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.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry