Enablers
Sometimes Refuting Unscientific Nonsense Reinforces It
SOURCE: SP
By constantly criticizing and responding to anti-science forces, are we only strengthening and propping them up?
Print
Earlier this month, as I canvassed the global warming blogs that I check regularly—Joe Romm’s Climate Progress, DeSmogBlog, and many others—I couldn’t seem to stop reading about what Romm dubbed the “skeptic/denier/disinformer/climate-destroyer conference” that had happened in New York City—a bizarre throwback event put on by the rightwing Chicago-based Heartland Institute.
Not only does it waste our time, but it may play right into their hands.
On one level, I can understand all the chatter. It was more than a little outrageous that at this very late hour, with global warming so well established as a scientific conclusion and with critical policy decisions yet to be made, the skeptics chose to make a last stand. Indeed, it’s particularly offensive to those of us who have spent years battling climate skeptics, refuting them at every turn, trying to preserve the integrity of climate science and, ultimately, to protect the planet. Again and again, when the skeptics have come out in force, we have dutifully strapped on our weapons and returned to battle. We’re soldiers, and that’s just what we do. It’s a familiar mode.
But it’s also one I’ve come to question. First of all, what is the point of fighting and debating climate skeptics any more? This November we are going to elect a president who has a strong stance and wants to deal with global warming–the difference between the Democrats and John McCain on the issue, while hardly insignificant, scarcely compares to the difference between either of them and our current president. And even George W. Bush has been on record for some time accepting the reality of human-induced global warming.
So we’ve reached a point where we may well be wasting our energies if we continue to battle climate skeptics. Indeed, we run the risk of propping them up far more than they deserve.
For that’s the other problem with constantly rebutting anti-science forces—not only does it waste our time, but it may play right into their hands. Consider: Over at his blog Framing Science, Matthew Nisbet makes a very strong case that the rhetorical strategy of the Heartland Institute is exceedingly similar to that of the anti-evolutionist think tank the Discovery Institute. If so, it follows that the defenders of climate science ought to be at least as leery of outright engagement with Heartland as the defenders of evolutionary science are when it comes to engaging with Discovery.
The reason is that if you actually bother to rebut the Heartlands and Discoverys of the world, you instantly enter into a discourse on their own terms. The strategic framing these groups employ to attack mainstream science heavily features the rhetoric of scientific uncertainty—and so if you try to answer their arguments, you’re inevitably committed to conveying more abstruse technical information and, thus, more uncertainty as soon as they wail back at you (which they thoroughly enjoy doing).
If you create a big fuss over what your intellectual opponent is saying, you might well be helping him or her.
And there’s another important dynamic at play here involving the media. Journalists know that global warming is a big deal, that the presidential candidates all want to address it, that Al Gore won the Nobel, and so on. So when most of them see something like the Heartland conference, their broad inclination will be to look askance at it…at least at first.
But now suppose that this oddball conference comes under prominent attack from those on the other side. Suddenly, journalists are looking at a “controversy,” and there’s nothing they more enjoy covering. And off we go.
There’s certainly a longstanding mentality among progressive groups that nonsense must be refuted, often in rapid-fire mode if possible. But that mindset runs up against something else that ought to be obvious: controversy sells. If you create a big fuss over what your intellectual opponent is saying, you might well be helping him or her. Fox News’s highly publicized lawsuit against Al Franken surely helped sell copies of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. So why wouldn’t repeated critiques by environmental groups of someone like, say, Bjorn Lomborg or the Heartland Institute do exactly the same thing?
Nevertheless—and to stick with environmental groups for a second–they fall into this trap constantly, refuting at length anti-environmental forces at rightwing think tanks or in the media. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund (now known simply as Environmental Defense) both published lengthy studies to refute New York Times contrarian John Tierney’s 1997 attack on the efficacy of recycling, to name just one example. Couldn’t all the energy and resources bestowed on rebutting our enemies be better used to help promote our friends—perhaps, say, by devoting resources to getting the word out about individuals who have written pro-environment books? Rather than reacting, couldn’t we be setting the agenda?
Unfortunately, yet another example of scientific defenders enabling anti-scientific forces has recently come to my attention. The rightwing comedian Ben Stein has a new movie out called Expelled, a supposed documentary about how evolutionary forces are suppressing the intelligent design movement’s intellectually valid dissent. Now, this is nonsense, but what better way to help nonsense thrive than to unleash public statements that would seem to confirm it or to be consistent with it?
Sure enough, one of the Expelled trailers features the following quotation from Oxford evolutionary biologist and atheism apostle Richard Dawkins: “If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.” And then in comes Ben Stein to play the rebel, the Galileo, against this oppressive scientific orthodoxy, against “Big Science” that tells the little guy to “shut up.” How’s that for enabling?
We know so much, we scientists, we science defenders. We ought to know better.
Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.
Comments on this article
The delayers and the creationists need to be dealt with, but I think there needs to be more creativity in how they are dealt with. The problem in both cases is that the people refuting them are generally scientists, and scientists generally deal in well reasoned arguments and evidence. That may work well with other scientists, but it’s a lousy way to communicate with the public.
Marketing firms have known this for most of the last hundred years. When was the last time you saw an advertisement that was based on empirical data, or a chain of logical statements? Successful ad campaigns are good propaganda, and good propaganda can convince most people to believe something that isn’t true. We need to use it to convince people of something that IS true. It seems like it should be easier.
But first we have to admit that what we are engaged in is not a debate, it is a propaganda war.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:40 amCM: “But it’s also one I’ve come to question. First of all, what is the point of fighting and debating climate skeptics any more?”
#1 Because they vote.
#2 Because they run for public office.
#3 Because they influence the media in various ways.
#4 Because they teach their children and want to teach ours.
CM: “If so, it follows that the defenders of climate science ought to be at least as leery of outright engagement with Heartland as the defenders of evolutionary science are when it comes to engaging with Discovery.”
Ludicrous. The after effects of believing in ID pale in comparison to the after effects of ignoring AGW.
If you cannot reasonably prove that deniers will go away if they are ignored, then that experiment is not worth it, because too much is at stake.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:37 amMr. Mooney, you are both dead right and dead wrong.
Bad news first: When scientists and science supporters *fail* to refute people engaging in willfully truth-ignoring emotional appeals, cherry-picking deception, and outright lies – which is the only accurate way to describe the activities of anthropogenic global warming and evolution denialists – that’s when science supporters are enabling the enemies of science. Lies work very effectively on people who simply don’t know any better, and if no one is even bothering to refute the lies publicly, how can anyone ever come to know better? You are simply wrong on this: These people must be opposed, publicly and vociferously, even at the risk of lazy journalists making a hash of the issues through phony controversy-mongering. There will always be lazy journalists, after all, and controversy will always sell – so the result you fear (controversy-mongering) would seem impossible to avoid, and the cost of your suggested “method” for avoiding that result (letting lies go unanswered) seems ridiculously high.
On the other hand, you are on track when you say that SIMPLY refuting the claims of denialists is not enough. However, the wise response is not to give up and remain silent in the face of lies: Rather, scientists (and other critics) should make absolutely certain that EVERY TIME they refute the denialists, they ALSO point out the fundamental dishonesty of denialist methods and rhetoric. Preferably, they can also point out the ways in which the denialists’ methods and rhetoric exactly duplicate those of some other group of cranks that the audience is less inclined to be sympathetic towards, such as purveyors of harmful quack remedies: Certainly there are many parallels, both in general and in specific historical examples, between snake oil salesmen and the evolution/anthropogenic global warming denialists. Hell, there are genuine parallels between the “arguments” and rhetorical strategies of evolution/AGW denialists and Flat Earthers! Defenders of the Enlightenment and scientific integrity should take pains to point out these parallels at every opportunity.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:41 amI debated Chris Horner at Michigan State University this past February.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:27 amOriginaly, someone else with a more generic background was going to do it,
but I begged, and so they let me take it.
My take is that they have to be confronted strongly, and the means they are using to distort made clear. In my case, I was able to show how Horner pretends to use scientific publications but distorts and cherry picks their meanings and conclusions. I also
caught him in more than one outright lie.
The exercise helped me flesh out my grasp of the material, and
helps those in the audience who are genuinely confused understand better how they are being manipulated.
I also think it is important to include positive material about what the alternatives are
that are currently being implemented. I did this in my summation, resisting the temptation to further bash Horner.
This and other experiences lead me to believe that presenting positive alternatives
that are exciting and attractive, we can lead the discussion by opening even those with
doubts to the new possibilities.
Chris, in many ways I agree with you. In Kansas in 2005, we organized a scientific boycott of the Board of Education’s trial of evolution, because it was a kangaroo court with pre-determined outcome. The ID folks were anxious to bring in the biggest names in the world in evolution and biology, to lend credence to ID as comparable and the only alternative.
Our boycott was heavily criticised, by ID, by the news media, and many of our scientific colleagues, as evidence we were afraid to debate and couldn’t stand up to the other sides arguments.
In the long run, the boycott was a success. The news media quickly tired of 3 days of ID “experts” droning on. There was little debate and no substance. TV crews left early.
On the other side, remember the crackpot earthquake prediction a decade ago for the New Madrid fault in Missouri-Tennessee? Scientists ignored it, as nonsense but the whole region was in panic. Seismologists have sense recognized the need to quickly and decisively respond to similar claims.
So, what’s the answer? It seems each event/issue has it’s own dynamics and they may shift during their lifetime.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pmI agree that first-tier bloggers should probably give up arguing with these Cranks because it does legitimize them to their believers. In politics, there are levels of debate. Barack Obama doesn’t stoop to interview with Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, because they are part of the circus realm of politics.
First-tier science bloggers need to stay above the fray, lest the idiots drag them down to their level and beat them with experience. Instead, refuting these increasingly absurd attacks on established science should be left to the second-tier bloggers. It’s gotten so easy to beat these guys up that we can handle it, leaving the more popular science blogs to focus on science.
This is the tactic Republicans use presently. They have the respectable candidate, who’s above the fray, then they have the Dittohead generals, like Limbaugh, who can make all the outrageous statements they want, which effectively appeals to the average person.
It’s obviously past the point of continuing to treat them with a respectful and academic tone, and science bloggers shouldn’t debase themselves. If you engage them, they take it as if there is something to debate. If you ignore them, they take it as validation of their conspiracy theories.
It’s lose-lose. So leave it to the science fans to take them on. There’s plenty of us out here. It’s fun and empowering, like playing football with eight-year-olds.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm“Fox News’s highly publicized lawsuit against Al Franken surely helped sell copies of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. So why wouldn’t repeated critiques by environmental groups of someone like, say, Bjorn Lomborg or the Heartland Institute do exactly the same thing?”
You’re comparing a frivolous lawsuit that made the plaintiffs look stupid to a reasoned critique that makes those being critiqued look stupid.
‘Apples and oranges’ comparisons don’t work, Chris – even rhetorically.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:47 amI would dearly love to see some science blogs without the crap merchant population. You science bloggers would have to read everything, or have a good staff, to delete the nonsense input.
If you could do that, you could really teach the rest of us a lot.
Even sites like RealClimate, which do this fairly well, are still replete with nitwittery postings and people who reply to them and quote them so killfiles aren’t much help.
Really talking about science, asking good questions and seeing answers to them, is a lot of fun, is fascinating, is a community-building exercise, and is a good example to participate in. Make it obvious that there’s a large population of people who either are working scientists, or were all-but-PhDs decades ago and still care about science, and that there are friends to be made in that population.
Just one cockroach can disrupt the whole evening, if someone chases it across the dance floor trying to stomp it.
Eschew.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pmThis was interesting. You seem very knowledgeable.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm