Friday, June 11, 2010

Merchants of Doubt

The following is an extended excerpt from a review in last weeks Science magazine of several books dealing with climate denial. These comments are about, Merchants of Doubt,

...two outstanding historians...have reviewed a sequence of controversies around topics of public concern. In their fascinating and important study, Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway offer convincing evidence for a surprising and disturbing thesis. Opposition to scientifically well-supported claims about the dangers of cigarette smoking, the difficulties of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, the problems caused by secondhand smoke, and—ultimately—the existence of anthropogenic climate change was used in "the service of political goals and commercial interests" to obstruct the transmission to the American public of important information. Amazingly, the same small cadre of obfuscators figured in all these episodes.

Oreskes (University of California, San Diego) and Conway (NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory) painstakingly trace the ways in which a few scientists, with strong ties to particular industries and with conservative political connections, have played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions, influencing policy-makers and the general public alike. Typically, these scientists have obtained their stature in fields other than those most pertinent to the debated question. Yet they have been able to cast enough doubt on the consensus views arrived at by scientists within the relevant disciplines to delay, often for a substantial period, widespread public acceptance of consequential hypotheses. They have used their stature in whatever areas of science they originally distinguished themselves to pose as experts who express an "alternative view" to the genuinely expert conclusions that seem problematic to the industries that support them or that threaten the ideological directions in which their political allies hope to lead.

The extraordinary story of deliberate obfuscation that Oreskes and Conway document begins with the delight of the tobacco companies in recruiting Fred Seitz and with Seitz's own connections to "scientists in their twilight years who had turned to fields in which they had no training or experience." It moves through the forging of a network of industrial and political alliances, and the creation of a variety of institutes and think-tanks devoted to challenging various forms of expert consensus, to a brilliant chapter in which the authors analyze the reasons why, as of 2009, a significant percentage of Americans (43%) continued to dissent from the minimal claim that there is "solid evidence the Earth is warming." As Oreskes and Conway conclude:

There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.

This apparently harsh claim is thoroughly justified through a powerful dissection of the ways in which prominent climate scientists, such as Roger Revelle and Ben Santer, were exploited or viciously attacked in the press.

None of this would have been possible without a web of connections among aging scientists, conservative politicians, and executives of companies (particularly those involved in fossil fuels) with a short-term economic interest in denying the impact of the emission of carbon into the atmosphere. But it also could not have produced the broad public skepticism about climate change without help from the media. As Oreskes and Conway point out, "balanced coverage" has become the norm in the dissemination of scientific information. Pitting adversaries against one another for a few minutes has proven an appealing strategy for television news programs to pursue in attracting and retaining viewers. Nor is the idea of "fair and balanced" coverage, in which the viewer (or reader) is allowed to decide, confined to Fox News. Competing "experts" have become common on almost all American radio and television programs, the Internet is awash in adversarial exchanges among those who claim to know, and newspapers, too, "sell" science by framing it as a sport (preferably as much of a contact sport as possible). Oreskes and Conway identify the ways in which the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal have nourished the public sense that anthropogenic climate change is a matter of dispute, how they have given disproportionately large space to articles and opinion pieces from the "merchants of doubt," and how they have sometimes censored the attempts of serious climate scientists to set the record straight. Even the New York Times, the American newspaper that takes science reporting most seriously, typically "markets" scientific research by imposing a narrative based on competition among dissenting scientists.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Should this blog be on planet python?

A recent comment objected that a previous post wasn't on topic for Planet Python. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view. The coming posts will likely strike some as even more off topic. It's fine with me if the Planet Python people want to de-syndicate this blog. That's for them to decide.

Saying goodbye to mother

Mother died last Friday from bone cancer at the age of 86. She had been diagnosed only 10 days previously with stage IV cancer, so treatment was out of the question. Our extended family came together to keep vigil. It was a good, if not enjoyable experience.

Mother lead a full life, and had many ardent admirers. She was active until the last three weeks of life, and had all her faculties until the last three days. So there is little to regret in her life, and I feel strangely calm about this whole process. Perhaps true grief will strike later unexpectedly, but I think not.

At such times, it is natural to take stock of one's life, and I intend to do that here now, perhaps for an extended time. I intend, for the first time, to lay out what I believe to be true, based on overwhelming evidence. It is a daunting prospect: I know from experience and training that writing about complex subjects is no easy task. But now, at this time of my life, it is calling to me.

The thousands of posts about Leo on the leo-editor site (and previously on SourceForge) will serve as a template or model for the writing here. That is, the writing will be calm, with the intention of playing with ideas. The emphasis will be on problem solving.

This writing may upset some. That is not my intention, but it may happen. With that in mind, I will insist on the following ground rules. All responses to this blog must be civil, respectful, and calm. Those who write abusive posts will be immediately banned. Name calling, ad hominem remarks and ranting will not be tolerated. Violators will be immediately banned without further comment.

It is a symptom of the present state of society that these rules need to be stated prominently. Considerable personal experience shows that they are necessary.