Denialism

If I find out about your study on Uncommon Descent first, it’s a bad sign

—

by

MarkH
in

I want to point out two things about the anti-consensus report the anti-AGW denialists are spreading as if it is an actual scientific document. For one, if the first place I read about it is when it’s promoted on Uncommon Descent, you immediately lose about 99.9% of your credibility. I’d be a little embarassed if my staunchest allies were people who historically denied the link between cigarettes and cancer – like Milloy and Singer – or those who deny evolutionary science – like the cranks at UD. Maybe they need to stop, try developing some insight into why this is happening, and maybe realize the magnetism of other obvious cranks to their ideas is what is known as a bad sign.

But hey, that’s not reason in itself to reject this latest nonsense from Senator Inhofe out of hand. Nor is his recent announcement he’s proud to be referred to as a holocaust denier. The best reason to reject this nonsense immediately is that they couldn’t even break 400 signatures.

Hell, even the IDers can get 700 signatures of other cranks that deny evolution. The global warming denialists barely broke 400, and we’re supposed to be impressed?

The list and promoters in from the EPW link is a who’s who of climate crankery. Everyone from Lindzen, to Motl, to Singer, to the AEI is prominently cited. As usual, none of these people have any actual expertise in this field. They should start writing for JPANDS next to expand their portfolio of denier papers, and send their nonsense to Uncommon Descent’s list of scientists who deny evolution. I guarantee they’ll double their numbers within a week, if there isn’t already significant overlap.

* Update * Joseph Romm takes apart the report and the so-called scientists that super-crank Inhofe has gathered to pad his report. I salute his efforts, but like I say, all you had to do is look at the purveyors of the nonsense and save yourself some time.

Comments

  1. Dunc

    They didn’t even break 400 – it turns out many of the names appear more than once. Fun and games is had in comments on Deltoid.

    Reply
  2. bob koepp

    I’ve never visited Uncommon Descent, so maybe that’s why it wasn’t there that I first heard about the “anti-consensus report” that’s got you upset.

    Using your “logic,” if one first heard about quantum uncertainty from new age nutjobs, modern physics would be immediately suspect.

    Yeah, Lindzen doesn’t know squat about atmospheric physics…

    I know, I know. I’m in denial.

    Reply
  3. Boris

    Well, Lindzen is pretty qualified. But since his iris effect paper tanked all the “research” he’s been doing is misleading stuff about the consensus crushing dissent.

    And they’re touting the Schwartz paper, which took James Annan all of five minutes to shred.

    Reply
  4. minimalist

    bob,

    The difference is that I have not yet heard of a new age nutjob who could accurately characterize any aspect of quantum physics. You might find out about the [i]words[/i] “quantum uncertainty” there, but you sure wouldn’t get anything approaching a precise scientific description.

    Mark’s point is, evolution deniers and AGW deniers are frequently hand-in-hand political allies. I don’t think you’ll find any physicists who view newagers as anything other than nutcases who misunderstand and abuse their science. Newagers sure aren’t advocates for science funding or anything else remotely useful for humanity, so there’s simply no alignment between scientists and newagers.

    Reply
  5. Jim Ramsey

    Mark,

    The holocaust snark at Inhofe is a little thin. He’s only proud of “some” of those names he’s been called.

    Inhofe is bad enough without trying to trip over Godwin’s law.

    Reply
  6. Kyle

    I agree with global warming but when environmentalism becomes religious and puts animals or trees above human beings then I have a problem with it. It?s not that global warming is not a moral issue but I refuse to worship ?mother earth? and humans are important. As well, when horrible ideas, in my opinion, like the Kyoto protocol are implemented, which affects both the sovereignty and the economy of a nation but fails in dealing with climate change; I have a problem with it. Development is necessary in helping impoverish nations and places in Africa or Asia have the same right to become industrialized just as Europe or America had done. The same goes for the current industrialized nations for we must allow some form of steady development in order to keep stability/sustainability. However, I believe that we can utilize both the Jeffersonian and Hamilton views of development this time around and with the right ideas they will complement each other very well.

    I don?t think it?s good to have people denying global warming but at the same time I don?t believe it?s good to have people misuse the concepts of global warming for their own initiative or makeup anything about global warming without hard evidence.

    Humanity should come together and workout our issues but ultimately come to an agreement on solving this very real issue. It amazes me that people are still arguing over the issue of global warming and how people and the things we do affect the environment.

    The world needs to get off of fossil fuels using more renewable resources. We need to begin more eco-building and eco-planning projects and at the same time continue research to replace the need for oil in other aspects of our lives e.g. plastics. It?s time America stop pandering to the oil companies and get into the real world. We need to get China and India involved as well but I will reiterate that I believe that we can come up with a better plan then the Kyoto protocol or if anything the protocol needs some reform.

    Ps: Keep up the good work guys you’re doing a great job.

    Reply
  7. SomeGuy

    “For one, if the first place I read about it is when it’s promoted on Uncommon Descent, you immediately lose about 99.9% of your credibility.”

    See “genetic fallacy”

    You are not impressed with a measly 400. Obviously you believe in this consensus, yes? In order for you to believe this you should have some general idea of the following:

    1) How many actual scientists are working in the climate change arena world wide (Not lawyers, activists, or bureaucrats)?

    2) Assuming any secret ballot vote took place or poll taken, which really is the only valid way to establish a “consensus”, how many of them would vote “Yes” for AGW? (as opposed to “No”, or “I don’t know”)

    3) The percentage of “yes” votes needed to be an actual consensus. Would 75% be enough for a consensus?

    Reply
  8. MarkH

    Jim, that he mentioned it as part of a series of labels that contribute to his self-perception as iconoclastic or contrarian is highly troublesome. Borderline insane, frankly, if you ask me.

    SomeGuy, Re: the genetic fallacy. I didn’t say that this invalidated the argument or that it can be wrong. I said it was a bad sign, not that anything on UD is automatically incorrect. For all I know, tomorrow they’ll admit the earth is older than 6,000 years.

    One notices when one studies crankery that some ideas are implicitly appealing to cranks. This is what we call “crank magnetism” here. Cranks rarely can keep their unscientific views of the world confined to a single arena, and rejoice, regularly, when they see anything suggesting science, as a whole, just got a black eye. Hence, when UD is cheering joyfully over slights to AGW, I find it funny that more antiAGW types aren’t more disturbed. Hell, if they were pointing out my work as a contribution to the cause I’d reevaluate what the hell I’m doing that would make cranks so damn happy.

    Further, it’s indicative of the right-wing supply of news information. When you see how information is disseminated throughout the blogosphere, there are clearly signs that some people have predominantly anti-science publications that they are scanning. When the information filters to me through UD, rather than something more mainstream, I know it’s come through the right-wing crazy fundamentalist filter. Again, that’s what we call a bad sign.

    Finally as far as your three questions, this has been studied, albeit poorly, by several people. Von Storch etc. Even with deniers getting into the survey and passing it around the crank community it was still overwhelmingly confirmation of the consensus, see here. Also see Naomi Oreskes work.

    Reply
  9. SomeGuy

    I understand the filter, but when you say they loose 99.9% of any credibility just because of the particular site the report is reposted on, well that’s skirting pretty close to fallacy. When Gore responded that no one should listen to them because they have ties to “Big Oil” (irregardless whether or the extent of that truth) I have a feeling that many dolts buy into the fallacy. When you out of hand label them all deniers, cranks, or lacking expertise (I am assuming here you have personally checked the credentials of all 400 and have come to that conclusion?) and thus their opinions on the matter mean nothing, it is fallacious. When you attempt to discredit McIntyre’s work because of who supports him, or something comes from a “right-wing source” it is fallacious because it ultimately has no bearing on the truth of the arguments. You would think a scientist posting about science on his own science related blog would know better.

    Look, not being a scientist working in that specific field, I have no idea to what extent AGW is true. I wouldn’t take some passionate position on string theory either. Its not in my domain. My problem with the whole AGW debate IS the passion, and also intersection of politics and science that usually ends up corrupting the science.

    Are you an expert on climate change? If not, why all the jeering if your just another seat in the peanut gallery like most everyone else? Doesn’t the spectator sport aspect over climate change make you a little uncomfortable? Especially if you recognize that you are in fact just a cheerleader?

    Reply
  10. LanceR

    One more time, loudly for the people in the cheap seats…

    Denialism is about the tactics, not whether we ¨agree¨ with the position or not. AGW is sound science, with (literally) reams of evidence. Deniers have nothing. Not ¨just a little¨, not ¨some¨, nothing. No evidence. No alternative theories. Just denial.

    Read the HOWTO if you have any real questions.

    Reply
  11. MarkH

    I understand the filter, but when you say they loose 99.9% of any credibility just because of the particular site the report is reposted on, well that’s skirting pretty close to fallacy.

    Now remember, we are talking about Uncommon Descent here. One should carefully investigate claims they make or support even if it includes “the sun will rise tomorrow”. 99.9% loss of credibility is being fair.

    When Gore responded that no one should listen to them because they have ties to “Big Oil” (irregardless whether or the extent of that truth) I have a feeling that many dolts buy into the fallacy.

    The fallacy being alluded to here is, of course, poisoning the well. However, just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Remember, these are rules of informal logic, and they are mostly guides to good argument – just like the denialist tactics. An evolutionary biologist could use these tactics and it doesn’t invalidate biology, but it means it is poor rhetoric. In the case of dismissal of anti-AGW crankery as oil-company funded, this is not a completely invalid attack. We don’t live in a world in which one can decide on facts based on some ideal of a perfect Aristotlean debate, where learned men stand in front of podiums and make clever arguments based on real facts. You have to acknowledge the reality that moneyed interests are buying influence, and paying people to spout bullshit. That’s a fact. It doesn’t automatically invalidate arguments but it is a perfectly valid point to make that one must consider the source to see if they are yanking your chain to sell you some bullshit.

    When you out of hand label them all deniers, cranks, or lacking expertise (I am assuming here you have personally checked the credentials of all 400 and have come to that conclusion?) and thus their opinions on the matter mean nothing, it is fallacious.

    Of course not. One of the advantages of running this blog is that I’m pretty well attuned to who are the spreaders of bullshit. When you read the article, and the leaders are Singer, Motl, Lindzen, and lackeys from AEI, there is no point reading further. Why should I listen to Singer? This guy used to deny cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies. Or Lindzen? He’s constantly alleging silly conspiracies and long disproven nonsense. Or AEI, good god! What a bunch of crooks they are. They’re liars and I don’t have to give thoughtful consideration to what they say.

    According to the rules of perfect debate, previous dishonesty, misrepresentation and bullshit doesn’t preclude the current argument from being correct. This is true. However, according to the rules of reality, and common sense, when someone has lied in the past, especially about science, there is no point ever listening to them again. If you want an evaluation of the 400 on that list go to the deltoid link mentioned. My view is why bother? With those frontmen you’re a fool to think this is anything but another ideological attack, without legitimate data or proof, on science these men don’t like.

    Reply
  12. Boris

    I am assuming here you have personally checked the credentials of all 400 and have come to that conclusion?

    First off, it’s unclear if there are really 400 scientists. There appears to be a lot of double counting and counting of economists and other non-experts.

    Second, Inhofe (and his toady Marc Morano) are known liars when it comes to climate science. This has been shown time and time again to be the case.

    Third, yes, it’s the same climate skeptics you always hear about, many, such as Freeman Dyson, are not climate scientists at all. The ones who are actually climate scientists–Lindzen, Christy, etc.–have very few publications to back up their claims and are not really relevant in terms of climate science at all.

    The problem is, these people are noisemakers and not scientists. Because the right wing hates Gore and problems that require some type of government intervention, they have fallen in love with the deniers. Thus, we hear about them even though their ideas have been shown to be garbage again and again and again.

    So, if Inhofe or Steven Milloy come out with something on global warming, I know it’s junk via inductive reasoning and not the genetic fallacy.

    The 400 scientists claim is an exaggerated list of the dozen or so climate scientists who complain to the media about the IPCC, but who rarely publish a thing.

    Reply
  13. Marion Delgado

    SomeGuy:

    Read this blog a little.

    Actually, I, for instance studied physics and chemistry and used to help with data analysis and transmission on ozone layer and aurora research, as well as doing translation for and attending conferences on permafrost and glacial melting, etc. But my basic undergrad training in physics is more than adequate.

    The thing is, the denialists are quite often lying, across the board, and no, it does not take expertise to see that. For instance, they cheerfully offer up energy equations that assume the EARTH IS FLAT. How many years, SomeGuy, of post-doc training would it take you to realize that’s not correct? Is that really so hard? How about them saying the atmosphere doesn’t mix? Or that since the stratosphere is cooling, there’s no global warming? Or that “the scientists” in the 1970s said that human pollution was going to cause an ice age – because Newsweek is “the scientists?”

    Not only is much of their bad science obviously wrong (and the best ones keep their denialism up-to-date, so they can usually chisel away at reality until the data catches up with them, as solar output has, then shift gears), but moreover, we who aren’t climate scientists can evaluate the overall soundness and reliability of “both sides” and notice that one side has gradually gotten all the working scientists, nearly. The other side has mostly cranks and retirees working out of their fields, and even the credentialed scientists invariably have some monetary incentive to call the close issues for the anti-science consensus.

    Which is part of the point of this post. One side publishes peer-reviewed research and it’s widely used and tested. The other side publishes lists (and this is exactly the tack the creationists take) that are not even scientists, by and large, to say that scientists have no consensus. And it’s promoted not through professional channels, but through creationist blogs.

    And gee, why ARE we so passionate? Could it be the track record of proven lies and denialism on tobacco and cancer, on DDT, on evolution, on the ozone layer? The absolutely identical actions and players?

    There are SEVERAL denialist claims you do NOT need to be an expert to know are false. The Earth being flat is one. That CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is another. That volcanos contribute more CO2 annually than human beings do is another. And now that every known measurement set is in rough agreement, that the Earth is not warming is another.

    Indeed the need for expertise is quite the other way. It takes more and more scientific ingenuity to come up with LIES THAT WILL TAKE GREAT EFFORT TO DEBUNK as any and all facts recede from the denialist atoll. On “our side” what takes expertise and credential is knowing with greater precision what’s gone on and what’s likely to happen, and how likely it is.

    You are understating, with your position, by several orders of magnitude the enormity of the denialist position, and hence, the ability of laypeople or scientifically trained people to grasp where the truth lies.

    And by the way, this Inhofe (and yeah, he’s a young earth creationism pusher too) list, in addition to being full of the same name 2 or more times and full of non-scientists, is a trivial thing. Assuming most people would say Richard Lindzen is the most qualified shill in the bag, I suspect we could find 400 scientists named Richard to say yeah, AGW is real (even Lindzen will say that when pushed. he’s just promoting the Lomborg/Lindzen don’t worry be happy position via frauds and morons who deny science because .. well, you can’t be choosy about allies when you’re fighting against the interests of 99% of the planet’s population).

    Climate Denialism has become the dark market god of the gaps. Pairing it with ID is very apt.

    Reply
  14. Citizen Deux

    Marion,

    I read your post with interest. What is the denialism around DDT? Last I read the loss of 20 million souls from malaria due to banning the chemical on unsubstantiated grounds was not denialism. I would also, once again, offer up my complaint on the timbre of this blog. It equates denialism with a number of topics equally.

    Debating the veracity or accuracy of climate theory is not denialism. Any of the IPCC scientists would argue that the science is not yet settled. Contradicting historical record in regard to the Holocaust or concealed studies on cancer and smoking is closer to true denialism. I would submit that those who profess ID as a legitimate science are embarked on proselytizing – rather than evolutionary denialism, although they seem to use some of the tools of denialism.

    Reply
  15. Davis

    Last I read the loss of 20 million souls from malaria due to banning the chemical on unsubstantiated grounds was not denialism.

    Last I read, DDT’s use was never banned in Africa (the continent actually suffering those losses). Tim Lambert has dealt with these unsubstantiated claims repeatedly.

    Reply
  16. SomeGuy

    MarkH

    ” … However, just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Remember, these are rules of informal logic, and they are mostly guides to good argument – just like the denialist tactics. An evolutionary biologist could use these tactics and it doesn’t invalidate biology, but it means it is poor rhetoric. In the case of dismissal of anti-AGW crankery as oil-company funded, this is not a completely invalid attack. We don’t live in a world in which one can decide on facts based on some ideal of a perfect Aristotlean debate, where learned men stand in front of podiums and make clever arguments based on real facts. You have to acknowledge the reality that moneyed interests are buying influence, and paying people to spout bullshit. That’s a fact. It doesn’t automatically invalidate arguments but it is a perfectly valid point to make that one must consider the source to see if they are yanking your chain to sell ”

    The logical fallacy isn’t just about making a good argument to be used in a debate, its also about the fundamental reasoning process. If you derive a conclusion or have an opinion, whether correct or not, based upon a fallacy you have used faulty reasoning.

    You state the fact that money generally buys influence, so we should conclude what specifically?:

    1) All money buys influence?
    2) Only Money representing certain viewpoints buys influence?

    Most scientists, unless they are independently wealthy, get money from other people. Are they all suspect? If every scientist looses credibility because they received some money from “big oil” then should those that receive money from environmental organizations be automatically discounted also?:

    “Dr. XY received a check for $3K from the Sierra club in 2004, so his research is likely irrelevant or only reflects the views of those who paid him.”

    Regarding filters: If some lawyer or cartoonist posts his own quantum gravity theory on his personal blog it will probably be largely ignored. There is simply too much information to know and consider everything on the internet with equal weight. I understand that. But ignoring something to make more productive use your time isn’t the same as a pro-active attempt to discredit someone just because his only a lawyer (or a patent clerk), or he once received a check from the “Einstein Shmeinstein Club”. As improbable as it is, his theory could very well be beneficial for those in the field, or even correct.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *