Yo, Pundits: Don't Confuse Naysaying With Wisdom

There have been a number of interesting reads about ScienceDebate2008 lately--including this one from Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard, and another one from Greenwire/Environment & Energy Daily's Lauren Morello (which you can't read unless you're special and have a password).

Let's take 'em in order:

Not surprisingly, Brainard takes a media angle--namely, observing that the mainstream press isn't covering science or the environment enough in the context of the campaign. Neither is it covering ScienceDebate2008 very much, although that's changing (and we don't need 'em anyway). Brainard ends rather pessimistically:

Many people, petition signatories and otherwise, clearly think that a science debate is a long shot. Though the press has not always applied itself in as much as it could have in covering the intersection of politics and science, there have been a number of concerted efforts to make the candidates say more, and they met silence. Even thousands of journalists, scientists, academics, politicians, and businesspeople calling in unison for more answers might not be enough.

Or it might. Don't rule us out yet. Sheril and I are privy to information from behind the scenes, and let's put it this way--while this debate isn't a certainty, we still have hope because we have grounds for hope.

And so should you.

I liked Brainard's article, but was much more disappointed by the tenor of Lauren Morello's recent, unlinkable article in Greenwire. Why do these articles all have to end on a downbeat note? To quote Morello:

Jerry Taylor, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, gave a blunter assessment of the effort to organize a science debate: "It's not going to happen."

Health care, the economy and the war in Iraq are all major issues with more traction among voters, Taylor said.

"The fundamental reality here is that debates are about things pollsters tell candidates the voters care a great deal about," he said.

Moreover, politicians are not likely to want to put themselves in the position of debating complicated science topics for a national--likely televised--audience, Taylor said.

This kind of stuff really ticks me off. Taylor is perpetuating a particularly unsophisticated kind of logic, which essentially goes like this: The future will always be like the past; and there hasn't been a science debate because voters don't get energized about such things; and so there will never be a science debate.

But assuming the future will always be like the past doesn't work very well for weather forecasting when the climate is dramatically changing--something the Cato Institute has had trouble accepting, by the way--and neither does it work well for political forecasting when the media is changing constantly and when there are dedicated people out there trying to upend things and bring about something new.

So, Mr. Taylor: You might be right, but get this--we exist to prove you wrong. We're working a lot harder at it than you are; and we have the energy and the new ideas, where you merely have conventional wisdom.

Let me leave you with a quote from a group of MIT kids who want to change the auto industry: "We are the people we have been waiting for and it is more than time to take action."

That's us--and you're Detroit, Mr. Taylor. Congratulations.