A Little Science is a Dangerous Thing

post from They gave us a republic... - Front Page on 20 March 2010 04:00:00 PM. © They gave us a republic... - Front Page

Wonder why public opinion on climate change has shifted in the last few years from a strong majority accepting human-caused climate change to a strong majority believing it's bunk?

Blame the TV weather boys and gals, who know jack shit about climatology but play scientists every night to tens of millions of Americans.

Charles Homans at Columbia Journalism Review explains:

None of it would have had much of an impact, but for Coleman's r?sum?. For the many Americans who don't understand the difference between weather-the short-term behavior of the atmosphere-and climate-the broader system in which weather happens-Coleman's professional background made him a genuine authority on global warming. It was an impression that Coleman encouraged. Global warming "is not something you 'believe in,'" he wrote in his essay. "It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise."
Except that it wasn't. Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism. And then there was the fact that the research that Coleman was rejecting wasn't "the science of meteorology" at all-it was the science of climatology, a field in which Coleman had spent no time whatsoever.
Coleman's crusade caught the eye of Kris Wilson, an Emory University journalism lecturer and a former TV news director and weatherman himself, and Wilson got to wondering. He surveyed a group of TV meteorologists, asking them to respond to Coleman's claim that global warming was a scam. The responses stunned him. Twenty-nine percent of the 121 meteorologists who replied agreed with Coleman-not that global warming was unproven, or unlikely, but that it was a scam.* Just 24 percent of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the change in climate over the past half century-half were sure this wasn't true, and another quarter were "neutral" on the issue. "I think it scares and disturbs a lot of people in the science community," Wilson told me recently. This was the most important scientific question of the twenty-first century thus far, and a matter on which more than eight out of ten climate researchers were thoroughly convinced. And three quarters of the TV meteorologists Wilson surveyed believe the climatologists were wrong.
SNIP
More striking is the fact that the weathercasters became outspoken in their rejection of climate science right around the time the rest of the media began to abandon the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand approach that had dominated their coverage of the issue for years, and started to acknowledge that the preponderance of evidence lay with those who believed climate change was both real and man-made. If anything, that shift radicalized the weathermen. "I think the media is almost sleeping with the enemy," one meteorologist told me. "The way it is now, there is just such a bias as to what gets out."
Free-market think tanks like the Heartland Institute, knowing an opportunity when they see one, now woo weathercasters with invitations to skeptics' conferences. The National Science Foundation and the Congress-funded National Environmental Education Foundation, meanwhile, are pouring money into efforts to figure out where exactly the climate scientists lost the meteorologists, and how to win them back. The American Meteorological Society (AMS)-which formally endorsed the scientific consensus on climate change years ago, but counts many of the skeptics among its members, to its chagrin-has started including climate-change workshops for weathercasters in its conferences. For all of their differing agendas, the outfits have one thing in common: they have all realized that, however improbably, the future of climate-change policy in the United States rests to a not-insubstantial degree on the well-tailored shoulders of the local weatherman.
SNIP
In the fall of 2008, researchers from George Mason and Yale universities conducted the most fine-grained survey to date about what Americans know and think about climate change. The short answer, unsurprisingly, was not very much. "Climate change is an incredibly complicated subject," says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and one of the study's co-authors. "Most people are not interested in digging through the scientific literature, and in that situation trust becomes an enormous factor. We rely on people and organizations to guide us through this incredibly complicated and risky landscape."

Here's the truly terrifying part:

That was where the survey's findings got interesting. When asked whom they trusted for information about global warming, 66 percent of the respondents named television weather reporters. That was well above what the media as a whole got, and higher than the percentage who trusted Vice-President-turned-climate-activist Al Gore, either of the 2008 presidential nominees, religious leaders, or corporations.
Scientists commanded greater credibility, but only 18 percent of Americans actually know one personally; 99 percent, by contrast, own a television. "Meteorology benefits from the fact that we're just about the only science that has an individual in people's living rooms every night," says Keith Seitter, the executive director of the American Meteorological Society. "For many people, it's the only scientist whose name they know."

Read the whole thing.

If you hear your local weather idiot expressing skepticism about climate change, even jokingly, call the station and demand they fire the dumbfuck, and hire someone who won't promote scientific illiteracy.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/mxH0iedM5Yc/a-lit
tle-science-is-a-dangerous-thing

Digg this

Liveblog: President Speaking with House
Democratic Caucus

post from Firedoglake on 20 March 2010 03:59:50 PM. © Firedoglake

I didn?t think this was going to be carried live, but Nancy Pelosi is introducing the President right now on C-SPAN. I?ll update.?Harry Reid showed up. I assume he?ll be passing around the Senate letter which apparently has over 50 firm commitments[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/20/president-speaking-with-house-democratic-c
aucus/

Digg this

Liveblog: President Speaking With House
Democratic Caucus

post from Firedoglake on 20 March 2010 03:59:50 PM. © Firedoglake

Digg this

Consequences

post from Talking Points Memo on 20 March 2010 03:59:00 PM. © Talking Points Memo

Federal officials investigating vandalism incident at Rep. Slaughter's district office.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/k0ZyLvQ1ihc/consequences_1.
php

Digg this

QUIET ROCKLAND TO U.S. SENATE: DON"T BLOW
US$53,000,000,000 ON A FAILED FAA!

post from WE HIT THE BOBBY STURGELL "EJECT" BUTTON on 20 March 2010 03:53:00 PM. © WE HIT THE BOBBY STURGELL "EJECT" BUTTON

Digg this

Dems may drop self-executing rule plans, can
still pass reconciliation first

WaPo reports and many diarists have noted that House Democrats appear ready to drop plans to deem the Senate health insurance reform bill passed with a self-executing rule.

That won't make much of a difference at this point. Everybody knows what's at stake, and which votes mean what. Members have by this time steeled themselves for what needs to be done.

But the option to pass the reconciliation bill first, at least in the House, should still be available to them if they want it. The original plan for using the self-executing rule contemplated just that, anyway. That is, the Senate bill was only going to be deemed passed once the House had passed the reconciliation bill. So clearly the House parliamentarian had no particular problem allowing the reconciliation fix to be brought to the floor before the language it would amend (contained in the main Senate bill) was signed into law.

That's possibly because it only takes a majority vote to waive points of order and other procedural objections to reconciliation in the House, whereas the Senate most often requires 60 votes to do the same. And if a majority exists for passage, then it's presumed that a majority would exist for any necessary waivers. In fact, there need be no presuming at all, since the rule for consideration of the reconciliation bill can explicitly waive them.

So that preserves the House's ability -- if they want it -- to vote on the fixes before voting on the less popular Senate bill, and doing so with separate votes puts the House at no disadvantage versus the result that would have obtained with the use of the self-executing rule. You still pass the fix through the House first, before completing work on the Senate bill.

And again, if they do that, that helps settle the question so many people had about whether or not you could vote on language amending a bill that hadn't yet become law. You can, and up until a few minutes ago, the plan was to structure procedure such that that was the only possible outcome. House Dems now have a choice about what order they approach things in. And really, the Senate likely bill won't have been signed by the President at the time that the reconciliation bill is passed in the House, even if they opt to take it up second. I suppose they could opt to wait a few days to vote on reconciliation, but I doubt they'll want to.