Climate denialists (as well as other science deniers) present themselves as reasonable skeptics, when in fact they are anything but. Lee McIntyre, author of Respecting Truth, explains why they cannot honestly present themselves as skeptics: “True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don’t need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.”
Read McIntyre’s trenchant critique of the proponents of denial: The Price of Denialism – The New York Times
Naomi Oreskes, historian of science, discusses her experience testifying before the Committee on Natural Resources last month. She explains, “In preparing my testimony, however, I realized that something far larger was at stake: the issue of politically driven science itself. It’s often claimed that environmental science done in federal agencies is “politically driven” and therefore suspect. It was, I realized, time to challenge the presumption that such science is bad science. While widely held, the idea is demonstrably false. Moreover, the suggestion that “government science” is intrinsically problematic for Republicans who eschew big government ignores the simple fact that most of the major contributions of the twentieth century, at least in the physical sciences, came from just such government science.”
Besides defending “government science,” Oreskes reviews the history of the current climate denialism, as well as the political and economic forces that are driving it. Read her important exposé here:
History News Network | The Hoax of Climate Denial.
“Who believes politicians paid by ExxonMobil instead of scientists, doctors and conservationists? Gullible people who want to believe. That’s what makes hoaxes work.” The historian Steve Hochstadt reviews the history of science hoaxes and compares them to the current “global warming hoax.” There is an important difference between the two: the previous hoaxes were debunked by scientists, whereas the current “hoax” is supposedly being perpetrated by the scientific community. This fact in and of itself should invite skepticism of the claims of those who cry “hoax.”
The global warming hoax – My Journal Courier – myjournalcourier.com.