Merchants of Doubt is an extremely well-written, well-documented history of the shenanigans employed by those who, in an attempt to avoid unfavorable legislation or the potential loss of profit, attempt to discredit the science rather than accept reality and come up with an appropriate solution to the problems of the world.

The history lesson runs the gamut, including cigarette smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, DDT, and of course global warming. The authors lay out their case with heavily documented precision, showing what the actual science indicated and how it was distorted and misrepresented by those who feared the repercussions. The book shows how disinformation and fear-mongering were used to mislead the public about what the actual scientific evidence showed and what degree of certainty the research scientists had reached.

It’s a sad statement about the lengths to which some will go for their ideology.

View all my reviews

When it comes to science, Republicans seem to have no problem with things like atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, physics, chemistry, etc. The problem is just when it comes to science that reaches conclusions that don’t mesh well with their ideology (or the ideology of their base). The obvious mentions are evolution and climate change, both of which are supported by an astounding amount of evidence, yet both of which cause Republicans some discomfort; one on political note and one on a theological note. But rather than acting responsibly and dealing with the reality the science represents, they attack the science or the scientists or the data or (more often) the make-believe stories conjured up as easily-attackable straw men.

Sadly, Huntsman is way behind in the polls, so that leaves either the outright anti-science group or Romney, who has, in a politically stereotypical move, hedged his bets on science in an attempt to placate the Republican base. That leaves the party with pretty lame options. As Krugman says in his editorial…

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Phil Plait, on his Bad Astronomy blog, follows up on Krugman’s piece with a few more details on some of the candidates, and with this thought…

[Huntsman] recently said he thinks both evolution and global warming are real. This makes me sad, and scared. Why? Because this statement is considered bold.

How can it be bold to accept reality, to not deny the overwhelming evidence, and to agree with the vast, vast majority of scientists studying the very topics of discussion?

Huntsman wants his party not to be "the antiscience party". But that shouldn’t be bold. That should be common sense.

It should be common sense. Sadly, for most of the Republican presidential candidates, it seems to be neither common nor sensible.

I’m not a fan of Dawkins’s writing, as he tends to ramble and go off on tangents that are related to his main point, but sometimes only marginally… and they go on far too long.

There was plenty of good information about evolution in the book, but it was tough to stay with it because of the asides and meanderings. There are much better books on the topic (even his own The Greatest Show on Earth is better, though it suffers from the same problems). In the end, the point that evolution is not a product of random chance is sufficiently made and explained, which is, after all, the intent of the book, so it is successful on that note.

View all my reviews

Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

Woodrow Wilson
Letter to Winterton C. Curtis (29 August 1922)

Update: Sadly, it seems Romney is hedging on the science, presumably to pander to the science deniers that tend to inhabit the Republican base and the Tea Party. He said, ”Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

As I’ve said before, if you want to argue policy, that’s fine, but do it honestly. Don’t try to discredit the science just because you don’t like related policy suggestions.

I heard the report last week about the decrease in sunspot activity and just knew that the global warming deniers would pounce on it with a vengeance, even though plenty of articles had statements such as…

But scientists warn that the temperature change due to a decline in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and not enough to compensate for global warming. – Global Post

Statements like that will most likely be dismissed with a haughty "poo poo" from deniers, however, because it doesn’t fit into the strategy of cherry-picking data in vain attempts to support their untenable position.

It’s one thing to disagree on policy issues and about how to handle the situation. That’s a matter of political opinion and can be debated endlessly from various ideological viewpoints. However, to avoid the policy issue by trying to discredit the actual science… the science that is backed up by virtually all the available data, by virtually all climate scientists, and by virtually all scientific organizations… is disingenuous, dishonest, and despicable.

I constantly read deniers railing against climate science based on policy issues, saying things that basically amount to "climate science is wrong because cap and trade legislation would cause job losses!" It’s an absurd statement, but it’s one that gets repeated, in various forms, over and over and over and over by global warming deniers… seemingly without any awareness of how ludicrous it is.

It’s the position that "facts don’t matter to me because they don’t fit neatly into my preconceived conclusions based on my ideology."

… [B]eware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are also making a prediction:  that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem.

- Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel during the Congressional hearing for U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology

Interestingly, those who “deride predictive science in its entirety” are frequently the same folks who deride science in general when it reaches conclusions that don’t support their pre-existing political or religious ideology.

That’s all too common.

(via)

“The new Republican majority in the House has a lot of power to write our nation’s laws, but they do not have the power to rewrite the laws of nature,” Mr. Waxman said. “Republicans in Congress can’t cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can’t stop climate change by declaring it a hoax.”

They can’t… but they continue to try.

I guess when you deny basic science (or remain willfully ignorant of it), reality is purely subjective.