Anti-science increases regarding climate change

Brian Walsh of Time bemoans the increasing anti-science attitudes of Americans and its effect on our conversations regarding climate change.

We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures who select from the choices presented to us for maximum individual utility — indeed, that's the essential principle behind most modern economics. But when you do assume rationality, the politics of climate change get confusing. Why would so many supposedly rational human beings choose to ignore overwhelming scientific authority? Maybe because we're not actually so rational after all, as research is increasingly showing. Emotions and values — not always fully conscious — play an enormous role in how we process information and make choices. We are beset by cognitive biases that throw what would be sound decision-making off-balance.
Walsh mentions "loss aversion" as a driving factor (the fear that actively decreasing CO2 will lose jobs), and group identification . The bottom line is that "no additional data — new findings about CO2 feedback loops or better modeling of ice sheet loss — is likely to change their mind."

Continue ReadingAnti-science increases regarding climate change

How bad is the Gulf? How bad is American media?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has endorsed Arab news organization Al Jazeera as offering "real news", superior to ersatz U.S. news which is full of commercials, talking-heads and soundbites that are "not particularly informative to us." Perhaps that explains a part of the reason why U.S. audiences are largely unaware of the continuing ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of BP's Deepwater Horizon blowout last year. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, brings us this story of sickness and death on the Gulf Coast.

[caption id="attachment_16980" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Eco-terrorism in Gulf of Mexico. Image via Leoma Lovegrove (creative commons)"][/caption] "I have critically high levels of chemicals in my body," 33-year-old Steven Aguinaga of Hazlehurst, Mississippi told Al Jazeera. "Yesterday I went to see another doctor to get my blood test results and the nurse said she didn't know how I even got there." Aguinaga and his close friend Merrick Vallian went swimming at Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in July 2010. "I swam underwater, then found I had orange slick stuff all over me," Aguinaga said. "At that time I had no knowledge of what dispersants were, but within a few hours, we were drained of energy and not feeling good. I've been extremely sick ever since."
[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow bad is the Gulf? How bad is American media?

NPR needs help to find the culprit who killed the WPEA

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) passed the Senate unanimously last December. It was tweaked and passed unanimously in the House, then sent back to the Senate for a final vote - where someone blocked it by the an anonymous hold, killing it on December 22. On January 7th, NPR’s On the Media, with the Government Accountability Project, set out to find out who. Now they are down to three: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), all of whom have declined to deny placing the hold. WNYC and the GAP still need help to blow the whistle on who killed the WPEA. They need residents of Alabama, Arizona and Idaho to call their respective Senators and ask for confirmation or denial of responsibility for the hold, and more pointedly, ask “why they believe the public does not have a right to hold them accountable for something as basic as killing a bill.” They suggest asking the following questions “as a way to guide the conversation”:

1) Did you place the anonymous hold on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act? 2) What is the Senator's policy regarding inquiries from constituents about his use of the anonymous hold? 3) When is the Senator’s “hold” the public’s business, about which the public has the right to know? 4) What determines when use of the “hold” is a “personal, private matter” that is not the public’s business? 5) Why would the Senator be publicly supportive of the bill but work to defeat it in private? 6) All but three Senators have confirmed that they did NOT use the hold to kill S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Assuming that the senator who placed the hold is eventually identified - as they frequently are - and it is your senator, is he prepared to deal with the fallout that comes from ignoring constituent questions?
These are good questions to ask about any anonymous hold on Senate bills, not just this one. You can read about what the Act would have done here, and if you have any information, email blowthewhistle@wnyc.org. WNYC is collecting and posting the responses.

Continue ReadingNPR needs help to find the culprit who killed the WPEA