From an editorial from nature.com, and published in the journal, they seem to think the d-word is proper vernacular.
Volume: 467, Page: 133 Date published: (09 September 2010) DOI: doi:10.1038/467133a
The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.
…
There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research.
…
The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.
Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party’s leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama’s promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.
==========================================
They say in a sidebar that: “The country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology.”
I don’t disagree, but we also need to separate science from the global warming ideology that has hijacked it. The current backlash they speak of has in fact been brought about in part by allowing this to happen. I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences, at least until somebody demands that one of the science organizations embraces or endorses the cause. That’s when the dissent starts. For example:
American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists
Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate
Witness Nature using the word denialism, born of the politically nurtured global warming ideology. If Nature’s editorial staff was not indoctrinated to at least some of that ideology, I wager they’d have used a different word. And they wonder why there is dissent while at the same time they use the word to insult people. I encourage subscribers to call them to task on this use of the word.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Sponsored IT training links:
Looking for useful E20-520 prep resources? Join today for HP2-E28 online training program and pass HP2-T16 exam on first attempt guaranteed.
Helen Hawkins says,” Adult stem-cell research is making fantastic strides in developing cures for all kinds of illness.” Further, there was a recent announcement that pluripotent adult stem cells were developed. This attribute was THE main element promoting embryonic stem cell research.
Curt says:
September 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Curt, you are right on. It is not anti-science. It is pro life. The opponents (most of them) understand the only way to get EMBRYONIC stem cells (no one to my knowledge is against stem cell research period) is to abort a baby. And to some of us that is murder (I understand not all see an unborn baby as a true human). It is akin to the “opponents” in WWII using Jews for medical research. No one has ever denied that great advances were made – but the price is way too high for those who view human life as the most important thing.
The nascent science of climatology has indeed been hijacked. We learned a lot of real climate science at Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change this year in Chicago (they have put it online, for anyone interested). WUWT’s projects were a prominent feature.
The Idso’s were there to present a bit of the science on CO2 and plants, but the theme was Rethinking the Science and Economics.
I have concluded that the Biology is a bigger issue–warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels are clearly proven to result in more plant and animal life, yet the call is catastrophe. Recently, I did some literature searches in biology peer-reviewed databases, and found a considerable skewing in the field of biology that I suspect is far worse than even in Climate Science (where editors have been fired and papers denied publication because of politically incorrect results) itself.
I found wild speculation as to some enzyme system that might actually reduce the numbers of a Mexican bat in warmer temperatures. Some research results were involved, but the hypothesis itself was testable–and appropriate research was simply not included. The whole point of peer review is to exclude pure guesses like that.
AGW is mentioned in the intro to a very large number of studies. This tells you it is a money item, but the papers themselves have no defensible connection.
The science of ecology says primary production (plants) are the number one thing correlated to biodiversity. Since biodiversity is at the heart of many of these publications, they shoot themselves in the foot by complaining about things likely to increase it.
Worse, some suggest toxic “solutions,” and help steal poor peoples’ farmland to plant “carbon offset” noncrops–and that is murder.
The political correctness in biology is more extreme than the climate correctness, and threatens our well-being and all our lives.
Upon reading the article, I must conclude that Nature indeed failed to resist the temptation to detour from objective science in this piece. The author unnecessarily overburdened any real message with pejorative and inflammatory terms like “denialism,” attacking political and religious views, and labeling other views as derelict, all of which are whipping horses readily available when science fails in delivering a consumable message.
From a historical vantage, the premise that religion and politics has stifled and undermined the message of science is a sad and even desperate position to take. Science indeed flourished and excelled in the U.S. in an era where politics and religion were far more prevalent in the hearts of its society. So, what has changed today?
In my humble opinion, what has changed is in the day of its flourishing, science was entrepreneurial, scientists were good spokespersons who engaged the public as part of their excitement in their accomplishments. Albert Einstein never missed a photo opportunity to engage the press and the public. Thomas Edison was both an entrepreneur and a sales man of science. Both became household names. In my youth, I was inspired to be like them by their example and by their exuberance. Where are the household names of science today?
Today’s crop of scientists can’t be bothered with public appearance. They are content to grub for government grants, hide behind institutional walls, and leave inept politicians and activist zealots to do their speaking for them. They then whine when the message delivered isn’t consumable. If I were young today, why would I be inspired by anything held forward by the likes of Jones, Mann, Briffa, Hansen, or Schmidt? Why would I dream of being a scientist when science publications like this are no more than wailing and crying – something more appropriate at funerals?
Yes, pointing the finger at assuages the guilt of the pointer but it does nothing to solve the problem as it displaces the culpability. When failure reaches the point where we must burn the Christians, label those who disagree as intellectually deficit, and brand the critics as heretics – all unfit as citizens – the kingdom is close to collapse. Nero iconized this unfortunate reality. Nature has indeed set a new low in standards for scientific publication with this sad but revealing article.
well here is my LTE. it is quite a rigmarole to submit one
To the Editor
I was extremely offended by your 8 September editorial, “The anti-science strain pervading the right wing…”
As an educated liberal, I have news for the readers of Nature: We are in the middle of an ice age. It is ludicrous to be frightened by a dubious few tenths of a degree of warming.
But the editorialists “business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups” along with the governments owned by them have poured trillions of dollars into a “climate science” propaganda machine. This machine funds thousands of think tanks and professors who are paid to terrorise naive but otherwise well meaning folk into turning over large sums of money to said banks, corporations, and governments.
The Global Warming scare is indeed another scam perpetrated by the cleptocratic class, those same “business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups” responsible for such classic theft schemes as the WTO, World Bank, and our perpetual wars based on lies. No wonder Limbaugh is suspicious of these “elites” and their paid experts.
Perhaps Limbaugh, a man I despise, is actually right for once. Limbaugh says,”The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit.” From the liberal perspective, all of these institutions have been bought out by “business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.”
From the liberal perspective, Global Warming is just one more scam to further impoverish the poor, and further enrich the rich. It is one more scam to transfer wealth from those who work to those who don’t. Only from the liberal perspective, those idle hands are the idle hands of the owning class.
Rather than being swayed left by your association of “denialism” with sundry right-wing fanatics, I am offended by having my honest skepticism labeled “denialism” and “anti-science”. Skepticism is the heart of science, and our greatest hope for progress.
Sincerely,
Peter Hodges
The left believes it is sole custodian of the truth, exemplified by the self-serving title An Inconvenient Truth – that only they have the science. The fact is they have a single precept, that CO2 is solely responsible for agw. And on this one issue, the GRIP2 ice core data reveals that CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER temperature increases. Therefore, the science says: the left’s single issue is moot.
The MSM, Nature, Science, and the rest of the left leaning sycophants daily throw anecdotal information against the wall to see what will stick. Fortunately, with millions watching on the Internet, none of this crap hangs around for long. The Hockey Stick is dead. The corrupt IPCC is next.
The right isn’t anti-science. It is anti-dogma. It knows tossing virgins into the volcano is not going to placate the gods, be they the warming or cooling variety. The right knows building solar panels and wind turbines are unsustainable and a total waste of resources. The right knows global climate models are useless because they only look at corrupted data ‘homogenized’ by Dr. James “thumbs on the temperature scale” Hansen. The right knows planetary mechanics solely dictate our climate. The right knows CO2 has no choice but to come along for the ride.
Konrad says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:08 am
“I note that Nature has indeed published my vitriolic and somewhat provocative comment.”
Well done! There are some other comments critical of Nature.
I’m glad to see that Nature is not censoring them.
I have archived the comments in case they disappear, in which case they will reappear all over the Intenet.
Dave Springer says:
September 10, 2010 at 5:48 am
I really enjoyed your post, especially this quote:
I really agree with this. Though the debate is important for a lot of reasons, I agree that it is completely unimportant in science and engineering which inherently work with natural processes. They explore/explain/utilize how the universe operates, not how it orginates (which would seem to have to be an unnatural process and doesn’t fall under science, as it isn’t reproducible). I realize that current operational observations can be extrapolated backwards…but can you really extrapolate back to the origin of the universe???
And this is related to the topic at hand because use of the D-word by scientists (especially climate scientists) is absurd. It simply does not fall into their area of expertise. Yet a lot of scientists these days seem to think their views are 100% correct on a variety of topics, particularly politics and religion. Perhaps psychologists should be the one accessing why the “results” are being “denied”. Oh wait, a lot of scientists think psychology is whack. 😉
-Scott
“The Tea Party’s leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics.” Yes, there are religious conservatives opposed to science. What ‘Nature’ misses is left-wing and green anti-scientism. And left-leaning scientists who use their credentials to undermine scientific reasoning – Steven Rose, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. People like Edward Wilson were attacked by the left, sometimes physically, for trying to apply Darwinism to the behavior of homo sapiens, and their followers still threaten academic freedom. Gould also used the ‘eugenics’ scare tactic.
Just curious…
1) AGW types went to great lengths to demonstrate that the “climate skeptics” are in the minority… let’s assume that as the case for now.
2) The Nature article seems quite comfortable labelling the alledged minority (see point 1) with the label “denier” which we all know has very negative connotations.
It would seem to me, given my rather vague knowledge of US law as gleaned from watching “Law & Order” etc (great source I am sure 🙂 ) that these would be the criteria that satisfy the necessary conditions for “hate speech.”
Just musing aloud…
Math and Physics older than I am are my religion . Apparently even if you are “registered” but not about to drop $200 on a subscription you can’t comment on Nature’s arrogant statist lumpen insults .
They should learn some basic 19th century physics of radiantly heated balls . Simply adding up the energy impinging on the planet gives a temperature of about 279 Kelvin , within 10 degrees of our observed . And that temperature applies to any gray ball no matter how dark or light .
But “climate science” academia foists the unphysical “cold earth” hypothesis , to use Marty Hertzberg’s term , “frozen earth” in mine , that the the earth somehow reflects as a 0.7 absorptivity ball , but emits as a 1.0 black body , to claim that without a “greenhouse gas effect”‘ our temperature would be 255k .
So 2/3rds of their claimed greenhouse effect is simply getting back up to the temperature of a gray ball . That’s why a greenhouse effect has been found on the moon . How the hell they calculate “forcings” given this false nul hypothesis I find beyond my comprehension .
Actually calculating equilibrium temperature , given the sun’s spectrum , for a ball with any particular spectrum , like the lumped earth and atmosphere in our orbit is simply a matter of calculating the correlation between those 2 spectra .
I’m offering , as an individual who has to calculate , on his own time , his taxes due rather than one who is paid by taken taxes , a very small cash prize for any student who extends my algorithms for non-uniform flat spectrum bodies to full spectra and computes the equilibrium temperatures for various substances and spheres of interest .
I think David Nolan may be the only counter example to the comment that any field with science in its name probably isn’t one . In any case the understanding of classic physics evident in “climate science is pathetic – to be kind . It is a personally painful reminder of my age that a name as once revered as Nature has so revealed its mortality . But in the age of the www blog , it , and all restricted review , are dinosaurs .
Here’s to the end of the cult of the omniscient omnipotent geographic monopoly of force , we call the state . Here’s to the free market of free minds doing the best for their families .
I’ll submit this as a LTE to Nature to request an answer to the hundred year old physics which falsifies their rational for world domination .
Curiousgeorge says:
September 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm
So according to Nature if I disagree with the methods, statistics, assumptions, and conclusions of the AGW “scientists” I am automatically a gun clinging, right-wing, bible thumping, redneck.
You rang sir?
Yeah! That’s me alright. I am armed to the teeth at all times. I do have a rifle in the rifle rack of my pickup truck.
I also have three engineering degrees and have met very few people I would be afraid to cross technological swords with.
Also, I am old enough to be in a perpetual bad temper.
I do not suffer fools gladly!
ps. I am NOT kidding.
peterhodges says:
September 10, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Rod McLaughlin says:
September 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm
An excellent letter, Mr. Hodges, and some really great examples of historic left-wing anti-science, Mr. McLaughlin.
The left-wing feminist attack on E.O. Wilson was prolonged and influential – it was considered quite daring to defend his ideas even in the late 1980s. The debate concerned the ideological implications of the genetic determination of human traits and behaviour for womens’ liberation (among other issues), and was not carried on at a scientific level, but very much on a political level. Yet the theory of human development being defended by these ideologues was equally open to abuse: the idea that our strengths and shortcomings are due to nurture rather than nature led to such things as ‘refrigerator mothers’ (career women) causing autism in their children (usually sons) by being emotionally distant. As the mother of an autistic son, I understand how devastating it must have been in the 1960s to go seek help for an emotionally unresponsive, developmentally delayed child and being told on no uncertain terms that it was your own fault! It’s hard enough to deal with now when current theories have linked genetic anomalies to the disorder. One always wonders if one was spending too much time at the photocopier, or doing other things that tipped the genetic/environmental balance. Contra Anthony’s comment at the outset about most sciences not being permeated by ideology, I would argue that unfortunately, the opposite is true, and especially for the biological and medical sciences (but you’ll also find it in theoretical physics). It’s just that the implications of those ideologies vary enormously.
Next at Nature Magazine, burn the witch.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) wrote:
“Shortly after the Obama administration took office, the Department of Homeland Security released a report linking right-wing extremists, like those opposing (increased) federal government control, with domestic terrorism. Nature and others are linking Climate Change deniers, like those opposing the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon (dioxide), with right-wing extremists. Therefore Climate Change deniers are linked to domestic terrorism.”
We will know that AGW is dead when the MSM comments just as vehemently against eco-freaks like Ted Kaczynski and James Jay Lee (both inspired by Al Gore).
When will we see Nature sold for $1?
Consider this – the first Tea Party was given by a bunch of everyday, middle of the road, fed-up guys dressed up like Indians (the Native American kind) because back then guys didn’t give tea parties and Indians did a lot of crazy things. Anyway, the point of it all is that it had a lot to do with taxes and the stupidity by politicians across the Pond in the Old Country. The current Tea Party is a bunch of guys and gals who couldn’t care less about how they look or what anyone else on the planet thinks. It’s a kind’a ‘personal’ thing to them, and these folks were, are and always will be The Mighty Middle, the ones who rule and pick the winners. Anyway they’re not the Left (Commie Democrats) or the Right (Gutless Republicans). Tea Parties are the way Americans tell politicians that things are getting out of hand and they’re fed up.
PS: Just thought I’d give the meaningless few on the left and the right a little education about the mighty middle.
Curiousgeorge says:
“So according to Nature if I disagree with the methods, statistics, assumptions, and conclusions of the AGW ‘scientists’ I am automatically a gun clinging, right-wing, bible thumping, redneck. Hmmm.”
============
Hmmmm………now I also read that article in ‘Nature,’ and not once did I read anything close to “guns, bibles or rednecks,” so I must say you and many others are reading entirely between the lines and just making it up as you go along, to increase the huge polarization in our country today. How is this helpful? Apparently, you don’t want it to be, even though you go on and try to tell us you’re an “Independent,” but that certainly can’t be your voting record today.
“I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences, at least until somebody demands that one of the science organizations embraces or endorses the cause”
I think this statment is incorrect, although I acknowledge I may have misunderstood it. In my experience the great majority of people in research are working hard and trying to do good science. A minority, including many of the people your likely to see and hear about, are stroking their egos promoting themselves and doing whatever it takes to get funding and profile. There are tremendous egos, cliques and ideaologies at play. I put it to you that theory by fashion/associations/funding is the norm rather than the exception and I have personally seen important discoveries buried for many years because the person who made them was not in the right club.
The reason the GW thing has managed to become what it is is due to the secondary effects. Mentalist groupes latched onto it as a way to attract funds, then the finance industry realised there was a crooked buck in it.
Usually when these things arise mostly they are ignored until someone finally manages to publish a solid rebuttal, this time the issue went exponential. It is the secondary activity, not the bad science, which makes GW unusual.
There was a time when no one but a handful of people would have cared about a punch up over temperature trends or atmospheric CO2 levels – I am, sadly, the sort of person who would have cared 🙂 – but when you get talking about a tremendous tax on the whole developed world….
The sad state of science is not the data, but the intrepretation. I truly admire science and love it. The problems I have discovered in science is its method of intrepretation and its lack of a philosophy to ground itself and that has led to the current political problems in that science needs a philosophy to “validate” itself and has thus turned political to do so. That is why we got “the earth is flat” when the Jews knew it was round for at least a thousand years due to what God told them through their prophets: Isaiah using the word “sphere” in Hebrew. Science needs to expand its roots beyond the lab to include a solid philosophy that will at least take historical facts to start some decent thinking to avoid the political, besides the political solution has not worked out so well for us!