Science Debates Needed for Presidential Candidates

Science is critical to every facet of our lives, and scientific innovation has been a part of American government since George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. Despite being hamstrung by the Republican Congress, President Obama has been a big supporter of science research to the point of hosting annual White House Science Fairs. But what do the current candidates to take over the job of President say about science?

Science Debate is needed.

We do have a basic idea of where the candidates stand. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton explicitly said, and I quote, "I believe in science," in her acceptance speech at the convention. She went on to say she believes "climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs."


Republican nominee Donald Trump, in contrast, called climate change a "hoax," and claimed it "was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Jill Stein, ironically the "Green Party" nominee and a former medical doctor, nonetheless has espoused anti-science positions on vaccinations, homeopathy, and GMOs. Critics have accused her of pandering to the anti-science left wing as much as Trump has pandered to the anti-science right wing.

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson scores relatively well on basic science literacy in one survey but comes out as anti-vaccination and anti-GMO on another survey. That said, the basic rule of libertarians is to spend as little money and engage in as little government activity as possible, which suggests he would be in favor of cutting science budgets in the executive branch.

Even with these basic overviews, however, we don't know how much priority the candidates would put on science once elected. Issues such as climate change are critical to continue the progress made by President Obama. Other issues such as fracking require more complex assessments and decision making, so here again the ability of the new president to deal with science-based issues is critical. On top of this, of course, are the funding requirements of science agencies like NASA, NOAA, EPA, FDA, NSF, and others. These agencies conduct basic research as well as fund external researchers in addition to their more overt roles.

ScienceDebate.Org is a non-profit organization organized by Shawn Otto, author of the book The War on Science as well as a previous book called Fool Me Twice. Dozens of science organizations have combined efforts to produce 20 Questions related to science to ask the presidential candidate. Questions related to their views on basic science, the anticipated level of priority for their administration, levels of funding, views on education, innovation, public health, water, energy, food, vaccination, and many more. Even immigration has a science component, and one question asks "Would you support any changes in immigration policy regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy over employment and the H1-B Visa program?"

Ideally there would be a separate Science Debate in which these questions can be asked directly of the candidates. Barring that, the public should encourage standard debate moderators for the three presidential and one vice presidential debates to ask these questions. Even written responses to the questions would provide the public with input on where the candidates stand on science-based issues. And the public does want that input.

So all of us should be reaching out to the candidates, to debate moderators, and to others in our communities to have these all-important questions addressed by the candidates.

For more info on Science Debate, go to their website.

American Public Wants Science Debates, With a Caveat

A new poll out concludes that "an overwhelming majority of Americans (87%) say it is important that candidates for President and Congress have a basic understanding of the science informing public policy issues." This belief is bipartisan, with both Democratic and Republican voters (as well as Independents) agreeing that in our modern age science has a large and necessary role in making policy. But there are some caveats.

The poll was commissioned by ResearchAmerica (a polling organization) and ScienceDebate.org (a non-profit organization). Analysis of the data collected from over 1000 U.S. adults was done by Zogby Analytics.

Results show a clear desire by the American public for presidential candidates and members of Congress to include science in their decision-making. You can see a PDF of the summary slides at this URL. (Be sure to scroll down to see all the graphs and tables.) There are a few take-away lessons from the poll.

First, a vast majority of the public believe that public policy must be based on the best available science.

The public also believes that candidates should be required to have a basic understanding of the science necessary to govern:

And that majority is (somewhat) non-partisan, with Democrats, Republicans, and even Independents agreeing that basic science understanding is important.

As the graph above shows, Democrats are somewhat more likely to believe science understanding is necessary (92% [very + somewhat important]) than Republicans (90%) and Independents (79%). These trends are reflected in most of the other graphs in the study. (see PDF for full results).

What does this all mean?

The main messages from the poll are that Americans believe science is important, that it should inform policy decisions, and that the presidential and congressional candidates have an obligation to have at least a basic understanding of the relevant science needed for decision-making. These beliefs are held across all Americans no matter what their party affiliation.

At least that is what they say.

The reality is much more revealing. While the vast majority of the public proclaims that public policies should be based on the best available science (77%), less than half of that same public (45%) believe they are even somewhat informed about the positions of the candidates on science.

Furthermore, what people are saying in response to poll questions doesn't appear to accurately reflect their voting habits. In the poll, strong majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say they believe in science and that candidates should too, but that clearly isn't the case in real life. For example, all the Republican candidates for President have repeatedly and aggressively touted their disdain for climate science, offering up various forms of denial as a matter of course. Even those who previously supported action and whose home states are most at risk (e.g., Florida, Louisiana, New York, California) have denied the science. And yet they lead the polls. Clearly Republican voters answer questions differently than they demand from their candidates.

One note about the "Independents." In many of the bar graphs splitting out responses by party, Independents often show less support for science than Republicans. At first this would appear counter-intuitive, but it reflects a change in how people identify themselves. In the past, "Independents" were generally the more moderate voters who didn't wholesale identify with either the Democratic or Republican parties, and may vote either way depending on the candidates. Today the number of voters who fit this description is shrinking. In our hyperpartisan era, a growing percentage of self-identified "Independents" are actually the more extreme wings of the two parties. They may be "tea partiers" and libertarians who believe the Republican party is too moderate (yes, you read that correctly). The mainstream party to these people are RINO (Republican in Name Only), and so they identify themselves as "Independent" even though the chances of them ever voting for Democratic candidates are close to nil. To a much lesser extent, "Independents" may also include the more extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party (who disdain DINOs), or the anti-science folks such as anti-vaxxers. While those on the extreme wing represent a small percentage of the Democratic party and their wackier views are generally not incorporated into the Democratic platform, the extreme wing of the Republican party now IS the Republican party, with its most egregiously extreme anti-science views driving the entire platform and actions of the party. [For a good review of the political state of affairs, check out Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's book It's Even Worse Than it Looks.]

What should we do about it?

While in the responses to the poll questions Americans say they want science, they also admit to not really understanding science; continue to be misinformed about climate science, GMOs, vaccines, and other science important for decision-making; and about half the country overwhelmingly supports candidates who fundamentally deny even basic scientific principles. Some of this can be attributed to the extreme partisanship evident in today's politics, as evidenced by Republicans viciously attacking their own policy proposals as soon as President Obama and the Democrats agree to them. But some of it is because the majority of Americans don't even know the candidates views on science-based policy initiatives.

Americans strongly agree that presidential candidates should be required to participate in a science-based debate. At least 86% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with this proposal. ScienceDebate.org (one of the organizations that commissioned the independent poll) has worked hard to have candidates participate (see here for more information of past participation). Candidates would have a chance to present their proposals for addressing policy needs presented by such issues as climate change that are inherently based on science. The public would then be able to make informed choices.

Finally, as the above graph shows, Americans overwhelmingly believe that scientists should engage directly with the public and inform elected officials about scientific research that impacts decision-making. This has been a theme for The Dake Page for a long time.

It's time for a Science Debate.

Climate Debate, Climate Pope, Climate Republicans, and Exxon Lies - The Week in Climate Change

This is a big week in climate change, though if you watched the Republican debate last night you would have missed it. Also, the Pope comes to the United States and talks about climate, while a new report shows how Exxon (now ExxonMobil) studied climate change as far back as the 1970s and then lied about it for decades. Here is a quick round up of climate news you definitely need to know.

Republican Debate

All one hundred (or 17, no 16, no 15) Republican candidates for the 2016 nomination engaged in a tag-team debate on CNN on September 16th. The early debate featured the lowest polling Republicans, minus one former Governor who couldn't garner enough support to be included even in this low-threshold affair, and another former Governor who decided he couldn't afford the airfare to California from Texas. The later debate featured everyone else.

In four and a half hours there was exactly one question related to climate change, answered by only three candidates, and totaling a breathtakingly inconsequential three minutes of air time. That in itself is why we need to have a Science Debate. Marco Rubio (Florida, which faces life-endangering sea level rise), Chris Christie (New Jersey, which was devastated by Superstorm Sandy just a few years ago), and Scott Walker (Wisconsin, whose warming temperatures will likely be offset by more extreme winter storms), all trotted out the new "denier talking point of the month." Having exhausted the "I am not a scientist" line (while ignoring what scientists say), the fossil fuel lobbyist/public relations approved official Republican denier line is now "The U.S. can't make any impact alone." Not only is this false, but they ignore the worldwide commitments being made by all other nations serious about dealing with man-made climate change. As always, the Republican party simply denies climate science (thus disqualifying them for the job they seek) and actively tries to sabotage international action that will have greater impacts.

Bizarrely for the guy who many think is the smartest of the bunch, Marco Rubio even made an ill-conceived joke about the severe drought being experienced by California - where the debate was being held. And in the shadow of a model of Ronald Reagan's Air Force One (the debate was held in the Reagan Presidential Library), Chris Christie mocked Ronald Reagan's own Secretary of State as being out-of-touch. All of them denied climate change and any attempt to act on it.

The Pope Brings a Climate Message to Congress and the United Nations

Pope Francis begins his whirlwind tour of the United States next week, with stops in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia. The Pope shocked everyone a few months back by calling for an encyclical, which is Pope-speak for calling in experts on a particular issue to derive a policy. In June the results of that encyclical were released, with the Pope calling on all Catholics to acknowledge they have a moral obligation to steward God's gift to Man, i.e., the planet and the climate that lets us survive here. Other religions have also reiterated the moral obligation to take care of His creation.

Not surprisingly, the Republican party in the United States turned on the Pope, telling him he should "leave science to the scientists." These are the same Republican politicians who while saying "I am not a scientist" continue to tell scientists they don't know their own science. Breaking with corporate-Republican creed, there is a small group of Republicans who are honest about having to deal with the science. Perhaps eventually the rest will catch on that lying to your constituents won't stop sea level rise in Florida; droughts in Oklahoma, Texas, and California; or superstorms in New Jersey, New York, and New England. Until then, Republicans have disqualified themselves from positions requiring personal and professional responsibility.

Exxon Knew About Man-Made Climate Change in the 1970s

A new report compiled from thousands of Exxon documents and interviews with Exxon employees and others reveals that Exxon's own in-house research clearly demonstrated the role of fossil fuels in man-made climate change. And Exxon knew this all the way back in the 1970s. Concern about carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels had been raised decades earlier, and scientists were already studying the impacts. As the largest fossil fuel corporation on the planet, Exxon engaged in a research project in which its own scientists told them clearly and emphatically that fossil fuels were causing the climate to warm. Everyone at Exxon knew this, including senior management and CEO.

Rather than address the issue, Exxon buried it. They killed funding for the research and began a decades long campaign to deny man-made climate change. A series of industry front groups posing as "research organizations," many with intentionally deceptive names, was set up to "manufacture doubt." This was the same technique used by tobacco companies to deny smoking caused cancer. That network of lobbyists and front groups expanded to include other denial networks begun by the Koch brothers, libertarian and conservative lobbyists, and other anti-science organizations. Collusion among lobbyists, the media, and politicians became the norm. 

This page will have more about what Exxon (now ExxonMobil) knew in future posts. From my own personal knowledge I can say that Exxon scientists then, and now, continue to do good science and provide scientific information to the company and its management. Those scientists have made it clear that the science is unequivocal, and that ExxonMobil must find more sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel. Denial of the science falls solely on ExxonMobil management and the denial lobbyists they support.

It's Time Presidential Candidates Had a Science Debate

It's time for a science debate in which all the candidates for president - Republican and Democratic - engage in an honest discussion of science-based issues. Such is the premise behind ScienceDebate, a non-partisan, non-profit effort to require candidates to address science.

The effort began with the 2008 elections and continued through 2012 and now 2016. The ultimate goal is to have a stand-alone science-based debate or at least a science-based section in multiple official debates. They have managed to get the eventual nominees for each party to respond in writing to questions prepared by a group of scientists. Not ideal, but it's a step toward the objective of getting candidates to talk about science.

Why must candidates talk about science?

The following quote from the ScienceDebate website sums it up nicely:

"The world has changed. Science now impacts every aspect of life, with major economic, environmental, health, legal, and moral implications. Shouldn't the candidates for president be showing their leadership by debating these things on TV, so that voters can be better informed by coverage of them in the news media?"

Think about some of the current issues the United States must address, all of which are largely driven by our understanding of the science.

• Iran nuclear agreement
• Climate change
• Vaccines
• GMOs
• Fracking
• Evolution/Education
• Chemical regulation
• Pollution
• Obesity
• Food

And that's only a short list of the most obvious ones. These science-based issues, individually and as a group, affect not only the specific topic of each and the environment, they affect human health, the economy, energy, national security, international politics and power structure, and much more.

In short, these science-based issues affect, and determine, our future.

So how are the candidates doing on science-based issues?

Not very well. This page wrote an Open Letter to the 2016 Presidential Hopefuls about man-made climate change. It's a critical issue and based on unequivocal, undeniable science. We humans are warming the global climate system and action is necessary. The Republican party has made a political decision to deny the science, which disqualifies all of their candidates for the job they seek. The Democratic candidates all acknowledge the science, though they have been inconsistent in their support for policies to deal with it. This page will have more on Democratic proposals and their inconsistency in future posts. At least they are trying, as demonstrated by President Obama's and EPA's Clean Power Plan (though he too has been inconsistent).

In this modern world, science drives our decision-making and our future. It permeates our every day lives, from our reliance on industrial food production to our energy sourcing to our handling of man-made climate change. Science impacts our economic and national security...and our well-being.

It's time to have a science debate.

[More information on ScienceDebate can be found on their website and their Facebook page. Two of the founders, Sheril Kirshenbaum, and Chris Mooney, co-authored a book called Unscientific America, that is also worth reading.]