Thanks for all the comments so far. The post in reply, and new comments have moved on to the new post, over here.
******
Earlier this week, one of the key sceptical blogs, Jennifer Marohasy, re-listed a collection of quotes to do with scepticism, denial and free expression. There are pegs on which denial–denial, and not scepticism–finds itself hooked. For example, picking up on inaccuracies in the politicized science. Interestingly, Mahorasy’s list came on the same day as a leaked email from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which has ‘silenced its employees on climate change’. What’s going on in relation to climate change and freedom of expression, particularly online?
I’m preparing a paper for an upcoming conference on this, so please comment if you can! Thanks. Many people have urged for there to be some legal or moral consequence for denying climate change. This urge generally comes from a number of places. Foremost is the belief that the science of anthropogenic climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that climate change is an ethical issue. Those quotes from Marohasy’s blog are interesting. I’ll include one here:
Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all. –Margo Kingston, 21 November 2005
The urge also comes from frustration with a ‘denial’ lobby: the furthest and more extreme talkers on the subject who call global warming a ‘hoax’ (following James Inhofe’s now infamous quote). Of course there would be frustration with this position–a ‘hoax’ is purposeful and immoral. And those who either conduct the science or trust the science do not enjoy being told they are perpetrating a ‘hoax’, generating a myth, or committing a fraud.
In return, those sceptical of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are understandably enraged by suggestions that their views should be censored or charged against in law. That they attack science simply becuase they’re right wing. Many of the sceptical views also want to divorce climate science from climate ethics. Another quote from Mahorasy’s post:
I do feel strongly that the current wave of climate blasphemy that seems to be popular among prominent scientists involved in the climate issue is one day going to be looked back upon as a low point in this debate. Climate change is important, but so too are other values, and freedom of expression is among them. –Roger Pielke, Jr., Prometheus, 22 July 2008
The thoughts, ideas and rhetoric from most involved in the issue are, as CO2 Sceptic puts it, overheating. Pielke Jr. is particularly vocal on this issue: he claims free speech is being closed down. We may need to take a step back and think about this.
So what is it about denial?
An interesting piece of research from Neil Adger et al (2001, published in the journal Development and Change, 32) looked at four different environmental discourses: desertification, deforestation, biodiversity, and climate. What is interesting is that all four different areas have ‘denial discourses’–that is, groups of scientists or interest groups who disagree with the majority view on the scientific basis of events.
In three out of the four issues, the denial discourse have been unsuccessful in influencing policy debates. The fourth one, climate change, has been influential. The reason why? According to Adger et al:
While deforestation denial views have clear populist influences and have rural people in the South as their heroes, denial of the existence of global climate change tends to be promoted by Northern economic interests.
While robust, this is not a remarkable piece of research: that is, these findings are becoming all the more common, as a number of studies show. E.g. McCright and Dunlap’s assessment of the influence of Conservative Think Tanks on US government policy: it happens, and it matters.
The point here is: alternative positions to the mainstream are common. They are inevitable. And that’s on both sides, of course. I worked for four years for OneWorld.net, which specifically aimed to amplify unheard voices, those that dissented with the mainstream media’s sense of what was valuable news or now. For example, as the Guardian splashes on David Miliband’s challenge to his own Labour Party, OneWorld picks up on his blockage of moves to regulate UK private military companies amid reports of human rights abuse in Iraq. So which is the more important story?
So, let’s ask: what would happen if denial of both a) human-caused climate change and b) the dangers of such rapid change, were to be censored? If the science is beyond reasonable doubt, and miscommunication and denial leads to damaging inaction, should it not be censored? Beyond reasonable doubt is all we need to put someone in prison, or in the US, put them to death.
This issue of censorship is complex. If you shut it up, does it go away? No.
However. Perhaps more importantly is the question. Where do we draw the line between the different gradations of scepticism:
- honestly held views that do not lead to inaction for the majority
- views that inadvertently foster inaction
- views that purposefully foster inaction
- views that lead to deeds that lead to counter-action against the majority
- counter-action against the majority
And if we do this, as we have done in other areas (e.g. incitement to racial hatred or violence; holocaust denial) on what basis do we make those judgements? The science? Or the ethical imperative? And what is the censure?
Can words be dangerous? That is, I believe, ‘proven beyond doubt’. Think of the propoganda of the Rwandan radio station Rwanda RTLM, that incited the death of thousands. And think also of the inaction of the international community–inaction fuelled by a control of the discourse around what was happening in Rwanda.
Words are what we use to shape law and uphold law. As Freud said, ‘words are deeds’.
So what should we do?
Ladle et al (2005, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 30:3) looked at the use of online sites and blogs dealing with the issue of climate change. It showed how scientific reports were taken and polarized by the two different communities–those advocates for action against AGW, and those sceptical of AGW, the harder edge of which you could call denialists.
Ladle et al advocated two possible responses. They saw:
[the] obvious need for a clear, definitive, authoratitive and realistic web resource written in accessible language that is explicit about the assumptions and limitations of the work. [and] a framework within which people can access information about new science, allowing them to access and judge information and its implications.
I’m an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views. Either way. While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same.
(Which is of course peer-review in the academic/scientific world. Why is it not trusted?)
The recent Channel4/Ofcom/Global Warming Swindle brought to stark attention either a) that Ofcom is strong and got it right or b) that the current regulatory rules for broadcast (and for th PCC, print and online) aren’t yet equipped to deal with such a global, complex issue as ”broadcast/published climate denial” (not scepticism: James Hansen disagrees with the IPCC, so he’s a sceptic; Monckton and Durkin are denialists, because they makes things up. Gore could be a propogandist if he also makes things up, as some claim).
What do you think? Perhaps a starting point is a draft point in the codes for governing how the media represent climate change, and a method for enforcing that code. And that code needs to extend out to cover new media, including blogs. And perhaps taking a lesson from the Obama campaign’s micro-response strategy: a team empowered with responding to complaints specifically dealing with online inaccuracy, to which all press and blogs have to respond. And so whatever Jennifer Mahorasy, or Wattsupwiththat, or Tom Nelson, or Climate Sceptic, or OnEarth, or La Marguerite, or the Sans Pretence, or DeSmog Blog, or Monckton or me, say, then we’re all bound by the same freedoms of publishing.
Would really love to hear your thoughts/feedback, so that it can help shape my upcoming paper on this. Thanks.
Popularity: 100% [?]
{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
I don’t think it’s an issue of freedoms as such, it’s more an issue of having good editorial oversight in all commercial media.
Just today The Age (Melbourne, Australia) published a letter talking about Monckton’s recent paper. Ten minutes with google and sourcewatch.org would tell any subeditor about the guy, so they know it’s not worth publishing the letter; may as well publish one babbling about a flat Earth.
Letters to the paper are one thing, but I see that sort of thing in articles in the paper and online all the time, someone claiming to summarise an issue, but obviously failing to do quite basic research about it.
Obviouusly not all issues are clear-cut and simple. But some basic research will narrow the range of opinion in many issues quite considerably. For example, back in the 1980s when guys like Monckton were shills for tobacco companies instead of oil companies, there was a genuine range of uncertainty about the degree of risk associated with each level of consumption of tobacco; there was no doubt that any consumption gave some risk, and more gave more, but how much gave how much was in doubt. So that proper research for articles would mean that “the more you smoke, the greater the risk” would not be doubted, only “smoking X a day is equivalent in risk to a chest X-ray weekly” or whatever.
The basic facts are not in doubt, and basic research would reveal this; but we see it neglected time and again.
What we’re really looking at here is simple laziness in journalism and editors. This applies not merely to climate issues, but peak fossil fuels, famous criminal trials, and all sorts of issues. After all, Monckton has a diploma in journalism; evidently something in journalistic education is lacking. I think it’s what we Aussies call “the Care Factor”. “Who cares, long as I get my salary…” Sloppy stuff.
Alex,
Concerning your link: ‘Ofcom is strong and got it right’: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=105
I am afraid that you misunderstood the main thrust of my article as you will see if you revisit the last paragraph. I am suggesting that as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has been found to be ‘partisan’ and misleading by a UK court, then it is likely to fall foul of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code if ITV broadcast the it next year as they propose to do.
Alex:
As a former professor of science communication (UCSC), your writings are interesting and important. However, you seem to have a bias.
I have found that many of the skeptical voices have a deeper understanding of the issue than do proponents. For example, in January 2000, the US Weather Service reported that 1999 was the warmest year since they had been keeping records (1817). Television media pick up the story and reported that 1999 was the warmest on record. A certain presidential candidate then proclaimed in a speech that 1999 was the warmest in history. When one considers the climate data as expressed a corrected sea levels during the period of human civilization (data and conclusions vetted and peer-reviewed prior to any global warming concerns), it becomes immediately obvious that 1999 was not the warmest year in history. Actually, the worst case scenarios postulated by the IPCC would only take thing to the average condition of the past 6,000 years. That knowledge creates a critic and skeptic of those who exaggerate a true, but narrow statement.
Another example is Dr. Hansen’s behavior. In 1988, he put a prediction on the record. Twenty years later, he made a statement claiming that his previous comments proved true. However, this own GISS data set with all its convoluted computer modeling produced results that were not consistent with his predictions or his recent statements. Something’s wrong there. Knowledgeable critics and skeptics are here to point that out.
Kiashu: thanks for the comments. I think there is some lazy journalism, absolutely. But there is also some excellent, rigorous journalism as well. I’ve been researching this and talking to journalists such as Tom Standage, Business Editor at the Economist, and Fred Pearce, freelance for New Scientist, Telegraph, Guardian, and author. They were inspiring in the depth of their knowledge and ability to approach the subject from many sides.
Pieter, thanks also. Yes, I recognise my writing is biased. I am coming at this from a position of trusting the IPCC reports and the processes of peer-reviewed science, both physical and social science. However, I will say that the more I research the more ‘balanced’ I become, not in terms of my understanding of the impact of climate change–I’m extremely alarmed–but in terms of my own work in approaching the subject. How to do the right thing, precisely, and well.
And Tony, apologies. I got your link correct later on in that paragraph linking to the point about Gore. And yes, if Gore is found to have willingly falsified, then it’s harmful, and could be considered propaganda.
Appreciated all your comments.
‘And perhaps taking a lesson from the Obama campaign’s micro-response strategy: a team empowered with responding to complaints specifically dealing with online inaccuracy, to which all press and blogs have to respond. ‘
I like that suggestion. This would be quite an effort, and would require some significant time and money investment. But if you can pull it off, I say go for it. You certainly would have all my support, and I may even be willing to help out some.
Alex,
You almost got it right this time, but ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ HAS been found to be misleading. Just a little problem with tense!
See Mr Justice Burton’s ruling and note particularly the way in which he reached his conclusions. It was because even an IPCC author (Dr Peter Stott)was not able to justify some of the claims that the film made. It really is worth reading what the judge had to say:
http://www.elaw.org/system/files/uk.dimmock.10Oct07.doc
Marguerite thanks. It would be quite an investment, yes. A windfall tax on oil companies would easily cover it though
Tony, again, thanks. I’ve just read though the judgement. It’s thorough and fair, obviously. Your treatment of it has been even-handed, even though other bloggers have taken it and exaggerated or amplified the findings further in their cause to discredit Gore, who I do believe is genuinely trying to change the global economy and social structures for the better. I can see where some of Gore’s errors have come from–e.g. Pacific Islands being inundated–there is a real threat, and real, video and recorded author evidence of the situation growing worse. But yes, I accept the ruling, that in those nine cases the film is (note tense) misleading.
It’s been hard to admit Gore’s film would be misleading, especially when the case against him was funded by a Lanarkshire mining firm. I woke this morning wondering what is lost in this constant negotiation and battle over the rights and wrongs of the climate change debate. You know, I haven’t thought about the tigers for a while, or the frogs and amphibians that are going extinct, nor the pine forests in Norway that made me give up flying, nor the Exxon Valdez oil spill that they spent 15 years fighting paying for, while raking in $11b every three months, and all the sealife that was destroyed because of that oil spill. The economic, energy-intensive societies we have built have not delivered equity for the world’s people, and they have not stewarded the planet’s other inhabitants. I believe that the majority of scientists who say AGW is happening are right, and I’d quite like to change how we live to address those three issues, not just the one. Being misled on either side is not helpful to that. But all errors are not equal: I believe I know which misleading is most harmful.
Absolutely, Alex. But I’m thinking of media more in the mainstream – daily broadsheets and commercial news channels. For more than half the population, that’s all they get in news and information on current and public affairs.
An interesting take is at RealClimate.org, journalistic whiplash.
I’m opposed to any censorship. I don’t think censorship ever helps in anything, and don’t think it will help for speeding up an adequate response to the challenge we’re facing.
You could say I’m with Pielke Jr. on this one.
I think all focus should be on the *risk* that greenhouse gasses could have such disastrous impact on society. This is an uncontrolled experiment, and as such we’ll never no for sure what has caused the warming even after – say – half the planet has died. But at this point in time, we’re free to choose our course. I’d say we’re totally insane if we’re going to gamble with a planet which is our only life support.
So even if the risk of catastrophe seemed 50-50, or even 1% for that matter, we shouldn’t do it. No-one in his right mind would play russian roulette like that. I think THAT is what we should be communicating, that it’s not necessary to be sure to justify swift action.
That’s climate ethics to me.
Hansen has given us a safety value: 350 ppm. Let’s just keep in the green part of the dial, ok? We’re currently already halfway in the red.
But who knows, maybe your engine DOESN’T blow up, and you would have gone FASTER…
“(Which is of course peer-review in the academic/scientific world. Why is it not trusted?)”
My idea of this: People can’t see it happening themselves, so they don’t understand it. Criminal courts have a public tribune (at least, in The Netherlands). This helps.
I’ve personally learned a whole lot to see Pielke Sr. and his group discuss climate science online. It makes the scientists much more real, and gives you a “feel” of what the remaining disagreement is about. An abstract process means nothing to people unless they have seen it.
Of course what’s happening on Pielke’s blog is not peer-review, but they are true scientists. And they’re human. Seeing humanity engenders trust.
So I think scientists would do well to totally open up. It’s called “open science” or science 2.0. You may want to read up on that.
Kiashu, thanks, agree. This morning I went through 730 articles dealing with the Kyoto Protocol since ratification at the end of 2004. Some of the journalism in the mainstream newspapers is excellent, and some outrageous.
Meryn, I really appreciate your comments. I’m looking into Open Science now.
George Orwell would be proud. But
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Just because you do not understand the science now does not mean that it is OK to censor. I must admit that Congress is currently hiding from reality by calling a recess. Maybe that is a form of censorship on itself.
‘While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same.’
Sorry for the string of question marks that follow, but the mind boggles:
The main question is very simple: who decides? Who decides what is proven as ‘the truth’?
Do we entrust this power to politicians? The courts? Other unelected officials? “Scientists”? Which scientists would those be? This body is supposed to judge the statements of the IPCC! If you tell me that big business will have no influence on these guardians of truth I will have to ask if you were born yesterday.
This is not a trivial detail. It is the heart of the problem.
Then think about the practicality of what you are proposing. Should it cover just printed media, TV and radio – that wouldn’t catch spiked online. Should it cover all websites? Conversations in the pub?
It could not be remotely practical unless there was overwhelming public support for the “official line” (although even then I would hope there would be opposition to censorship). Wouldn’t it be better just to convince the public that you are correct? Or do you you think that if a few vocal skeptics can be gagged then it doesn’t matter what the rest of the brainwashed sheep think?
We live in a democracy. It’s often tempting to think that other people are idiots. But so long as we are democratic we have to take their views seriously.
Win the argument. You should be worrying about getting 10 blogs like realclimate, and getting all the politicians, intellectuals and scientists who are on your side going on TV, writing opinion pieces and books and making films.
Don’t go near censorship. If it tempts you again, go read John Stuart Mill On Liberty:
‘…no one’s opinions deserve the name of knowledge, except so far as he has either had forced upon him by others, or gone through of himself, the same mental process which would have been required of him in carrying on an active controversy with opponents. That, therefore, which when absent, it is so indispensable, but so difficult, to create, how worse than absurd is it to forego, when spontaneously offering itself! If there are any persons who contest a received opinion, or who will do so if law or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is some one to do for us what we otherwise ought, if we have any regard for either the certainty or the vitality of our convictions, to do with much greater labor for ourselves.’
You want to use the violence backed force of the state to stop people expressing views because you don’t like them? Well in that case why should I tolerate you expressing your authoritarian views? As usual, when a fundamentalist religion (such as AGW or radical Islam or whatever) is faced by non-obsequious non-belief, it turns to force to ‘save’ people from themselves.
The Global Warmists are running out of evidence, so they, and you, are trying to make independent thought a crime. The next step, no doubt, is to burn unbelievers at the stake – that should convince the masses to believe.
Idiot.
Hi Jeff. No, no censoring of your comments, despite their personal attack.
I’d like to say that I was just setting up a straw man on this. That I was being purposefully provocative and never believed for a moment that regulation was the right way to go on the issue. That I didn’t support other calls (Monbiot, Alex Steffen etc) for limits to debate.
But I can’t say this, because, despite my background (working for Index on Censorship; editing http://www.OneWorld.net, working with persecuted journalists in Albania, Zambia, Italy; supporting academic freedom) and personal views (I believe in freedom of expression where it does not incite violence or hatred or economic inequity against those who have less freedom to act or respond) I really was thinking that regulation, something, anything, would be an improvement on a discourse where, at its worst, very powerful, organised lobby groups and independent voices have been successful in halting action on what is, appears to be, almost certainly is (90% probability) happening.
But. This blog post, and the responses, here and on other blogs (e.g. http://www.sanspretense.com/2008/08/01/93/), has made me think about what pushed me into the position, particularly in light of previous personal experiences (e.g. I worked in Italy for a year for an alternative, independent media organisation, battling censorship and politcal media control: http://www.unimondo.org). Wow. I really suggested censorship was a response? I was wrong. Thanks to all the posters and emails I’ve received, even the ones calling me an idiot. We might agree, now, even if it’s for different reasons.
I do think there is a big difference between effective media regulation and censorship. I’ve been writing my conference paper over the weekend, and I’m going to follow up here with another blog post to respond to all the comments and emails, and maybe develop the ideas a little more, but without the C-word.
Alex,
I am going, for the moment, to leave aside your unpleasant and dangerous ideas on the curbing of free speech and the denial of the accepted scientific method (that of falsifiability) and point you, instead, to a post that I wrote yesterday that lays out just a few problems with the very base data that the IPCC bases its reports on: http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/08/surface-stations-and-data-modelling.html
Now, please read and digest the points made in the post. Please then consider that NASA GISS figures make up the primary starting points for all of the IPCC reports and a very great many of the studies which also contribute to said reports.
If this absolutely fundamental data is incorrect, then we have a problem, do we not? Apart from anything else, we have to ask ourselves whether we have, in fact, observed any warming.
I will finally add that I find your desire to constrain the scientific method, let alone free speech, to be deeply unpleasant and very worrying: if even the media are prepared to think in terms of totalitarianism, don’t think that our governments haven’t.
DK
You’re kidding, right? This is a test to weed out the fundamentalists, not a serious proposition?
OK, let’s run with it. Brendan O’Neill (to take just 1 example) isn’t going to be allowed to publish unless he conforms to an imposed version of the ‘truth’. How’s that supposed to work? You think he’s just going to meekly sit back and say “Yes, sir. Three bags full, sir”. Are you completely off your rocker?
No, I expect he’ll publish, online, just as he always has – while at the same time making it known as loudly and as widely as possible that there is a conspiracy to censor him and those who think like him – and he’ll (in this hypothetical scenario) be RIGHT.
And if he publishes and then is forced to take down, there’ll be hundreds, maybe thousands of bloggers who will reproduce the ‘censored’ material on a scale that will make the Alisher Usmanov ‘Streisand Effect’ look trivial. It will be the biggest foot-bullet in the history of the Internet.
“But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.””
Why stop with climate change?
“Allahu Akhbar!”
Umm, no, sorry, you’re not allowed to print that, you can’t prove that Allah exists let alone that he is great.
“God doesn’t exist!”
Umm, Professor Dawkins, I’m sorry, but we’ve just had to pulp all of your books. For while we think you might be right, you know, you can’t actually prove what you say.
Or with climate change:
“We should spend 1% of GDP per year now in order to save 20& of GDP in a century”.
Umm, no Sir Nicholas, I’m afraid you can’t print that. You see, you can’t prove it. Your statement depends upon value judgements made by yourself, specifically the one about discount rates. There are many eminent economists who disagree with you: Tol, Nordhaus, Dasgupta. So, since you cannot prove what you are saying, it being purely a matter of opinion, I’m afraid that you cannot publish your report. Sorry, but there you are, rules are rules and regulations are regulations.
Ah, Dr. Pachauri? Umm, this is slightly embarrasing I know, but I’m afraid we’ve had to recall all copies of the IPCC reports. You see there are some parts of them that you cannot prove. Indeed, the report itself says that you cannot prove them. Look at these confidence intervasl: proof itself that you cannot prove it, yes? You allocate probabilities, do you not? That isn’t proof is it?
Sorry we’re going to have to junk all that work but there it is. You’ll have to talk to Al himself about how to return that Nobel. I’m from the department that only deals with print matters I’m afraid, film is another office.
“Alex Lockwood has some dingbat ideas!”.
Now that I am allowed to publish, for I can prove that it’s true.
“Can words be dangerous? That is, I believe, ‘proven beyond doubt’. Think of the propoganda of the Rwandan radio station Rwanda RTLM, that incited the death of thousands. And think also of the inaction of the international community–inaction fuelled by a control of the discourse around what was happening in Rwanda.”
Hmm. So you are proposing that the discourse around climate change should be controlled in the same way as the discourse around what was happening in Rwanda. This would seem to suggest that your intentions are not entirely honourable.
But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same.
Well, there are two things to say to this:
1. Anything that limits freedom of speech actually just destroys it completely.
2. After reading as much of the “proof” of MMGW offered as I can find:
a) I can’t see any evidence that the earth is currently warming;
b) I can’t find any evidence that if it is, man is to blame;
c) I can’t find any evidence that if it is and if we are, that focusing on combatting CO2 emissions is going to do anything.
So, if there is going to be any censorship, could the moonbats please start with themselves?
You cannot be serious!
Have you ever heard of a couple of chaps called Copernicus and Galileo?
Or Hegel:
“We learn from history that people never learn from history.”
Thanks for all your comments. As I’ve said above, yes, I realise that my blog post was not careful or thoughtful in the way it has overlapped issues of regulation (peer-review is a form of regulation; Ofcom provide regulation) with issues of censorship. My error there. Thanks for pointing that out so efficiently.
Regulation of action and speech is a part of democracy. Laws, including laws to protect individuals from hate speech, particularly such speech that could incite violence, are absolutely fundamental to a liberal democracy. As are libel and defamation laws.
Yes, freedom of speech to express honestly held opinion is central to a properly functioning democracy.
Yes, I realise I was wrong to involve the idea of censorship in relation to people’s opinion.
Yes, I do think there needs to be a more careful consideration of the ways in which the science is and can be represented in the media, and its potential to affect action, in either direction. Could this consideration lead to amendments to issues of existing regulatory and ownership frameworks? Potentially, but not easily, nor, perhaps, desirably.
I took a stance above, through frustration from reading hundreds of peer-reviewed and published academic research articles on how a publicly supported scientific issue has been undermined by economic interest lobbies at the expense of a global compact to provide mitigation and adaptation policies to protect our planet and our freedo. I do think there is a big difference between effective media regulation and censorship. I’ve been writing my conference paper over the weekend, and I’m going to follow up here with another blog post to respond to all the comments and emails, and maybe develop the ideas a little more, but without the C-word.
You need to get away from this idea that all contrary/sceptical arguments put across in the media (particularly the informal media) are expressions of the positions of “economic interest lobbies”. This really annoys me. It’s the type of rhetoric that 9/11 Troofers use.
I’m a sceptic, but an agnostic sceptic. Take a look at this post I wrote last week, in which I explored some of the other reasons why IMO environmentalists fail to get their message across in the way you think they should be able to.
Alex,
“I took a stance above, through frustration from reading hundreds of peer-reviewed and published academic research articles on how a publicly supported scientific issue has been undermined by economic interest lobbies…”
Oh right, and the scientists on the AGW side are working for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, are they? No. So they are working for economic lobbies too.
The dangerous thing about you, Alex, is that you think that companies = bad and government = good. Whilst the former is certainly debateable, the latter has been demonstrably shown, throughout history and in a large number of cases, to be deeply untrue.
Did you have a look at my post? Far too many of these “hundreds of peer-reviewed and published academic research articles” are based on these dodgy GISS figures, or other proxy figures that are just as bad, e.g. Mann et al. hockey stick graph and Keith Briffa’s bristle-cone pines (which even Briffa is now admitting may produce erroneous results).
In fact, the hockey-stick graph was heavily dependent on Briffa’s pine proxies: it was only when a bunch of eeeevil bloggers went and reproduced Briffa’s experiments and found them to be unreliable did he ‘fess up. One of those bloggers — Steve McIntyre — had previously ripped apart the hockey-stick graph.
As for peer-review… well, why not read this? My frustration comes from reading a load of papers based on erroneous damn data: I read papers that I know are based on bad data and yet they get peer-reviewed.
Peer-review is not “regulation” at all: it is a bunch of scientists endorsing the similar views of another bunch of scientists. Try being a scientist who does not agree with the “concensus”, e.g. the scientist who has found a viral component to BSE but struggles for both funding and other scientists willing to even stick their neck out against the concensus.
As soon as anyone says the word “concensus” then you should look very, very seriously at the assumptions and motives that drive them.
DK
QuestionThat: thanks, yes, I am trying not to inhabit that space where all sceptical positions are seen as positions for economic interest/groups and lobbyists. That isn’t what I meant. I’d already seen your post, which was interesting, thanks.
What I meant is that there is considerable evidence of large scale oil indudstry and libertarian lobbying practices–a denial industry, as Monbiot says–which has led to deferred or scuttled policy that has tried to respond to the climate change science. McCright and Dunlap (2000, 2003) examined these in detail. And I have just been reading dozens of academic articles that address the powerful political and social relations governed by these interest groups.
But you’re absolutely right, scpetical thought is the basis of good, sound science (social and physical) and good, sound democracies. I’m thinking of Demeritt here (2001, in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers) when he says:
“While the climate sceptics have sought to refute climate change science by exposing the socially negotiated assumptions and uncertainties of the climate models, advocates of GHG reduction have responded by denying them altogether. Neither response is very helpful. What is needed is a more reflexive understanding of science as a social practice” (Demeritt, 2001: 329).
Obviously I came down a little too hard on the regulation side.
QuestionThaT: have just added your RSS feed.
Devil’s Kitchen. Thanks, yes, I did look at your post and I’m revisiting now, to take a bit more time in digesting it.
I’m not so black’n'white that I think all companies are bad and all government are good, no. The Italian government is one of the worst I’ve lived under, for example (I’ve also lived in the Balkans).
I’m taking a closer look at the GISS data, but also a closer look at the history of both government and corporate efforts to protect economic growth over social benefit. And maybe a history of consensus, where it has worked and where it hasn’t.
I’m a libertarian, and I don’t believe in AGW, and as a point of principle I’ll never believe in any so-called ‘Science’ which has to be imposed as has a religious dogma, by threats, name-calling and force.
If this makes me part of a ‘denial industry’, then where the hell’s my cheque?
(Which is of course peer-review in the academic/scientific world. Why is it not trusted?)
One of the reasons why, in climate change issues, peer review is not trusted is that the papers published post peer review frequently omit their source data and/or algorithms/scripts. Then when you ask for them you get comments like “I worked on this for 25 years I’m not sending to you so you can pick holes in it” or “this is personal intellectual property” or similar (quotes from memory E&OE can’t be arsed to look them up).
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been trying to reproduce the results of various well know AGW paers and models. For the most part he (and others who are working with him) has found that the published literature does not allow him to reproduce the stated results which means it is impossible to verify whether they are true or whether there was a horrible blunder in the middle that wasn’t noticed. He has in fact already shown serious statistical weaknesses in the Mann ‘Hockey stick’ and a Y2K script error from Hansen that resulted in 2007 and 1998 being demoted from the initial claim that they was “the warmest years on record”
Oh and the reason why AGW denialists get more funding that other environmental denialists? Simple. The environmental lobby for AGW is pushing for remedies that will destroy large chunks of our current economy for very little demonstrable advantage even if they happen to be right about CO2. Not surprisingly this induces more people to take a look at whether the claims are correct and to ask for funding from people who will be affected by the proposed changes.
I wrote an essay on this at my blog last week that shows other places where I see problems with AGW if you’re interested
Regulation of action and speech is a part of democracy.
There’s a missing qualifier here, and it’s “when that action or that speech causes harm.”
…then we’re all bound by the same freedoms of publishing.
Last I looked, I couldn’t see any freedoms binding me.
counter-action against the majority
…democracy…
Oh, stuff democracy and stuff the majority. It doesn’t matter what the issue is — flat earth, little green men, bearded old men in the sky or climate change — because 50%+1 of the people don’t like hearing something that a minority has to say doesn’t make it right to shut them up by force and on pain of death (and that, ultimately, is what “regulation” means) when they are just speaking.
With all due respect, please check your premises.
I’m just wondering how environmentalist groups and campaigners would fare under a law requiring everything said to be rigorously scientifically approved. Remember the campaign of FUD against GM crops?
It would also be interesting to see how much proof could actually be demonstrated to support the constant accusations (which never seem to name names) that people who disagree with the AGW theory are in the pay of Big Oil…
Alex,
“but also a closer look at the history of both government and corporate efforts to protect economic growth over social benefit.”
An interesting subject, not least because defining “social benefit” is a very tricky thing to do. Being a libertarian, I define social benefit as allowing people to do the things that the want to do as long as they harm no one else, i.e. personal freedom, but someone like Polly Toynbee would define it otherwise.
Take the issue of illegal drugs, for instance. Some would argue that drugs can be destructive to individuals and families and that making them illegal, and thus harder to get is, in fact, a social benefit.
Others, like myself, would argue that the turf wars, gang fights, impurities which cause most of the bad effects, the high prices, hysteria, criminalisation of otherwise law-abiding people and increasing tendency to rely on alcohol for kicks are far more destructive than allowing people access to pure drugs.
Some in the former camp might even agree with the above, but would then say that drugs are morally wrong and, no matter the evils caused by their illegality, it is still of benefit to society to ban them.
It rather depends how you view the world.
DK
Devil’s kitchen: well there’s one thing we agree on. I worked for the NUS a dozen or so years ago campaigning against alcohol abuse, and always found the arbitary division between legal/illegal drugs, in relation to their societal impacts, frustrating.
Mike, yes, you’re right, the issue is when it causes harm. This blog post came out of the discussion around the Ofcom ruling, which ruled that C4′s programme did not mislead against Code point 2.2, which measures against harm or offence caused. This despite Ofcom’s ruling on the basis that the science was proven. It didn’t add up for me, so I wanted to rethink the Ofcom regulation, and ask against what measure of harm they made their ruling.
Apart from endorsing PdH, DK, TW et al, I would like to ask what it matters who funds a piece of research? All the employees of the IPCC would need another job if it were found that global warming was not a problem. Jim Hansen similarly. Doctors would be unemployed if people thought medicine didn’t work. We need to look at the evidence presented and evaluate this ourselves- rather than rejecting medicine because of the doctor’s self interest, or rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming theory simply because of the self interest of the proponents. Of course listening to the proponents reaction to criticism helps a lot in the evaluation, and it is my experience that those truly convinced of their case invite and welcome criticism as a means of refining it and as a means of convincing people.
Pure FACSISM!
i think you will find the SCINETIFIC METHOD is one of FALISIFICATION ie, “you knock down my theory”….give KARL POPPER A READ URGENTLY!!
University of Sunderland! ENOUGH SAID…ill leave you to your Post Modernernist mytopia.
Alex,
For your delectation, here’s some evidence of more deception by GISS: continuing to record temperature measurements from a station that closed in 2004.
DK
P.S. Do try to ignore the offensive persona in which I write: strip away the swearing and the facts are still there…
If we are to assume that anyone paid to put foreward a view is automatically lying, we should ignore anything said by a deffence lawyer- and probably anything said by a prosecution lawyer. So do we propose banning advocates in court, just police evidence produced?
Alex
You seem like an awfully earnest fellow, so I will refrain from the temptation of just thinking you’re an idiot and ignoring you.
You see, your type of wannabe-do-goodery is very dangerous, because it springs from the unshakeable belief (faith, if you will) that there simply MUST be some global warming, and it simply must be somebody’s fault, and we simply must do something about.
And from there springs your continued recital of Monbiot as a credible source (which he assuredly is not), in describing a ‘denial industry’.
But there’s nothing to DENY.
One doesn’t deny the holocaust because it happened. It’s a historical event, recorded, documented, and an empirical, demonstrable FACT.
AGW is the opposite – it hasn’t happened. It’s a predicted event, unrecorded, undocumented, and nothing more than a projection, based not upon empirical data but on computer models, which believe me, you can get to tell you anything you want.
To sabotage our economy on the altar of this long range weather forecast would be, to say the very least, idiotic.
I won’t rehash what DK said about your attitude toward the funding of scientific study – 99.9% of modern medications are the result of private sector science, and I’d put my health in their hands far more readily than some bearded seventies throwback working for HMG.
DK: thanks for the link. And I’ll do my best not to be too offended by the vituperative delivery.
Pat, there is a long, documented history of disinformation on all sides of the world for all means and measures, with disinformation in the climate change debate–probably on both sides–part of the issue to unpick. I’m not assuming anyone paid to put forward a view is lying, no. Only that sometimes people are paid to lie. And when they do, it needs to be proven.
Pat’s last comment makes a good point.
It seems to be assumed by many that any research supporting an alternative view to that they find most attractive must be the result of incompetence or malfeasance. What the prevalence of different views in the peer-reviewed literature suggests to me is that we need to do a lot more research. Whichever way you think the current research points then some more data can only help.
As my current job involves sysadmin, programming &c. for a climate modeling research group then it might be assumed that I am in favour of more research only because I can personally profit from it. However, though I enjoy this work I could use my skills in another field, so this is not the case.
Even if we were discussing something where the research were considerably more settled then the use of force to suppress dissenting opinions would be most inappropriate. The suggestion of some body to vet (I note that there’s some backtracking on suggestions of “censorship”) anyone who might have either an opinion or some data relevant to the matter is a particularly sinister suggestion. Peer review is not the same thing as this; research that is not accepted by a journal is not promoted but it is not suppressed because it may still be released. I have been in a position where my work* has been rejected by peer review, and simply released it anyway on the internet. Since then it has been used and cited several times by other researchers.
However irritating one might find the likes of DK, such people are entitled to express whatever opinion they please.
* Bioinformatics, not climate research.
I’ve posted a new entry on this with my response so far, which is a bit of a holding position until I can synthesise and respond properly. thanks for all the comments, most have been highly instructive and useful. http://www.alexlockwood.net/2008/08/04/censorship-or-sense-well-sense-actually/
I have a serious problem with this quote: “If the science is beyond reasonable doubt”.. spoken like a lawyer, not a scientist. There is a huge difference between ‘proof’ and something that has been peer-reviewed – please read some decent philosophy of Science (I’m surprised you don’t seem to have at least not come across Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn)
Even gravity isn’t beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ when you get into the nitty-gritty physics as to what gravity actually is (gravitron particles? a force?).
To be quite honest, what made me more and more of a skeptic was actually reading pro-AGW blogs. The more I read, the weaker I found their arguments, the weaker I found various claims (such as there being a ‘well-funded’ denial lobby. Sorry, I’m very good in maths, and a quick tally of what Exxon and vague ‘coal and petroleum interests’ have spent pales to that of the activist groups. I got my numbers from Exxonsecrets and sundry annual reports).
Really, if it were a matter of one side being completely right, there would be no need to censor, ad hominem attacks and character assassination, no for shoddy data, and other propagandistic tactics. It would be laughable in the same vein as astrologers and feng shui practitioners.
I also find it odd the claim that ‘they attack science because they are right wing’ whilst the linked article mentions pollution in Eastern Europe, China and the Soviet Union. Wee bit o’ contradiction there? As for the Sixties – part of why it could be so ‘revolutionary’ is because it was the first generation that was largely freed from having to work constantly – the very comforts of western civilization enabled them to have the free time to pursue such things.
Why is peer review not trusted? Sometimes some pretty shoddy studies can get past peer-review, particularly if they support the pre-existing beliefs of the reviewers themselves. Anything that runs counter tends to be held to much greater, more rigorous scrutiny. Science is famous for having rejected for publication a rebuttal to an article they published on the grounds that ‘the information was already widely dispersed on the internet’.
I leave with a quote from CS Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
“Foremost is the belief that the science of anthropogenic climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt”
I suppose that the first point to make is that this statement is completely in breach of the scientific method, where there is NO concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Science proceeds by making hypotheses and testing them, but lots of proof does NOT mean the subject need never be addressed again, still less that people should be punished for so doing. People who think it does need to read Karl Popper.
The history of science is littered with concepts which were held to be completely proven, until one contary fact completely destroyed the assumption. Obvious examples are Galileo, and Einstein’s disproof of Newton. Einstein commented when the Nazi government published a book ‘One Hundred Scientists against Einstein’ that “if I were wrong, one would be enough”.
A recent example you could quote is that of Robin Warren and Barry Marshal, who were persecuted by t he medical establishment but finally got a Nobel prize.
I cannot stress too strongly how wrong it is in science to suppress consideration of any avenue. It goes directly against the whole principle of investigation. Scientists are meant to scrutinise. You may have noted the recent scandal of the Royal Society changing it’s interpretation of it’s motto ‘Nullius in verbia’from ‘on the word of no one’ to ‘respect the facts’ http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3357/ . If this dictum is followed, the Royal Society can no longer be considered a scientific establishment.
Roger Bacon, a particular hero of mine, defined the scientific method in the 1200s, when the authority of the Church and Bible was felt to be the only source of knowledge. He said:
““The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation….There are in fact four very different stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge.”
I feel that these are words the climate scientists of today need reminding of.
You seem to have had a slight change of heart. Perhaps because you’ve seen that skeptics may just have come to their opinions after a lot of thought and a good deal of research. Unfortunately, that does not wash. You see your initial instinctive reaction was to censor and regulate.
Your touchy feely responses to the comments don’t disguise the fact that you are, like many of your ilk a control freak.
But what is really scary is that you fail to contemplate what the next logical step on your plan is: proper regulation requires enforcement and sanction. That is what you are really after: punishment for the non-believers.
As for mentioning Rwanda…that puts me in mind of Africa more generally. I wonder if climate change will kill as many as the banning of DDT did? Perhaps you CCGW people will work out another scheme to kill millions all in the name of saving the planet.
You might find that if you were to try and enforce your worldview on others by means of censorship
I’ve posted a new entry on this with my response so far, which is a bit of a holding position until I can synthesise and respond properly. thanks for all the comments, most have been highly instructive and useful. http://www.alexlockwood.net/2008/08/04/censorship-or-sense-well-sense-actually/
Ahh yes, make it “illegal” to question the establishments oficcial policy.
Haven’t we been here before Winston ?
Im not saying pumping thousands of tonnes of carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere is a good idea, nor ozone and tetrafluorocarbon.
But just for a second suppose there may be one flaw in the logic or method whereby global warming is proposed to be happening.
The whole house of cards comes crashing down.
If scientists and philosophers are not allowed to explore the possibility that it may be flawed, then we might as well throw away all science and let politicians dictate to us what we should know.
During the 1920s the consensus view amongst scientists and respectable progressives was that eugenics was a good idea and that taking action (either positive or negative) to control the breeding of the human race would lead to a collective good. I don’t need to risk Godwin’s law, we can see the results in Scandinavia and Democrat states. Plenty of decent people like Shaw and the Webers supported these programmes.
Clearly this is an area of science where the consensus view was debatable and the preferred policy solutions wicked. I think it a good reflection on our ancestors that no one then demanded government regulation to deny the right to publish opposing views.
hi there, for those still responding here, I’ve posted a new entry on this with my response so far, which is a bit of a holding position until I can synthesise and respond properly. thanks for all the comments, most have been highly instructive and useful. http://www.alexlockwood.net/2008/08/04/censorship-or-sense-well-sense-actually/
Wow, as proprietor of Cimate-Skeptic.com, I am sure flattered to be listed as one of the first up against the wall come the great green-fascist revolution. I found it particularly ironic that you linked my post skewering a climate alarmist for claiming that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Gee, I thought the fact that objects of different masses fall at the same rate had been “settled science” since the late 1500s.
But I don’t think you need a lecture on science, you need a lecture on civics. Everyone always wants free speech for themselves. The tough part is to support free speech for others, even if they are horribly, terribly wrong-headed. That is the miracle of the first amendment, that we have stuck by this principle for over 200 years.
You see, technocrats like yourself are always assuming the perfect government official with perfect knowledge and perfect incentives the administer you little censorship body. But the fact is, such groups are populated with real people, and eventually, the odds are they will be populated by knaves. And even if folks are well-intentioned, incentives kill such government efforts every time. What if, for example, your speech regulation bureaucrats felt that their job security depended on a continued climate crisis, and evidence of no crisis might cause their job to go away. Would they really be unbiased with such an incentive?
Here is a parallel example to consider. It strikes me that the laws of economics are better understood than the activity of greenhouse gasses. I wonder if the author would support limits on speech for supporters of such things like minimum wages and trade protectionism that economists routinely say make no sense in the science of economics. Should Barrack Obama be enjoined from discussing his gasoline rebate plan because most all economists say that it won’t work the way he says? There is an economist consensus, should that be enough to silence Obama?
Next Comments →
{ 7 trackbacks }