What would change your mind?
The current nominee for the head of NASA, Rep. Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma, has denied the scientific evidence that human activities are responsible for increasing global temperatures.
In a 2016 interview he was asked if there was any data that would change his view.
That was a great question. This query represents a basic principle of science. For any valid scientific idea there must be some criterion that, if met, could demonstrate the idea to be incorrect. In other words, there must be a way to prove it wrong — if it is wrong.
The question requires an evaluation of what we know, why we know it and how certain we are. It demands that we face our prejudices.
It also allows others to evaluate and address the evidence upon which a view is based. If Representative Bridenstine were to suggest, for example, that he would change his mind if there was proof that a fluctuating sun is not causing today’s global warming, he could be provided with that well-established proof.
If there is no new information that could challenge a person’s point of view, one is not looking for truth, reality or objectivity, but instead, defending belief or ideology.
An example was in a debate some years ago between Ken Ham and Bill Nye concerning the viability of biblical creationism. The individuals were asked what would change their minds.
Mr. Ham responded that he was a Christian, and no one could change his mind about God’s word. Mr. Nye, on the other hand, listed several scientific principles (expanding universe, radio dating, rock layers being formed over millions of years) any of which if proved incorrect, would cause him to re-think our current understanding of evolution.
In short, Mr. Nye was referring to concrete evidence from which he developed his conclusions and, at the same time, expressing a willingness to be open to new information. This is how science (or any kind of critical thinking) works.
Certainly, legitimate scientists could point to established tenets of science that, if thrown into question, would cause them to reconsider anthropogenic global warming. One example is the ability of CO2 to hold infrared radiation. Should new, authentic research render that oft demonstrated principle untrue or questionable, the role of human CO2emissions in climate change would need to be reassessed.
Therefore, it was valid and important to ask Representative Bridenstine what data would cause him to reconsider his view that fossil fuel emissions do not cause global warming.
His response to the question was telling. He referred to the carbon emissions of China, Russia and India, and asserted: “The United States does not have a big enough carbon footprint to make a difference when you’ve got all these other polluters out there. So why do we fundamentally want to damage our economy even more when nobody else is willing to do the same thing?”
First, it must be pointed out that Rep. Bridenstine was misinformed. The US has the largest per-capita carbon footprint of any country, and virtually all other countries have signed on to the Paris agreement to take action against climate change. We have recently ceded global leadership in this 21st century energy revolution — probably to China.
Further, regaining our leadership in this area would not damage our economy. Those heavily invested in fossil fuels will face financial reversals, but we would expect to see growth and improvement in our economy once we break free of the costly yoke of fossil fuel energy.
However, the more important revelation of Representative Bridenstine’s answer was that he responded as a politician — “Answer the question you want, not the question you are asked” — rather than as a scientist. A scientist is expected to justify his views with evidence, not deflection.
As a man chosen to take the helm of NASA, which succeeds or fails based on the quality of its science, it is important he understand this new job would require scientific leadership and integrity, not a penchant for avoiding difficult questions.
Representative Bridenstine should be asked that question again and, as taxpayers funding NASA, we need to hear his answer.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 7 days to add 432 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.