I've been looking at "the climate sceptic" phenomenon for a few years now - in fact the main reason I'm doing the course is to make sure my self-taught understanding of climate science is accurate.
One of the things I've learnt is that it's really important to understand where the sceptical arguments come from. They are not scientific arguments - though many pose as being so. They are almost all ultimately funded by the US energy industry - who are following on from the lead of the US tobacco industry.
Their reaction, when faced with overwhelming evidence of the health risks of their products, was to embark on a campaign of "muddying the waters " - creating smokescreens and fake science to bamboozle the public and politicians that successfully delayed action on tobacco for 30 years. The energy industry very consciously adopted the same tactics - and took them far further. It may seem a arrogant to dismiss such well publicised doubts about such a crucial issue - but there is a wealth of evidence that say the "climate denial case" is an utter fabrication.
Denial tends to be largely based on opinion - so much so that Reddit recently banned denial posts - Nathen Allan - a Reddit moderator and PhD chemist, writing about the ban, said,
(the deniers) "had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamoured by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News".
So who are the deniers? This Skeptical Science blog presents a typical example of the kind of "science" used by the denial machine. On first glance is sounds highly credible. "49 former NASA employees call on NASA administrator to muzzle NASA climate scientists".
It's the kind of headline the Daily Mail just love - especially as the group includes,
" renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds"
though notably - no climate scientists... ...and it is just a letter - an opinion - with no peer review and decidedly not a qualified opinion. But that doesn't stop the headlines - another smokescreen deployed - it doesn't matter that it's fiction - most people only read the headlines - so the damage is done.
"This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science".
In other words, no research, no peer review, no evidence - no science.
The scale of the denial machine in the USA defies belief. Research published last year by Drexel University details the spending by energy companies on "denier vehicles" - and how recently, overt funding from the likes of Koch and Exxon has disappeared from public view, and is being channelled via anonymous funding organisations.
It's seem inconceivable to liberal Europeans that anyone would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence of the dangers of climate change - but money has always attracted the ruthless and there's no doubt that the likes of the Koch brothers, owners of the world's biggest private energy business are among the most ruthless of all, and are determined to scrape and pump every last drop of oil they can.
While there's not a scrap of evidence to support the denial case (and in a delightfully ironic bit of serendipity, a meta analysis of climate change evidence funded by Koch in an attempt to disprove mainstream climate science, conducted by a sceptical climate scientist actually found that climate change was real, warming would be on the high end of predictions and that it was all due to carbon pollution) the political impacts of this campaign have been spectacular.
In a way it's hardly surprising that the USA should be the powerhouse of faith based denial. While stories like hugely influential right wing "Shock Jock" Ross Limbaugh saying: 'If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming' seem laughable in Europe, in the States, Limbaugh can make or break political careers.
It's one possible explanation why in the last US election not a single Republican presidential primary candidate would admit to climate change being "real" - though Emilee Pierce's blog outlines forces at work far murkier than a brash loudmouthed DJ.
The energy industry drive to suppress climate action goes beyond propaganda. A recent attempt to introduce an amendment stating that climate change conclusively exists in a bill being heard by the House Energy and Commerce Committee was voted down by 24 republican votes. They were cast by members who have collectively received over 9 million dollars in career contributions from the energy sector.
The denial movement is strongly associated with libertarian and ultra-right wing neo-conservative politics. Moves towards sustainability are seen as "backdoor socialism" - the latest example is Ohio State Senator Bill Seitz likening renewable energy to "Stalinism"
The power of the denial network is not restricted to the USA - the new Australian PM and the PM of Canada both openly scoff at climate change - both lead countries with massive hydrocarbon reserves - and the scepticism spins over into our own government with increasingly climate sceptic noises coming from a number of ministers, including the chancellor.
So next time the BBC give equal air time to a dissenting voice when climate change is discussed or James Delingpole launches one of his famous rants - be very clear - they are not arguing science - they are representing a slick propaganda campaign funded and motivated by the fossil energy industry.
* Greenpeace have produced a report (downloadable as a PDF) called "Dealing in doubt" detailing the way fake science and the denial story have been driven by the energy industry.
Their reaction, when faced with overwhelming evidence of the health risks of their products, was to embark on a campaign of "muddying the waters " - creating smokescreens and fake science to bamboozle the public and politicians that successfully delayed action on tobacco for 30 years. The energy industry very consciously adopted the same tactics - and took them far further. It may seem a arrogant to dismiss such well publicised doubts about such a crucial issue - but there is a wealth of evidence that say the "climate denial case" is an utter fabrication.
When is "science" science?
Science needs well researched data, proper analysis of evidence and publication and peer review - that's to say - it has to be accessible to other scientist working in the same fields complete with a description of the techniques used to run the experiment, the data, the methods used to analyse etc. If it's not published and critiqued in this way it's not science!
Desmog, a blog dedicated to "clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science" has viewed peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals published between Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. Of 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors only one, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming records - so the degree of scientific consensus on climate change is effectively absolute. The problem with the "other side" is that virtually none of the papers are peer reviewed or meet the criteria for being proper science.
Denial tends to be largely based on opinion - so much so that Reddit recently banned denial posts - Nathen Allan - a Reddit moderator and PhD chemist, writing about the ban, said,
(the deniers) "had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamoured by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News".
So who are the deniers? This Skeptical Science blog presents a typical example of the kind of "science" used by the denial machine. On first glance is sounds highly credible. "49 former NASA employees call on NASA administrator to muzzle NASA climate scientists".
It's the kind of headline the Daily Mail just love - especially as the group includes,
" renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds"
though notably - no climate scientists... ...and it is just a letter - an opinion - with no peer review and decidedly not a qualified opinion. But that doesn't stop the headlines - another smokescreen deployed - it doesn't matter that it's fiction - most people only read the headlines - so the damage is done.
He who pays the piper...
But why would quite eminent former NASA employees go to all this trouble? Well - it seems like the leader of the group is a former oil executive who runs a blog known to be funded by the fossil energy industry. How he put together this particular group is an open question - but Skeptical Science summarises the end product perfectly,
"This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA. It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science".
In other words, no research, no peer review, no evidence - no science.
... calls the tune
This is just one tiny example of the widespread network of false front think tanks and lobbying machines funded by the energy industry.The scale of the denial machine in the USA defies belief. Research published last year by Drexel University details the spending by energy companies on "denier vehicles" - and how recently, overt funding from the likes of Koch and Exxon has disappeared from public view, and is being channelled via anonymous funding organisations.
It's seem inconceivable to liberal Europeans that anyone would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence of the dangers of climate change - but money has always attracted the ruthless and there's no doubt that the likes of the Koch brothers, owners of the world's biggest private energy business are among the most ruthless of all, and are determined to scrape and pump every last drop of oil they can.
While there's not a scrap of evidence to support the denial case (and in a delightfully ironic bit of serendipity, a meta analysis of climate change evidence funded by Koch in an attempt to disprove mainstream climate science, conducted by a sceptical climate scientist actually found that climate change was real, warming would be on the high end of predictions and that it was all due to carbon pollution) the political impacts of this campaign have been spectacular.
It's one possible explanation why in the last US election not a single Republican presidential primary candidate would admit to climate change being "real" - though Emilee Pierce's blog outlines forces at work far murkier than a brash loudmouthed DJ.
The energy industry drive to suppress climate action goes beyond propaganda. A recent attempt to introduce an amendment stating that climate change conclusively exists in a bill being heard by the House Energy and Commerce Committee was voted down by 24 republican votes. They were cast by members who have collectively received over 9 million dollars in career contributions from the energy sector.
The denial movement is strongly associated with libertarian and ultra-right wing neo-conservative politics. Moves towards sustainability are seen as "backdoor socialism" - the latest example is Ohio State Senator Bill Seitz likening renewable energy to "Stalinism"
The power of the denial network is not restricted to the USA - the new Australian PM and the PM of Canada both openly scoff at climate change - both lead countries with massive hydrocarbon reserves - and the scepticism spins over into our own government with increasingly climate sceptic noises coming from a number of ministers, including the chancellor.
So next time the BBC give equal air time to a dissenting voice when climate change is discussed or James Delingpole launches one of his famous rants - be very clear - they are not arguing science - they are representing a slick propaganda campaign funded and motivated by the fossil energy industry.
* Greenpeace have produced a report (downloadable as a PDF) called "Dealing in doubt" detailing the way fake science and the denial story have been driven by the energy industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment