Silicon
6th January 2005, 12:54 PM
(Note: I'm using the word skeptic here not to denote Skeptics as we call ourselves. I'm using the title that the author uses, to describe political advocates supporting the chemical industry's contention that CFC's weren't a problem.)
Fascinating history study here:
Skeptics have routinely called global warming "a hoax", and attacked the credibility of scientists promoting the idea. Are the skeptics right? To shed light on the issue, it is helpful to review how the same skeptics treated the ozone hole issue.
I'm not saying that all skepticsm about global warming being due primarily to human causes is unfounded. Just that I found illuminating this survey of the history of the Ozone hole issue. Whether the global warming skeptics are right or wrong, they seem to be using the same tactics.
Of course, environmentalists have ALSO used some of these same tactics, so caveat emptor.
First, some history. in 1974 chemists at UC Irvine published a study predicting that CFC use would cause depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone hole theory was not confirmed until scientists discovered it in 1985. This silenced the critics. But in the years between 74 and 85, we have a history of the tactics used to distort the science and explain away the threat that turned out to be real, and actually not too hard to solve.
Techniques of the Skeptics:
Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
That link has a large survey of details. Just the titles of each section are enlightening, as so many of them apply to the creationist debate as well as other non-scientific political conclusions like abstenence-only education.
Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.
Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
The author concludes:
Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. And once again, some environmentalists have responded by presenting a distorted or imbalanced version of the facts, often colored by excessive emphasis on the low-probability scenarios of doom, that the popular press is only too eager to repeat, since prophesies of disaster sell. A balanced and truthful treatment of the Global Warming debate that focuses on presenting an unbiased version of our current scientific understanding is difficult to find.
Here's that link again for the full page with its examples. Very illuminating.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
Fascinating history study here:
Skeptics have routinely called global warming "a hoax", and attacked the credibility of scientists promoting the idea. Are the skeptics right? To shed light on the issue, it is helpful to review how the same skeptics treated the ozone hole issue.
I'm not saying that all skepticsm about global warming being due primarily to human causes is unfounded. Just that I found illuminating this survey of the history of the Ozone hole issue. Whether the global warming skeptics are right or wrong, they seem to be using the same tactics.
Of course, environmentalists have ALSO used some of these same tactics, so caveat emptor.
First, some history. in 1974 chemists at UC Irvine published a study predicting that CFC use would cause depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone hole theory was not confirmed until scientists discovered it in 1985. This silenced the critics. But in the years between 74 and 85, we have a history of the tactics used to distort the science and explain away the threat that turned out to be real, and actually not too hard to solve.
Techniques of the Skeptics:
Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
That link has a large survey of details. Just the titles of each section are enlightening, as so many of them apply to the creationist debate as well as other non-scientific political conclusions like abstenence-only education.
Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.
Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
The author concludes:
Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. And once again, some environmentalists have responded by presenting a distorted or imbalanced version of the facts, often colored by excessive emphasis on the low-probability scenarios of doom, that the popular press is only too eager to repeat, since prophesies of disaster sell. A balanced and truthful treatment of the Global Warming debate that focuses on presenting an unbiased version of our current scientific understanding is difficult to find.
Here's that link again for the full page with its examples. Very illuminating.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp