Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics

Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation

The IPCC and scientific community urgently need to focus on rebuilding trust and could learn a few tactics from Barack Obama

Joss Garman
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 11.54 GMT

There's an incredibly powerful movement opposed to action on climate change. Without doubt it had more influence on the outcome of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen than many of the world's countries combined. Obama knew if he signed up to something that would truly deliver significant cuts in global warming pollution, he'd suffer a serious blow from this movement's army of activists and its allies in the Senate. This movement's ability to make Democrats pay a serious political price – just see what they helped to do in Massachusetts where the Democrat candidate lost a recent election – shows what raw activism can look like. The name of this world-changing movement?It's the Tea Party movement, coupled with its sophisticated echo chamber of right-wing shock jocks, culture-war keyboard commandos, and allies at Fox News, all pushing the scepticism line on climate change.

Over the last few years as climate campaigners such as myself have tried to mount a good rational argument, theirs has mounted a powerful disinformation campaign. In the last few weeks we have witnessed that effective campaign gain momentum and turn into a sort of global asymmetrical warfare, with criticism of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its claims about the speed with which Himalayan glaciers are melting, personal attacks against its chairman Rajendra Pachauri and a persistent hounding of climate scientists and those reviewing the scientists.

Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy.

It was just these sorts of tactics that, with the Swift boat campaign questioning his military service, helped to bring down Senator John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004. The problem was that Kerry thought being right would be enough. His response was to be photographed going wind-surfing. In contrast, when Obama ran in 2008 and he faced a similar smear campaign attack on the basis of inflammatory comments made by his former pastor, the Reverend Wright, he knew being right wouldn't be enough. What followed was Obama's race speech in Philadelphia setting the record straight, and the rest is history.

...

[kestrel91316]

1. You know, I almost don't care anymore. Go ahead and keep spewing CO2, people.

I'll be dead before it's really time to pay the piper.

I just feel bad for my niece and nephew.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Agreed. When willful ignorance and corporate greed win out over intellect

and reason and thought, and those who do think are labeled as elitists, we are in such deep shit that I don't care anymore, either.

[Zoeisright]

4. That's the way I feel too.

I"m glad I don't have kids. My nieces and nephews, however, are going to pay the price. Some of them are diehard repukes, which is hard to take, but they'll learn. Oh, they'll learn.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. My nephew is resigned

One niece is more optimistic, the other I'm not sure about.

[ananda]

9. As for the young people..

It's going to be up to them to work for change in a
positive activist way.

What I find interesting is the serious apathy of
students these days. Actually, I find it amazing!

[Mojorabbit]

13. It amazes me too

My nephews and nieces seem to not give a hoot. I was so different when I was younger back in the early 70's. Maybe it was just the social climate then being so different than now. I care but I think it is already too late to do anything.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Except, I know that you do care

I keep wanting to believe that reason will win out, and in time.

[kestrel91316]

28. I no longer believe that it will. People are STOOPID. BTW, I am

heartened to note that YOU only have 2 hearts, like me, and you do WAY more for DU than I do, lol.

[gristy]

3. Sadly, that is how I am starting to feel. I'm just worn out.

:(

Oops. Meant to reply to kestrel91316.

[HeresyLives]

6. Scientists, of all types, urgently need a PR firm.

A scientifically savvy PR firm, that springs into action immediately.

Scientists do science, they have no idea how to talk to the media or to defend themselves against these constant attacks by the ignorati.

[ananda]

7. Totally agree.

Scientists just have no idea how to contradict such a strong
attack juggernaut with a witchhunt mentality.

Not only that, but based on the disinformation and attacks
by the witchhunters, many scientists and institutions will
not get funding unless they literally change their research
and findings to fit the denialist agenda.

This is scary.

[HeresyLives]

10. We still burn scientists at the stake.

We don't use a wooden stake anymore....we ruin their reputations and their lives....but the result is the same.

Fear...and the suppression of knowledge.

[tinrobot]

14. Didn't we used to revere scientists?

Back in the days when we were shooting rockets to the moon and inventing the internet?

Sad that it's come to this... scientists having to defend science against moneyed ignorance.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. How about back when they were curing polio and small pox

Those were heady days.

Now, people distrust flu vaccines.

[Snow Bird]

17. Ask Galileo about being revered.

He might disagree, had he lived.

[tinrobot]

21. Very true...

But his science did prevail.... eventually.

Thank goodness the fate of the human race wasn't riding on it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Galileo (Galilei) died of natural causes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Life

[wtmusic]

24. Exactly - nerds gotta learn how to put a big fucking happy face on the data

'cause no one wants to listen to a big downer day after day...and surely they can find some hot babe to do their press releases (except that might make global warming even worse!!!11)

[Birthmark]

11. Public opinion is irrelevant

Public opinion on this issue would *never* have been great enough to compel our elected officials to do anything. AGW is, I'm afraid, one of those issues that has to be handled at the top --the people be damned. There are not enough people at the top of our society with the vision and daring to actually do what needs to be done, the only thing we know to do, in fact: Shut down the CO2...fast. Even if the US did do it, there are too many other nations that won't. And we're about out of time.

The only hope is if some quick and easy (and inexpensive) fix is found. Barring that, well..."Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies..."

[HeresyLives]

12. We aren't going to die, either.

[Birthmark]

15. You've found a way around it?!

How? HOW?! I'm over 50, so tell me quick! I've always been led to believe that everyone dies. If there's a way around it, I want in!! :)

Seriously, "we" are going to die in very, very large numbers. But since I'm over 50 I'll probably die in a way totally unrelated to AGW. Probably.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Well, when the lead U.N. scientest (Professor Phil Jones) start back peddling

there may very well be some problems.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. You may be interested in reading what Jones actually said

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[wtmusic]

20. And when people start quoting Daily Mail puff pieces

which misquote Phil Jones and mischaracterize the significance of his statement, then I know the human race is too stupid to save itself (didja see the on the same page the story about Cheryl Cole moving into a hotel after her husband's latest sex scandal erupted? Whoaaaa...)

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

[tinrobot]

22. Is that the same Daily Mail that gets sued for libel every month?

Might want to go to the source for Dr. Jones' quotes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Yes, the same Mail that has been quoted for 3 separate OPs by DUers

just for this story. The same right-wing, tabloid Daily Mail that many British DUers are sick and tired of warning people against, but that it seems several DUers quote with glee as if it's reliable, when it backs up the right wing "global warming is a myth" viewpoint (hey, I've had DUers sending me to Inhofe's website as 'proof' that global warming isn't happening).

It's not just that they willingly ignore science available from peer-reviewed sources; it's not just that some of them seems to hate Al Gore more than they hate any Republican; it's that they go out of their way to spout the obviously right-wing funded corporatist "buy oil, consume, there's nothing wrong with it" line that everyone knows is spread by amoral PR firms bought by the rich energy companies.

I also post on an all-points-of-view political forum, and at least there when I'm arguing against some drone mindlessly repeating the talking point of the day from the RW sites, I know that's because they're an idiotic mouth-breathing conservative who may be incapable of doing anything he hasn't been told by Limbuagh or Melanie Phillips; but here, it's people who do have the power of thought, but have chosen, for some bizarre reason, to get screwed by big business, and are cheering on the rape of the rest of us.

These people are attracted to Daily Mail global warming denial stories like flies to shit. At least shit can be used as manure; the Daily Mail is pure poison.

[beardown]

30. Classic example of what this subject is about.

Jones was talking about 'statistically significant' at what percents (90, 95, etc.) and over what time frames. The headline screams that he says there's no warming, while buried in the article he says there is warming, but it's hard to show over the short term and at a high 'statistically significant' level.

The fewer (shorter time frame for climate data) your samples are, the harder it is to predict. The higher the level of certainty, the harder is is to reach.

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon."

While your posting the above piece from the article, you might have missed this piece from the same article "And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.".

The Daily Mail is to UK newspapers what FOX is to US television.

[DeadEyeDyck]

25. Look, we were never going to make a change anyhow!!!

Even if America cut its green house gases to zilch point shit, the Chinese were going to continue to march full force, as were the Indians. Out difference woudl be the same as holdinng in a fart!

I don't have an answer but I don't think the game has changed very much in the last week. Guess I am pretty dismal but that is how I see it.

[wtmusic]

26. We caused it, we can clean it up

if we're not really, really stupid about it.

[Nihil]

27. That's a hell of a big "if" there. (n/t)

[kristopher]

29. Two comments

First is that the anonymity of the internet works in favor of spreading corporate disinformation - we see it at work here on DU with nuclear power. Generating a considerable fake "grass roots" presence is now extremely easy for a dedicated entity to accomplish.

Second is that many have recognized this reality for a number of years and have reacted by shifting the focus of action to the economic sphere.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

Will Big Business Save the Earth?

By JARED DIAMOND
Published: December 5, 2009


THERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

What’s my evidence for this? Here are a few examples involving three corporations — Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron — that many critics of business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The comparison to attacks on Obama isn't really valid

The attacks were on his character; so by standing up, speaking wisely, and showing his character is excellent, Obama could fight the smears successfully. It wouldn't have worked if anyone else had made that speech; it had to be Obama.

But the climate change deniers aren't going after one person. They do sometimes go after the colective 'character' of scientists - they laughably claim they're in it for the grants, when the rich people are the PR firms spinning the ExxonMobil line. But it's more than that. They attack the figures, either with distortion or frequently by plain lying. AIn politics, when your opponent starts lying, you can call him on it, prove it, and then he looks like a shit, and people don't vote for him. But the problem is that the deniers don't have a reputation to lose. They aren't scientists; they don't give a toss if it's shown they have been lying through their teeth. But the science is complicated, and the results of global warming are gradual; it takes work to follow the science closely, and inevitably the majority aren't going to put in that work.

So most people have to trust scientists about the details, implications, and data if they're going to accept what's happening to the climate; and the deniers know that by casting any doubt whatsoever on the reliability of the scientists, they win a major victory, by setting the situation that the typical voter sees back to "well, who knows what's going on? Maybe we better wait and see". And that's fine for the deniers; they don't give a toss that the next generation of deniers won't get the fat fees from the oil companies. Any delay is a win and a big fat monetary bonus for them. But for people who want to fix the disaster we're running towards, a delay is fatal.

Fuck know how we fight them. I'm leaning towards unlimited character attacks; point out these people want to kill millions in the future, just for money or shits and giggles. Plus the scientists can carry on doing the real science, of course.