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 }
← Previous Comments
My god you are such an idiot. Have you even stopped to think that someday things might be different and that the “consensus” is that there is no climate change? Then when you start talking about climate change they will say you’re the one committing a crime against humanity. You are such an idiot.
“Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms.”
That is an ungood thought. The whole thrust of your paper is double plus ungood.
HTH.
I’d write more but the sheer stupidity of the idea of suppressing scientific debate in the name of freedom means that words fail me. Look out a photo of a younger you and just say what you propose, slowly and clearly, to that picture. Then wonder what the hell has happened to get you from there to here.
JF
I’m glad to see that someone agrees with the Inquisition’s reaction to that rabble-rouser Galileo Galilei. His uncontroversial ideas have caused us nothing but trouble.
Besides, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A except apparently environmental writers.
Try it, you asshole.
That is all.
I had one other thought. You seem to be advocating a sort of government enforced peer-review backed by legal penalties. I am not sure why climate science has put so much faith in peer review – certainly none of the other physical sciences do so.
One of the weird aspects of climate science is the over-emphasis on peer review as the ne plus ultra guarantor of believable results. This is absurd. At best, peer review is a screen for whether a study is worthy of occupying limited publication space, not for whether it is correct. Peer review, again at best, focuses on whether a study has some minimum level of rigor and coherence and whether it offers up findings that are new or somehow advance the ball on an important topic.
In “big boy sciences” like physics, study findings are not considered vetted simply because they are peer-reviewed. They are vetted only after numerous other scientists have been able to replicate the results, or have at least failed to tear the original results down. Often, this vetting process is undertaken by people who may even be openly hostile to the original study group. For some reason, climate scientists cry foul when this occurs in their profession, but mathematicians and physicists accept it, because they know that findings need to be able to survive the scrutiny of enemies, not just of friends. To this end, an important part of peer review is to make sure the publication of the study includes all the detail on methodology and data that others might need to replicate the results (which is something climate reviewers are particularly bad at).
In fact, there are good arguments to be made that strong peer review may even be counter-productive to scientific advancement. The reason is that peer review, by the nature of human beings and the incentives they tend to have, is often inherently conservative. Studies that produce results the community expects often receive only cursory scrutiny doled out by insiders chummy with the authors. Studies that show wildly unexpected results sometimes have trouble getting published at all.
Who Cares About Global Warming?
What we really need to be worried about is “Tectonic Implosion”
A new study done by the newly created International Panel on Tectonic Implosion (IPTI) reports that there could be a correlation between oil pumped out of the earth and increased seismic activity.
It’s called ‘Tectonic Implosion’ and it could be responsible for the recent earthquakes in California and China and even the recent Tsunamis around the world.
“You can’t keep pumping billions of barrels of oil from underneath the ocean floor and not expect it to have an effect on the globe!” says Elmer Beauregard one of the many scientists on the panel.
“Nature hates a void, and it always tries to fill a vacuum, and man is creating all kinds of voids underneath the earth’s crust, so don’t be surprised when things start shifting around.”
http://m4gw.com/IPTI/index.html
If you understand individual needs, the place of journalism as a surrogate for the individual, and the similar requirements for society, you learn to value doubt. You remind yourself that lawyers, scholars, and academics hunted witches for hundreds of years using the best evidence available. And were wrong.
But this is not taught in journalism schools. So I expect this attempt to paper over doubt from someone taught by journalist educationists. You cannot help it.
I didn’t go to J-school, and only publish a daily newspaper, but google my paper on “Journalistic Indifference” to see how much journalism misses the same boat as you seem to do.
Speaking as a Federal regulatory attorney who litigates against environmental organizations (thoguh not in the global warming cases), I urge you strongly to create precedent for punishing political speech that is false or made with fraudulent intent. Including regulatory petitions and comments.
I’d have NRDC, CBD, and Greenpeace shut down in a week.
Make climate change criticism a human rights violation and be done with it. Set up a smoothly functioning system of tribunals like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which even as we speak is scouring the frozen north for any criticism of Islam and has a 100% conviction rate. Have the state pay plaintiff’s expenses and conduct lengthy investigations of those accused. Assume they are guilty unless they can prove they didn’t violate some vague statutory mandate. Put them under a lifetime ban of speaking about it and jail them for contempt if they do.
Problem solved!
hi there, for those still responding here, I’ve posted a new entry clarifying that it was an error to mix up the issues of censorship and media regulatory frameworks, so yes, agree with you all, censorship was the wrong idea, my apologies. 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/
Free speech is a continual search for the truth. Putting a legally authorized body in place to inhibit free speech is the same thing as inhibiting the search for the truth.
Sure, if we already know the truth then legally preventing people from stating falsehoods will help prevent the rest of society from accidentally believing those falsehoods. But we don’t generally already know the truth, and, more importantly, at any given time in history large hunks of the settled truth turned out to be wrong.
Society has to put up with tendentiousness if it is going to effectively search out the truth.
kiashu said: “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.”
Nice play of the “everybody knows” card. Don’t just sit there smugly – give us 1 or 2 links in support. Naturally, we would prefer links that are not themselves thoroughly trashed – like the first response to Monckton’s recent paper.
Any dogma (like AGW) which has to rely on censoring and suppressing its opponents is on very shaky ground. And as far as I’m concerned, not worthy of continued attention.
Good to see you comment here, Coyote.
Ineresting suggestion. Why don’t we start with a small experiment: ban the writings of Bruno and Galileo who attack the helio-centric theory of the solar system. They have done consideerably more damage than any of the skeptics about global warming. After all, by undermining faith, contributing to the belief the world is round – hence encouraging the discovery and colonisation of the Americas and the resulting genocide of the Native Americans and the black slaves, the destruction of the rain forests, the inflationary impact of gold on European colonies, the potato famine in Ireland (which would never have occurred without the dependence on a crop originally imported from the Americas), and yes, global warming itself (after all, if the United States had never become the huge energy consumer that it is, the only climate influence from North America would be buffalo farts.
It may be argued that since they are dead, they are beyond the reach of the law. Not so! If we can find their corpses, we can dig them up and behead them as the Stuarts did in 1660. OOPS! Forgot that Bruno was burnt at the stake, so beheading seems out of the question.
But since you seem anxious to suppress heretical opinion, may be you should mention what sort of punishment you have in mind for thought crime. Fines? Imprisonment? Or the full Bruno treatment,.
Re. AIT being partisan, it is clearly labelled as a personal view programme – Gore fronts it, and it does not have an anonymous and authoritative sounding narrator like Swindle does (Durkin was never listed anywhere as the narrator and never appeared in the programme, and it was labelled as a science documentary by Channel 4, not as an expression of Durkin’s personal views).
Yes, Gore is partisan but he nevertheless makes a great and sincere if not 100% successful effort to communicate what is known about climate science accurately. The judge explicitly recognised this and commended him for it.
AIT over-simplified on a few occasions, departed from the mainstream on a few occasions, and made about three outright errors in the entire film. The judge did not say there were nine errors in the film as has been widely and incorrectly reported – he said that nine of the alleged error – alleged by the plaintiff – were either errors or omissions or departures from the mainstream. He did not state which he thought was which, but reading between the lines I would guess that he considers three to be errors and most of the rest to be departures from the mainstream.
By contrast the entire Swindle film is a departure from the mainstream, as Ofcom explicitly stated in the ruling. As for errors, Ofcom decided it was outside its remit to investigate whether the film contained errors; and in its ruling Ofcom appears to have confused objectively verifiable facts with scientific theories. One can dispute an orthodox theory without resorting to devices such as fabricating data, mislabelling graphs and film footage, inventing histories (such as claiming that the IPCC was formed at the request of Mrs Thatcher in order to break the miners unions in the UK), recycling long-discredited urban myths, the frequent use of logical fallacies such as ad hominen attacks, straw man arguments and non-sequitors; and accusing the mainstream scientific community of all being liars.
The two films are simply not comparable. One is a slightly flawed attempt to describe the science, albeit in a partisan way, but clearly labelled as partisan. The other is outright deceitful, and pretends to be a science documentary rather than a personal view programme.
One other point: Gore’s misrepresentation of Katrina is often brought up. Gore never stated that AGW was directly responsible for Katrina, he said that hurricanes of that seriousness would become much more frequent in the future as a result of AGW, which is likely to be true, albeit it’s not completely certain. He has been rightly criticised for not making it clear in the film that no single weather event such as Katrina can ever be attributed to AGW, just as no individual death from cancer can ever be attributed to smoking – but there’s all the difference in the world between that criticism and the one that is generally made of him – that he lied regarding Katrina. The point he was trying to make was valid but he made it badly. Funnily enough I have seen many public information films that have wrongly claimed or implied that an individual person’s death from cancer *could* be directly attributed to the fact that they smoked, and I don’t recall any outcry over any of *those* films, yet they are every bit as misleading as the Katrina section of AIT is – which I think puts the harmfulness or otherwise of that section of the film into perspective.
Dave
One other point – if a new edition of the film were to be made (and I wish Gore would make one) in which the nine contentious sections of the film referred to by Judge Barton were to be reworded slightly, then it would pass the judge’s test. In the absence of that, if Channel 4 choose to broadcast the existing edition, but preceded or followed by an explanation of those nine points, than it would also pass the judge’s test. On the other hand, almost every statement in the Swindle film is either factually inaccurate or misleading, and the film in its entirety is a departure from the mainstream, so to pass Judge Barton’s test, it would either have to be rewritten in its entirety, or it would have to be preceded or followed by an dissection of almost every single statement in the film.
Dave
Sorry that was in bad grammer in spelling out of the shock of reading something so incredibly medieval. Galileo and Einstein would both have been subject to your censors as they both expressed opinions that were completely outside of “the options” of physical science at the time.
The entirety of the Scientific Revolution rests upon the notion of falsification. What separated scientific truths from religeous truths is that science broke itself away from defining things by authority.
A religious truth is true because a certain authority says is it and enough people agree. A scientific truth is true because the observations lie within the domain of the theory and the truth has and still maintains itself against rigerous replication attempts and the fury of open discourse.
I’m personally surprised that there is any acceptance of “consensus view,” especially among progressives, given the the US went to war in Iraq based on a “consensus view” of worldwide intelligence community that Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles of WMD.
Alex Lockwood’s views are in clear opposition to liberty and freedom and are in comon with many perpetrators of miscarriages of justice social and criminal throughout history.
Read History
Learn from history
Understand History
Those that seek to deny opinions and silence the critices seek only to rule and dominate.
Even if 99.9% of scientists believe something, that doesn’t make it true. Science isn’t a democracy.
But the idea that criminalising dissent about anything – the earths shape, the Shoah, global warming – is a good idea … can’t the ideas just argue for themselves ? This is shameful stuff.
You seem to have a quasi-religious approach to your science, worried that heretics might pollute the spotless.
And as for this ‘harm at one remove’ approach – Rwanda was direct incitement to murder, disagreeing with you (or otherwise – I’m not unsympathetic to the AGW thesis and the idea of a runaway effect is extremely scary) is not. The only speech that should be criminalised (absent perjury etc) is of the “kill them now” variety.
← Previous Comments
{ 7 trackbacks }