Author talks about his new book and the future of science denial
Podcast: Play in new window | Right click to download
In The Inquisition of Climate Science, former Reed College president and National Science Board member James Powell elucidates the landscape of climate denial; diagrams, analyzes, and debunks the most frequently used denier arguments; and advances a progressive vision for what science communication could become in the 21st century. Prepublication reviewers summed up the book: “A devastating, crushing blow against the deniers. I would not want to meet Powell in a dark alley.”
At once a quick read and an informational reference guide, The Inquisition of Climate Science is a must for climate science advocates as well as casual readers. Powell’s meticulous research makes the book a useful all-in-one guide to the science, politics, messages, and media coverage of climate change. At the same time, his engaging narrative style grabs the reader and makes the pages seem to fly by.
From the very first chapter, The Inquisition makes crystal clear the distinction between science and pseudoscience, and arms the reader with the tools to dispel common misconceptions.
Powell opens the book with accounts of two dichotomous climate change conferences that exemplify the difference between legitimate, fact-based debate, and political demagoguery. The first, held by the American Geophysical Union, consisted of presentations by scientists about new data and findings about climate change.
In contrast, the second conference, organized by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, had a very different goal. Rather than bringing together scientists to discuss science using scientific evidence, the Heartland conference brought together “scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives” to repeat a set of talking points about the dangers of “climate alarmism.” Not only were no peer-reviewed scientific findings presented at the conference, but almost none of the speakers were published climate scientists. Instead, the Heartland Institute invited such figures as a former astronaut, the president of the Czech Republic, and an MIT meteorologist, almost the sole speaker to be a practicing scientist.
What Powell shows with such clarity is that the so-called climate “debate” is not a scientific one. In example after example he illustrates the lopsided nature of the climate discourse: with scientists using scientific evidence on one side, and political activists using knee-jerk imagery and philosophical misdirection on the other. In his analysis, Powell breaks down some of the most common hallmarks of the denier movement. “They:
- Engage in publicity stunts designed to gain media attention and that promulgate disinformation.
- Repeat claims long after scientists have shown them to be false.
- Make assertions without presenting any evidence to back them up. Had a speaker at the AGU meeting said that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, the audience would have demanded to see the evidence.
- Have no scientific findings that falsify global warming.
- Have opposed global warming for twenty years. True, back then, many scientists were also skeptical, but as the evidence mounted, they changed their minds. Deniers do not change their minds, a sure sign that they base their denial not on science, but on ideology. To paraphrase Richard Lindzen, ‘global warming denial has always been about politics, not science.’”
The book also examines the connections between antiscience front groups and the fossil fuel interests that fund them. And with rigorous research, Powell shows how the same tactics of science denial have shown up again and again over the years, from the tobacco industry-orchestrated denial of the health effects of smoking, to groups who deny that HIV causes AIDS, to evolution denial, to the organized denial of the harmful health effects of toxic substances like asbestos and chromium hexafluoride.
The solution? In my interview with him, James Powell summed up his simple advice for scientists fighting for truth:
“It’s time for scientists to stand up and be counted. Not be reticent. Not be cautious. Not say for instance that there’s no way to tell whether Katrina was caused by global warming, but to say very forcefully that Katrina is exactly the kind of thing we can expect more of under global warming.”
Powell’s comprehensive book is a welcome addition to the growing literature debunking fossil fuel-funded, antiscience disinformation.
Sean Pool is assistant editor for Science Progress and Climate Progress. You can download or stream the whole interview above. You can preorder the forthcoming book here. This is cross-posted at Science Progress.
Related Posts:
- Review of the must-read book: Merchants of Doubt
- Must see Naomi Oreskes talk on Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscure the Truth about Climate Change.
- Chu compares climate disinformation campaign to tobacco industry’s efforts
- The Invention of Lying about Climate Change
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Sounds interesting on the face of it, but how is this different from what Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway are telling us in Merchants of Doubt? Yes, Oreskes is more of a historian, so she covers just as much on what happened with tobacco, acid rain, the Star Wars initiative, and the hole in the ozone layer as she does on AGW (TBH, that broad coverage watered the book down a bit for me). Of course, it’s the *same people* who have been chipping away at the science from an ideological standpoint for the past 30 or 40 years. So maybe what is happening to us does bear repeating, until it sinks in with the general public.
Unfortunately, I feel that books of this nature are largely preaching to the choir: those of us with a decent background in science who also give a damn what happens to the environment. Afraid it’s lost on the aforementioned general public, they with the collective attention span of a gnat. If it can’t be expressed in a sound byte, forget it.
So I’m not too inclined to read this one, which seems to be rehashing a lot of the ground already covered in Merchants of Doubt and Climate Cover-up… albeit mixed with a bit of skepticalscience.com, it would seem.
Dems Panicked Over ‘Climategate’ Probe
http://nation.foxnews.com/climate-change/2011/01/19/dems-panicked-over-climategate-probe
Powell gives a low key and relentless presentation of facts on his website –
http://inquisitionofclimatescience.org/Video/Video.html
Thanks for an even better examination of the evidence. Eventually we have to examine why human beings can be so dumb and delusional.
Then we may decide that our only chance for survival is to evolve into a species that can see the science and act decisively to survive.
Because, clearly, our current speciation will not be able to make it.
Hurry children, evolve.
World is ‘one poor harvest’ from chaos, new book warns
Like many environmentalists, Lester Brown is worried.
In his new book “World on the Edge,” released this week, Brown says mankind has pushed civilization to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and overplowing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when,” Brown, the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute, which both seek to create a sustainable society, told AFP.
http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/World_is_one_poor_harvest_from_chaos_new_book_warns_999.html
Wondering how this book differs from Merchants of Doubt?
The moral cowardice of the scientific establishment has, in my opinion, contributed to the catastrophic success of the denialist industry. I know that the role of the Rightwing media as an engine of disinformation, brainwashing and Dunning-Krugerite rabble-rousing is, probably, even more crucial,but scientists should be marching in the streets. I suppose they believe it ‘beneath their dignity’ to get into a stoush with liars and imbeciles, but this is a fight to the death, as hundreds of Brazilians, drowned in mud, and thousands of their bereaved family and friends, have just learned, to their bitter regret.
Jay Alt (#2):
Yeah, I’ve seen Powell’s slideshow before. It convinces me, alright. But I’m not the one who needs convincing.
Just take the assertion that 97% of practising climate scientists accept the fact that GW is happening, and that it’s largely caused by mankind. Then look what a drubbing the deniers give that on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/
Look, it’s this bad: there are many WUWT readers that acknowledge the fact that the Earth would be around 33 deg C cooler without the greenhouse effect. OTOH, they believe the effect is saturated, despite really sound explanations like this that they won’t even read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
To the deniers, it’s all down to water vapour. The fact that warmer air can hold more water vapour is lost on them. No, in fact, it’s worse than that: nearly every pundit over on WUWT has their own pet theory about nearly every scientific point concerning AGW. Most of these pet theories contradict each other, but they can’t see that through their ideological fog.
Note to self: must stop reading WUWT for a while. But the curiosity to see what’s happening there is overwhelming…
The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face, maintained since 1947 by the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago. The closer the clock is to midnight, the closer the world is estimated to be to global disaster. As of January 14, 2010 (2010 -01-14)[update], the Doomsday Clock now stands at six minutes to midnight. Originally, the analogy represented the threat of global nuclear war, but since 2007 it has also reflected climate-changing technologies and “new developments in the life sciences and nanotechnology that could inflict irrevocable harm.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#cite_note-BAS.2C_Timeline.2C_2010.2C_.2B1_to_6-8
“The dangers posed by climate change are still great, but there are pockets of progress. Most notably: At Copenhagen, the developing and industrialized countries agree to take responsibility for carbon emissions and to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.” http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/timeline
A Doomsday clock dedicated to Climate Change might be also a good sign for the public.
Nice interview, Sean. Merchants of Doubt is a plodding read. This one looks more engaging.
Colorado Bob… HA! It’s hilarious to read a few of the comments on that headline. Obviously none of the commenters even bothered to click over to READ the actual article. They just straight launch into their tirade against Al Gore, Barack Obama and global warming.
G’day,
As for the ‘stupid public’ who ‘do not understand the science’, it is not really their fault. There is an orchestrated pan-MSM campaign to nullify, distract, delay, and deny climate science. It is not the choice of the viewing public to see misinformation and lies. It is backwards self-justifying arguments that are poorly thought out and invalid which slow down the growing movement to spread the truth. I’d posit that contrary to popular belief, also espoused and contorted by the MSM to mean whatever helps their case, people want to know the truth and respond positively when they are not spoon fed bullshit.
Joe has said time and again that the correct climate science messaging is the urgent case with a solution. People are assured and included in the solution. It is a vibrant message where we can all play our part in a grand battle we can win to tame the inertial damage of our own history and development on our living environment.
It can be the greatest story ever told and everyone wants to hear it and everyone wants to be a part of it. That’s the kind of truth in messaging we need, not just truth in the science.
Cheers,
spiritkas
Rob -
It’s a pathology .
It is true that not a single member of the WUWT choir will change his tune because of a book like this–hell, the Greenland ice sheet sliding into the sea tomorrow would not budge one of those lock-step spear carriers.
What this book might do is wake up a news editor or two. We can at least hope.
Adhering to climate denial as a sort of tribal, ideological reaction (being against anything the Dems are for) may be pathological. But the people who orchestrate these campaigns are doing it deliberately and with a very clear understanding of human psycholology.
The question is why. The Esquire interview with Fox’s Roger Ailes portrays Ailes as wanting to win all the time, even if it means dividing and destroying America, basically. He set out to destroy the consensus and more or less shared reality that he believes existed before cable news. But why? He was a conservastive, a Nixon creator and protege, but it really seems to go back to his inner needs to dominate.
I wonder about the Koch Bros in this context. It isn’t just the money. It is also a need to dominate the discourse and perpetuate their point of view even if that undermines the country, costs lives etc. None of that really matters. What matters is that they dominate. It is a psychopathic, narcissistic response, really.
And it is the same people, both in terms of who is orchestrating it and who is doing the dirty PR work. It is the middle rank people (like Tim Phillips) who are puzzling, because they aren’t making enough money to be able to ride this out, or at least protect their children sufficeintly, but they go on propagating this dangerous nonsense.
Lately at NewsVine , I’ve been using what I call denier math .
Masters reports that in the last decade 75 countries set new all time high temp records while 15 set new lows.
Denier Math :
15 is larger than 75.
By the way yesterday’s set of records for the US -
Day highs vs lows :
73 to 1
Night highs vs lows :
130 to 2
His video is pretty good. But his last line got all passive:
“Can globalwarming be true? You decide.”
What!? Shouldn’t we be looking beyond that decision?
It should be:
“Global warming is true. Deal with it or go extinct.”
Denialists will attack every link in the logical change that justifies AGW no matter how objective the theory is. They would have you believe night is day. I’m not sure any permutation or reiteration of explanation will make a significant difference to people who avoid engaging.
on a lighter note, a local standup poet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfxn9SvDcxU
I’m wondering about a group that I don’t here discussed often; I call them the “Avoiders”. They are aware of the problem, accept the science, but don’t want to acknowledge it publicaly or talk about it because to do so would require them to act (based on their own ethics) and action would be way to disruptive to their lives and lifestyle. Does anyone know people like this?
Spiritkas at #12, the problem with offering a solution along with the science is that pretty much any viable solution to AGW is anathema to the right wing because it requires (or at least sounds like) more government control. In that case, offering a solution makes the message less acceptable rather than more acceptable.
Rob Honeycutt wrote: “Colorado Bob… HA! It’s hilarious to read a few of the comments on that headline.”
Hilarious and depressing at the same time. The worst for me was the one who reflexively said one or two record years (meaning the record high temperatures of 2009 and 2010) mean nothing — just after pointing out how cold it is this winter.
Prokaryotes wrote: “A Doomsday clock dedicated to Climate Change might be also a good sign for the public.”
Right. I’d even vote for three clocks, given that the UCS is now tracking the separate problems of climate change, life-sciences developments (genetics and proteomics, I guess), and nanotechnology (the fabled “grey goo” threat.)
“Observed Events” folks …….
In last 6 weeks , 5 FEET of rain has poured down on Sri Lanka, while Brazil, and Australian peel our eye balls back.
This is the entire annual rainfall , in 6 weeks. I have reports of the seat of government being flooded , weeks ago. It rained 18 inches in Columbo weeks ago.
Way before the last 6 weeks.
—————-
The first thing I ever did on the net, was follow “B-15″ …… that was 11 years ago.
I deal in “Observed Events” folks ……. and I am an artist, all my life.
I’m a trained observor, and I have been following this rain deal in detail for some time now. Remember, they broke records before the 5 Feet came.
I’ve never seen this before, this water engine the system has produced is mind boggling in just the last 3 years. When I saw that baby elephant in Sri Lanka,
6 meters up a tree, I thought, so this is how the bone beds are made. When lots of things die.
The Heartland Deniers’ Convention also costars ignominiously in Eric Pooley’s lucid & compelling The Climate War.
A compendium or anthology of all this growing body of debunking literature should find its way into our high school & university classrooms.
~IANVS
Kristof on China: Question to Consider
What shall we make of Nicholas Kristof’s column (regarding China) today (Thursday)?
First, although the scope and structure of his column today involved listing the various key issues between the U.S. and China, not a word was mentioned by Kristof about climate change. Apparently, trade issues and disagreements over some territories are at the top of the list of issues, above human rights and a range of other things. Again, climate change didn’t even make the list. ???? Is it correct that climate change is not very high on our PRESENT list of top-priority issues with China? Even though we (the U.S.) should be embarrassed by our own inaction, are we too shy (and too unwise) to treat it as a top and urgent issue for discussion? Or instead, is it just that Nicholas Kristof forgot to remind himself, and his readers, of the vital importance of the climate change issue?
Second, what are the implications (yikes!) of the conclusion that Kristof draws about the present nature of the political establishment in China? The stage does not seem very well set — indeed, not set at all — for wise and responsible cooperation between ourselves and China to face and address climate change!! While the U.S. and Chinese leaderships battle over trade, territorial issues, and etc., and while the U.S. has been entirely irresponsible with respect to the climate change issue so far, are we supposed to change our light bulbs and buy green detergent? Joe, if you have time, I’d enjoy reading your take on Kristof’s column today.
Yikes,
Jeff
Adam @14, I think you’re right about the news editors. And the more brief, factual, easily read material there is out there, the better the odds that reporters or interviewers will have done some reasonable homework.
We blog inhabitants see a lot of pointless passion expended by deniers. The important thing to remember is that news organisations are constantly bombarded by cranks of all kinds on topics of all kinds. If there’s enough drive to inform the media correctly, more and more often the deniers and contrarians will be pigeon-holed as “just another crank”.
The MSM don’t give the perpetual motion folks or the flat earthers any oxygen. The easier it is for them to have good information ready to hand, the more likely they are to modify the message they currently convey.
What would you say is the best book which reviews the climate science itself?
I don’t want a textbook but something which is a bit lighter and yet gives a good understanding of the basics and their implications.
With the advent of climate change it makes good sence to use renewable energy to protect the earth.To have two are more renewable energy sources in combination will save you money? You could have solar panel and a wind turbine at the same time’ this should give you more energy at a lesser cost and provide you with more amount of energy.
MD:
There’s a lot of climate science. I don’t know of a book that covers it all in the non-technical way you want. One good possibility, however, is Climate Crash by John D. Cox (Joseph Henry Press, 2005). It’s a very readable summary of climatology history and its implications.
Two minor defects, in my opinion, are that it throws a lot of names at you, and that the quality of the figures (drawn from the National Research Council’s 2002 report Abrupt Climate Change) is not up to snuff.
MightyDrunken, I liked Hansen’s Storms of my Grandchildren. Joe’s book is good, too.
Jeff Huggins, China has the same problem that we do. Their coal industry is a powerful interest group.
I liked Hansen’s book, also “Withn Speed and Violence” by Fred Pearce and if you want to read on-line, here is a good quick history of how the science of climate change evolved.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Kudos to Prokaryotes for reviving the Doomsday Clock !
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists dated original can be recycled into the Long Year model by adding mammoth tusk hands to point out that it’s just five millennia till midnight, and the end of the interglacial as we post-neanderthals know it.
As to chromium hexafluoride, Joe may be suffering from combat fatigue in the uranium enrichment wars – he presumably means hexavalent chromium ion runoff from chromate primer paints and chromic cid use in plating shops.
Steve Metzler (#8) — I have the same affliction in that I have to keep checking the wreckage at WUWT. I’ve always thought it would be very helpful for someone to diagram out the various arguements to demonstrate how they loop back on themselves or contradict one another.
Another point I’ve noticed in their arguements centers around their obsession around “climategate.” I’ve noticed there are a couple of denier books out there on the topic that are not doing too badly on Amazon and folks seem to refer to them. Would be helpful to take them apart too.