There is no difference between global warming deniers and evolution deniers. If only because they are usually the same people. Like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, for instance.
As a matter of introduction, I won all of my school’s science fairs in middle school, junior high school and high school. Being very crappy at calculus, I majored in English in college rather than physics.
It disturbs me greatly when science is abused; when I observe scientific illiteracy run rampant in the United States; and when I watch large corporations manipulate people due to their scientific illiteracy.
If you wish to study the phenomenon of scientific illiteracy up close, talk to someone who declares themself a global warming “skeptic” or “denier.”
If you wish to study the phenomenon of psychological denial up close, talk to a person who possesses a science degree who identifies themself as a global warming “skeptic.”
Examples of both species can be observed interacting with real climate scientists at the www.realclimate.org. The confrontation is not pretty, yet remarkably predictable. When the climate “skeptics” bring their best, A-1 skeptical stuff to battle against the realclimate.org experts, they are always and inevitably crushed to powder. Just look at any one of the comment threads at www.realclimate.org
What is left after this peer-reviewed scientific pummeling are willful lies and delusions, the “sources” the paid for shills of ExxonMobil.
Here’s a question. Why does the U.S. not have a formal, public scientific debate on Global Warming? Each side picks its champion. Each side agrees to a Moderator? Why not?
The reason is obvious. No credible atmospheric scientist would publicly adopt the “No Global Warming” position any more than a credible astronomer would adopt the “Young Earth Creationist” view of astronomy or biology.
Here’s a question. Why has Albert Gore been nominated for Nobel Prize? Why has no Global Warming ‘Skeptic’ been similarly nominated?
Here’s a question. Why has Albert Gore’s low budget movie explaining the basic, underlying science of Earth’s climate system been awarded an Academy Award for Best Documentary?
If Mr. Gore’s scientific overview is absolutely 100 percent wrong — as Dr. Falwell and others hotly contend — where is the outrage amongst the world’s climate and atmospheric scientists ?
The beauty of science is that we all can verify its findings ourselves. I can look at Jupiter in a small telescope in my back yard and see its four brightest moons just as Galileo did.
The beauty of science is precisely that science is not about belief. Science is, has been and will always be that which we can see with our own eyes and check with our own minds. Science is that which you can confirm and check by yourself.
That is why I like science. That is why scientific illiteracy in the United States scares the hell out of me. Without scientific literacy, you and I are left to believing or disbelieving the words of those whom we put trust in, with no way of independently confirming for ourselves if the facts support what they say. That is a condition of ignorance, of believing that baby mice are born from piles of rags on a cellar floor because that’s where they run from when the rag pile is disturbed.
Do we in 2007 really want to descend back to the intellectual pedigree and standards of proof held by Europeans in 1387?
An amazing diary–and one I can’t endorse enough. (I regret I have but one “recommend” to give for my country.)
This is a long term, insidious plot. (No I don’t have tinfoil hats. I have tons and tons of evidence.) We don’t teach science because we teach to tests. What passes for science today is reading about science in fact oriented books about furry animals.
There are other factors. The facilities are so bad that teachers fear accidents and lawsuits if they try to do labs. Teachers are poorly trained. I could go on and on.
But the result is clear. The Gen-Xers can’t think their way out of a paper bag, and the neocons are so happy about it…
Thanks. I am very very worried about the loss of scientific literacy in our country. It is the fabric itself being unthreaded. Cheers and thanks.
Doug Watts
…until the Gen X smear.
YEAH anyway I’m a baby boomer I thought we were the biggest idiots dammit!
Thanks. My wife’s a physics professor and the other writing hat I occasionally wear involves science curriculum development. The current lack of scientific literacy in this country is terrifying.
I like this a lot, especially the reference to realclimate.org, which I will try to use in arguments with my wingnut father, who has stopped pushing quasireligious pro-Bush arguments, but is now anti-global warming nonstop every day.
Arminius — Thank you. Please blog whore to death the folks at realclimate.org whenever you can. They are doing incredible work maintaining that site and their sanity. I have been a reader and commenter at realclimate.org for about two years and want to give them as many plugs and kudos as I can. They deserve it.
Cheers and thanks to you —
Doug Watts
Augusta, Maine
This is yet another aspect of the faith vs reason debate that is taking place in the US currently.
For various reasons (I give my hypothesis why in this diary of yesterday – Taking Exception to ‘The Authoritarians’) belief has increased over the past few decades.
The mindset of those who believe in a hierarchical structure to society, follow a strong leader and are unquestioning is explained in a recent book.
Psychologist Robert Altemeyer has just published a free, on line book which summarizes his 40 years of research on what he has called the right wing authoritarian (RWA) personality type. These are the “anti-science” people being discussed here.
Altemeyer was the source of the work that John Dean used in his recent book “Conservatives without Conscience”.
You can read Altemeyer’s book here:
The Authoritarians
He explains why arguing with such people is futile. They will not examine any information which questions their world view. Read the book, the insights he provides will be enlightening. The first step to countering anti-intellectualism is understanding what motivates these people.
The trouble with infallibility is that it is immune to fact checking. Many conservative religious people are willing to accept any doctrine so long as it is espoused by a religious leader. At some point, too much of their identity is tied into their belief system, and thus anything which calls that belief system into question on any point, no matter how small, no matter how trivial to you or I, must be opposed. To do otherwise is to admit that a chink exists in the armor of religious inerrancy which envelops them in the illusion of security that only simple answers to complex questions can provide.
Excellent diary, Doug. I’d like to mention the good news that was shared by Gov Janet Napolitano at the National Governors Meeting yesterday. Big donations have been made to a program in which interested state education entities can submit their ideas for science and math teaching improvements, with grants of $500,000 to be awarded to those chosen. Now, this is from listening, not reading, so I believe that figure is correct. The number of grants is not very large, unfortunately.
There was an acronym used: STEM, and I’d have to guess that it means Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Just checked, and found that MIT sponsors a STEM program on their campus, but perhaps other versions exist elsewhere, judging from the repeated references to the acronym by Gov Napolitano.
Is there a link for these grants? Sounds wonderful. The creativity of small groups of teachers is our best hope.
C-Span, although it often provides links to the hearings and meetings they cover, didn’t post any links or references to this program. I heard Gov Napolitano said the money for these grants was given by Microsoft/Gates Foundation (it went by too fast to be sure which) plus another tech company. I’ll try to find out.
According to what is available on the National Governors Association website, this program comes with strings and red tape. (My “outsider” description.) It appears to be designed for a state who is implementing an entire program based on STEM curricula. Applications must include letters from the state’s governor and many other state officers. Additionally, copyright is given over to the funding organizations, and state matching funds are required.
The application itself is to be no more that 12 pages, but required supplementary information is not so limited. Completed applications are due by 5pm Eastern time, May 15, 2007.
Here is a 32-page report on their over-arching theme, Innovation America.
The application for a grant is in this 18-page link. (My comments and observations come from this material.)
“Why does the U.S. not have a formal, public scientific debate on Global Warming? Each side picks its champion. Each side agrees to a Moderator? Why not?
“The reason is obvious. No credible atmospheric scientist would publicly adopt the “No Global Warming” position”
I see a deeper reason: the American public has no expectation that participants a scientific dispute will confront one another, making factual claims and counter-claims and being obligated to defend them. That is, they don’t expect a debate, therefore groundless arguments can escape a direct, public, head-to-head challenge.
Demanding this — building that expectation — is one of the highest-leverage causes that progressives could fight for. Progress could be made incrementally, starting with genuine scientific disputes with truth-seeking participants. Eventually, the expectation that (gasp!) scientific arguments require a scientific defense could take hold, and the world would become more reality based.
Or, we can go on fighting battles on specific facts of no comparable strategic, transformative importance, while doing absolutely nothing to achieve this.
I think the right is moving on from denial of the problem to denial of any solution. I saw an editorial by George Will arguing that there is no cure for climate change and any cost is prohibitive. He seems to feel that 10,000 years of stable climate and the rise of civilization is coincidence.
Mass extinctions, droughts, floods, famine…I imagine we will survive climate change but will look more like the people did 15,000 years ago. Free of civilization and big government. Bunch of tough guys living in caves not worried about the weather. No taxes. Reading from the ancient texts that tell us about sex and how many gods we should have……Ahhhh the world of the future a neocon fantasy come true.