for the offing.

However! In reading some of his other manifestos (manifesti?) I see he is also quite capable of making logical arguments & that in many matters he displays a big wallop of common sense and even considerable wit.

His pieces on diversity (http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/diversity.html), Harvard (.../summers.html) & academic independence (.../whatsnew.html) contain many salient points, are thought-provoking, & are intentionally (I think) humourous to read.

What his purported view on homosexuality tells me is that no matter how intelligent, how educated or how insightful an individual may be, both within & without his/her chosen speciality, s/he may still harbour irrational blind spots & willful ignorance that beggar belief &/or rational explanation and hamper their credibility in damaging ways.

[doubtingdavid]

06:51 PM on 05/19/2010

Quite correct, he has blind spots and willfull ignorance, just like the Obamabots.

[Fred VonHayek]

09:18 PM on 05/20/2010

FANNED !!!

[helipilot]

12:45 PM on 05/19/2010

"I think that maybe the Obama administration can find another top-flight physicist to help out."

They're not looking for a top-flight scientist. They're looking for a rubber stamp.

[choot]

04:00 PM on 05/19/2010

Or they may be looking for a top-flight scientist.

[doubtingdavid]

06:51 PM on 05/19/2010

Rubber stamp

[TW77429]

12:14 PM on 05/19/2010

Where to start - A phobia is an irrational fear - My Katz seems to have some rational thoughts on the matter of homosexuality and the blood supply - while I do not share his conclusions - it is hard for a rational person to call him irrational from the quotes attributed - much the same can be said for his global warming views - not so much a denial - as a lack of concern and a dislike (somewhat irrational) for liberal politicians. If he had founded the Hitler Youth in another lifetime - I would still welcome any constructive ideas he could formulate about stopping the damn leak.

[sharpstick]

12:22 PM on 05/19/2010

"it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. "

I think your logic is flawed. Much in the same way that Katz's is flawed. If the foundation of your beliefs is an assumption then none of the logic resting on it can me rational.

[windup]

10:38 AM on 05/19/2010

For those of you who are protesting that his 'political views' don't diminish his scientific capabilities, you should read his statements. They are totally UNSCIENTIFIC. His political views in fact HINDER his ability to be OBJECTIVE, which is a requirement of doing good science.
Here are his statements; they are religious, not scientific.
"The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts."

[secretagent81]

05:50 PM on 05/19/2010

He says:
"The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts."

I find it correct for you to say that these are religious views simply because he used the word "designed." My view is that the human "evolved" and was not "designed."
But to address each item separately:
The human did not evolve to share needles: True....needles are foreign to nature.
The human did not evolve to be promiscuous: False...humans are fantastic at breeding an incredible number of times with many different partners and event between various races.
The human did not evolve to engage in homosexual acts: False. The human responds favorably to homosexual stimuli.

Homosexuality is a reasonable trait to be triggered when humans are overpopulated. I believe homosexuality is likely embedded in our genes and is naturally and unavoidably triggered as a consequence of stress and overcrowding in the human population.

[Changeizgood]

06:38 PM on 05/19/2010

He's got issues.

[Ben017]

07:21 PM on 05/19/2010

***He's got issues. ***

His issues have nothing to do with physics or addressing an oil spill. A lot of top scientific minds have 'issues'.

[spazimodo]

10:37 AM on 05/19/2010

The great conundrum for the tolerant is how to accept intolerance. We can naively accept them and use our persuasive powers to make them less so, but in the end allowing the intolerant into our sphere is simply disruptive. Is it fair to judge someone deemed to be morally bereft to be unwelcome in the solving of non-moral questions. I think it depends on several factors, probably the best way to evaluate is sit and talk with the person. Its not the homophobia that is particularly troubling but the climate change denier charge, because that is science and science is the nature of the work here.

[indivisible]

01:11 PM on 05/19/2010

if the tolerant cannot accept intolerance are they not therefore intolerant? what is the sphere that you wish to exclude the intolerant from, and how would you ever do it? i reserve the right to be intolerant, and i am culturally intolerant, as are you. when my indian neighbor makes my apt. smell like curry, when my muslim neighbor subjugates his daughter's rights, when the anc sings songs about killing the boer, when a country is ruled by a tyrant dictator like hugo chavez, when dual israeli/american citizens influence my government with cash contributions, i will be intolerant. intolerance is a necessary commodity!

[mythmorph]

01:11 PM on 05/19/2010

I like your comment, spazimodo; very well put. Thank you.
I also like the advice the late great George Carlin gave for occasions upon which one finds oneself face-to-face with a loud-mouthed bigot who says, "I have a right to my opinion!"
Carlin's response: "Yeah, well I have a right to my opinion too, and my opinion is that you do NOT have a right to your opinion" and then follows up with a rather drastic measure involving a gun, which I don't need to bring to the average readers' consciousness at this point. But it's reminiscent of that wonderful moment in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Indiana Jones just gives up and dispatches the scimitar-waving giant in Khartoum (or wherever it was).
Personally, I would find a person devoid of tolerant moral equanimity quite manifestly unqualified as a reliably dispassionate thinker in scientific matters as well. Intolerant warps in one sphere are unlikely to be restrictable to that mode of perceiving the world. Of course, that's just my opinion....