40 Comments:

SLC said...

How about the HIV/AiDS denialists?

March 23, 2007 5:17 PM,

 

Aoshi said...

I disagree with some of your choices under the industry thing. The belief that you should be able to pick what you eat, a la ConsumerFreedom, is a political belief and not an empirical denial of some fact.

Doesn't matter if they're corporate shills if they're just broadcasting their political beliefs, does it? If they're a corporate shill who's advocating global warming denial, like Cato, then sure, put them on there.

A random thought that just occurred to me: Do you put them on the list because they advocate that only a truly free market is the correct way to go? That I can see being called "regulation denial", saying that regulation is always bad and can never be good. I'd still have a problem with political sites on there, but I could see where you are coming from.

March 23, 2007 5:28 PM,

 

Aoshi said...

Oh, and holocaust denialists?

March 23, 2007 5:29 PM,

 

Aoshi said...

Oh my. I see why ConsumerFreedom is on there, now. Remind me to read a site before I defend it. They're trans-fat apologists.

I still disagree with putting.... er... the WSJ. That's about the only one left.

March 23, 2007 8:56 PM,

 

Kristjan Wager said...

Obviously you haven't read the WSJ's opinion pages have you? The newspaper as such is not denialist, but the opinion page has not yet found a anti-global warming idea that they didn't like.

March 24, 2007 3:24 AM,

 

Anonymous said...

You forgot to mention that the Physicians Committee for responsible Medicine is on the list because it is neither.

March 24, 2007 6:33 AM,

 

Mark said...

The HIV/AIDS denialists are coming along soon. I just wanted the initial list up and running.

I'm less sure which are the most influential HIV denialists sites, so I have to see which are most linked.

Like I say, a work in progress.

The industry sites, or astroturfers aren't there so much as denialists themselves but as false-expert groups. They provide the intellectual support for industries to deny things like global warming.

Chris also will cover this more, denialism as a tool of industry to avoid responsible regulations.

March 24, 2007 1:06 PM,

 

Mark said...

Oh, and I'm not even going to link the holocaust deniers. No one seriously believes anything those assholes say, and I don't really want to attract any attention to them. It's the denialists that are actually successful in getting attention from the public and from the government that I'm concerned about. Holocaust denial is more of a reference point of how ugly this stuff can get, but it doesn't actually need to be discussed and rebutted. It's already fully marginalized.

March 24, 2007 1:25 PM,

 

Mark said...

Finally, I stand by the WSJ opinion page's status as a denialist resource. They are firmly anti-science, especially when science conflicts with industry or the administration's interests.

March 24, 2007 1:30 PM,

 

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark, I was interested in some of the links that you provided to lobby warchers, are you sue that they are reliable?

SourceWatch in particular takes a somewhat credulous approact to some green and anti-vivisection groups that contrasts pretty strongly with their (deserved) criticism of more right-wing lobby groups. Just look up PCRM and ALF on their site to see what I mean. I suspect that many scientists visiting your site might prefer if you added a note to point out that not all lobby watchers can be considered entirely trustworthy, even if the information that they provide is often quite useful.

March 24, 2007 2:30 PM,

 

Mark said...

HIV Denialists are now added, I may cut down the list as I think many of the sites are essentially defunct.

Anon,
That is correct. The industry watchers have a definite agenda as well. However, they've done the grunt work going of researching the funding for a lot of these groups and are a useful resource to see who is funding what kind of opinions. They've pulled the 990s, they've researched the board members and combed through the press reports to figure out how many of these groups are fundamentally deceptive in their practices.

They also are excellent at detecting astroturf, that is, the fake grassroots organization. However, I do intend this site to be moderately apolitical.

March 24, 2007 2:37 PM,

 

Aoshi said...

The editorial page, fine, I can see where you're coming from there. Did you have the entire WSJ on there the other day, or did I just have selective eyesight?

March 24, 2007 3:15 PM,

 

Mark said...

selective eyesight I'm afraid.

March 24, 2007 3:30 PM,

 

Teresa said...

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in giving me their thoughts on this video that a friend of mine sent me. He's not a global warming denialist...he's "on the fence". I need some more sciency types to help me get the argument.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Teresa

March 24, 2007 9:29 PM,

 

Mark said...

Teresa,
I'd check out Climatedenial's rebuttal. Or Climatex's rebuttal.

Basically, the experts featured were not real experts, but the usual cohort of denialists. Facts were cherry-picked, and statements were censored carefully to exaggerate doubt. Very effective tabloid journalism, but not a meaningful refutation of a theory that every national academy of sciences in the world supports.

I expect real climate will soon have a rebuttal soon too, they tend to be the best at it.

Finally, an effective argument for the fence sitters is pretty simple. Say that the majority of scientists is wrong, every major scientific academy in the world is wrong, and this carefully-selected group of meteorologists, mathematicians, fiction writers (Crichton), and creeps (Monckton) are right. Is what the global warming believers saying so horrible? Move away from fossil fuels? Use more efficient energy? Decrease consumption of energy? Even if you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, how about just believing in energy security? Or concern about "peak oil"? Or just decreasing waste? Or creating sustainable development?

This video (which I watched when it came out a couple days ago) is really just more denialist claptrap. It is more cherry-picking, selective editing, non-sequiters, amplification of doubt and red herrings. It isn't real scientific debate. Some of it is just outright silly, like climate models not including solar forcing. But in the end, is the solution to global warming anything but common sense for a host of other good reasons?

March 25, 2007 12:04 AM,

 

JS said...

You forgot AiG.

- JS

March 25, 2007 7:52 AM,

 

Teresa said...

Mark,

Thanks a lot. I have Real Climate on my blogroll, so I will be checking them out too. THANKS!

March 25, 2007 8:04 AM,

 

Ted said...

Don't forget the folks over at Tech Central Station - Denialists for hire.

They don't have your topics up today, but they're not picky and their archives contain some of the best of the internet.

March 25, 2007 10:41 AM,

 

Jim Lippard said...

Why does "anti-net neutrality astroturfing" count as "denialism"?

Those who argue for net neutrality (e.g., by the folks at Save the Internet) very often also deny various technical, legal, and political facts about the Internet, but I wouldn't include them on your site.

Likewise, regarding regulation in general, the position that there are no costs of regulation and it's always good (e.g., those who make arguments that say "it's worth it if only one life is saved") is at least as absurd as the position that there are no benefits of regulation and it's always bad.

March 28, 2007 8:12 PM,

 

Jim Lippard said...

I also take it that you won't be listing atheists as God-denialists?

March 28, 2007 8:15 PM,

 

Mark said...

Jim,
Two things.

Chris is also going to use this blog to talk about industry tactics of denialism. He is a specialist in technology regulation, identity theft, and privacy, and we chose to identify some examples of "astroturfers" the fake experts of category 3 of denialism. Hopefully he'll be blogging more on this topic but he's a busy guy.

Now, atheists as "god denialists" that's kind of funny. That would require a scientific consensus and a great deal of evidence (I'm talking scientific evidence, not hazy analogies and old books) that he did exist. But that does not exist, and the faithful often assert that this is important, because one's religious beliefs should be motivated by faith not evidence.

Funny idea though.

March 29, 2007 9:28 AM,

 

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design. The fight should be only for the freedom of teachers to teach science as they see fit, independent of political or religious control. It should be a fight for intellectual freedom, not a fight for science against religion. - Freeman Dyson

March 30, 2007 2:04 AM,

 

stjones said...

Very impressive site; I admire your religious fervor - Pat Roberts has nothing on you. Anyone who thinks all True Believers are creationist nuts just isn't paying attention.

Inquisition now! Thumbscrews for ID proponents! Twenty years for doubting global warming! Fifty lashes for questioning the genetic basis for cancer! Resistance is futile! Politically Correct Science Rules! Where's the Koolaid????

Happy witch-hunting.

March 30, 2007 7:32 AM,

 

Mark said...

Wow, that Freemon Dyson quote sounds like the worst idea I've ever heard.

Allowing every single teacher to have their own view of what science is? That's the Baptist Church model of science education, everybody teaching something different with no control. WHat happens when you get the teacher equivalent of Fred Phelps?

Terrible, terrible idea. Science isn't just whatever people think it is. It's a set literature, a specific method, and a way of thinking about the natural world.

Oh and stjones, nice McCarthy defense. Like just being called a denialist means I've subjected you to torture, you poor baby!

March 30, 2007 10:24 AM,

 

Anonymous said...

Mark,

So is there a world famous, award winning scientist who is allowed to disagree with your exhalted genius?

March 30, 2007 10:56 AM,

 

Mark said...

Sigh.

Latest anonymous, where on the page is it unclear that this is not about disagreement but about tactics?

I mean really, are you people being purposefully dense?

This is not about having majority opinions, after all believing in evolution is a minority opinion. This is not about disagreeing with scientific consensus, there are some in my field that I'm skeptical of.

This is about tactics not disagreement. Denialists use the tactics described to hijack arguments and sow confusion about scientific knowledge. As I've explained, repeatedly, this is an issue of methods, 5 in particular. Alleging conspiracies, cherry-picking data, using fake experts, moving the goalposts/impossible expectations, and using logical fallacies. All of these are used to magnify doubt in scientific fields and they are fundamentally flawed non-arguments that represent an attempt to use deception, rather than data, to change scientific opinion.

So yeah, if a nobel prize winner (and there are a couple) come out and start doing this shit, I'm going to call them denialists. If they show me data, that's different.

March 30, 2007 12:21 PM,

 

jimbobboy said...

Mark -
You started a site calling attention to the fact that certain people and groups were deliberately misunderstanding certain subjects in order to advance their agendas.
Then they started showing up at your site, posting comments and deliberately misunderstanding you.
C'mon -- how surprised were you, really?

March 30, 2007 1:43 PM,

 

Mark said...

Ha!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but a bit frustrated. Again and again this BS that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a denialist.

Not even close. Disagree with me all you want, just don't use these tactics, and you're not a denialist. I may think you're wrong, but I won't think you're a crank.

March 30, 2007 1:53 PM,

 

Anonymous said...

Mark,

But to use your example of "global warming denialists," you have equally eminent scientists on both sides of the debate, both sharing scientific data, both using climate measurements. Exactly how do you decide which set of scientists are the deniers?

Just for fun, let's apply your "tactics test" to the anthropogenic warming crowd and see how they measure up:

Alledged conspiracy - Big Oil is out to destroy global warming science so they have hired all of these "fake experts" to muddy the waters by "making up" all this solar radiation and cosmic ray data.

Cherry picking data - the Medieval warming is bad because it shows that the climate was warmer then that it is today so we'll just leave that our of our graphs. We can't talk about that pesky solar radiation and cosmic ray data so we'll just say that it's not real. And don't even let people know about the deep-ocean sediment core data that shows climate cycles going back 500K years and shows that our current interglacial cycle is no different from the last several cycles.

Fake experts - Al Gore doesn't have any real training in science, especially climatology, but he's on our side so we're gonna use his political clout to promote our cause and call him an expert. Afterall, he did invent the internet.

Moving goalposts - sure, in the 1970's we were predicting a global deep freeze (some of us, like Wally Broeker, still are) but you should trust us because we're scientists.

Logical fallacies - Sorry, only got 4 out of 5.

So who, based on your criteria, are the real deniers?

March 30, 2007 2:20 PM,

 

jimbobboy said...

Nice try, latest anonymous, but the situation isn't even close to symmetrical.
Thousands of climate scientists accept that human activities have affected climate. A small (and shrinking) handful deny it.
The Medieval Warm Period is not ignored at all; it continues to be the subject of active, continuing research. However, claiming that the existence of the MWP somehow casts doubt on the proposition that human activities have contributed to modern warming is denialism, pure and simple.
Shaviv, Veizer, Svensmark and others who believe Galactic Cosmic Rays are a prime driver of climate continue to get a hearing. They just haven't swayed the majority, mostly because their theory lacks a few essentials -- like a trend in GCRs sufficient to act as a forcing.
Funding of denialist organizations by petroleum companies, directly or through conservative belief-tanks, has been well documented. But it's not necessary to invoke a conspiracy to explain all climate denialism. Stubborn attachment to ideology, and sheer human contrariness also play a role.
Al Gore's expertise, or lack of it, are not a factor in whether the statements in his movie are true, because we are not asked to take his word for any of it. Working climate scientists who have reviewed the movie overwhelmingly say that it is pretty much on the money. He is the guy denialists love to hate, but that does not make his argument any the less correct. And I can't miss noting that, to complete your trifecta of error, you actually believe that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. May I interest you in some beachfront property in Vanuatu?

March 30, 2007 2:52 PM,

 

Mark said...

Sorry Anon, but those are just lies, lies and damn lies.

Equally eminent scientists are not present on both sides of the debate, this is a joke. Who are you talking about here, Monckton? Steve Malloy? Pat Michaels? Who are these "eminent" experts?

As far as an oil "conspiracy" goes, there is no conspiracy. It's right out in the open. I don't have to suggest there's some secret cabal running things and coordinating attacks on science. Just look who pays for Mercatus, AEI, CEI, Cato, whatever. They have a very clearly stated agenda against the idea of climate change. You are also missing the point. The conspiracy is not part of the argument for the existence of global warming so charges of conspiracy don't even make sense in this context. I'm pointing out that very well financed industries pay ideologically aligned groups to produce information that creates anti-global warming noise. This isn't some crazy idea, it's a pretty plain fact.

As far as Cherry picking, the medieval warm period is included in hockey stick graphs like Mann's . To say it isn't is just a lie or a complete misrepresentation of the data.

For fake experts, that claim that Al Gore invented the internet was started in a Wired news article by Declan McCullough (who Chris is friends with for some unknowable reason), who exaggerated what Gore said to make it sound like Gore was some kind of megalomaniac. Please don't repeat that tired and disproven canard here. Also, he is an expert, just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean you can't write two books on the subject that accurately represent the science. This is the same canard always used on Chris Mooney of RWOS.

Finally, I can tell you're a denialist from your repetition of the whole "ice age" canard. This was never believed by more than a couple of people, and was really a news story that journalists hyped up. Not a serious scientific belief. The full story on that is here

Nice try, but another pathetic attempt at distraction by denialists using the old "you're the real denialist" gambit.

Finally I will point out to my denialist friends there is no global warming equivalent of Steve Malloy's site Junk Science, the denialists think this guy is some kind of genius! I think that's proof-positive right there, but hey, that's just me.

March 30, 2007 2:56 PM,

 

Mark said...

Damn Jimbobboy, we're like on a wavelength here aren't we. We even pulled the same snopes reference. Nice job.

March 30, 2007 2:57 PM,

 

Anonymous said...

Mark,

I can tell that you don't have any training in oceanography. Indeed, the "ice age canard" is a likey result of global warming, due to the following mechanism:

The global ocean circulation is controled by water in the North Atlantic becoming colder (because it's further north) and saltier (as it freezes), and hence more dense, causing it to sink. This water then travels around the globe until it surfaces again in the North Pacific, travels around the globe again to become the Gulf Stream, and travel into the North Atlantic.

One of the primary effects of global warming would be the melting of the northern ice cap. This would lead to a general freshening of the North Atlantic, effective stopping the production of this cold, dense water and shutting down the circulation pattern. Once this circulation is shut down, the warm ocean currents would begin to cool, leading to a general cooling on the continents and, you guessed it, the beginnings of the next ice age.

The area of the globe that will feel these effects first is NW Europe. The Gulf Stream is reason that NW Europe is much warmer than other parts of the world at the same latitude. As a result, they have good reason to worry about the possible results of global warming as the aforementioned scenario would be rather unpleasant for them.

This isn't just the ramblings of a few cranks, it's a pretty wide spread concensus among oceanographers and was first proposed by Wally Broeker, the oceanographer who first documented the global ocean circulation in its current configuration.

So your comment about the ice age being just denialist nonesense isn't totally accurate. The problem is that the media doesn't read oceanographic literature any more than med students and understands it even less.

AW

April 2, 2007 8:18 PM,

 

al wallace said...

Mark said:

"The conspiracy is not part of the argument for the existence of global warming so charges of conspiracy don't even make sense in this context. I'm pointing out that very well financed industries pay ideologically aligned groups to produce information that creates anti-global warming noise. This isn't some crazy idea, it's a pretty plain fact."

aw replies:

That's interesting. I was at a climate change meeting not long ago. It was a round table discussion where three experts presented their papers and then fielded questions/discussion from the audience.

Most of their data was based on models that all led to some conclusion that was a negative result (no ice in the Arctic ocean, no spruce for the Alaskan timber industry, etc). The "no ice" guy was funded by agencies that study sea ice (vested interest) and the "no timber" guy was funded by agencies that study trees and the effects of logging (vested interest).

What was interesting is that myself and other marine bio/oceanographer types began asking some pretty simple questions about their models. For example, did their models back-cast the recent large el ninos? NO. Did they back-cast the pacific decadal oscillation? NO. Did they back-cast the arctic oscillation? NO. The question was then asked, if your models can't accurately back-cast what we know to have happened, then how can we trust their dire forecasts?

Needless to say, the meeting pretty much went downhill for our intrepid trio of global warming "experts." Every oceanographer in the room (all of which are intimately familiar with the benefits and limitations of models) started taking their models apart. One sage old researcher asked whether it would really be bad for the spruce-based logging industry to be replaced by a birch-based pulp industry.

At the end of the day, the global warming "experts" were embarrassed by their own peers.

Were any of the folks in the audience funded by "big oil?" Of course not, most of these guys study zooplankton and ocean currents and sea grass and such. The ones that do have any oil money are studying the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill on Prince William Sound (not related to global warming) and so have no ax to grind at all. The global warming "experts", however, did indeed have funding agencies to please with their data, however sloppy it was.

Just an observation...

aw

April 3, 2007 12:16 AM,

 

jimbobboy said...

Anyone who is interested first in getting at the truth -- and not just carrying water for one interest or another -- deserves respect for that effort, whether we agree with the answers or not.
But it is tough for me to see climate scientists as being in the service of just another "vested interest." To use your example, would agencies that study trees and the effects of logging necessarily favor spruce over birch? Do agencies that study sea ice necessarily want studies that show the ice going away? I guess it's possible, but in my view you haven't yet presented a prima facie case for bias in research funding.
In contrast, the case that the oil and coal industry has funded one-sided research and commentary in an effort to defeat emissions-limiting proposals is very strong indeed.
I think you mistook Mark's point regarding the "ice age canard." The comment in question was that "in the 1970's we were predicting a global deep freeze ...but you should trust us because we're scientists." This is a widely flogged misconception, which Mark was correct in smacking down.
Your point regarding public understanding (or misunderstanding) of mechanisms such as the thermohaline circulation is well taken. Oceanographers, like members of other disciplines, are justifiably frustrated at how hard it is to get the important stuff across without distortion. But your job is not helped by commentary that works backward from an essentially political position to an assertion of fact. Now, if you really believe that the commenter who said that "deep-ocean sediment core data ... shows that our current interglacial cycle is no different from the last several cycles" was simply interested in getting at the truth, and not trying to make a political point -- well, I'll defer to your expertise. But I'm still not buying it.

April 3, 2007 2:09 PM,

 

Mark said...

You're right, I do not have an understanding of the status of the field of oceanography. I apologize.

However, the Ice Age Canard, which was explained very well by that link, is the overhyping of some articles in the lay press from the 1970s about a coming ice age.

There was never a time when the "scientists" wearing white coats and serious expressions told the White House we were in a climate crisis from impending glacial ice flows destroying New York. This is the result of an overblown Newsweek article from over 30 years ago, not serious predictions and warnings from a large number of scientists.

I also see there is a constant harping about climate models when it comes to global warming denialism. This is likely because models are perceived as a weak link in the chain, any prognostication is of course going to be a risky bit of business. But the global warming denialists attack more than that, they say scientists lie about the medieval warm period, they say there is no evidence of a forcing effect from carbon dioxide, all things which I see as a fairly well educated scientist weekly in science and nature being proven false, false, false. Finally, isn't the expectation of predicting an El Nino from a climate model completely unrealistic? These are models of climate not weather, and El Ninos represent a yearly variation that's pretty unpredictable correct? Isn't that a bit like saying that a scientist couldn't describe where I live as a temperate zone because that doesn't accurately describe thursdays rainfall?

I'll leave it up to Realclimate to defend the climate models but it sounds to me, from my limited knowledge, that expecting them to model El Nino etc., is unrealistic. Realclimate has real experts though and can speak with a great deal more clarity than I can. However, I also know bullshit when I see it, and the anti-global warming movement is using every denialist trick in the book to get their way. If climate models turn out to be inaccurate (and from what I've seen in the IPCC they've been pretty good so far), that doesn't change the tactics of people like Monckton, Michaels, Malloy, CO2 science, CEI, and the WSJ editorial page. If they had serious data and serious scientists to back their claims, they wouldn't have to resort to denialist tactics.

April 3, 2007 2:45 PM,

 

al wallace said...

jimbobboy said:

"Now, if you really believe that the commenter who said that "deep-ocean sediment core data ... shows that our current interglacial cycle is no different from the last several cycles" was simply interested in getting at the truth, and not trying to make a political point -- well, I'll defer to your expertise. But I'm still not buying it."

aw responds:

I don't know the commentator to which you refer and so can't guess at his/her motives but I do have a copy of that paper (or at least the ref), if you like.

Mark said:

"...it sounds to me, from my limited knowledge, that expecting them to model El Nino etc., is unrealistic."

aw responds:

These are not "blips" on the record, they are major features of the landscape. El Nino is a multi-year cycle (especially when paired with it's evil twin, La Nina), the PDO is a 10-year cycle, the AO is a multi-year cycle, etc.

If we were talking about modeling rain or sunshine on a particular day, then yah, that'd be unreasonable but picking up 10-year cycles? The model produces data on a finer resolution than that so if it can't accurately retrodict these features then it makes sense to question whether it really makes accurate predictions.

The whole point of retrodictive testing is to calibrate the model to ensure accurate prediction. If it can't retrodict accurately then it can't predict accurately. This is just basic model theory.

AW

April 3, 2007 3:18 PM,

 

jimbobboy said...

"I don't know the commentator to which you refer and so can't guess at his/her motives but I do have a copy of that paper (or at least the ref), if you like."

The commenter was anonymous of March 30, 2:20 PM, whose remarks sparked this discussion. Scroll up 8 comments to find it. If you read it again, my comment may be clearer. And, yes -- I would appreciate your posting the reference.

As to GCMs: there are lots of models and lots of researchers, so it is tough to make a detailed statement that applies to all of them. However, it can be said that GCMs have had quite a bit of success in predicting large-scale multi-year weather patterns (examples abound), and they continue to get better all the time. I didn't hear the presentation you did, in which the models fared so poorly during Q&A, so your mileage may vary.

But let's not get lost in the minutiae. The real issue here is this: Do some people and organizations routinely and reflexively trash GCMs and modeling in general as part of a campaign to deny that there is a clear man-made signal in climate?
To my mind, the answer is clearly yes.
Can valid objections be raised to specific models and their uses? Also, clearly yes.

But it's not impossible to distinguish between honest criticism and agenda-based smoke-blowing. Critical commentary seems to run along a spectrum, from

"I see this GCM as having insufficient predictive skill. Here are some cautions against using it too broadly. Here are some ways to improve it."

to

"I distrust GCMs in general, and would prefer to use other tools for prediction."

to

"All model-based prediction has been shown to be completely unreliable, proving that theories of human-induced climate change are a pack of lies."

I'll submit that there are a lot of people saying essentially that last. They are denialists. If you're in the first camp, bravo for you. Science only thrives on honest criticism.

April 3, 2007 6:02 PM,

 

al wallace said...

jimbobboy,

The ref is Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F., Cullen, J.L., 1998. Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North Atlantic sediments. Science 279:1335

AW

April 3, 2007 6:57 PM,

 

Mark said...

I think I'm going to cut this thread off with Al and Jim Bob getting the last word. It's been a good discussion but I think we've hashed it out pretty well.

April 4, 2007 10:25 AM,

 

Links to this post:

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home