Everyone who has been paying attention knows that there is a strong anti-science movement in this country — driven partly by populist anti-intellectualism, but increasingly by corporate interests that just don’t like what science has to say. It’s an old problem — tobacco companies succeeded for years in sowing doubt about the health effects of smoking — but it’s become significantly worse in recent years.
Nina Fedoroff is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which is holding its annual meeting right now. She is not holding back about the problem, but tackling it directly. From a weekend article in the Guardian (h/t Dan Gillmor):
“We are sliding back into a dark era,” she said. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.”
Tim F. at Balloon Juice points to this flowchart at Climate Progress that illustrates how the money and message gets sent around to sow doubt about scientific findings. (Okay, it’s not really a flow chart, but you get the point.) I was also struck by a link to an older article by Ian Sample, which put the problem in its starkest terms: the American Enterprise Institute was offering $10,000 to scientists and economists who were willing to write op-eds or essays critiquing the IPCC climate report — before it was published. Money goes a long way.
Relatedly, here’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg trying to push the Supreme Court away from its ruling in Citizens United, the notorious case that led to the creation of SuperPACs by deciding that corporations were persons, and not letting them advertise anonymously would be a grievous violation of their free-speech rights. We’ll see how well she does. Scientists, meanwhile, need to keep speaking out about the integrity of our field. When researchers are attacked and their jobs threatened by politicians who disagree with their results, it’s time to stand up for what science really means.
That people are afraid to say what I said is only a testament for the dysfunctionality of our society – we face a very serious problem and we can not even talk about it. What I said follows directly from our current understanding of the Earth’s climate. Our best explanation for previous mass extinctions with the notable exception of the K-T event is extreme global warming leading in the worst cases to an anoxic ocean with everything that follows from that. And we’re heading for CO2 concentrations that were last seen the last time that happened. Of course, even much smaller warming can prove fatal to the highly tuned system of world agriculture.
The only way the above will not happen is if civilization collapses before it happens due to shortage of fossil fuels and CO2 remains below 500-600ppm. But that’s the very thing we’re trying to avoid.
I repeat – that nobody can state the above in public without risking being labeled a lunatic is pure insanity. Especially given that what actually drives denialism is even more insane and it is starting to come out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ8iXYrFMdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGEOFipx70U
Ever noticed that there is not a single creationist that is not a global warming denialist?
What kind of society is that in which it is perfectly OK to be a religious fanatic and to run for president as such but to seriously discuss what logically follows from the best understanding of the world science can provide at present is not OK?
GM,
I understand that you do believe in what you say and that your concerns are sincere. The problem is that your concerns are based on predictions and predictions are not fact. The predictions of IPCC have been always wrong. Now, thanks e.g. to the WSJ debate started by “No need to panic about global warming” even wider audience can see the divergence between IPCC predictions and the data. See it here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html
Ever noticed that several papers published recently rebut IPCC s values of temperature sensitivity to CO2. E.g. here the “tipping point” hypothesis is busted:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/climate-scientists-confirm-that-actual-atmospheric-water-vapor-levels-invalidate-global-warming-tipp.html
You problem is not in having an opinion that dates back to 2007, you problem is your inability to understand that your believe is still a theory and it can be wrong (and in fact it is wrong), and when you ready to pass a moral or even criminal judgment on people who do not subscribe to your theory you find yourself in the same camp with religious fanatics who prosecuted people who have different set of believes about nature (e.g. “Earth is round”), medieval Catholic Church and Stalin come to my mind. There is nothing wrong with society that does not wish to follow Stalin’s footsteps. And now, when it becomes clear that imposing their theories as replacement for fact and jailing anyone who does not agree with them is greens dream, our society see the greens as manifestation of evil.
Having values different from yours does not make anyone a lunatic or fanatic. I do not see how Rick Santorum is lunatic for having values different from values of Greenpeace. I too believe that “man is salt of the earth,” excuse me if that sounds too Jewish. I understand that you hate my values and believes, but here is a good news for you: you can live with Rick Santorum as president and me as your opponent without fear of criminal prosecution for your believes, even if I am convinced that your eco-Stalinist ideology is both misguided and evil. On the other hand, I am now certain that the greens would not afford us the same dignity we afford you (the greens) if you had any power. Thanks to G-d, you have no any power.
Count Nukem,
I gave up debating deniers along time ago. If deniers were capable of assessing evidence in an intellectually honest manner, they wouldn’t be deniers. Therefore, since it is obvious that you are a denier, debating you is an exercise in futility.
So… Whatever you say, man! Don’t waste my time. Don’t waste yours!
Well, we just had someone say with a straight face that anthropogenic global warming is “just a theory” he will not believe in and then turn around and claim that the he firmly believe in the God hypothesis. Either he thinks it is better supported by evidence or he thinks evidence doesn’t matter and all that talk about “global warming isn’t proven to be real” is just a fake concern expressed to hide his blindness to everything that contradicts his ideology. Or both. Either way, he can’t be reasoned with – in the former case he is incapable of evaluating evidence (and let me be very blunt once again and say that no sane person can claim that there is more evidence for the existence of God than for AGW; people ave been sent to mental health institutions for saying significantly less loony things than this); in the latter he is just a lying bigot.
Danial Rosa and GM:
I notice that neither of you are actually presenting any evidence to refute what this article states; you are just back here again attacking people with views that differ from yours.
If you have any actual refutations of the facts as stated in Rawls’ article, why don’t you state them and have done with it? Or are you just here (as usual) to make ad-hominem attacks on “deniers”?
Seriously: if you have something to actually say, why not say it? I’m not trying to tell you to go away, but I am asking what you think you’re adding to any SCIENTIFIC discussion.
I will concede that #8 was on the money; other than that, though, all I’ve seen is rhetoric. Stuff like this:
“Ever noticed that there is not a single creationist that is not a global warming denialist?”
Perhaps not. But that does NOT work the other way around. Just like the “therapist” who tells people that their denial of alcoholism is a symptom of alcoholism; that may be a true statement but you can’t work backwards from that observation and make a diagnosis. You would be wrong vastly more often than you would be right, simply because the majority of people who claim not to be alcoholics are, in fact, not alcoholics.
The majority of “denialists”, as you call them, are not creationists. They are well-educated and even scientists themselves. I cannot prove it at this time, but I am convinced that if you took actual AGW skeptics and compared them with the population of people who believe in AGW, you would find that the skeptics, on average, are noticeably better educated. That assertion is based on the simple fact that anybody can believe what they are told about AGW, but it takes education and discipline to make a plausible argument against it.
As many have. As Mr. Rawls has. Once again: do you refute anything he says in this article?
Hah! figures. I was on the wrong page the whole time. I somehow got here from a different page entirely. Well…
Never mind. 🙂
Anne Ominous said: “The majority of “denialists”, as you call them, are not creationists. They are well-educated and even scientists themselves. I cannot prove it at this time, but I am convinced that if you took actual AGW skeptics and compared them with the population of people who believe in AGW, you would find that the skeptics, on average, are noticeably better educated. That assertion is based on the simple fact that anybody can believe what they are told about AGW, but it takes education and discipline to make a plausible argument against it.”
Ah! You guys fucking crack me up, man!
Deniers, eh? I wouldn’t be able to make this shit up even if I tried!
GM,
how about creating an alliance between Islam, atheism and green movement? I could see you, Sean and Daniel working together towards a common goal. Your shared love for “rationality” would be a very strong glue. And Muslim’s love for execution of the al-kafirun (unbelievers) applied to AGW deniers may help the cause of the green and also create special attraction for the blood thirsty Muslims to participate in the whole green enterprise. Greening the world by slaughtering the infidels, how does it sound? Muhammad would be very proud of such a thing, would not he? Atheists of the past like Lenin would be also proud of doing slaughter for the right cause.
Daniel Rosa wrote:
“Ah! You guys fucking crack me up, man! Deniers, eh? I wouldn’t be able to make this shit up even if I tried!”
Once again, you don’t address the point, and just attack the person. What’s your problem? I mean, seriously, why are you even here where people SHOULD BE discussing the science? Because you haven’t seemed to have any real interest in doing that.
In order for that comment to have any meaning, it would have to refute what the other comment says. So why aren’t you doing that?
I’m asking seriously. What are you doing here? What is your purpose? It obviously isn’t to discuss the actual issues, because you have been doing none of that.
Actually, the majority of deniers are creationists. Young earth creationists are something like 50% of people in the US, other creationists are another 40%. Global warming deniers are a slight majority. Simple math tells you that given that every young earth creationist if also a global warming denier, most global warming deniers are creationist too.
Yes, the most visible ones have some intellectual credentials, but the majority belong to the young earth imbecile crowd. And nobody has any hard stats on that but I am 99% certain that if you look at the deniers with technical credentials, you will find that disproportionately large number of them strongly believe in God compared to equivalent group of people with the same technical credentials. I have found that out directly about a number of them while online. Religion is a very string motivation behind AGW denialism, it’s just that nobody talks about it.
Which article? I didn’t see anything with the name “Rawls” here. Do you mean the WSJ one? If yes, have you ever heard of the concept of a “Point Refuted A Thousand Times”?? Apparently not. Ever noticed that there was a response to that in the WSJ by real climate scientists (which, BTW, only one of those who wrote the original one was)? Apparently you didn’t either. Finally, did you read the RealClimate post on the issue? I especially like this part:
So why exactly should I be refuting the same canards that get used again and again and that have been refuted countless times in the past when I can talk about the things that have not been discussed nearly enough, like the causal connection between religion and AGW denial?
“In order for that comment to have any meaning, it would have to refute what the other comment says. So why aren’t you doing that?
I’m asking seriously. What are you doing here? What is your purpose? It obviously isn’t to discuss the actual issues, because you have been doing none of that.”
I’m pointing out the futility of debating people who only accept an argument if it falls within the limits of their prejudices.
You want so much to be taken seriously… But see, the evidence against your position has pilled so high that, at this point, there can be only two types of deniers: fools (the true believers) or crooks (the liars). I don’t waste time debating fools and liars.
Is that clear, or do you need a longer explanation?
Well, to be honest, there’s a third possibility: maybe you’re just ignorant. In that case, I apologize in advance.
Here’s a few links that may enlighten you:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Climate denial crock of the week: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL029130BFDC78FA33
There, I have all my bases covered.
RE: there can be only two types of deniers: fools (the true believers) or crooks (the liars).
Actually “hide the decline” a.k.a hide the divergence saga tells us who the crocks are. Other climategete emails show who are intellectual thugs. Peter Gleick’s affair shows again who are the crooks and who are the fakers: those are warmists fighting for the cause.
You need to find yet a single instance of clear crookedness from “deniers” side to justify your argument, but you do not have it.
Not accepting your rebuttal of my arguments (because I have something to rebut your rebuttal) that is what you want to call “crookedness. ” Like omitting error bars on the graph you would call crookedness. But, hey , there are graphs that show the entire picture, with the error bars and that demonstrate divergence as well, but it is a bit complex as there are various CO2 emission scenarios etc. Why do you forget about rebuttal of your rebuttal? So such a smear that you put forth could work both ways.
Being decent, skeptics do not call warmists crocks because they do not see merit in warmist’s argumentation. They call you guys crooks because you were caught hiding the divergence, massaging the data (Hansen mostly) and finally one of your own committed a crime. Now he also enters to the hallowed hall of “America’s dumbest criminals”:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/
Point to anything equivalent to that in skeptic’s camp and I may consider taking your words about skeptics crookedness seriously.
Yadda, yadda, yadda… Same old bullshit. Yes, you’re right, Count, it’s a gigantic conspiracy! I’m in it. I got my marching orders from the I.P.C.C., I’m their bitch. Sean Carrol is their bitch too!
RealClimate author points out that if you put error bars on AR4 temperature predictions then modern avg. temperature is within the margin of error. Viola! WSJ authors knew about error bars, so they mislead the public. But what about AR1 and AR2 predictions? Are we still within margin of errors of those? The argument of WSJ article was historic one: that IPCC predictions are good only in short term (after resent report came out) and never were any successful in longer term. Each subsequent AR had to significantly readjust the temperatures. The point is that nothing of long term value had been predicted by IPCC. To refute this argument you would need to consider AR1 and AR2 and AR3 predictions with their margins of errors.
As I mention earlier I will not call you crooks just for missing the point of the argument and misleading your readers. I will not call you crooks even for behaving as a trail attorney. I know though that this is not symmetric situation and you will not miss chance to accuse your opponent of crookedness when there is a technical error or miss-communication.
It is not as much a conspiracy, as a political movement that was hijacked by intellectual thugs. There is preliminary research that suggest that the green have 6 times higher avg. propensity to cheat, lie and steal. Seriously, I am not kidding:
http://scienceline.org/2010/03/going-green-can-make-you-mean/
If you are fighting for cause to save Earth then such big goal justified any means, doesn’t it? As long as you are helping to save humanity, it is OK to misrepresent your results and even commit a crime.
Count, you should really read this wikipedia entry:
Psychological projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Daniel,
I know what is “projection” in psychology. What is the evidence for your tacit accusations? please remember that accusing people (even tacitly) without any evidence is a form of thuggery.
A denier asking me about “evidence”! Ah! Funny!
I’m just reverse trolling you, man. And getting a laugh out of it too!
I mean, how can I make it any clearer? I have said I don’t debate deniers a few times already. To put it simply, I don’t take you seriously!
Daniel @ #70,
It is OK. My last words to you: if you steal something from HE or Kato Institute to make your point, then do not suggest that it is unwillingness of skeptics to engage in debates made you to commit the crime. And, do not mind that I or anyone else may suspect that you can go that low. Peter Gleick also refused HE personal invitation for debates and then cited HE unwillingness to engage in debates as excuse for his frustration and crime against HE. That is what we may expect from warmists.
Really? Tell me, did you read that on a denier web site, or did you just made that up?
Mmmm, you probably read that on a denier site. You don’t seem particularly creative.
GM,
You sound as a Muslim forced to practice taqiya and pretend that you are a man of reason and tell to your infidel supervisors ( whom you really hate) that Islam supports science and is not related to creationism. As any average Muslim you are a taqiya practitioner and this AGW question is not a big deal for you, is it? I want you to know about something more important for you personally. Blogger Ali Sina accuses Muhammad of being:
a narcissist a misogynist a rapist
a pedophile a lecher a torturer
a mass murderer a cult leader an assassin
a terrorist a mad man a looter
See http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
If you can prove that Islam is somehow was founded on reason (as you briefly mentioned in #8 ) then you may debate Ali Sina and may be you will win $50K.
Daniel @#72,
You don’t seem particularly sober. You sound as a Mexican intoxicated with half bottle of Tequila. Take it easy man, downgrade your drinks to two bottles of bear a day and may be you would have more time to write your papers on radio-astronomy. I am sure you are already very creative in your field but, if you stop drinking, may be you will also have time left to look at AGW related work and make independent opinion for yourself. For this I can’t be sure as most physicists are extremely dumb when they are taken out of their comfort zone . If they do not talk about physics, they tend to sound as morons . Get a physicist to talk about anything else than physics and he sounds as a moron. I wonder , how they can get married and get children? Is there any famous physicist whose wife is really beautiful?
Your posts are devolving into sheer lunacy at this point. Where exactly did I say anything of the sort in #8?