Yesterday we saw a splendid example of climate denialism in operation, a case study of who denialists are, what their concerns are, and how they operate.
Monday’s joint report from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology was a high-profile exercise in getting across the basic message of climate change.
Using figures and graphs simple enough for even Steve Fielding to understand, the report demonstrated how temperatures in Australia were rising, rainfall patterns were shifting and sea levels rising, while explaining how unlikely it was that the changes were somehow natural variations.
It was effective for two reasons. First, the CSIRO and the BOM are both respected Australian institutions. They’re not the UN, or foreign scientists with funny names. They’re fixtures in the popularly-perceived landscape of Australian science. The CSIRO has for decades been one of the most trusted brands in the country and seen by Australians as one of the best sources of information on science issues.
Second, they connected up popular experience with actual climate change. The report talks about the number of hot days a year and trends in rainfall now with climate change.
The basic denialist technique is to sew confusion in the community by repeatedly throwing up confected and disproven claims about the science, or attacking the credibility of climate scientists and scientific institutions, and keep doing it until people figure there must be something to their claims. And it has worked, with assistance from the media.
But once Australians start making the connection between their own experiences and climate change, and moving climate change from a nebulous future threat to something happening in Australia right now, that technique stops working. And that’s what the CSIRO-BOM report did.
Enter Victorian Senator Julian McGauran. Now, I should set the record straight here, because last time I discussed McGauran, I said he had made no contribution to public life during his extended sojourn in the Senate. This is untrue. As a Crikey reader pointed out, McGauran in fact was the politician who drew attention in 1996 to the alarming invasion of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by Indonesian thongs, prompting McGauran to call for a Indonesian thong boycott. His environmental credentials are therefore quite sound.
McGauran attacked the CSIRO-BOM report. Did he dispute the figures? Challenge its methodology? Point out peer-reviewed science omitted from the report? No, he claimed the CSIRO had been politicised by Kim Carr.
“Minister Carr without doubt has wandered through the CSIRO offices, intimidating the scientists and the executive to do as they’re told,” the ABC reported McGauran saying. “This is now a political organisation. The executive have become compliant to the minister, utterly.” He produced a press release in which he said “the CSIRO’s willingness to be politicised has led to blatant contradictions and trivial findings.”
McGauran is a perfect exemplar of denialism. Male, in his mid-fifties, wealthy, conservative, regional. And his attack on the CSIRO was a perfect example of denialism in action — unable to dispute the science, McGauran attacked the scientists that produced it, claiming they’d been corrupted and politicised, in effect smearing everyone in the CSIRO.
And like most denialists, he went right over the top into conspiracy theory. McGauran seriously suggested Carr had physically gone to CSIRO premises and intimidated scientists.
Admittedly it’s a scary thought — that giant teddy bear suddenly springing out from behind a laboratory bench to demand scientists fiddle their figures, hiding amongst the test tubes and grabbing a researcher to tell them to toe the line on climate change. Possibly he waved a bunsen burner in their faces, uttering “I’ll show you some real warming if you don’t cook the books” in a growl that has intimidated many a factional opponent.
At least it’s more believable than Chris Monckton’s world government conspiracy theory that involves most of the world’s elected leaders and conservative icons like Margaret Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch. But it was an extraordinary attack on the CSIRO, one which remains uncorrected by the Coalition leadership.
Usually this sort of garbage gets aired on denialist blogs (Andrew Bolt flailed away at the CSIRO yesterday) and in meetings of elderly Sunshine Coast cranks, out of public sight. Scientists are smeared, conspiracies are peddled, institutions are vilified, as part of the denialist war on younger generations. It’s rare for a politician to be stupid enough to do the same.
See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It’s estimated these policies led to the death of more than 330,000 people (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.
The authors define denialism as “the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate de bate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists”. They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism:
Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won’t admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts hav e been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research ‘junk science’.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a ‘threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy’.
Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and dis tract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.
This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it’s certainly not advocating attacking peoples’ motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive. Here are some of the methods using denialist tactics in the climate debate:
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories have been growing in strength in recent months as personal attacks on climate scientists have intensified. In particular, there has been accusations of manipulation of temperature data with the result that “the surface temperature record is unreliable” has been the most popular argument over the last month. This is distracting people from the physical realities of global warming manifesting themselves all over the world. Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. Spring is coming earlier each year. Animal breeding and migration are changing in response. Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations. Global sea level is rising. When one steps back to take in the full body of evidence, it overwhelmingly points to global warming.
Fake experts
A number of surveys and petitions have been published online, presenting lengthy numbers of scientists who reject man-made global warming. Close inspection of these lists show very few qualifications in climate science. On the contrary, a survey of climate scientists who actively publish climate research found that over 97% agree that human activity is significantly changing global temperature.
Cherry picking
This usually involves a focus on a single paper to the neglect of the rest of peer-review research. A recent example is the Lindzen-Choi paper that finds low climate sensitivity (around 0.5°C for doubled CO2). This neglects all the research using independent techniques studying different time periods that find our climate has high sensitivity (around 3°C for doubled CO2). This includes research using a similar approach to Lindzen-Choi but with more global coverage.
Impossible expectations
The uncertainties of climate models are often used as an excuse to reject any understanding that can come from climate models. Or worse, the uncertainty of climate models are used to reject all evidence of man-made global warming. This neglects the fact that there are multiple lines of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming .
Logical fallacies
Strawmen arguments abound in the climate debate. Often have I heard skeptics argue “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” which every climate scientist in the world would wholeheartedly agree with. A consideration of all the evidence tells us there are a number of factors that drive climate but currently, CO2 is the dominant forcing and also the fastest rising. Logical fallacies such as “climate has changed before therefore current climate change must be natural” are the equivalent of arguing that lightning has started bushfires in the past, therefore no modern bushfire is ever started by arsonists.
“Scientists are smeared, conspiracies are peddled, institutions are vilified, as part of the denialist war… ”
Yup, and that’s exactly what the climate modellers did in the 14 years of emails known as climategate. Two sides of the same cult. Read all the emails Bernard.
“McGauran is a perfect exemplar of denialism. Male, in his mid-fifties, wealthy, conservative, regional. ”
So half the population fits this sociological fragment? The half that is scuttling away from AGW?
You’re coming across as a one-eyed lightweight.
I don’t think Bernard follows Collingwood Frank and you’re coming across like a nong. No point argung with you. CSIRO and BOM obviously have some agenda. The scientists and other professionals in these organisations are clearly happy to prostitute there reputations to support the AGW religion. Of course they are.
Now about that ‘half the population’ Frank, do you have a reference for that stat? No you can’t say it came from an Australia readers’ poll. What? No reference? So you’re happy to go with the Pauline Hanson/humpty dumpty approach to stats i.e. they mean what ever you want them to mean and don’t get caught up on the facts.
simple lies to combat complex truths eh Frank?
hahahahahahaha! Good one BK! Just that image of a “giant teddy bear suddenly springing out from behind a laboratory bench” is gold. GOLD!
C’mon now! You know McGauran’s right. Gotta be intimidation involved! Or giant teddy bears!
And as Mr F Campbell alluded to, we ALL KNOW that those cranks at CSIRO and BOM are making this sh*t up! Just like those climate modellers and scientist who’s EVER published anything on this subject. Scientist make crap up all the time. You know that. We know that. Cranks. Charlatans. Yep, they’re cooking the bunsen man. ALL OF THEM. WE’RE SURROUNDED. You’re in denial.
I’m having some teddy bear biscuits. delicious.
haven’t you seen the polls SBH? Belief in the AGW cult has been falling steadily since 2006.
What puzzles me (again) is the sociological naivete of Keane and most Crikey commenters. Julian McGauran is a flaky character. We also know that Lord Planckton of Krill is a conspiracy fantasist and Thatcherite relic. But this has no bearing on the group-think of a small number of self-reviewing computer modellers in East Bumcrack institutions. Not does it say anything about the pressures on scientists generally to conform to the dominant paradigm. Things are changing, but how many scientists could tolerate the scorn of propagandists like Hamilton, Robyn Williams et al? Especially as institutions like CSIRO are now corporations (as are all universities): stepping out of line means ostracism and the sack. Fear rules, and it’s got nothing to do with drongos like McGauran or Planckton- it’s a function of organizational power.