For Naomi Oreskes, professor of scientific history at Harvard University, there is no more vivid illustration of the bitter war between science and politics than Florida’s reported ban on state employees using terms such as “climate change” and “global warming.” No matter that the low-lying US state is critically vulnerable to rises in sea level, or that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is occurring and human activity is responsible, Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, instructed state employees not to discuss it as it is not “a true fact.”
In one sense, news of the Florida directive could not have come at a better time — a hard-hitting documentary adaptation of Oreskes’s 2010 book Merchants of Doubt is just hitting US cinemas. In another sense, she says, it is profoundly depressing: The tactics being used to prevent action over global warming are the same as those used in the past — often to great effect — to obfuscate and stall debates over evolutionary biology, ozone depletion, the dangers of asbestos or tobacco, even dangerous misconceptions about childhood vaccinations and autism.
Scott’s de facto ban is, she tells the Observer, “a grim state of affairs straight out of a George Orwell novel. So breathtaking that you do not really know how to respond to it.”
Illustration: Mountain People
It is also a display of just the kind of prevarication and intransigence that Oreskes studied to establish her formidable scholarly reputation. Each argument — if that is the correct term — has followed a strikingly similar path, and in each case, scientists have been drawn into debates that have little to do with a scientifically sound, rigorous exchange of knowledge.
Directed by Robert Kenner, best known for the hard-hitting Food, Inc., and backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, the Merchants of Doubt film exposes the tactics of climate change “experts,” who are often in the employ of think tanks funded by industries invested in maintaining the status quo.
It is a fascinating look at how overwhelming certainty acquired through rigorous scientific inquiry has been time and again upended and delayed by a small group of spin doctors.
As one scientist says in the film, they have to prove their case while their opponents only have to sow the seeds of doubt. Nowhere is that more keenly felt than in climate change, with a massive disconnect between public acceptance and the political will to act.
“The scientific community feels it worked incredibly hard on this issue,” Oreskes says. “It has done exactly what it is supposed to do, which is study the question carefully from many angles, publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, explain it to the public and in reports. Yet it has gained no traction. Or worse — scientists are facing active attempts to deny, discredit, harass and, in some cases, sully their reputations.”
The political split on the issue grew last week when US Secretary of State John Kerry warned climate change deniers and obfuscators — presumably including a presidential contender for next year’s US elections, former Florida governor Jeb Bush (who accepts global warming, but not that it is disproportionately caused by human activity) — that there is no time to waste on debating the subject. Fail to act, Kerry said, and future generations will want to know how world leaders could have been “so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn.”
As a historian of science, Oreskes is better positioned than research scientists to challenge the situation. She recently suggested that the threat of climate change is so extreme, and time to curb its accelerating effects so short, that the scientific community should abandon its conservative, 95 percent confidence standard — which, she argues, is an unfair burden of proof that has no actual basis in nature. The science community is unlikely to back Oreskes in that opinion, but her point is clearly made: There is no debate, and by entering the semantics of a debate, you have already lost.
Yet the cost to moderate US Republicans of bucking approved party thinking are well-known. The filmmakers visit Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina congressman who lost his seat four years ago after being targeted by the Tea Party following a radio interview in which he said he believed humans were contributing to climate change.
Oreskes’ study in Merchants of Doubt centered on a group of distinguished scientists — veterans of the Cold War arms race — who came out in support of the tobacco industry and later cropped up opposing climate change science. Since the research science on both issues is so clear, how could they be confused on the subject?
“We found that they really believed they were defending the freedom, free-market capitalism, liberty and lifestyle they believe go with a laissez-faire economy,” Oreskes says. “It is essentially a slippery-slope argument. If you allow the government to regulate tobacco or restrict the use of carbon-based fuels, it is a step toward tyranny.”
And that, Oreskes says, goes back to Milton Friedman, and Freidrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.
“The original argument was authentic, if misguided. In recent years, it has been cynically manipulated by the Tea Party and others supported by vested interests,” she says, mentioning Charles and David Koch, the industrialists who have already pledged to contribute US$1 billion toward influencing next year’s US elections.
In short, it is a perversion of US notions of freedom, one that scientists are ill-equipped to counter.
“The argument is, if you allow government to impose a carbon tax, then you are going to surrender your liberty, personal freedom and individual choice,” Oreskes says. “That helps explain why this is such an American pathology. It plays into the cultural valences of individualism and choice.”
At times, the argument has become entirely obfuscated and contorted by politics. It was, after all, former US president George H.W. Bush who introduced the idea of carbon emissions trading. Liberals and democrats opposed it. When it was found to work, and environmentalists embraced it, conservatives turned against it. That showed that Republicans have no serious interest in negotiating on this issue, Oreskes says.
“They rejected their own principles,” she says.
Clearly there is more than enough blame to go round. In the US, one green advocacy group recently ran ads asking: “How many light bulbs does it take to change an American?”
“If you tell people it’s about changing them, it is not helpful. We need to say: ‘Look, this is a problem we could actually fix if we stopped being in denial about it,’” Oreskes says.
She argues that the media is also to blame. The idea of presenting balanced arguments — to give an opposing view — does not serve an issue like climate change well, especially when social media has the power to transmit discredited or perilous misconceptions.
“Sometimes the evidence and the data are all on one side,” Oreskes says.
Last week, she found herself on the receiving end of climate deniers’ outrage. Ninety-year-old Fred Singer, profiled at length in Merchants of Doubt, threatened to sue Oreskes and Kenner, following a pattern of response often used to raise the profile of climate contrarians.
However, it is becoming harder to imagine a happy ending.
In her most recent book, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future, Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine looking back on the world in 2093 from the year 2393. It is a dismal view of floods, droughts, mass migrations and the depopulation of entire continents.
In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes writes that industrial society has been “dining out” on fossil fuels for 150 years, and now we have equated ideals of freedom with the right to a lifestyle that those fuels permit.
Even those who profess to be on the green side of the debate, including former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, are prevaricating on their opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to carry dirty tar-sand oil into the US from Canada.
Prevarication paid off for the tobacco industry, which profitably resisted science and government regulation for half a century, and it is paying off now for the oil industry. Rising temperatures are making previously inhospitable regions, including the Arctic, accessible to exploration and drilling.
However, it is with no pleasure that Oreskes reports that the very groups that most detest regulation will ultimately see more of it when the consequences of inaction on climate change become unavoidable.
“This story is riven with ironies, and that is one of the most profound if we do not get this situation under control,” she says.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under