Swift boating, stealth budgeting, & Unitary Executives.

• Author: Hansen, James

The American Revolution launched the radical proposition that the commonest of men should have a vote equal in weight to that of the richest, most powerful citizen. Our forefathers devised a remarkable Constitution, with checks and balances, to guard against the return of despotic governance and subversion of the democratic principle for the sake of the powerful few with special interests. They were well aware of the difficulties that would be faced, however, placing their hopes in the presumption of an educated and honestly informed citizenry.

I have sometimes wondered how our forefathers would view our situation today. On the positive side, as a scientist, I like to imagine how Benjamin Franklin would view the capabilities we have built for scientific investigation. Franklin speculated that an atmospheric "dry fog" produced by a large volcano had reduced the Sun's heating of the Earth so as to cause unusually cold weather in the early 1780s; he noted that the enfeebled solar rays, when collected in the focus of a "burning glass," could "scarce kindle brown paper." As brilliant as Franklin's insights may have been, they were only speculation as he lacked the tools for quantitative investigation. No doubt Franklin would marvel at the capabilities provided by Earth-encircling satellites and super-computers that he could scarcely have imagined.

Yet Franklin, Jefferson, and the other revolutionaries would surely be distraught by recent tendencies in America, specifically the increasing power of special interests in our government, concerted efforts to deceive the public, and arbitrary actions of government executives that arise from increasing concentration of authority in a unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our Constitution's framers. These tendencies are illustrated well by a couple of incidents that I have been involved in recently.

In the first incident, my own work was distorted for the purposes of misinforming the public and protecting special interests. In the second incident, the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was altered surreptitiously by executive action, thus subverting constitutional division of power. These incidents help to paint a picture that reveals consequences for society far greater than simple enrichment of special interests. The effect is to keep the public in the dark about increasing risks to our society and our home planet.

The first incident prompted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to argue not long ago that I must respond to "swift boaters"--those who distort the record to impugn someone's credibility. I have had reservations about doing so, stemming from the perceptive advice of Professor Henk van de Hulst, who said, when I was a post-doc at Leiden University, "Your success will depend upon choosing what not to work on." Unfortunately, given the shrinking fuse on the global warming time bomb, Krugman is probably right: we cannot afford the luxury of ignoring swift boaters and focusing only on science.

Pat Michaels, a swift boater to whom Krugman refers, is sometimes described as a "contrarian." Contrarians address global warming as if they were lawyers, not scientists. A lawyer's job often is to defend a client, not seek the truth. Instead of following Richard Feynman's dictum on scientific objectivity ("The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be"), contrarians present only evidence that supports their desired conclusion.

Skepticism, an inherent aspect of scientific inquiry, should be carefully distinguished from contrarianism. Skepticism, and the objective weighing of evidence, are essential for scientific success. Skepticism about the existence of global warming and the principal role of human-made greenhouse gases has diminished as empirical evidence and our understanding have advanced. However, many aspects of global warming need to be understood better, including the best ways to minimize climate change and its consequences. Legitimate skepticism will always have an important role to play.

However, hard-core global warming contrarians have an agenda other than scientific truth. Their target is...