Ulrich Beck and other theorists of reflexive modernization are allies in the general project to reduce technocracy and elitism by rendering decision making more democratic and robust. However, this study of U.S. climate politics reveals complexities and obstacles to the sort of democratized decision making envisioned by such theorists. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. public has been subjected to numerous media-driven campaigns to shape understandings of this widely perceived threat. Political interests have instigated an important part of these campaigns, frequently resorting to ethically problematic tactics to undermineattemptsat policy action designed to avert or reducethe threat. The disproportionate in fluence of such interests suggests the need for a more level political playing field characterized by more equalized access to power and influence.
Agenda 21: It’s not hidden. 1994. World Climate Review3 (1), 8-9.
2.
Allen, M. P.1992. Elite social movement organizations and the state: the rise of the conservative policy-planning network. Research in Politics and Society4: 87-109.
3.
Aronson, J.2003. Review of Philip Kitcher, “Science, Truth, and Democracy” and Daniel Kleinman, ed., “Science, Technology, and Democracy.”Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (1): 162-168.
4.
Babbitt, Bruce. 1997. Global warming: A call for action on climate change. Speaking engagement at the University of Colorado, Boulder, September 22.
5.
Balling, Robert C., Jr.1992. The heated debate: Greenhouse predictions versus climate reality. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
6.
Beck, U.1992a. From industrial society to the risk society: Questions for survival, social structure, and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture, and Society9: 97-123.
7.
Beck, U.1992b. The risk society: Towards a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Bimber, B.1996. The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
Bliese, J. R. E.2001. The greening of conservative America. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S.1994a. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice—Part I. Global Environmental Change4 (2): 140-159.
11.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S.1994b. Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice—Part II. Global Environmental Change4 (3): 185-200.
12.
Bosso, C.1997. Seizing back the day: The challenge to environmental activism in the 1990s. In Environmental policy in the 1990s, 3 ed., edited by N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft, 53-74. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
Brown, H. G. E. J. 1995. Mythmakers and soothsayers: The science and politics of global change. Remarks presented as ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Science before the NATO/Duke University School of the Environment workshop on global change integrated risk assessment, Durham, North Carolina, October 15.
14.
Brown, P., and E. J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Brown, R. G. E., Jr. 1996. Environmental science under siege: Fringe science and the 104th congress. U.S. House of Representatives. Report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.October 23. http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/archive/envrpt96.htm (accessed November 10, 2004).
16.
Cushman, John H., Jr.1998. Industrial group plans to battle climate treaty. New York Times, April 26, sec. 1.
17.
Daston, L., and P. Galison. 1992. The image of objectivity. Representations40: 81-128.
18.
Diamond, S.1995. Roads to domination: Right-wing movements and political power in the United States. New York: Guilford.
19.
Diamond, S.1996. Facing the wrath: Confronting the right in dangerous times. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
20.
Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1984. Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
Dunlap, R. E., C. Xiao, and A. M. McCright. 2001. Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics10 (4): 23-48.
22.
Edwards, Paul N., and Stephen H. Schneider. 2001. Self-governance and peer review in science-for-policy: The case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, edited by Clark A. Miller and Paul N. Edwards, 219-246. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Ehrlich, P., and A. Ehrlich.1996. Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24.
25.
Ezrahi, Y.1990. The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Fischer, F.1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. London: Sage.
27.
Fischer, M. M. J.2003. Emergent forms of life and the anthropological voice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
28.
Fleck, L. [1935] 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
29.
Fogel, C. A. 2002. Greening the Earth with trees: Science, storylines and the construction of international climate change institutions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
30.
Fortun, K.2001. Advocating Bhopal: Environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Foucault, M.1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon.
32.
Fritsch, J.1996. Sometimes, lobbyists strive to keep public in the dark. New York Times, March 19, A1-A1, A14-A14.
33.
Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normalscience. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding,251-274. Westport, CN: Praeger.
34.
Funtowicz, S., and J. Ravetz (n.d.). Post-normal science: Environmental policy under conditions of complexity. http://www.jvds.nl/pns/pns.htm (accessed August 16, 2004).
35.
Gelbspan, R.1995. The heat is on. Harper’s Magazine. December.
36.
Gelbspan, R.1997. The heat is on: The high stakes battle over Earth’s threatened climate. New York: Addison-Wesley.
37.
Gieryn, T.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Helvarg, D.1994. The war against the greens: The “wise-use” movement, the new right, and anti-environmental violence. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
39.
Hill, R. L.1998. Iconoclastic researcher warms up the debate. Oregonian, May 10, A1-A1, A15-A15.
40.
Houghton, J.1994. Global warming: The complete briefing. Oxford, UK: Lion.
41.
Houghton, J.1997. Global warming: The complete briefing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Houghton, J., L. G. Meira Filho, B. Collander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. 1995. Climate change 1995. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990. Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment, edited by J. Houghton, G. Jenkins, and J. Ephraums. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis report. In Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Jasanoff, S.1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science17: 195-230.
46.
Jasanoff, S. [1990] 1994. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
Jasanoff, S.1998. Harmonization: The politics of reasoning together. In The politics of chemical risk. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
48.
Jasanoff, S.2003. (No?) Accounting for expertise. Science and Public Policy30 (3): 157-162.
49.
Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne. 1998. Science and decision making. In Human choice and climate change, Volume 1, edited by S. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 1-87. Columbus, OH: Batelle.
50.
Kahneman, D. P., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Kandel, R.1991. Book reviews: J. Leggett (ed.), Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1990. Climatic Change 19: 421-29.
52.
Kerr, R.1989. Greenhouse skeptic out in the cold. Science246: 1118-1119.
53.
Klineberg, S.1997. Public perceptions of environmental issues: Findings from the Texas Environmental Survey (1990-1996). Galveston, TX: Galveston Bay Estuary Program.
54.
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Lahsen, M.1998. The detection and attribution of conspiracies: The controversy over Chapter 8. In Paranoia within reason: A casebook on conspiracy as explanation, edited by G. E. Marcus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
Lahsen, M. Forthcoming. Seductive simulations: Uncertainty Distribution around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science.
57.
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Lash, S.1994. Expert systems or situated interpretation?Replies and critiques. In Reflexive modernization, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, 198-215. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
59.
Liberatore, A.2004. Governance and democracy: Reflections on the European debate. In Good governance, democratic societies and globalization: Cross-cultural perspectives, edited by S. Munshi and B. Abrahams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
Limbaugh, R.1994. See, I told you so. New York: Simon & Schuster.
61.
Lindzen, R.1993. Absence of scientific basis. Research and Exploration (National Geographic Society)9 (2): 191-200.
62.
Lindzen, R. 1995. Statement to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Docket No. E-999/CI-93-583. Before the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota: In the Matter of the Quantification of Environmental Costs Pursuant to laws of Minnesota, 1993, chapter 356, section 3, volumes 8, 9, 10. St. Paul, MN, May 22.
63.
Long Martello, M.2001. A paradox of virtue?: “Other” knowledges and environment development politics. Global Environmental Politics1 (3): 114-141.
McCright, A. M. 1998. Challenging global warming as a legitimate social problem: a case study of the conservative movement’s counter-claims regarding global warming. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
66.
McCright, A. M., and R. E. Dunlap. 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems47 (4): 499-522.
67.
McCright, A. M.2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50 (3): 348-373.
68.
Michaels, P. J.1992. The sound and the fury: The science and politics of global warming. Washington, DC: CATO Institute.
69.
Moss, R. H.1995. The IPCC: Policy relevant (not driven) scientific assessment. A comment on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen’s “Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice.”Global Enviromental Change5 (3): 171-174.
70.
Mulkay, M. J.1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information15: 637-656.
Newman, B. I.1999. The mass marketing of politics: Democracy in an age of manufactured images. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
New York Post. 2001. The politics of warming. Op-Ed. Headlines. Yahoo! News. June 12. http://www.news.yahoo.com (accessed June 12, 2001).
74.
New York Times. 2003. Censorship on global warming. June 20. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/opinion/20FRI1.html.
75.
Pielke, R. A., Jr.1997. Asking the right questions: Atmospheric sciences research and societal needs. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society78 (2): 255-264.
76.
Pielke, R. A.2002. Policy, politics and perspective: The scientific community must distinguish analysis from advocacy. Nature416 (March 28): 367-368.
77.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2001. Participatory democratization reconceived. Futures33: 407-422.
78.
Programon International Political Attitudes. 1998. Americans on globalwarming. College Park: University of Maryland.
79.
Rampton, S., and J. Stauber. 2001. Trust us, we’re experts! How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Penguin.
80.
Revkin, A. C., and K. Q. Seelye. 2003. Report by the E.P.A. leaves out data on climate change. The New York Times. June 19. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html (accessed June 20, 2003).
81.
Ricci, D. M.1993. The transformation of American politics: The new Washington and the rise of think tanks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
82.
Robinson, A. B., and Z. W. Robinson. 1997. Science has spoken: global warming is a myth. Wall Street Journal, December 4, A22-A22.
83.
Sabel, C., A. Fung, and B. Karkkainen. 2000. Beyond backyard environmentalism. Boston: Beacon.
84.
Salisbury, S.1997. Waging the war of ideas: The political impact of conservative think tanks and foundations has liberals asking: “How do they do it?”Sunday Camera, September 21, 4E-4E.
85.
Saloma, J. S., III. 1984. Ominous politics: The new conservative labyrinth. New York: Hill and Wang.
86.
Samuel, J.2003. Civil society and other plastic phrases. World Social Forum, Porto Alegre, Brazil. http://www.portoalegre2003.org (accessed January 15, 2003).
87.
Sarah Scaife Foundation. 1996. Grants paid in 1996. http://www.scaife.com/sarah04.html (accessed April 17, 1998).
88.
Schattschneider, E. E. [1960] 1975. The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
89.
Schneider, Stephen H. 1993. Is the “scientist-advocate” an oxymoron? Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science presented at the (AAAS) Annual meeting, Boston, February 12.
90.
Science and Environmental Policy Project. 1992. Scientists speak out against proposed UNCED regulations. News release. Washington, D.C: Author.
91.
Science. 1991. Can PR cool the greenhouse? June 28.
92.
Science. 1998. Advocacy mailing draws fire. April 10.
93.
Scott, J. C.1998. Seeing like a state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
94.
Seitz, F.1996. Major deception on global warming. Wall Street Journal. June 12.
95.
Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
96.
Singer, S. F.1991. Global warming: Do we know enough to act? In Environmental protection: Regulating for results, edited by K. Chilton and M. Warren. Boulder, CO: Westview.
97.
Singer, S. F.1992. Warming theories need warning label. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June, 34-39.
98.
Soley, L.1991. Right thinking conservative think tanks. Dissent38 (3): 418-420.
99.
Stefancic, J., and R. Delgado. 1996. No mercy: How conservative think tanks and foundations changed America’s social agenda. Philadelphia: Temple University.
100.
Thompson, M., and S. Rayner. 1998. Cultural discourses. In Human choice and climate change: Volume 1, edited by S. Rayner and E. L. Malone, 265-343. Columbus, OH: Batelle.
101.
Toumey, C. P.1996. Conjuring science: Scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
102.
Turner, S.2001. What is the problem with experts?Social Studies of Science31 (1): 123-149.
103.
United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. 2000. Chapter One: Global perspectives. http://www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/index.htm (accessed November 10, 2004).
104.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1995. Hearing on scientific integrity and the public trust: The science behind federal policies and mandates. Case study 1: Stratospheric ozone: Myths and realities, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, 104th Congress (1st, trans.).
105.
U.S. Newswire. 2002. On Earth Day: ALEC releases new report on global warming and Kyoto Protocol: Kyoto Protocol “environmentally irrelevant.”Yahoo! News. April 22. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020422/180/1fll8.html (accessed April 24, 2002).
106.
van der Sluijs, J., J. C. M. van Eijndhoven, S. Shackley, and B. Wynne. 1998. Anchoring devices in science for policy: The case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science28: 291-323.
107.
Visvanathan, S.1997. A carnival for science: Essays on science, technology and development. New Delhi, India: Oxford University.
108.
Washington Post. 1998. Before fame, they were “Petition Girls.” May 1.
109.
Wennerås, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature387 (May 22): 341-343.
110.
Western Fuels Association, Inc.1993. Annual report. Westminster, CO: Author.
111.
World Climate Report. 2001. Win the Kyoto argument. Vol. 6, no. 15.
112.
Wynne, B.1994. Scientific knowledge and the global environment. In Social theory and the global environment, edited by M. J. Redclift and T. Benton, 169-189. London: Routledge.
113.
Wynne, B.1996. SSK’s identity parade: Signing-up, off-and-on. Social Studies of Science26 (2): 357-391.
