Are Politicians Ignorant or Dishonest When it Comes to Science?

I'm about halfway through reading a new book by Dave Levitan called Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science. The main title is derived from a constant refrain among Republican politicians during the last presidential election. While declaring they were "not a scientist," they would then go on to issue statements directly contradicted by science. I'll post a full review on Goodreads and Amazon when I'm finished, but there is one issue that strikes me is need of further discussion.

As Levitan's subtitle suggests, he refrains from labeling politicians as dishonest or outright liars despite their repeated spouting of abject falsehoods. One wonders if this is in an attempt to be fair (aka, false equivalence) or avoid potential lawsuits. It does beg the question: If politicians continue to say things that are not true, are they being profoundly ignorant or fundamentally dishonest?

Each chapter identifies the "types of errors" routinely made by politicians (and others) when discussing science. They include "oversimplification," "cherry-pick," "ridicule and dismiss," "literal nitpick" and others. Many of these errors (aka, tactics) have been discussed on this page over the last decade, though often under different labels.

As I said, I'll do a full review when I've finished the book. For now I want to address the idea of intent that Levitan tries to avoid.

Let's take an example where Levitan discusses Republican Senator James Inhofe's statement regarding regulations on fracking. An infamous climate denier (he was featured in an earlier chapter for his "snowball" speech), Inhofe represents the fossil fuel industry in his home state of Oklahoma (often to the detriment of his constituents). Levitan points out that Inhofe issued a press release with the following statement in an attempt to block regulations and legislation to protect the public from activities related to hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") for natural gas:

"Since 1949, my state of Oklahoma has led the way on hydraulic fracturing regulations, and just like the rest of the nation, we have yet to see an instance of ground water contamination."

It won't come as a surprise to learn that Inhofe's statement isn't actually true. Levitan focuses on the "mistakes" that Inhofe makes and describes the fracking process, issues, and actual facts well. He explains how this fits into the "error" of "the literal nitpick." But one point near the end of his discussion exemplifies the problem: Inhofe's statement was very highly focused on the "the physical act of cracking rocks through hydraulic fracturing." In other words, he chose his words very specifically to be "true" while making them mean something that wasn't true. The fracking process has multiple components, and Inhofe diligently cherry-picked one aspect that he could tease out as not causing the problem while ignoring all the other components that are, in fact, of greater concern.

Which gets to my point. Republican Senator James Inhofe, from the fossil fuel dependent state of Oklahoma, and who receives substantial campaign funding from those fossil fuel companies and lobbyists, intentionally chose highly selective words to sound true while misleading other policy makers, the general public, and his own constituents. He intentionally chose to say something that was misleading to reach a goal that his financial supporters asked him to reach.

My use of the word "intentional" above is intentional in its own right. Inhofe has served as the senior U.S. Senator for 23 years, with 7 years as a U.S. Representative before that (plus had previously been mayor of Tulsa). He chaired the Senate Committee on Science and Public Works - twice! He has had ample staff and constant access to the scientific community. The facts have been explained to him myriad of times.

So is Senator Inhofe still profoundly ignorant of the science despite all these resources? Is he accidentally being highly specific in his word choice to give the impression of truth while extrapolating patently misleading and false conclusions? Has he somehow been duped for more than 30 years of his time in Congress?

Of course not.

Senator Inhofe actively and intentionally "cherry-picks" and "literal nitpicks" his words to further the interests of his campaign contributors. He or his staff meet with fossil fuel executives and lobbyists routinely to plot their attack on regulations that might impact the bottom lines of those companies and their lobbying arms. Lobbyists work directly with the staffs (and the lawmakers themselves) to craft language that they can argue is strictly factual (even when it isn't) while extrapolating it deceive. This is the case with Inhofe's example statement and many others. He takes a very narrow "factoid" and uses it to argue for a broad ban on regulations for which the narrow "factoid" is not relevant, all while ignoring the voluminous evidence that contradicts his position. There is a word for the action of actively deceive the public and fellow lawmakers.

Inhofe isn't the only one who does this, of course. Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, along with Representatives Joe Barton, Lamar Smith, and many others all actively mislead the public in service of their fossil fuel benefactors.

All lawmakers, of course, work with stakeholders (which includes lobbyists for all special interests, and at least in theory, the public) to educate them on issues so they can make honest judgments. The problem is when those interests (aka, campaign contributions and other "perks") cause lawmakers to intentionally mislead their own constituents.

Inhofe is hurting Oklahomans because of his intentional deceptions. Oklahoma has had a huge increase in earthquake activity. The cause - oil and gas extraction activity. Oklahoma also is severely endangered by man-made climate change, as its largely arid environment is highly vulnerable to climate change's effects, including higher risk of agricultural failures, extreme weather events, and heat- and pollution-related health effects. Senators and Representatives in Texas also endanger their constituents in a similar manner.

So to answer the question posed in the title: is it ignorance or dishonesty?; the answer is rather obvious.


[Photo: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), from Wikipedia]

The Long Road to Reforming America's Chemical Law May Soon Be Over

Earlier this week it was announced that Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK) had reached an agreement on the long awaited update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was originally passed in 1976 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford. To say that it is outdated would be the understatement of two centuries. Reform has been a long road with many twists and turns, not the least of which is the first sentence in this paragraph.

Yes, the news was that Boxer and Inhofe had agreed on the TSCA reform law. The fact that Boxer and Inhofe have agreed on anything is news in itself, but the fact that the two of them are even mentioned in the same breath as this new law is amazing given that neither really had much to do with its development.

A quick recap. Late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) first introduced a formal bill to reform TSCA back in 2005. It never even got a discussion in committee. Neither did his re-try in 2009. His re-try in 2013 was introduced not long before he died at the age of 89. In the intervening weeks, a bed-ridden Lautenberg joined with Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to introduce a TSCA reform bill that was light-years away from the bill Lautenberg had just reintroducd. You read that right. A Republican from the petrochemical state of Louisiana introduced a chemical control bill with the man who had been fighting to reform chemical control for a decade.

After Lautenberg's passing, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) took over and actually worked very hard with Vitter to refine and improve the bill. After a few iterations (most of which were virulently opposed by Senator Boxer), they came out with a bill they named the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act." A completely different bill was introduced in the House, but that bill was considered a joke by everyone in the know, a fact that was obvious by its unanimous passing by both parties in a House where bipartisanship is considered an act of war. The House bill was merely to have something they passed so that the committee that reconciles the Senate and House versions into a law had something to sign off on. Given that Boxer and Inhofe, the two political powerhouses in the Senate, had the final say indicates what everyone knew - that the final version is essentially the Senate version with a few more assurances that states aren't completely blocked from dealing with chemicals that EPA has yet to rule on.

Which gets us to now. The conference committee has come up with a "reconciled" version that is expected to be passed by both houses of Congress shortly. The President has indicated he will sign it, perhaps with a big ceremony at the White House. Most people are happy - Republicans, Democrats, health and safety advocacy groups, chemical trade associations, and the consultants and lawyers who will make tons of money helping their clients comply with the law.

Now here is the slap in the face. The new TSCA law won't make us safer. As the article at the link notes:

The law itself won't make us safer, but the fact that we'll be focused on identifying and prioritizing chemicals to take a closer look rather than waving our hands in the air doing nothing...well, that focus will make us safer.

So congratulations to industry for getting a law that favors them passed. Congratulations for health and safety advocacy groups for getting a law passed that at least gets us beyond the distractions of doing nothing while debating a new law. Congratulations to Congress for wasting taxpayers money and time "debating" for 10 years something that is only getting passed now because industry thinks Republicans will lose control of at least part of Congress in the fall. Sure, that sounds cynical, but not as much as thinking Republicans in Congress are doing something for the public good.

The long road to reforming TSCA is not over. Now the work begins. The EPA will have to develop a way to implement a law while continuing to lose senior staff, having their budget cut frequently, and being harassed by Republican lawmakers/lobbyists on a daily basis. It will be EPA who will figure out how to improve the health and safety evaluation process for chemicals. May they survive the success of reforming TSCA.

This is What Scientists Can Do to Stop Climate Science Denial in Congress

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted in his on-the-floor rebuttal of the ubiquitous science denial of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), "the only place where denial is 'credible' is here in Congress where money from fossil fuel interests" is prevalent. Whitehouse was responding to Inhofe's latest act of denial, the blocking of a simple non-controversial resolution introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that acknowledged the National Climate Assessment conclusion that man-made climate change is happening.

In the Senate, any Senator can block resolutions even if the other 99 Senators want to vote for it. Inhofe is renowned for his "global warming is a hoax" talking point, which he repeats whenever he gets the chance. Not surprisingly for someone from the fossil fuel-dependent state of Oklahoma, Inhofe receives considerable campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

This isn't the first time Whitehouse has stood up to climate deniers. But this particular event provides a useful exemplar for how scientists can stop climate change denial in Congress.



As the video above shows, Whitehouse is well-versed in both the science of climate change and the rebuttals to common talking points used by climate science deniers. Clearly he has been listening to scientists. I discussed the role of scientists in making policy in this earlier post, and this shows the value of scientist involvement.

Whitehouse points out some of the critical science that shows Inhofe's statements are misinformative. Whereas Inhofe repeats the talking point that "atmospheric temperatures haven't risen/have plateaued/are cooling/are whichever of the many versions he pantomimes (all false),"  Whitehouse correctly notes that the vast majority (97+%) of heat goes into the oceans initially and that atmospheric temperatures are more susceptible to short-term variations. Whitehouse got his information from scientists; Inhofe got his information from lobbyists.

Whitehouse also points out that virtually all climate scientists agree that the voluminous data unequivocally demonstrate that our actions are warming the planet. While Inhofe cites a ridiculous and fraudulent "petition," Whitehouse correctly notes that every scientific organization in the world confirms what NASA, NOAA, the US Navy, the Department of Defense all tell us. And if federal government scientific organizations aren't enough, Whitehouse tells us that the Property Casualty and Reinsurance Industry, the US Congress of Catholic Bishops, and major corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Mars, Google, Apple, and Nike all are very concerned about climate change.

All of this has come from scientists. It is scientists that have provided their services to regulators and policy makers so that they can provide informed, scientifically-based, rebuttals to the political talking points of the climate science deniers in Congress. Even the younger Republicans decry the science denial among the Republican Party old guard/Tea Party wing. "People know better," Whitehouse says. And they do.

One of Whitehouse's most direct statements rebutting Inhofe is "To say that we have no warming is just not factual."

That's where we scientists need to step in. It is our role, and our obligation, to communicate the science accurately and repeatedly to those policy makers who take to heart their public responsibility to act on, rather than deny, reality.

Senate Moves TSCA Bill to Vote After Contentious Hearing

[Update: The Safe Chemicals Act has been approved by vote of the Committee on July 25, 2012] As noted yesterday, the Senate held a hearing on "EPA's authorities to control toxic chemicals." The hearing built on many previous hearings to gather information relevant to the reform of the TSCA chemical control law.  The hearing began fairly benignly but ended rather contentiously, with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) preparing for a markup of the Safe Chemicals Act bill today, July 25, 2012.

The hearing ostensibly was in response to an investigative series published recently by the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune series argued that "two powerful chemical industries - Big tobacco and chemical manufacturers - waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation" of flame retardant chemicals such as the PBDEs. Witnesses during the hearing included Dr. Heather Stapleton, an expert on flame retardant chemicals at Duke University, and Marshall Moore, Director of Technology, Advocacy and Marketing at Chemtura, a manufacturer of PBDEs and one of the companies specifically identified by the Chicago Tribune.

In their opening statements the Senators offered reiterations of their usual positions. Democrats focused on the toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation of PBDEs in particular and chemicals in general. Republicans, in particular Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and David Vitter (R-LA), expressed their disappointment that the Democratic majority of the committee was planning to bring Lautenberg's Safe Chemical Act bill to markup. Republicans felt that this meant the end of the "bipartisan" discussions in which Democratic and Republican members of the committee and their staffs had engaged for the year and a half since the introduction of Lautenberg's bill.

Democrats countered that the "bipartisan" discussions were going nowhere and it was time to get Republican views out in the open with a markup and committee vote on the bill. Lautenberg reminded his colleagues that he first introduced a version of the Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and that over the last seven years there had been dozens of hearings, meetings, and consultations with Republicans on the best way to reform TSCA. All stakeholders have agreed publicly many times that TSCA is in dire need of reform, a position EPA acting Assistant Administrator Jim Jones reiterated in his testimony. Indeed, Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act bill has clearly migrated from a more NGO-approved (all data for all chemicals) approach in the original to a more Industry-friendly (prioritization) approach in the current version. The markup is an attempt by Democrats to put the Republican position on record given that passage of a TSCA reform bill is highly unlikely in this Congress, and perhaps impossible in the next Congress depending on the results of this fall's election.

Democrats were clearly frustrated with the Republicans during the hearing. This became especially evident during the second panel in which Senator Boxer repeatedly made it clear which witnesses were called by the majority party (Democrats) and which were called by the minority party (Republicans). Boxer also repeatedly praised the courage of mother and former Maine House leader Hannah Pingree, who had said during questioning that "the chemical industry does not always tell us the truth." Boxer similarly praised the work of fireman Tony Stefani, who heads a Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, which he started after he and his fellow firefighters were found to have higher incidences of the kind of cancers that he claims "are usually seen in workers in chemical manufacturing."

In contrast, Boxer several times addressed chemical manufacturing representative Marshall Moore in ways that can euphemistically described as "direct." She told Moore that "he needs to apologize" for "grossly distorting" a study on which he relied for demonstrating effectiveness and safety of flame retardant chemicals. Boxer also told Moore that "take a course in ethics" because the industry had set up a "phony fire safety group" (based on the charges in the Tribune series). Moore was remarkably calm and respectful given Boxer's direct accusations and insisted that his company and others had conducted and provided to EPA dozens of studies to aid the assessment.


The hearing demonstrated that TSCA reform, despite the repeated public assurances by all stakeholders that modernization was necessary and desirable, is likely not going to happen. As noted, while the Republicans expressed their disappointment that the bill will go to markup and probably to a committee vote, Democrats expressed their continued desire to work on a bipartisan bill, which they now believe can better be accomplished by an open debate on the Senate floor where each individual Senator would be able to put their views on record.

Of course, even in the unlikely event that a bill could be passed in the Senate (virtually all bills now must pass 60 votes for cloture before they can even make it to the floor for a vote), there is essentially no chance that the Republican-controlled House would even take up a companion bill.


More information and downloads of the testimony can be found on the committee hearing page.