New Scientist has a barrage of articles on “denialism”, including one from DeSmog Blog misinformer Richard Littlemore, who runs with the tired old comparisons of today’s skeptical public to tobacco industry campaigns. He bashes what he calls “manufactured doubt” while at the same time ignoring the billions poured into the climate industry, including the funding he and his namesake publisher (Hoggan and Associates PR firm, who run DeSmog Blog) receives from that industry. It’s quite the sanctioned hatefest going on there. It is truly sad that like Scientific American, New Scientist has become nothing more that a political science mouthpiece, and a shell of its former self.
Here’s links to all the New Scientist articles on “denial”. They did include one article from Michael Fitzpatrick that is a feeble attempt at balance, but even it too strays into the ugly territory of comparing climate skeptics with AIDS deniers.
- Special report: Living in denial Opinion > Special Report p35 From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence?
- Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic Opinion > Special Report pp36-37 There are clear lines between scepticism and denial, but telling them apart can be tricky in the real world, says Michael Shermer
- Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth Opinion > Special Report pp38-41 Denialism satisfies deep emotional needs. That makes it easy to encourage and hard to counter, says Debora MacKenzie
- Living in denial: How corporations manufacture doubt Opinion > Special Report p41 If the truth is inconvenient, put up a smokescreen instead. It works wonders for big business, argues Richard Littlemore
- Living in denial: Unleashing a lie Opinion > Special Report pp42-43 It’s easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down, says Jim Giles
- Living in denial: Questioning science isn’t blasphemyOpinion > Special Report p44 Michael Fitzpatrick argues that calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective
- Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon Opinion > Special Report p45 We must let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal, says Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer stated in a radio interview a few months ago that he “had no horse in this race” referring to the climat debate. These articles clearly show that this was a lie.
Brendan H says:
May 15, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Bruce Cobb: “Brendan, your feeble attempt to connect CAGW/CC Skeptics/Climate Realists with anti-evolutionists uses a logical fallacy known as Guilt by Association.”
Are you arguing that my claim is false?
Not too quick on the uptake are we? What part of logical fallacy don’t you comprehend?
Dave Wendt: “Not too quick on the uptake are we? What part of logical fallacy don’t you comprehend?”
Logical fallacy does not depend on the truth or falsity of the argument. It refers to the form of the argument.
Thus the claim: some popes were corrupt, therefore Catholic doctrine is false, is a logical fallacy, even though the premise may be true.
Brendan, the entire point of examining the logic of an argument is to help determine whether it’s true. Otherwise, the activity has no value.
WRT your example, you just mis-stated it:
Given that A) Catholic doctrine states that all Popes are infallible, and given the historical fact that B) Some Popes are fallible, then it is concluded that C) Catholic doctrine (as stated) is false.
It is not a logical fallacy. If the premises are true then so is the conclusion, as far as that goes.
Your original argument was that arguments in one field were similar in form to another field, then tried to link the two fields in terms of credibility with no demonstration that the arguments were logical fallacies, untrue, based on false premises, or relevant to your conclusion.
The same logical construct can result in falsehood or truth depending on its premises.
Many of the arguments you cited (by name only) can in fact be both valid and true and be used in defense of propositions that are either true or false, for example the “media bias”, “no consensus” and “educational indoctrination” arguments.
A lot of people (myself included) have reacted negatively to your argument because it makes no particular amount of sense. Your claim is partly true, but it doesn’t mean anything.
I could very well list the internal organs you and Chairman Mao share. Doesn’t mean anything.
Jerome: “The natural climate variation d*****s are acting exactly like those they are essentially attacking in this excessive number of excessively biased articles.”
Here is some evidence to support my claim.
1.“But what will it take for the media to take up the exactly parallel case of scientists who question the ability of Darwinian natural selection to explain the origin of life and the development of species?”
http://www.discoverynews.org/2009/11/climategate_raises_questions_a028661.php
2. “Global warming isn’t the only field in which we have witnessed this kind of brazen ideological corruption of science in recent years…My colleagues at the Discovery Institute face a similar buzz saw in their pursuit of intelligent design hypothesis, and then are taunted by the censors for not being published in peer reviewed journals.”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/28/the-new-inquisition-ideologys-corruption-of-science/
3. “…It is for that reason that Darwinists constantly manufacture false evidence. But their frauds are only short-lived.”
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1892
4. “The continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_deception
5. “That is the reason why Darwinists have resorted to fraud, speculation and countless propaganda techniques to keep this false religion alive for the last 150 years.”
http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/11762/DARWINISTS_HAVE_DECEIVED_THE_WORLD_WITH_FRAUD_
6. “But the Times story does at least correctly and helpfully quote John West of Discovery Institute on a way global warming and Darwinism are connected. “‘There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue,’ he said, ‘with scientists being persecuted for findings that are not in keeping with the orthodoxy. We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.'”
http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/it_is_time_to_connect_the_dots032561.php#more
7. “From global warming to evolution, from psychology to sociology, blatant corruption of science is running rampant.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124000
8. “It catalogues the deliberate corruption of climate science, several scientific organisations and several science journals.”
http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=482.0
Bruce Cobb: “All you’ve done is “notice” that some skeptics somewhere might possibly use some similar types of arguments that anti-evolutionists use.”
The claims are a good deal more frequent, and closer at hand, than suggested by the words “somewhere” and “possibly”.
Take these quotes on subject of AGW as a religion: “There is a very odd similarity between this absurd dogma and the “Church” which once dictated “Science”; Gospel of New Scientist; people defending undefendable religions; Pope’s propaganda machine; true believer; Al Gore’s acolytes; the religious (i.e. faith-based) nature of the CAGW creed; religious fervor; the faith based belief system is CAGW”.
These quotes come from the current thread. So the arguments are “here” rather than “somewhere”, and “definitely” rather than “possibly”.
Brendan:
Take these quotes on subject of AGW as a religion: “There is a very odd similarity between this absurd dogma and the “Church” which once dictated “Science”; Gospel of New Scientist; people defending undefendable religions; Pope’s propaganda machine; true believer; Al Gore’s acolytes; the religious (i.e. faith-based) nature of the CAGW creed; religious fervor; the faith based belief system is CAGW”.
Yes, there is certainly a religious type of dogmatism to the belief in CAGW/CC. “Saving the planet” has an emotional appeal to people, which leads them to not only ignore, but to deny facts and reality, and to attack and disparage those who question the basis for their belief, much the same way you are attempting to do in trying to connect skeptics with anti-evolutionists. Apparently, you either are too dense to understand the concept of the logical fallacy you are using , or you are simply being disingenuous.
Bruce Cobb: “Apparently, you either are too dense to understand the concept of the logical fallacy you are using , or you are simply being disingenuous.”
Happy to have a conversation, Bruce, but your tone isn’t working for me. Try again, and we can continue.
Merovign: “Given that A) Catholic doctrine states that all Popes are infallible, and given the historical fact that B) Some Popes are fallible, then it is concluded that C) Catholic doctrine (as stated) is false.
It is not a logical fallacy. If the premises are true then so is the conclusion, as far as that goes.”
Yes, but the above is not my argument. More to the point, in Catholic doctrine popes are infallible in their teaching of doctrine, not in their personal behaviour. Therefore, the term “infallible” in A is not an accurate antonym for the word “fallible” in B.
Since the terms of an argument must be consistent, the argument fails.
But I agree your argument is not a logical fallacy. However, “A is a wife-beater, therefore his science is suspect” is a logical fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even though A may in fact be a wife-beater. Similarly with my own pope example.
“Many of the arguments you cited (by name only) can in fact be both valid and true…”
Some of the claims may be true, others may not. Whether or not they are valid in a logical sense depends on how they are used in an argument. But I’m not talking about the truth or validity of arguments, rather the similarity between claims made by two groups of people opposed to a scientific theory.
In my view, this is significant, for at least two reasons. First, these sorts of claims are regarded as illegitimate in the case of opposition to evolution, so for consistency’s sake should be seen in the same light in regard to opposition to AGW. Secondly, the convergence of claims strongly suggests that the relationship between climate scepticism and AGW is similar to that between creationism and evolution.
Brendan H,
Of course you know that CAGW is not a scientific “theory.” It is merely a conjecture. But to avoid stepping on toes, let us take the middle ground and label CAGW an hypothesis. In that case it is a falsified hypothesis.
Next, your conflating of scientific skepticism with creationism is merely a talking point purveyed by the alarmist contingent, which argues in that despicable manner because they lack any empirical evidence showing that CO2=CAGW.
Finally, catholics believe that the Pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals. Science may be a part of faith, but faith is not a part of science… unless you believe in CAGW.
It’s fascinating that they picked the word “denial”. That sort of equates it to “holocaust denial” – evidently hoping to form some sort of equivalence between climate change skeptics and holocaust deniers.
Recognition of AGW as a religion is more clearly presented by its attributes: it gives us an Original Sin; it has its high priests (Al Gore, James Hansen &c) and heretics (Bjorn Lomborg &c); it has its doctrine (we are bad, we’re ruining the planet); it gives us a way to do penance (give all our money to the “Church of AGW”)… You can probably extend the list.
Smokey: “Next, your conflating of scientific skepticism with creationism is merely a talking point purveyed by the alarmist contingent…”
I listed a good number of claims made by both creationists and climate sceptics about their opponents and also about their opponent’s science. The claims exist. One could ask whether these claims (religion/cult, hoax etc) are central to climate scepticism or mere rhetorical flourishes.
“Finally, catholics believe that the Pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals.”
The term “doctrine” covers both faith and morals, so we are in agreement.
It’s a shame that non-subscribers can’t comment there….
The whole “article” violates their terms-of-use: “Are libellous, offensive, or contain prejudice against any individual or group”
Christopher Wood says:
May 14, 2010 at 2:27 pm
+The question that has to be asked is; for whom are these opinions provided? Us ‘deniers’ just laugh and the warmists nod their heads in agreement. It all seems a bit pointless, unless of course it is themselves who need convincing. Why have they bothered.
___________________________________________________________________________
It is for the modern day “Innocents’ Club” members. Remember the actual goal is a world wide tax paid to the United Nations and the crippling of the USA economy and that of other western nations.
Brendan H says:
May 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm
“……I’m not sure what “dodge” you are referring to, but my point was that anti-evolutionism and climate scepticism share some marked similarities in the way they see their opponents. The issue then becomes: if these types of claims are invalid in the case of evolution, why should they be valid in the case of AGW?
_______________________________________________________________________
Now that I have finished laughing, I will suggest you spend about a week reading the articles AND comments on this site, so you can remove both feet from your mouth. Of course you may be like other newbies who complain the science is too far over their heads….
Ralph says:
May 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm
>>Jim Clarke says: May 14, 2010 at 1:37 pm
>>To date, none of my concerns about the theory of an AGW crisis
>>have been seriously addressed, much less debunked!
_________________________________________________________________________
“And likewise on this wind-energy site, regards wind power and other Green issues.
http://www.navitron.org.uk
The standard reply by wind proponents is that they will either (a.) store the energy to cope with wind outages, or (b.) have more wind turbines elsewhere in Europe and transmit the energy to all the windless areas of the continent along a super-grid….”
_____________________________________________________________________
Has anyone ever looked at the total amount of energy required to mine and transport the ore, process it, manufacture the parts, transport, erect and whatever one of these windmills compared to their life time energy output? I know when they looked into bio-fuels, Cornell found the energy required to grow and process was much greater than the energy gained, so has anyone done a similar study on windmills?
I worked in an industry making aircraft turbine blades and the energy required was mine boggling. Therefore I wonder exactly how “green” wind energy actually is.
Brendan H says:
May 15, 2010 at 1:32 am
Smokey: “Same qualities. But if you want to pick nits, replace Gantry with Madoff or Ponzi.”
____________________________________________________________________
“Madoff and Ponzi were convicted swindlers.
“Happy now?””
____________________________________________________________________
No, not until Mann joins their ranks and that day is getting a lot closer, surprisingly. I guess there is at least one elected official who is acting in an honest fashion.
Gail: “Now that I have finished laughing, I will suggest you spend about a week reading the articles AND comments on this site, so you can remove both feet from your mouth.”
Thanks for the advice, Gail. I took a recce and came across this comment:
“Remember the actual goal is a world wide tax paid to the United Nations and the crippling of the USA economy and that of other western nations.”
Hmm. Where have I read that sort of thing before?
“Evolution: Vehicle of Apostasy! Destination: the New World Order!”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/devilution.htm
Now we can take Brendan H’s last wonderful post, combine it with his ramblings about the “shared claims” and “marked similarities” between anti-science creationists and the more political-type (C)AGW skeptics as he attempts to link the groups, and see that he has theorized there is a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists.
Reminds me of those tales about all those people who study psychology and even enter careers in it, because they suspect they are messed up themselves and are seeking explanations and how to self-help themselves. “Look, I know you’re crazy, and trust me, I know crazy.”
Kadaka: “…he has theorized there is a conspiracy among conspiracy theorists.”
There’s a lot of it about.
“Look, I know you’re crazy, and trust me, I know crazy.”
Sounds like you’re projecting there, KD.
“tired old comparisons of today’s skeptical public to tobacco industry campaigns”
More than true comparisons, they are often the same people. And these 32 organizations who have helped deny the science of tobacoo dangers, and now the science of climate change.
1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation
“Tobacco dangers” come in three flavors: smoking, chronic 2nd-hand smoke, and intermittent 2nd-hand smoke (in restaurants, etc.). Denial of the first was outrageous, of the second was non-outrageous (the initial science was spotty), and of the third is well-justified. The use of the “tobacco card” is unjustified in cases where the institutes cited were engaged in quibbling about the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke. I suspect that the card players know that what they’re doing creates the false impression about what these institutes have done, but they do so anyway, because it’s so rhetorically effective.
The “card players” like the UCS report engage in a similar smear when they list the names of skeptical scientists who have “affiliations” with these institutes without spelling out what they are. The unwary reader thereby gets the impression that affiliation means employment, rather than merely (as I suspect) getting a speaker’s fee for giving a talk at a dinner or for reprint rights to an article, etc.