The Third Ten Million Years is a weekly Precipitate feature exploring the mysteries of life on a single planet, as seen through a single pair of eyes in a single body composed of the same fine material as the deserts of Mars.
Sound and Temperature Frequencies Made Visual, Courtesy of CZ Finke
If you are on the right frequency, you know there is a constant din on the internet created by the fight over climate change science. The decibel level of that din increases or decreases depending on the moment, but you can always count on the noise. I wade into this cacophony quite frequently. As both a consumer of science and someone who wants to see our species live for the next several millennia, I think it’s important to listen. Lately, it’s been getting louder than usual.
This round started with the publication at the Wall Street Journal of an editorial signed by 16 scientists that claimed there is “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” It makes a fairly standard argument against the established climate science and adds no new material to the debate. This editorial was followed up by a piece in the Daily Mail based on a Met Office Report in England, arguing that not only is climate change not a problem, but the upcoming solar cycles are going to bring about a period cooler than that which we are experiencing. Again, same old same old.
These arguments are wrong, but that is not what I am interested in here. If you want to learn more about why both of these arguments are more than a little problematic, Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy article “While Temperatures Rise, Denialists Reach Lower” is a good place to start. Plait not only provides a cogent overview of how these arguments fail but links heavily to further useful reading. If you are still hungry for more, Greg Laden has collected much of the latest on the debate.
What interests me more these days is how climate change opposition presents itself. Take the Wall Street Journal and their op-ed from 16 scientists on why climate change is a non-concern. It sounds impressive. And when you look at the credentials of those 16 men and women, it looks impressive. The deniers always look impressive, sound impressive; they are expert packagers of material. Frankly, so are the climate change advocates. The difference is that science is on the side of climate change advocates. And the deniers are ONLY impressive packagers of material. A well-conceived delivery from 16 experts telling us not to worry about our own harmful behaviors…well, who doesn’t want that to be true?
Realize, however, that this is a game being played, a manipulation of reality by people who are willing to benefit from such behavior. Be that Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Journal (and Fox, of course), bloggers who are paid by polluters, or the true believers that will, at any cost, defend actions that are already killing a lot of people. The point is not to win the scientific fight. They are not trying to convince the scientific community they engage online. Their efforts are focused on convincing the casual consumers of news, on raising the noise level to create conflict, and on driving traffic into global warming denial websites.
If one’s objective is to reach a demographic who may not be well-versed in climate change science and may not, in fact, care much, then the Wall Street Journal article is a perfect product. No one wants to panic.
Until you put what appears impressive into context. Until you remember the story of how 255 climate scientists signed a letter and submitted it to the WSJ to make the argument for climate change and were rejected. Until you realize that the Wall Street Journal published an editorial signed by 16 scientists, many of whom do not work in fields related to climate change. Until you realize that of those 16 scientists, several have been or are financially connected to the fossil fuel industry.
That WSJ reader is not likely going to encounter Bad Astronomy’s take down of the argument, or Think Progress’s intelligent debunking. Why would they?
All the editorial needs to do is communicate to Wall Street Journal readers that climate change is not worth caring about, and then let the internet noise-makers deny anyone who wants to argue to the contrary by claiming they are extremists, are benefiting from the vast dollar amounts to be earned in climate research (!), or are lying. They play a pretty good game of keep away. Until you put their game in context.
For me, that’s what the noise is all about: providing context and calling denialism what it is. Once the argument is framed appropriately, you realize that the continual din of the internet’s science community cannot be written off as background noise. A defense of science in the face of obstructionism of this kind is not simply noise in a crowded space. It is, instead, some of the most important work being accomplished on the climate change front. An unenviable task, carried on relentlessly by people who take reality seriously. And a constant battle waged on blogs around the world, on behalf of the future of our species. We should be aware of it.
Christopher Zumski Finke, Staff Blogger
This is the message that people who care about the environment need to keep reminding the rest of us about. Great article.
Btws, if anyone is still skeptical about the 16 scientists credibility, definitely check out this Media Matters debunking: https://mediamatters.org/blog/201202010002
Thanks for the kind word, Arturo. It can be a slog to continually read through the fight. But you are right. We need to remember it.
Thanks for the link. I also recommend the link with in the Media Matters link-to the WSJ letter from 38 climate scientists refuting the previous denialist editorial.