I've spent the past couple of years mulling over the issue of climate change. To be honest, it's a tough hill to climb if you're serious about it. There's a lot of information to absorb, and there are a lot of different books, websites, and disparate bits of information floating around out there to read, evaluate, and digest. Then, I hear someone say something that gets me going on a tangent, and I'm thinking about it from another angle.
My current angle was triggered while listening to my favorite podcast:
The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe. In Podcast #174, a brave listener wrote in to put forth his take on the climate change issue, and in the ensuing discussion by the rogues someone raised the point that at least some skeptics of anthropogenic global warming use "denier" tactics.
While I doubt this will surprise any of my readers (and there must be at least 1 or 2 of them out there somewhere), I'll confess a few things right up front: I'm a skeptic - I'm a libertarian - I'm an evangelical atheist. But most importantly for this topic, I'm a linguist (as in holder of a Ph.D. in the discipline). Hence I feel professionally qualified to assert that political discourse - much like advertising discourse (which is essentially the same thing) - is far more concerned about persuasion than truth. Hence, the use of the term "denier" caused my ears to perk up, because it's an inherently loaded term.
Usually, when I hear denier, I think in terms of "evolution denier" or "holocaust denier": i.e. someone who denies the legitimacy of a claim that has been well document, well challenged, and well established over a protracted period of time. Now it's true that there are denier tactics that transcend evolution and holocaust denial. But the tactics aren't the real crux of the issue. If the tactics had legitimate evidence or salient points behind them, we could really just chalk them up to rhetorical style (i.e. picking around the edges of an argument could be a legitimate way of zooming in for the kill and laying your trump cards on the table ... if you actually have trump cards). But what moves evolution or holocaust denial into the realm of motivated disinformation (i.e. a line of argument that is used to justify established assumptions) is the fact that it's just plainly, demonstrably wrong.
I have a hard time applying the term "denier" as a general way of referring to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming for a very simple reason: while evolution or the holocaust are exceedingly well documented, well attested things, anthropogenic global warming still an educated guess. There may be a consensus among a fair number of researchers that it is true, but that's very different from being able to truck out a ton of evidence and lay it on the table. Some skeptics of anthropogenic global warming may indeed use denier tactics, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed, as Patrick Frank pointed out in Skeptic Vol. 14, No. 1, climate models are of questionable value beyond a certain point. I've often marveled at the fact that modeling and predicting the path of a hurricane yields wildly variable results until the storm is almost ready to make landfall -- yet many people will happily believe that we can accurately model the future climate of the entire planet 200 years into the future! Maybe we will learn to do this. It would certainly be a good thing. But I have my doubts about our ability to do this accurately right now.
However, there are other things about the issue that get my skeptical hackles up. Political language, as I said before, is a tool of persuasion - not investigation. When politicians start lining up on sides of an inherently scientific issue, it's usually because they feel that they can use the issue for -- anybody want to stop here and guess what's coming next -- no? -- OK -- here it comes:
political gain. I know to many this sentence will amount to heresy, but I have seen much evidence to suggest that politicians have both distinct ideological agendas
and very practical instincts about how to hornswoggle voters into voting for them. Hence, they view science, economics, and most other forms of knowledge through the filter of "how can I use this in the upcoming election?".
So who's lined up on the consensus side of anthropogenic global warming? Well, we've got Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, etc. etc. etc. Gee, what do they all have in common? Could it be an appreciation of centralized power and the expansion of the federal government into all walks of life? Is it more probable that they see this as another way to accumulate power for themselves? Are they really altruistically motivated to save the planet? I have my doubts ... especially since even attempting to discuss the subject with politically-motivated anthropogenic global warming advocates generally results in the same kind of passionate hyperbole that one finds among ... dare I say it? ... evolution or holocaust deniers.
How about the scientists behind the consensus? One of my favorite parts of Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" is where he points out on pg. 112 that a good way to illuminate the agenda behind something is to "...employ the tried-and-true method of political analysis: Follow the money." This is often a criticism directed against global warming skeptics: that they're on the payroll of the oil companies (the same ones who're sucking up government subsidies for "alternative fuel development" as quickly as they can). Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that
JunkScience.com,
The Science & Public Policy Institute,
Friends of Science,
ICECAP and everyone else who questions the anthropogenic theory are rolling in dirty, corporate dough. How does their nest egg compare to the billions of dollars that have been spent by governments around the world to confirm the hypothesis that climate change is primarily the result of human activity? How many scientists (who are probably somewhere left of center politically) will bite the hand that feeds them? When it comes to dishing out cash, no one can compete with Uncle Sam (just ask the banks, mortgage companies, and auto makers). So I would argue that we might be wise to take their consensus with a grain or two of salt (ditto the IPCC -- which also survives on governmental funds). In short, one does not have to be a crackpot to see how a scientific hypothesis that benefits ambitious politicians might be shanghaied for political gain -- especially when application of the hypothesis results in the advancement of blatantly anti-capitalist, pro-state, collectivist policies.
On the other hand, there's good reason to be skeptical of the politicians on the right who are essentially anti-science at the core. It's not much of a surprise to see that conservatives and creationists who reject evolution also reject anthropogenic global warming. They're living in a world of magic and faith, and they also recognize that being anti-science plays well with their constituencies and contributors. Plus, conservatives generally love business as usual, so the notion of any kind of change is viewed as a negative thing.
As for the scientists who remain skeptical -- these are the folks who are harder to figure out. Their careers would be advanced by hitching their wagon to the consensus, they'd get more grant money, and they wouldn't have to be essentially shunned by their colleagues for being heretics. Yet they soldier on. Maybe they actually believe they're onto something. I usually root for the underdog by default, so I've got a soft spot in my heart for these folks. But when I read their publications (especially the folks who claim that the sun plays a major role in earth's climate) I can't help but think that they should at least be involved in the debate. Might it not be possible that while humans contribute to global warming to
some extent, they might not be the only cause? Is it so incredibly silly to think that the sun plays a major role?
And that's what really bugged me about the use of the word "denier" by the rogues on the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe. Anthropogenic global warming has not been proven to the point where one could even call it a theory in the strict sense of the word: it's a politically popular hypothesis, and there's a great effort being made to oversimplify and sell it with the same sincerity that one sells used cars or diet books. What it really deserves is open, spirited and extended debate -- not between politicians or bloggers as much as between scientists who confront each other with their data and slug it out in the journals until a real, evidence-based, non-politicized consensus can be achieved.
