The scientific findings aren't politicized. Scientists became politically involved when they realized that their opposition was political, rather than scientific.
The politicization of climate change
Part of the problem is that climate change has moved out of the realm of research and into the political arena, Leiserowitz said. The climate-change views of the two political parties were not significantly different until the Kyoto Protocol negotiations of 1997, when policymakers began to look for solutions to global warming.
This was in the midst of the polarizing Clinton administration, and for some, the association made global warming belief seem unsavory. Even today, many climate-change naysayers think of former vice president Al Gore when they hear the words "climate change."
"They loathe Al Gore," Leiserowitz said. "Sometimes I joke that Al Gore could hold a press conference tomorrow to say that science has determined that the Earth is round and people out there would say, 'Well, no it isn't.'" [ 50 Cool Facts About Earth ]
The findings about Gore come from a recent paper published by Leiserowitz and his colleagues in the journal Risk Analysis. In large public surveys, the researchers asked Americans to give their first thoughts when hearing the words " global warming." In 2003, just 7 percent of Americans responded with "naysayer" answers, such as "hoax" or "scam." By 2010, that number had risen to 23 percent. (Studies show that the majority of Americans do believe in global warming, Maibach said, but there is also a widespread misconception that there is disagreement among scientists over whether it is happening.)
The trend is driven by a few factors, Leiserowitz said. Political polarization is one. Like being anti-abortion or in favor of strict immigration laws, denial of climate change has become a "litmus test" for the Republican Party, he said. The "Climategate" scandal, in which emails between climate researchers were hacked from a University of East Anglia server in the United Kingdom, also diminished trust in climate scientists. Those emails were taken by some to suggest climatologists were making false statements about global warming. Climategate was covered more often in conservative media, Leiserowitz said. Though the scientists involved were eventually cleared of wrongdoing, the stigma stuck.
Finally, President Barack Obama's stated concern about climate change turns off people who don't like the president for his other policy stances, Leiserowitz said.
"If you don't trust the messenger, you're going to discount or reject the message," he said.
msnbc.msn.com
==
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy. [1] [2] [3]
Tobacco and cancer
By the mid-1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking promotes lung cancer, but the tobacco industry fought the findings, both in the public eye and within the scientific community. Tobacco companies funded think tanks and lobbying groups, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals, and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even pet birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation. [5]
Global warming
Main article: Global warming controversy
Both mainstream climatologists and global warming skeptics have accused each other of politicizing the science behind climate change.
In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the " Information Council on the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Critics of industry groups have charged that the claims about a global warming controversy are part of a deliberate effort to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their business interests. [32]
In June 2005, John Vidal, environment editor of The Guardian, asserted the existence of US State Department papers showing that the Bush administration thanked Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the industry advocacy group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [33]
In 2006, Guardian columnist George Monbiot reported that according to data found in official Exxon documents, 124 organizations have taken money from ExxonMobil or worked closely with those that have, and that "These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'." [34] [35] The "selective use of data", cherry picking, is identified as a notable form of scientific abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization created to provide independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security. [36]
In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor reported that at least since 2003, and especially after hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration has broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions. [37] Those who have studied organizations set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty about well established scientific consensus have divided their tactics into three basic categories: first deny there is a problem, second, make the case that it's not a problem and may actually be beneficial, and failing that to admit it's a problem but insist there's nothing anyone can do about it. [38
Recent examples
[ edit] George W. Bush administration In 2004, The Denver Post reported that that George W. Bush administration "has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee." At least 20 of these former industry advocates helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. "They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates." [10]
Also in 2004, the scientific advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science [11] [12] which charged the following:
"A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies."
en.wikipedia.org |
