Canada’s version of Faux News and 
the Washington Times, The National Post, has been a fountain of misinformation and deceit when it comes to climate science. The National Post‘s pages have been filled with truthiness dribble from those rejecting science and seeking to distort the science into the public discussion. Last week, The National Post published a piece grounded in reality, rather than partisan delusion, castigating science denial and asserting that Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economy are causing harm to conservative causes.
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause, by regular columnist Jonathan Kay, begins:
Have you heard about the
“growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature?
Well, this is a talking point that echoes around the conservative communities (of the English speaking world, especially) and, all too often, makes its way into ‘balanced’ journalistic reporting.
It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation.
The key — truthful — point:
Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense.
Like so much of the right-wing rhetoric, on the superficial listening by those ignorant of the issues or ideologically inclined, this is “fine-sounding” but “all … nonsense”.
Shockingly, for a Post regular columnist on an energy/environmental issue, Kay quotes accurately from peer-reviewed science literature.
In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars … provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”
Yes, that “growing number” of scientists that people like Jim Inhofe like to spout off about might represent in the range of three percent of the scientists with actual claim to real expertise in relevant domains. And, to be clear, that several percent are not “deniers”, but skeptical in terms of asking for yet more information and more expertise. On the other side, there are few tenets of science that have 97 percent of scientists in agreement.
The basic point, of course, is that if those 97 percent are correct, inaction to reduce human contributions to warming the planet will have extreme consequences for humanity — from dragging down economic growth (the good case) to forcing mass relocation due to rising seas and much human suffering (due to storms, agricultural disruption, spreading of insects and diseases) to quite catastrophic consequences that could involve threatening billions of human lives and the functionality of human civilization (that high-end, worst case). If we act, seriously, to mitigate climate change and those less than 3 percent were right to be skeptical, the bad case is a minor drop in economic growth while our air and water is much cleaner due to ending our fossil foolish addictions. (In the What’s the worst that can happen calculation, the choice does seem clear … doesn’t it?)
Sadly, basic facts are unlikely to do much to turn the tide on the right-wing noise machine. Kay, in essence, asserts that much of the conservative movement is wearing tin-foil hats as “most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind”. As Kay highlights, conspiracy theories are “those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.” So, how does Kay, a regular columnist in a bastion of climate denial, link this to Global Warming denial?
This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too
And, the comments to Kay’s piece prove his point.
I know what I’m going to be told.
The National Post is now just another mouthpiece for liberals and the MSM. No wonder it’s not making money hand-over-fist like Fox & Beck & Rush. [overthinking it]
If there was ever a movement packed with speculation, hubris, mischief, self interest, and unqualified “experts” it is the AGW movement. It’s hard to keep with with latest scandal. [Bart F]
Right – and the record cold this winter was just weather, and the recent Toronto/New York heat wave is proof of AGW. After the recent “climategate/Mann” whitewashes….err reviews, the collapse of Copenahgen, Amazongate, Patchurigate, Glaciergate, carbon market — this kind of push back from the warmists is predictable. Let me fix that headline for you… “Global Warming Alarmists are a liability to the Progressive cause” [KootenyBob]
Scientific enterprise is nested in social life. The sociology of scientific enterprise is revealing: if 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, perhaps this is a reflection on how best to obtain grant money for scientific research? [Sonic71]
As Kay comments,
In support of this paranoid
approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.
Yes, Co2 is life … yes, “climate change” has happened over billions of years … yes, we do not know every single linkage and interaction with 100% certainty as to what is happening in the planet … yes, Galileo existed and was right … yes … yes … yes … there are facts that can be spun together to create truthiness, misrepresentation, and falsehoods as part of a FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) strategy to protect existing interests and inhibit action to mitigate climate change.
Kay concludes:
Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists.
Now, perhaps the only item which is wrong in this paragraph: “will come to be” seems off, to this reader at least, as they are already “defined … by their noisiest cranks and conspiracists” like Jim Inhofe and Glenn Beck.
Hat-tip to Deep Climate, where Canadian climate denialism is closely tracked:
First, I pinched myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. And then I checked the date at the top of the screen to make sure I hadn’t stumbled across a leftover April Fool’s joke. … The piece itself, by longtime Post columnist Jonathan Kay, is as forthright an excoriation of “climate-change deniers” (his term) as I’ve read anywhere. And, unlike previous (and very occasional) token AGW commentators, Kay is a National Post insider, who happens to be comment pages editor. Indeed, there are intriguing indications that the Post’s treatment of the climate change issue may be undergoing a shift, although it’s too early to say how far it will go.
See also Joe Romm, Climate Progress, National Post shocker: “Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause”
On National Post climate denial, see, for example:
- Richard Littlemore, Fake Glacier Claim Rises Again, 2008
- Richard Littlemore, Denier Specialist Solomon Offers up Careful Culling of “Science”
- Jim Hoggan, Solomon has questions he doesn’t like: the DeSmogBlog has answers he won’t like either
- See also the National Post posts at Deep Climate.
NOTES:
1. Climate Cover-Up is from DeSmogBlog and provides a good window on the Canadian skeptic/denial PR machine.
2. Cartoon seemed ever-so appropriate. From Mr Drinkwater. Recommended cartoonist … for example, see Two Americas.
UPDATE: So much for the National Post improving … Saturday’s Post had a rejoinder, from Kay’s boss actually, which spewed denialism. In Bad Politics, Terence Corcoran asserts that the PNAS study is actually a conspiracy to shut down scientific debate.
“Expert Credibility in Climate Change” proves exactly the opposite. The authors claim there exists a tiny cabal of nefarious deniers who make up only 2% of climate scientists but have received “large amounts of media attention” and have “significant influence in the societal debate” over climate. If there’s a conspiracist group here, it is the authors of the paper and the entire IPCC. They are convinced, in their paranoid state, that their tenets and doctrines and dogma — which cannot be contradicted — are under attack by this little group of scientists, blacklisted now as deniers and skeptics.
Sigh …