In an important departure from his recent administration-wide silence on climate change, President Obama announced in a Rolling Stone interview published today that he considers climate change and the money being thrown into the denial of science as one of the most important issues in the coming campaign discussion.
Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that people's number-one priority is finding a job and paying the mortgage and dealing with high gas prices. In that environment, it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way. That there's a way to do it that is entirely compatible with strong economic growth and job creation -- that taking steps, for example, to retrofit buildings all across America with existing technologies will reduce our power usage by 15 or 20 percent. That's an achievable goal, and we should be getting started now.
The importance of this shift in Obama's perspective cannot be overemphasized. The issue is important not just on climate change, but on a whole host of science-driven policy problems, where Americans have increasingly been subject to well-financed and coordinated propaganda campaigns to confused them about the difference between articulately or forcefully argued opinion and the knowledge derived from measurements of nature and reflected in mainstream, peer-reviewed science.
The media have been largely complicit in this slide, often creating a false balance between knowledge and opinion and treating them as if there were simply two different but equal views of the problem. This has hampered the public's ability to discern truth from falsehood, and interfered with the functioning of democracy on climate change, but also on other science issues such as the teaching of creationism in science classes, or the notions that vaccines are toxic and are causing autism or that cell phones cause brain cancer, neither of which is supported by science and yet lawmakers have passed regulations and spent millions of dollars on them, or the ideas that abstinence-only education reduces teen pregnancy (it doesn't seem to -- but science-based sex-ed does) or that the HPV vaccine might somehow increase promiscuity by removing a deadly consequence of sex (it doesn't).
In 2008, we held a presidential science debate between Obama and then-opponent Senator John McCain. We organized it in part because we noted that of nearly 3,000 questions asked the candidates for president in 171 different interviews, just six mentioned the words "global warming" or "climate change," which was and remains the largest policy challenge facing the nation and the planet. To put that in perspective, three questions mentioned UFOs.
This time around the coverage of the issue has been little better, and is unlikely to be unless the candidates themselves push the issue. Our polling this year shows that the public wants the candidates to debate the issue, along with other science-based issues. Even devoutly religious voters this year say they prefer the candidates debate the big science-themed challenges facing the nation over another faith and values debate. Science is, in fact, a value proposition, and this year especially, voters are connecting with it more than they have in several decades.
Obama has a lot to gain by pushing climate change and also the acceptance and celebration of mainstream science as the best and fairest and most patriotic basis for public policy in America, and in a democracy for that matter. Polls show the majority of Americans believe that the scientists are right and hold scientists in extremely high regard, second only to teachers and members of the military.
In order to secure the nomination, Mitt Romney, who once supported cap and trade, has reversed his position and now says that
My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.
This is demonstrably false, and what's more, the American public believe it's false. Obama has an opportunity to use it as a significant wedge issue to shave votes away from Romney among moderate Republicans and Independents who believe science is the best basis for public policy. Romney appears to be trapped in Obama's message box on it: if he vascillates again he will alienate far right supporters who believe climate change is all a vast hoax, and will be easily labeled a flip-flop-flipper. If he doesn't, he stands to lose mainstream centrist voters to Obama.
It is probably not a coincidence that the Koch brothers, owners of petro-giant Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in America, have pledged $60 million to defeat Obama. This signals that climate disinformation is likely to become a major part of the Republican-aligned presidential effort in the months to come. The Koch brothers have frequently been cited as donors to climate denial propaganda outfits like the Heartland Institute.
This means we will be likely to see more efforts like the recent attacks on NASA and the EPA as an agenda of deep environmental deregulation becomes a central campaign battleground. Whether Romney himself will be able to surf that successfully without alienating mainstream voters will be an important question. Recent polls, including ours, show voters are less concerned over the environment than at any time in recent memory, so anti-regulation forces likely see this as an opportunity. But climate is the notable exception, and if the extreme weather of last March and last year are any indication of things to come, global warming is going to be heating the campaign trail even more in the months ahead.
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Winner of the Minnesota Book Award. "One of the most important books written in America in the last decade." Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
Shawn Lawrence Otto: From the Heartland: Schoolchildren, Climate, and... Mass Murder?
Jason Mraz: Global Warming Is No Longer a Future Problem, It's a Now Event
Ben Barber: Soviet Chemical Plant Threat to Ukrainian City
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/04/buddy_roemer.html
The fact that Obama has turned into seeking hot-button issues rather then focusing on what he claimed to believe in from the beginning (remember back when he was only seeking small contributions?) shows how out of touch he has become.
Here are the irrefutable facts.
Combusting fossil fuels makes carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide raises the temperature of the lower atmosphere. You can say that it doesn't, but it is a scientific fact that it does. No real climatologist on either side of the issue disputes that. Without enough carbon dioxide, the earth would be a frozen snowball. With too much carbon dioxide, it will be a dust bowl. We are creating two thousand tons of carbon dioxide waste every second by combusting fossil fuels, and we are putting it into the air we breath. A thousand tons of a gas is a huge volume of gas.
If you want your great great great grand children to live in a Mad Max world, just keep stalling on climate change. You will guarantee them that world.
I haven't started reading the comments yet, but undoubtedly some of that money is being spent on comments like those here.
Trying to control the climate is like trying to push a chain. If we cannot control the economy (totalitarian governments have tried for generations) because of it's complexity, what makes anyone think that we can control the weather. It is said that climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html
http://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/kemp.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.html
When skeptics say 'the climate changes all the time' I wonder what part of these hockey sticks they are not getting. For essentially ALL of human civilized history, 3000 years, the climate has been the same: it hasn't changed. The ice caps haven't changed, the glaciers haven't changed, and the sea level hasn't changed much. But, that's all changing now. And to say you know where its going is just the height of arrogance.
In the 60-70 era, it was The Next Ice Age; in the 70-80s, it was world-wide famine. Now, it's no longer Antrhopogenic Global Warming, but Anthropomorphic Climate Change. What's next?
I guess Chicken Little had it right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20&feature=relmfu
I'm sorry, but isn't "mainstream science" walking all this back? NASA guys a little upset, that pesky CERN report. Is the last 15 years of "non-warming" not "mainsteam"
Please, give it a rest already.
You could have provided a link
Start with that one. The look up the NASA rebuff from over 40 of their "scientists"
The last 15 years have been the hottest in a thousand years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
OH...you mean the word-renowned ecologist & scientist...the guy that Al Gore quoted & took scientific documentation from for use in "An Inconvenient Truth"?
The guy who isn't denying we're causing warming, but saying there's no need to panic & throw $trillions$ at the problem when there is ZERO agreement about the best courses of action that could actually stop & reverse warming?
Clearly he's a Fox plant!! Romney can & will cite this interview, Lovelock's credentials & his connection to Gore if it comes to a debate on the subject. And Mr. Otto is dead-wrong if he thinks that the majority of Americans want to spend a DIME on climate change before any concrete solutions have been settled upon.
Lovelock did not say we should do nothing. The basis for Inconvenient Truth was scientific studies, not Lovelock's interviews in The Guardian. Gore makes no mention of Lovelock either in the movie or book. Which is easy enough to check . . .
http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm Transcript
Could you please provide the quotes from Gore's film to support these claims?
Thank you.
You can follow the 93 year olds advice - I will choose to follow all the other climate scientist.
People used to "vote with their feet", now it's our vehicles. And they say to drill, or lose the election.
I drive a 2006 Civic hybrid, averaged 40 mpg over 110K miles. But it's majority rule in the US.
Voters are split 50:50 on climate change. But while maybe 10% of Americans are environmentalist, almost 100% drive cars. Case closed, Obama stays away from the issue if he's smart. No matter what, it will be associated (falsely) with high gas prices. Obama plays to his strength, not losing issues. Which is why he's President while all the liberals lost.
Like ACA, climate change is not a winning issue for either Romney or Obama.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/americans-still-split-on-global-warming-poll-shows/
"When asked to assume that global warming is happening and to ascribe a cause, only 47 percent said that it was caused mostly by human activity, however, down from 50 percent last year. Roughly mirroring last year’s results, 52 percent of Americans said they were either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about the warming trend, while 48 percent said they were “not very worried” or “not at all worried” about it."
Seems we have established that education and science versus propaganda and religion continues to pervade our collective psyche.
Yet the irony continues as most scientists consider themselves liberals and/or progressives and the conservatives (GOP/TP) use science created tools (Internet/computer/etc) to bash science.
Truth is, most people drive cars. If global warming were real that would mean they are causing it when they drive their SUV. They want to believe everything they is good, so they believe it's not real. Wiki "cognitive dissonance", aka denial.
"mainstream centrists", whatever doublespeak concoctions they are, supposedly support a cap and trade tax? Ok. If you are trying to imply the support for a "cap and trade tax" will garner Obama support from traditional moderate and independent swing voters, go for it. That's what elections are for.