CHRIS MOONEY

… people reject the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views.

I think that the world will continue trying to grapple with the climate problem, no matter who is U.S. president. But I think that, depending on who that president is, it can have a significant influence on the trajectory.

Science abuse is any attempt to inappropriately undermine or otherwise interfere with the scientific process, or scientific conclusions, for political or ideological purposes. Science abuse is not exclusively right wing.

The obvious reductio ad absurdum is Holocaust deniers: Should their perspective be provided, for "balance," any time someone writes about the Holocaust?

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.

Too often reporters covering scientific debates give fringe views equal weight in a misguided attempt to achieve balance.

This political movement has patently demonstrated that it will not defend the integrity of science in any case in which science runs afoul of its core political constituencies. In so doing, it has ceded any right to govern a technologically advanced and sophisticated nation.

If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals really, really want to believe that people want to listen to facts.

This political movement has patently demonstrated that it will not defend the integrity of science in any case in which science runs afoul of its core political constituencies. In so doing, it has ceded any right to govern a technologically advanced and sophisticated nation.

Too often reporters covering scientific debates give fringe views equal weight in a misguided attempt to achieve balance.

Science abuse is any attempt to inappropriately undermine or otherwise interfere with the scientific process, or scientific conclusions, for political or ideological purposes. Science abuse is not exclusively right wing.

Tribal affiliation is much more important than policy details.

One of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals really, really want to believe that people want to listen to facts.

If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

… people reject the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views.

Because [scientific] researchers employ so much nuance and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty, scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans scientific data that is relevant to their beliefs is like unleashing them in the motivated reasoning equivalent of a candy store.

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.

Globally, you're seeing a big, big trend towards large installations of renewable energies across the world. You are going to see huge installations of wind and solar in places like Africa. These things are going to happen no matter what. They're going to happen for largely non-policy free market reasons even in the United States.

I think, domestically, one of the most interesting things that you would see under Presidenr Hillary Clinton is going to be the big energy infrastructure transition.

We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

I think that the world will continue trying to grapple with the climate problem, no matter who is U.S. president. But I think that, depending on who that president is, it can have a significant influence on the trajectory.

One of the reasons the United States has actually been reducing its emissions in recent years is actually that there's been a boom in natural gas. It's displacing coal. It emits less carbon dioxide when you burn it. This is not really an Obama policy. It's just something that happened because of technology and the free market.

We tried to talk about [the Owls' zone], but it's hard to replicate it. It's nearly impossible to penetrate that zone. What you do get are open outside shots. You're going to have to make some of them.

Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.

The Obama administration kind of shows how you can use diplomacy to bring the most important countries together and get the whole world on board.

Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader process of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.

The obvious reductio ad absurdum is Holocaust deniers: Should their perspective be provided, for "balance," any time someone writes about the Holocaust?

Although not initially of his own choosing, Michael Mann has been the most important, resilient, and outspoken warrior in the climate battle--responding to threats and persecution with courage and resolve every step of the way. Anyone who cares about the climate issue must read his fascinating--and enraging--story.