Home > Environment, Science & Technology > History of global warming denialism

History of global warming denialism

February 15, 2008

The denialist campaign has experience, I’ll give them that.

“Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is “no solid” evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Series: Perspectives on Ocean Science”

Whichever “side” of the global warming issue you find yourself, this video is really worth the hour that it runs.  The first half is the history of global warming research and of the IPCC, and the second half is about the organized campaign to discredit climate science.  (Tip of the hat to John Lynch at Stranger Fruit)

  1. Ted
    February 16, 2008 at 07:59 | #1

    A peripheral question: Does elitism and classism play a role here?

    Why do the common people dislike “scientists”? I don’t buy the nerdiness, the geekism, the wedgies. It’s much deeper than that.

    By common people, I mean me, and many people I know. And they dislike them to such an extent that they will do spiteful, self-harming actions rather than submit to their authority.

    The premise that scientists deserve disproportional authority in public policy seems quite *anathemic to democratic ideals and many of the values that we’re thought (that we all have self worth and value if we are productive members of society). Or maybe it’s anathemic to socialist ideals of a classless equality. I don’t know, but I’m interested in hearing opinions.

    *Yes, I make up words as necessary. This is American English after all.

  2. February 16, 2008 at 11:01 | #2

    And they dislike them to such an extent that they will do spiteful, self-harming actions rather than submit to their authority.

    I can make a guess.  There are different kinds of authority.  There’s organizational authority, like that of kings and pointy-haired bosses.  We’re used to ignoring that kind or pretending to go along with it. 

    Then there’s the “knows what the hell they’re talking about” kind of authority, like Oreskes or Dilbert.  It can be intensely annoying to those of us who were certain we already knew how things are.  Especially so when the expertise in question pertains to counterintuitive, nonlinear phenomena. 

    We don’t love people for being right, we love them for telling us what we want to hear.  Social connection matters and it’s hard to connect with someone who tells you that your government, your culture, your suburban home and your commuter lifestyle are destroying the biosphere. 

    It doesn’t help that scientists can come across as smug.  Their mindset is if you can prove them wrong, do so, but associating them with unpopular politicians doesn’t disprove what they’re saying.  Not exactly warm-fuzzy.

    That’s my guessificational approximatitude.

  3. EdK
    February 16, 2008 at 11:21 | #3

    Doctors go through a similar “torture training” to get their degrees and licenses.  You know that some of them can certainly be egocentric, elitist, and unapologetic – “Listen to ME, I KNOW better than YOU!”.  They can also be wrong.  I guess it’s part of being a human being, we all have faults that show through at times, some more so than others.  So one has to become educated in areas where one has no current expertise in order to ask probing questions and to make the difficult choices.

    If we had a true democracy, and all of us voted every issue, I can imagine the chaos of the process and the inevitable self destruction of it all.  So we elect representatives to conduct this process, usually lawyer elitists themselves with their ears to paid lobbyists on most issues.  I would rather see all US elected representatives have some scientific training and no lobbyist influence, but rather access to a set of truly unbiased science/technology advisors.  But how to mandate this (?) … and so it will continue on as is.

  4. Lucas
    February 16, 2008 at 16:17 | #4

    “The premise that scientists deserve disproportional authority in public policy seems quite *anathemic to democratic ideals and many of the values that we’re thought (that we all have self worth and value if we are productive members of society). Or maybe it’s anathemic to socialist ideals of a classless equality. I don’t know, but I’m interested in hearing opinions.”

    I think that a policy like “scientists get 500 votes—everyone else gets one” would be opposed to democracy.  I think listening to scientists and engineers disproportionately in their areas of expertise makes a lot of sense.  I, as a mathematician, should be listened to whenever classifying spaces of compact Lie groups come up in public policy (which I’m sure is going to happen one of these days).  Similarly, climate scientists should be listened to in matters of pollution, structural engineers should be listened to in matters of bridge-building, physicists should be listened to when there is a massive black hole hurtling towards earth and the only way to save us is to create a wormhole by building a giant particle accelerator on the moon, zombie experts should be consulted in times of great need, etc…

  5. Ted
    February 16, 2008 at 16:49 | #5

    I think that a policy like “scientists get 500 votes—everyone else gets one” would be opposed to democracy.

    I understand that the concept of superdelegates assigns 10-15K votes to one super-Democrat to offset the effects of the rabble that brought you Jimmy Carter. We rabble don’t know jack, but we did elect a nobel prize winner, and an all-around nice guy. The superdelegates are there to keep sh*t like that from happening again.

    The decisions that scientists make are not in a vacuum—the recommendations stemming from high level knowledge is not atomic, and impact many social areas—including economics, quality of life, etc. They may be right ideas from the perspective of academic knowledge, but poor ideas from the perspective of practical implementation because they require broad consensus to implement. To assume that the rabble will accept the superiority of your “knowledge-based” solution, is flawed. We simply do not respect people that are detached from the common experience and that take pride in having few experiences beyond academic ones.

    I’m not trying to insult you in any way; only trying to be honest about the perception that academic knowledge does not equate experiential knowledge. I’m a ditchdigger. To us ditchdiggers, experiential knowledge is significant because we are the underclass, and are cursed with lives that we wish to live as well, and have been told that our voices count as far as creating the quality of our lives go. We know that each of us only has a “set” number of tics, and many of us have been busy with productive things, despite not having PhDs. Hence the class aspect to public policy.

    If we were to examine the demographics of PhDs, what would we find? Classless representation or highly stratified results?

    I found the speech interesting because many scientists were aware of the results back in the 1950s but punted the ball downfield with the “technology will solve our issues”. I was fairly self-satisfied that even as a ditchdigger, I was familiar with the studies she mentioned from the 1970s, and peripherally aware of the previous ones as well. However, my view has always been that we are foremost social creatures, and we will all burn together in our complacency.

  6. February 18, 2008 at 16:42 | #6

    The premise that scientists deserve disproportional authority in public policy seems quite *anathemic to democratic ideals and many of the values that we’re thought (that we all have self worth and value if we are productive members of society).

    So if the White House doesn’t listen to scientists for expertise on say $Global Warming, who do they listen to? Replace what is after the “$” with any other area of scientific interest. Hell let’s take this one step further, are we not to listen to scientists doing medical research when the issue is stem cells?

    However, my view has always been that we are foremost social creatures, and we will all burn together in our complacency.

    But in almost any issue there are SME’s and they should be asked questions and we should gather their input. Let’s take an issue that really stands out, teaching creationism in schools. If we didn’t turn to the SME’s on issues surrounding creationism, children would be learning about it in our schools as we write back and forth right now. Would you be fine with this Ted?

    People choose what to be interested in and what not to read about. If you don’t care about Global Warming or care enough to read about the science behind it, then why should your opinion count when it comes to matters of Global Warming? I lean towards EdK on this one, a little more science education wouldn’t hurt.

  7. Ted
    February 18, 2008 at 17:51 | #7

    If you don’t care about Global Warming or care enough to read about the science behind it, then why should your opinion count when it comes to matters of Global Warming?

    How much reading should I do before it counts webs? And who gets to decide how much is enough? And who’ll do the ditchdigging while I’m reading? Will the SME’s take their turn in the ditch while I catch up enough to have a voice in someone’s opinion?

    I’m not arguing that knowledge is bad. What I’m saying is that when a ruling class develops—based on money, knowledge, religion, etc—decisions are made for the ruled classes without much say in their options. Their betters decide.

    Consider countries going to war. Expert decisions made by a few for the benefit of the many. Generally, they get it wrong, and a lot of people die—not because war was inevitable, but because it was *evitable but “experts” decided on a particularly efficient course of action and advised away. Efficient for someone, but not necessarily the ruled class.

    If we didn’t turn to the SME’s on issues surrounding creationism, children would be learning about it in our schools as we write back and forth right now. Would you be fine with this Ted?

    I’m not fine with a lot of stuff. Revisionist history written by the victors taught in textbooks. Economics taught in college that presents exploitation of resources and people as natural. Cheap prices at Wal*Mart that shunt external costs, pollution, and misery on others so that I can get cheap consumer sh*t, etc. But, in the big scheme of things, I consider the issue of creationism taught in schools as a diversionary pastime of a bored and indulged society. I’d prefer that math, science and social sciences be taught so that people get a better understanding, but it ain’t happening in a variety areas, so I don’t feel very smug about the victory of slapping around some borderline religious retards. (Saw the PBS show. Them’s the low hanging fruit.)

    Let me put it in strictly contrarian terms: If a scientist was to come to me and say, “You have to give up X, so that we can all survive”, I’d turn to said scientist and tell him to BIOOHA, because what’s being asked is that I should sacrifice while others—the moneyed, the educated, the leisure set, etc—could continue to live apart in a stratified culture unwilling to share. For my participation in “the program”, I get to continue living as I do, they get to live as they do.

    Now, conversely, if you come to me and say, look, we’d like to survive, here’s the scientist that tells us the climate specifics. But from here out, we’re not going to shift the externality to your burden. Listen to this social scientist also: “We’re all going to be equal; in money, privilege and education”, then I’d seriously consider it because the single focused science PhD is being given depth by the second PhD that affects socially peripheral outcomes. (But that’s not gonna happen courtesy of property laws and our love of ourselves and our dead great white men documents.)

    This is why the Chinese are not going to cap their emissions for our benefit. Because we used the first two hundred years of the industrial revolution to grow rich by pollution and exploitation, and NOW, we turn to them and ask them to give up their chance at pollution and exploitation so that we could live comfortably and they could stay the underclass into perpetuity. We knew this dirty little secret back into the 50s.

    So it’s not likely, under the current social conditions and focus on nationalism (Whenever you see the term “American interests”, equate that to giving the finger to someone outside our borders. They’ve come to think of it as a familiar greeting.)

    —————
    *pretty sure that one’s made up too.

  8. February 18, 2008 at 18:42 | #8

    How much reading should I do before it counts webs? And who gets to decide how much is enough? And who’ll do the ditchdigging while I’m reading? Will the SME’s take their turn in the ditch while I catch up enough to have a voice in someone’s opinion?

    Explain to me why I should spend my time explaining science to the religious right because they are too lazy to read the links I send them? Be they politician, ditchdigger, teacher, student, or whatever. I have a full time job too and since they are too lazy to read about how the world works, or too wrapped up in their ideology to care, I have to spend my time making sure their crackpot theories don’t end up in my schools where my hypothetical children attend.

    This is my dilemma. And is unfortunately the precursor to having an elected body. Would taking money out of Washington make things better? I go back and forth with this one every day. If people don’t spend a little time out of their precious day to read serious literature on the world and even national affairs, then what good is it to remove lobbyists? At least there are lobbyists getting things done from a liberal standpoint.

    so I don’t feel very smug about the victory of slapping around some borderline religious retards.

    Nor do I, but I don’t feel sorry for em. Anyways this is a discussion for another post…

    “You have to give up X, so that we can all survive”

    Where is this happening? Scientists are telling the entire world, that it needs to change so all can survive. And they still get BIOOHA. The scientist themselves are making strides with small action groups, blogs, campaigns to get the science out, funding for action groups and startups. And still they get BIOOHA.

    “We’re all going to be equal; in money, privilege and education”

    But we aren’t. I agree that we all deserve equal opportunity, but that is not the same as everyone is on the same page. I am a socialist to the point that everyone deserves the same opportunity, but I don’t think we are all entitled to the same riches or spoils. If I work harder than Joe and make twice as much in the same industry, all things being equal, Joe deserves his earnings and so do I. We do not deserve the same earning because I worked harder for what I got.

    That said I do think we deserve equal access to health care and education, paid by the feds. If you want to know more on those either read through my past comments on this site or wait for a post on those topics.

    This is why the Chinese are not going to cap their emissions for our benefit. Because we used the first two hundred years of the industrial revolution to grow rich by pollution and exploitation, and NOW, we turn to them and ask them to give up their chance at pollution and exploitation so that we could live comfortably and they could stay the underclass into perpetuity. We knew this dirty little secret back into the 50s.

    Agreed! It’s going to take something more than Bush’s denial of Global Warming and advanced foreign policy skills :-/  to solve the problem.

  9. Ted
    February 18, 2008 at 19:33 | #9

    Where is this happening? …but I don’t think we are all entitled to the same riches or spoils. If I work harder than Joe and make twice as much in the same industry, all things being equal, Joe deserves his earnings and so do I. We do not deserve the same earning because I worked harder for what I got.

    It’s happening right there in your paragraph.

    Do you not think the rich, the privileged, the educated (and the CEOs) believe their gains are entirely or largely merit based? Hell, even the rich that receive dynastic wealth believe it’s their hard work that makes them exceptional and more deserving of the pie.

    And that my friend, that oh-so-logical but so Western, merit based justification, is what will kill us all in the end. That’s the, “Well, I’ll participate up to a point, but *I* deserve more because *I* merit more,”; that’s the grasping status quo that sinks us. Ambition to outgrasp and outconsume the next fellow.

    If we give up driving will the elites stay at home? If we cut down on flying will the elites? The CEOs? The well paid businessmen? Will they accept a universal limit of 500sq/ft of living space per person, no matter who they are? Will they accept the same rations? Doubtful. Very.

    But I’m OK with it because when you’ve been digging the ditch long enough, it turns you into the twisted Morlock. H.G. Wells understood the division of labor between the Eloi and The Morlocks just by looking around. Hard work by one group that provides leisure for others turns us into monsters, hardly of the same species. But makes you all tender and yummy.

    Well, maybe not everyone turns into a Morlock. I’ll just speak for myself there. :-) Damn that cherubic smiling guy! I’m trying to be scary here!

  10. February 18, 2008 at 20:15 | #10

    Damn that cherubic smiling guy! I’m trying to be scary here!

    LOL

    Ted we may have to agree to disagree because you are never going to convince me that Oprah hasn’t earned her share, or Bill Gates, or anyone else that went from nothing to something. The problem with splitting Bill Gates’ pie with everyone else, is that everyone else has less incentive to work hard and innovate because they know Bill Gates’ pie is coming. And future Bill Gates’ think “What’s the point because our pie is now their pie?”

    I will argue night and day against tax cuts to the rich, handouts to the rich, and the ever increasing social class disparity. But not against the rich being rich. If they earned it, good for them. I know my limitations and I understand I do not have the ability to create the next M$ so I stay happy in my middle class place. If I want to work my ass off and become a millionaire I would.

  11. February 18, 2008 at 20:35 | #11

    Ted – I tried some experiments with shutting off the emoticon engine here and what seems to work is putting a no-break-space both before and after the emoticon with no spaces.

    Of course it’s a little difficult to show what a no-break-space looks like without it simply being rendered as a blank space but I reckon you know how to make one.

    I am ambivalent on generated emoticons.  Practically every blog uses them.  But with two years of posts if I shut them off now, it will result in a number of very inscrutable markings in many comments.  So putting in no-break-spaces is the best I can suggest.

    Note that hitting “preview” strips off no-break-spaces so you have to enter them again.  :-/ 

  12. Ted
    February 18, 2008 at 21:17 | #12

    DOF, I was just joking about the emoticons. You don’t need to pander to my wierd requests.

    It was akin to complaining about the weather.

    Ted we may have to agree to disagree because you are never going to convince me…

     :-) I know it’s just me against 25 years of cultural and media indoctrination. Not much chance there that it’s going to work; but that’s the point of self-selected groups.

    And “never” is a long time; hell, in the past I voted republican, so “never” know…

Comments are closed.