Tactics and Motivation of Global Warming Denial

[qwnu]

In his book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, Sean B. Carroll devotes a chapter to exploring the politics of science-denial in general and evolution-denial in particular. He enumerates 6 tactics which have been used in different contexts over the past century:

1. Doubt the science
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities
4. Exagerate potential harm [of acceptance]
5. Appeal to personal freedom
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy

Carroll begins by examining the chiropractic profession and its systematic denial of the germ theory of disease in general, and the science of vaccination in particular. [I found this particularly fascinating as I had never been aware of this before - i.e., opposing the Polio vaccine in the 50s and insisting that chiropractic adjustments would both prevent and cure polio.] He then moves on and explores creationism/ID in the context of these tactics.

Now, I am far less familiar with the Global Warming debate than the evolution/ID debate. I saw Gore's movie, and I was under the impression that over the past few years, a scientific consensus had more or less been reached. However, in reading over a couple of the recent GW threads, I was struck that the "deniers" seemed to be treading the exact same tactical path described by Carroll, especially numbers 1, 2, and 3.

Aside from a general discussion of whether (and how) these tactics are embraced by GW deniers, my main question is about the motivation of the deniers (i.e., those resisting the mainstream scientific consensus). Evolution skeptics want you to believe that there is a legitimate (and growing) controversy about the science, while scientists know there is not. GW skeptics seem like they're doing the same thing, but evolution deniers are united almost completely behind a religious motivation. Does #6 apply to GW skeptics, and if so, what is the "key philosophy" or ideology that would be repudiated by acceptance?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Does #6 apply to GW skeptics, and if so, what is the "key philosophy" or ideology that would be repudiated by acceptance?



[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key philosophy would be #5 on your list. Many people believe (and not without justification) that signficant governmental enforced efforts to combat global warming would result in a loss of some freedoms.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Doubt the science


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't skepticism an integral part of a good scientific approach?

Is the study of global warming actually a science?

[surftheiop]

Hmmm so when all the Nazi doctors were spouting studies about white supremacy im really glad nobody did any of these things, especially not number one.
1. Doubt the science
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities
4. Exagerate potential harm [of acceptance]
5. Appeal to personal freedom
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy

[Farfenugen]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm so when all the Nazi doctors were spouting studies about white supremacy im really glad nobody did any of these things, especially not number one.
1. Doubt the science
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists, and cite gadflies as authorities
4. Exagerate potential harm [of acceptance]
5. Appeal to personal freedom
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Noone in the international scientific community took the Nazis seriously. Hence the strength of the skeptical nature of science.

What people don't understand is that there are very few scientists that wouldn't love to debunk evolution or global warming. It would make their careers. Science is built around skepticism.

[MrMon]

I think it all depends on what you mean by "denial". There's legitimate denial and illegitimate denial. For instance, do we see a trend? I think the answer there is yes, and you have to really stick your head in the sand to deny it. Do we understand what the trend means? That starts to get a little more controversial. Do we understand what's going on? Again, there's room for debate to some degree. What are the long term implications of the trend? More room. Can we do anything about the trend? Massive amounts of room. Should we do something about the trend, if so what, and at what cost? Now the field is wide open.

The deniers would have you believe that nothing is happening, the most militant supporters would have you believe they understand completely what's going on and they have the solution. Neither is correct, but the militants like to group everyone who questions anything into the denier camp, which is really not helpful, nor is it good scientific practice, the deniers like to group anyone who sees something into the eco-wacko crowd, which is again not good scientific practice.

The truth is, people are impatient or don't want to see what they don't want to see. Unfortunately, good science takes time and sometimes reveals things we don't want to see, which just frustrates everyone.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. Noone in the international scientific community took the Nazis seriously. Hence the strength of the skeptical nature of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about that. Eugenics was not invented by the Nazis and was well supported by a lot of the scientific and non-sceintific community for a long time. In fact, it took the Nazis to delegitimize eugenics to the point that anything legitimate about it has been pretty much abandoned.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. Noone in the international scientific community took the Nazis seriously. Hence the strength of the skeptical nature of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eugenics was a very popular idea at the University of Michigan in the early 20th century, I'm sure it was elsewhere too

[PLOlover]

totally assuming facts not in evidence here.

[adios]

................