<p>*...Even in science classes, the political bias seems unavoidable. A student in Berkeley's Computer Science 61AC wrote, "How does a statement like 'Nothing Saddam has done could be any worse than what George Bush has done' find its way into a computer science lecture?"... *</p>
<p>UC</a> system faculty replaces academics with activism - latimes.com</p>
<p>wow did a professor said that?..That’s really bad. How the heck do they dare infuse opinionated thought in a semi-quantitative subject like Computer Science.</p>
<p>I’ve never had anything like that happen in my math or science or engineering classes though so maybe it is an isolated in the STEM courses? Although I only noticed an ideology like that in one of my humanities courses, so I can’t say it’s widespread based on my experiences.</p>
<p>61AC? Man, I’d love to take an AC class offered by the Computer Science department. The history of computing in America. Or something like that.</p>
<p>Of course, CS 61AC is a non-existent course, and the statement (if it was actually mentioned in a CS course) was probably taken out of context by this particular conservative organization (National Association of Scholars) for the purposes of the op-ed. (The context probably being as a ridiculous-seeming statement for which one may be testing the truth of.)</p>
<p>Regarding the 10:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the science faculty, is that any surprise when the Republicans seem to have wedded themselves to creationism / intelligent design, and ideological arguments against even the possibility of human influenced global warming?</p>
<p>^Well said, ucbalumnus. This reminds me of the recent case of Naomi Schaefer Riley’s piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Apparently, she concluded that African-American Studies in this country should be eliminated based on her reading of the titles and four or five sentence synopsis of the dissertation projects (all in progress) of several Northwestern doctoral students. The outcry at The Chronicle was not so much that it published articles of a certain ideological tint (right, left, or whatever) but that it failed as a gatekeeper of reasonably rigorous analysis and ideas. The Chronicle subsequently issued an apology. Likewise, one would expect certain professional standard at LA Times. Surely there are more rigorous conservative thinkers out there.</p>
<p>I always thought people who were truly intelligent on political issues would have more moderate objective views on both liberal and conservative perspectives. I’d always thought only uninformed people had radical fundamentalist conservative or liberal views, but maybe I’m wrong.</p>
<p>EECS might be based in binary, but the real world is one large gray area imo and to treat real world humanities and social science issues as binary (Red or Blue, liberal or conservative, true or false) is quite ridiculous imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, to be fair, that’s quite the exaggeration, is it not? Seems to me that only a small minority of Republicans in academia, other than perhaps those in Religious Studies, have not ‘wedded’ themselves to creationism/intelligent-design, but merely proffer them as possibilities, and sometimes only use them metaphorically (i.e. that God ‘intelligently designed’ or ‘created’ the conditions of the Big Bang). </p>
<p>Similarly, only a tiny minority of Republican academics have categorically ruled out the possibility of anthropogenic climate change. [Richard</a> Lindzen](<a href=“http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm]Richard”>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) of MIT is arguably the vanguard of what has been deemed ‘conservative climate change denial’, yet even he does not claim that anthropogenic climate change is utterly impossible. He merely states that there are other possible explanations that need to be explored. Indeed Lindzen once famously offered the possibility of a wager of what the future world’s temperature would be. {Unfortunately, the participants could not agree upon terms and payouts.} Yet even Lindzen’s most vehement detractors readily concede that he is a brilliant climatologist.</p>
<p>{In fact, if anything, I would argue that whatever ideological issues within the scientific community regarding climate change seem actually to be more prevalent on the political left, in the following sense. It is perfectly valid - indeed expected - for the scientific climatology community to state that they have evidence to believe that the Earth is warming at a certain rate, that such warming is likely to continue and may even accelerate in the future, and that man-made activities are the probable source of that warming. But it is unscientific - but rather ideological - for those very same scientists to then declare that society should then adopt remedies such as carbon taxation, cap-and-trade, reforestation, or similar policies to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. However desirable you may think those policies are, they are clearly outside the purview of climate science, for they are decisions that must ultimately be decided on the basis of value judgments, politics and the allocation of cost. That is arguably the scope of the social scientists, politicians, and perhaps even philosophers and ethicists, but certainly not the climatologists. The expertise of the climatologists is bounded by the behavior of the climate. That expertise does not extend to society’s “optimal” tax system, economic/industrial growth, energy policy, world redistribution of resources, and the like.</p>
<p>As an analogy, it is entirely appropriate for nuclear physicists to discuss how to harness nuclear energy and the quantity of energy that would be released under various conditions. But whether society should then harness this energy to develop nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants is a non-scientific question, but rather is a *normative * question.} </p>
<p>But even putting the issues of climate change and creationism/evolution, I would also remark that ideology seems to exert its sway to the political left as well. At the risk of being deeply politically incorrect, how many left-wing academics would welcome, say, a deeply empirical investigation of the social impact of, say, race-based affirmative action (for example, a statistical causal model that estimates the impact of affirmative action admissions upon future college GPA and graduation rates)? Or an investigation of race and crime? Or race and IQ? Or gender and IQ? How many left-wing economists are truly interested in investigating the remarkably high economic growth rates enjoyed by pro-business Hong Kong or Chile?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid that I must disagree with the Chronicle’s decision, not because Riley had applied rigorous analysis in her ideological blog posting (for I agree that she had not), but because numerous other left-wing Chronicle bloggers also similarly state ideological pronouncements without rigorous analysis. Consider Laura Essig’s [musings](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/blinded-by-the-white/44829”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/blinded-by-the-white/44829</a>) on ‘white privilege’ and being “blinded by the white” or [url=<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/black-women-love-and-loathing/35678]wondering[/url”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/black-women-love-and-loathing/35678]wondering[/url</a>] “How can [Americans] hate black women but love Oprah?” (apparently because Oprah “embodied the values of neoliberalism and—let’s be blunt—white supremacy”). Or how about one blogger [url=<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/hp-harry-potter-or-heteronormativity-primer/37356]decrying[/url”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/hp-harry-potter-or-heteronormativity-primer/37356]decrying[/url</a>] the ‘heteronormativity’ of the Harry Potter books and how the stories should have concluded with more gays, single, and divorced characters.</p>
<p>If the Chronicle wants to ban Riley for making controversial ideological statements with (admittedly) weak empirical evidence, fair enough, they should ban all Chronicle bloggers who do so. Whatever you may think about Riley’s opinions, it doesn’t seem to justify singling her out.</p>
<p>It’s funny how you argue how only a small number of Republicans have issues with climate change/ creationism issues etc etc. while you label most/all left wing academics as radical leftists with no room for exception in their ideology. Like the article, you just singled out a few cases of extremism and label it as the norm which may or may not be the case but I personally don’t think anyone can really have a full picture without the ability to read minds and know what everyone is REALLY thinking at the same time. The article likes to point out that political ideology is one-sided in academia and that is certainly true when you try to categorize people into two distinctly universal categories, (if you are not left, then you must be right?? pardon the pun) but unfortunately that is how politics works in terms of getting the message across and getting people into factions to support a cause/ideology. Don’t blame the lack of balance in political agendas or lack of diversity in ideology on the radicals but on how the way politics and perception operate in our society.</p>
<p>Why would a climatologist’s proposed opinions on how to reduce carbon emissions be considered an ideology? How do you know that a climatologist came up with cap and trade in the first place? Nobody said that policy should be implemented by the scientific community, but that community should certainly be consulted when considering solutions to certain problems. Proposed solutions to problems are not ideologies when they are based on science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, exactly when did I ever say or suggest that “most/all left wing academics [are] radical leftists with no room for exception in their ideology”? Please point to the quote where I said or suggested that.</p>
<p>What I said is that it doesn’t seem as if academic punditry from any given academic member from the right is any more prevalent than from the left. But if it is true that a highly disproportionate percentage of current faculty are indeed on the left (as evidenced by voting patterns, and I think that nobody would seriously dispute), then the overall amount of punditry would come from the left. </p>
<p>To clarify with some simple numbers: let’s say that only 10% of both right and left-wing academics engage in punditry. Hence, the vast majority (90%) of academics on either the right or left do not engage in punditry. Nevertheless, if a university has 100 right-wing faculty and 1000 left-wing faculty, then we would have 10 right-wing pundits and 100 left-wing pundits, for an overall rate of 1:10. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s the key: the solutions are not solely based on science, or specifically, not based solely on climate science. Every single proposed solution to climate change has deep implications upon the political economy and society at large - topics with which climatologists have no expertise. </p>
<p>As a specific case in point, any sort of carbon mitigation strategy - whether it be carbon taxation, cap-and-trade, fuel-switching, carbon sequestration, alternative energies, and the like will inevitably result in widespread unemployment for the coal-mining industry, either by banning coal-burning entirely or rendering it more expensive and hence less economical compared to alternatives. That will obviously generate widespread social impacts upon any region that is built upon the coal industry. </p>
<p>Now, maybe you think that that’s good, maybe bad, or maybe you just believe it to be an inevitable price to pay to mitigate climate change. But certainly that falls outside the realm of climatology per se. After all, climatologists don’t study the social, political, and economic impacts of the decline on the coal industry, and they certainly don’t study the impacts of various policies to mitigate it through job retraining or economic/social redevelopment. That’s entirely outside the realm of scientific expertise of the climatologists. </p>
<p>Now, to be clear, I’m not a coal-miner. Nor do I originate from a coal-mining region. But surely we can all agree that it would be highly disconcerting to be a coal-miner, to have your whole community and culture be built around the coal industry, and to then hear climatologists sternly pronounce that the world must implement a carbon mitigation strategy…but then have no response for what that implies for your community and culture. </p>
<p>And that highlights the central issue, for such concerns are not scientific and probably never will be. Like I said, it is entirely appropriate for the climatologists to investigate the impacts of greenhouse gases upon the climate. It is also entirely appropriate for them to tell us what is likely to happen with the climate under various hypothetical scenarios. But that’s where the boundaries of climatology end. It is then up to the rest of us in society to then weigh the deep social and political implications involved with the various options, and that is not a question of science. </p>
<p>For example, perhaps an extreme version of carbon mitigation would indeed stabilize temperatures - but utterly devastates the coal industry, sparking widespread poverty and misery in Appalachia. Is that good for society? Is that bad? Science can’t tell us that, because science has no consensus way to determine what is ‘good for society’. Perhaps a less extreme mitigation option results in some worldwide flooding of low-lying areas (hence, we might lose the Maldives), but preserves most coal-mining jobs. Again, is that good for society? Is that bad?</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing that climatologists should be soley in charge of implementing environmental policy. I was just responding to your claim that the solutions put forth to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is an ideology. Those solutions are based on science and therefore have nothing to do with an ideology. You tried to make a comparison between those who don’t believe that humans are responsible for global warming and those who do and say that both parties are peddling ideologies. The only ones who are pushing an ideology are the ones who dismiss compelling data and evidence that is counter to their beliefs and their beliefs are rooted in a 5,000 year old book that has been edited countless times to serve the agenda of it’s editors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that that’s wrong. Every carbon-mitigating solution is indeed an ideology because they are fundamentally not based on science, or at least, not based on climatology science. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider them, it simply means that their measurements used to consider them must necessarily fall outside of the realm of climatology. But since you continue to assert that carbon mitigation solutions are based on (climatology) science, I would invite you to name one that actually is. </p>
<p>I’ll give you an example. Carbon cap and trade is arguably the most popular mitigation option on the table, being one of the options embedded within the Kyoto Treaty and having been implemented in New Zealand and the EU. Many climatologists openly endorse cap-and-trade systems throughout the rest of the world. But how would we know whether any particular proposed carbon cap-and-trade system would actually reduce carbon? Would the answer be based on climatology science? That is to say, do climatologists devote their research to studying the success/failure of various cap-and-trade systems? Clearly not. Climatologists by definition study the climate. They do not research what happens to cap-and-trade systems specifically. </p>
<p>If anybody could be said to provide ‘scientific’ expertise regarding the validity of cap-and-trade, it would likely be the economists, and perhaps also the political scientists who actually study the impacts of cap-and-trade systems. {Of course that immediately raises the question of whether economics and poli-sci are sciences at all.} They, after all, actually research the impact of particular policies. Economists can actually bring to bear an extensive research literature regarding the impact of price signals, externalities, and economic growth upon incentives of firms to pollute, while political scientists may be able to provide some insight onto the impact of international environmental agreements and trade pacts. </p>
<p>As a case in point, if the United States were to implement cap-and-trade today as many climatologists would prefer, might that simply shift the manufacturing of energy-intensive goods to other countries, thereby resulting in little or no net carbon reduction? Would it result in lower economic growth in the US, thereby depriving the nation of the wealth that could have been devoted to R&D in alternative energy (which might be a faster way lower carbon intensity)? Might it even instigate widespread social unrest in Appalachia due to the loss of coal-mining jobs, ultimately resulting in the US abandoning all future climate change policies entirely? {Maybe the voters in Appalachia would respond by simply voting in politician after politician with the express agenda to repeal all environmental laws and abolish the EPA.} Climatologists have no answers to any of these questions. These are questions regarding social systems and politics, which is entirely outside the purview of climatology. {It’s highly debatable whether the economists and political scientists know the answers to these questions, but certainly the climatologists don’t know.} </p>
<p>So I return to the basic question: how do climatologists actually know that cap and trade will work? Or a carbon tax? Or sequestration? Or subsidies for alt energy research? Do they have scientific proof that it will work? Would it even be possible to obtain scientific proof to answer these questions? </p>
<p>To reiterate, it is entirely appropriate for climatologists to ascertain the exact functional form that characterizes the relationship between carbon and worldwide temperature. It is appropriate for them to then link temperature changes to overall climate changes. It is even appropriate for them to lay out particular hypothetical scenarios stating that carbon intensity of level X will probably result in a rise of sea levels by Y. That is not ideological.</p>
<p>But what is ideological is when they then pronounce that a particular mitigation policy is desirable because it will reduce the carbon intensity by a certain amount. They don’t actually know that. They don’t know how society will modify its behavior in response to certain policies. That’s a question best left for the social scientists.</p>
<p>Did you even read my response? First of all cap and trade was probably thought up by an economist not a climatologist and I pointed this out in an earlier post. Secondly when a scientist says that allowing more plants to grow or reducing carbon emissions will slow global warming they are not making a judgment on weather it is good or bad for society, they are just making a hypothesis about what would happen to global temperature if these changes are put in place. That is the definition of science which is the opposite of ideology. I am not arguing that there are other factors to be considered when making policy decisions, but that is not relevant to my point that predictions about the climate based on the scientific method is not in any way shape or form an ideology. People who make policy decisions can do so based on ideology (even if they have scientific support) but that has nothing to do with my point. Carbon mitigation solutions are just that; SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE CARBON, not ideal solutions that benefits society as a whole.</p>
<p>Did you even read my response? When did I ever claim that climatologists invented cap-and-trade? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that.</p>
<p>The issue is that many climatologists publicly endorse cap-and-trade, whether or not they actually invented it. Now, obviously people have the right to endorse whatever policy they wish. But doing so is a fundamentally ideological rather than scientific stance. </p>
<p>As a case in point, here’s Stephen Schneider, formerly of Stanford, discussing not general statements about the impact of carbon intensity upon the climate, but rather the specific implications of the Kyoto Protocol (of which cap-and-trade serves as one pillar). But wait, Schneider’s expertise is in climatology, not in international diplomacy, market design, or political economy. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4501240[/url]”>A Climatologist's View of the Kyoto Treaty : NPR;
<p>Even more egregious are the official statements of the scientific academies themselves - the professional bodies that speaks for scientists. In May 2001, a whopping 16 national academies of science throughout the world, including the academies of the UK, France, Germany, China, Canada, India, Australia, and Brazil together released a joint statement which included the phrase : “The ratification of [the Kyoto] protocol represents a small but essential first step toward stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases” and “We believe that there is also a need for a major coordinated research effort focusing on the science and technology that underpin mitigation and adaptation strategies related to climate change. This effort should be funded principally by the developed countries and should involve scientists from throughout the world.” (Unfortunately, the letter is behind a paywall, but it was published in the journal Science in May 2001, entitled “The Science of Climate Change” for those who would like to read the letter themselves). </p>
<p>Furthermore, in 2005, the science academies of the G8 (including the United States) along with China, Brazil, and India, released another [statement</a>](<a href=“http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2005/global-response-climate-change/]statement”>Global response to climate change | Royal Society) urging world leaders to take specific steps, including “Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing” and “Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations”. Indeed, President of the (UK) Royal Society Lord Robert May went so far as to [say</a>](<a href=“News | Royal Society”>News | Royal Society) that the “The current US policy on climate change is misguided.”</p>
<p>Now, to be clear, whether you agree with the statements of Schneider, May, or the various national science academies (and to be clear, I actually do agree with some of them), what is undeniable is that they are fundamentally ideological statements, not scientific statements. Is Lord May an authority on the political policy and economics? According to Wikipedia, May expertise is in biology and ecology. Exactly what scientific basis does he have to opine that US policy is “misguided”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However “left wing” and “right wing” are not necessarily synonymous with Democrats and Republicans, since both parties have shifted to the right over the past decade. There may be a 10:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans in a given part of a university faculty, but the ratio of “left wing” to “right wing” may be significantly different (of course, it can also depend on how you define “left wing” and “right wing”).</p>
<p>On evolution, relatively mainstream conservative universities like [Baylor[/url</a>] accept it, but [url=<a href=“http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx]40%”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx]40%</a> of the American public rejects it](<a href=“Department of Biology | Baylor University”>Department of Biology | Baylor University). Presumably, Republican politicians (including Santorum, Paul, and Perry) not catering to conservative academics in its support for creation science. But stances like this may be driving away otherwise conservative science academics who feel that the Republican Party is hostile to their academic subjects.</p>
<p>I believe that one can quantify the pros and cons with something like cap and trade and therefore endorse or oppose a solution while still being confined in the realm of science. For example you could put a dollar amount on the cities lost to rising water levels, or damaged by the increase in number and severity of storms. You can weigh that against the negative economic impact of something like cap and trade and see which is the larger dollar amount. Obviously there are too many variables involved to make an accurate prediction on the actual dollar amounts, but there is enough information available to make an informed opinion. None of this information is based on myth or doctrine which is why I would not consider endorsing things like cap and trade an ideology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but the traits are highly correlated. For example, there don’t seem to be many Democrats who support large-scale income tax cuts for the rich along with zero-ing out the capital gains and dividend tax rates along with privatizing Social Security and Medicare. {And those few who do perhaps ought to switch parties.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In defense of the Republican Party: Santorum, Paul and Perry all lost the nomination. Romney, while clearly a religious man, has nevertheless declared that “I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”, and “I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”</p>
<p>But to your point, sure, I can agree that some faculty might have been driven away from the Republican Party because of the stances of some of its members on certain academic topics. On the other hand, I’m sure that the same happens with the Democratic Party as well. Like I said, it may be difficult as a Democrat to run a legitimately non-ideological empirical investigation of, say, the impact of race-based affirmative action. Or race and intelligence. Or race and crime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid that you can’t do that and still confine yourself to the realm of climatology science. After all, surely we can all agree that climatologists are not trained to calculate the dollar-values of economic impacts on storms or lost cities. That’s not what climatology research is about. </p>
<p>At best, one could possibly argue that such topics are the purview of actuarial science, economics as a science, or political science. But that then naturally raises the question of whether those fields are indeed sciences at all. But even if you do believe those fields to be sciences, they’re not the realm of climatology science. Heck, JavyUCB, you said it yourself when you said “they are just making a hypothesis about what would happen to global temperature if these changes are put in place”. Whether we should make those changes, by the advent of certain policies, is entirely outside the scientific realm of climatology. </p>
<p>That furthermore raises the question of whether maximizing the ‘total’ aggregate dollar savings across all of society is the correct goal of society or whether some other reallocation of resources is more desirable. This is a topic of extensive normative philosophical debate for which there will likely never be any correct ‘scientific’ answer. </p>
<p>For example, suppose you could play God and you had two choices. Choice (A) Bill Gates becomes $50 billion richer. Or, Choice (B) Each of the 1.5 billion people in the world who live in extreme poverty (defined to be living on less than $1.50 a day) receives $30. Choice (A) is clearly better on an absolute basis, the world as a whole is $50 billion richer, whereas in choice (B), the world is only $45 billion richer. But I think many people, including myself, would choose (B), under the simple rationale that Bill Gates clearly doesn’t need the money whereas people in dire poverty really do. {But then I suppose you could argue that Bill Gates might simply donate that $50 billion to the Gates Foundation which would then allocate all of it to the world’s poor, etc.) The upshot is that science does not equip us with the tools to make this decision. Only our personal ethics and values can inform us on how to make this decision. </p>
<p>Translated to the context of climate change, a cap-and-trade policy might well devastate the coal-based economy of Appalachia. On the other hand, it might save the economy of Bangladesh through flood mitigation in one of the lowest-lying densely populated regions in the world. What if it turned out that the economic damage to Appalachia exceeded that to Bangladesh? Should we then scrap cap-and-trade? One might argue that since Bangladesh is a poor country, they need as much help as they can get, even if it requires that Appalachia suffers. But then the people of Appalachia would surely object that they’re poor too (relative to other Americans). </p>
<p>So what choice do you make? Is it ethical to rob Peter the coal-miner to pay Paul from Bangladesh? These are questions that clearly fall outside the realm of science, but rather fall into the realm of philosophy, ethics, and values. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that climatologists who insist on leaving their realm of expertise to opine upon outside topics - whether they be economics, political science, or even personal ethics, philosophy, and values - are indeed behaving as ideologues. That’s the case whether you happen to agree with their opinions or not. Maybe we should implement carbon mitigation policies, maybe we shouldn’t, but either way, the question is fundamentally unamenable to scientific inquiry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But have zero (as opposed to somewhat lower) capital gains and dividend tax rates been popular with mainstream Republicans, especially before recently? Or privatization of Social Security? In other words, are these really issues that, if you polled mainstream Democrats and Republicans (as opposed to the noisiest activists), you would find huge differences in opinions between the party members?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Republicans do not really favor privatizing Medicare. Indeed, in the 2000s, the Republicans passed Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefits) to add to the government provided Medicare without any means of funding it. Increase big government services, but don’t raise taxes to pay for it… though they did ensure that Medicare cannot use its bargaining power in negotiating prices with the private drug companies.</p>