A repeated theme I touch on here is the false equivalency that is presented in the media as a whole on issues such as climate change. In reading and listening over the past week, I have come across a couple of things that I want to use to illustrate this point again, so that readers can help identify it when it happens.
The false equivalency typically works in one of two ways, either by giving equal time or voice to both sides of an argument, regardless of the weight or validity of the two sides, or by treating both arguments as “faith”, even if one is wholly based on the scientific method and has a wealth of empirical evidence to support it, and the other is just a belief based on nothing more than a single instance anecdotal evidence. Some journalistic outlets do the false equivalency thing to appear to be fair, and others (like anything owned by Rupert Murdoch) do it as a means to obfuscate genuine debate.
The latest example of this crappy practice is at the Wall Street Journal, where they gave over their opinion page on 27 January to a letter from 16 “concerned scientists and engineers” in No Need To Panic About Global Warming. Interestingly enough, the WSJ declined to print a rebuttal on the basis that they were only supplying “the other side of the argument” and that the position of the actual Union of Concerned Scientists is already well known. The rebuttal can be found signed by 250 members of the National Academy of Science in the peer reviewed journal Science right here.
Note that I am not going to attack the 16 authors of the WSJ piece on the fact that they are working outside their area, as I feel (like climate deniers don’t) that anyone who agrees to follow the scientific method is allowed to have a view on scientific issues. What I will attack them on is a line from their piece, “cui bono” (follow the money), because thats one of my favourite games, baby. As I have said before and I will say again, anytime a right wing authoritarian accuses you of something, you can bet they have done it already. The 16 say follow the money because all these academics get their money from government grants and they need to keep those coming. Really. Well, cui bono with regard to these 16 and you will find (credit to Media Matters):
Roger Cohen and Edward David are both former employees of ExxonMobil. William Happer is the Chairman of the Board for the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from Exxon. Rodney Nichols is also on the boards of the George Marshall Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which has been funded by Exxon and the Koch Foundations. Harrison Schmitt was the Chairman Emeritus of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, which was funded by oil refiners and electric utilities in the 1990s, according to a Wall Street Journal report (via Nexis). Richard Lindzen also served on the Economic Advisory Council of the Center, was funded by ExxonMobil through the 2000s.
See, the truth is that while you may be able to scrape together 16 people to support most anything (especially if you have a shitload of cash), and some of them might even have impressive resumes, the fact remains that the vast vast vast majority of people that work in peer reviewed area of climate science agree on the specific points raised in the rebuttal:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our
atmosphere. A single cold and snowy winter in Washington or Europe does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due
to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being
overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations
in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities
and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Now, while these points above are concerning, I note that they don’t anywhere say “panic”. They do say “do something”, which is what I and others have been advocating for years, and while their should be some urgency, given how hard it is to change inertia, that does not equate to freaking out or being irrational.
Which brings me to the other form of equivalency that really pisses me off: when I hear anyone (but typically a climate change denier) claim that belief in climate change is like a religion and anyone who believes in it is irrational. Excuse me, but fuck off. A logical and evidence based conclusion that is founded in the scientific method and is continually peer reviewed by actual expertise so that it can be tuned is not a religion, and frankly I see some projection going on there. Bill Maher (and his writers) do such a good job of addressing this issue in another context that is equally valid, I will just give time over to him.
Try this for an experiment. The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, ask them their views on god. I have 2:1 that they are big believers that either their god will save them, or better yet that its all part of the rapture.
#1 by klem on February 7th, 2012
“The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, ask them their views on god. I have 2:1 that they are big believers that either their god will save them, or better yet that its all part of the rapture.”
I just did that, I asked 8 people in my office who are all climate deniers. And all of them are atheist, and they said that the only one who will save them is themselves, and to keep those socialist eco-marxist tofu eaters out of their lives. Its just like you said would happen. Wow.
#2 by Sgt Hulka on February 7th, 2012
OK Klem, so you got your point approved. I assume your point is that I shouldn’t be bagging all bible-thumpers by grouping them all together as likely climate change deniers. But the truth is dogmatics tend to be dogmatic across their views, and the scientific method is no more likely to get a look in with their views on spirituality than it is on climate change.
Second point. You really only got your comment approved because it was clearly from a human and not a spambot, you weren’t selling anything, and your post is oh so fresh, having followed my article by less than 12 hours. However, that doesn’t really tick all the boxes required, as you really haven’t posted a view at all, unless it is to insult socialist eco-marxist tofu eaters. Why don’t you and your imaginary office of 8 atheists* post an actual view on climate change or anything thought provoking next time. Otherwise your comment is more likely to meet Jesus than anyones eyes on my site.
* honestly, if you are going to bullshit me, please go for something plausible. I have 50 bucks for anyone that can do an honest poll of their office and get even half of them to admit to being atheists in public.
#3 by Sgt Hulka on March 2nd, 2012
OK, but what the hell does that have to do with zero degrees of balance?
See folks, it happens occasionally. A comment like this comes through and I wonder, as I flush all the other spam, could that possibly come from a human? Its obviously not out of a random word generator, not badly written and makes a good point, provided we take into account effect on GDP just prior to providing that advice to everyone in the country all at once. But its got to go, I reckon.
Tell you what, hoorgorbizelo. You have a few days to come back and see that your comment got up, and make another one, but the next one needs to be on the subject, or at least have an interesting segue. If you don’t, I’ll trash it.