Viewpoint
May 3, 2008
This Viewpoint was first
published in the May 2008 issue of
Australasian
Science as the ConScience column and is reprinted here with permission.
Scientists must work harder at
making the public aware of the stark difference between good science and
denialist spin.
“Don’t feed the troll!” This is a common admonition in the expanding science
blogosphere – at least the rational quarters. Trolls, in the internet
vernacular, are people who intentionally post false or controversial messages to
gain attention or foment a conflicting style of debate. Most remain shielded
within the anonymous confines of their online pseudonym. A rare but vocal few
are sufficiently emboldened by self-confidence (or hubris) to speak out in
public.
For the long-standing “debate” over the relative merits of evolution versus
creationism, they usually style themselves as “creation scientists” or
“intelligent designists”. In climate science and policy, those few apparently
well-educated people who continue to deny the now vast body of scientific
knowledge and analysis on the causes and consequences of global warming are
variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists.
Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same
anti-intellectual cloth.
Their business is the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific
nonsense. One of their most regular ploys is to leverage the widespread lack of
public appreciation of how science operates. The scientific process of
theoretical postulates, hypothesis testing, critical evaluation (and
re-evaluation) of ever accumulating empirical evidence, model validation and
peer review is inherently complex and often technical.
Science has little top-down control on what should and should not be
investigated (embryonic stem cell research and bioweapons development
notwithstanding). There is no attempt to ignore inconvenient findings and no
global conspiracy to distort the truth for securing funding or notoriety. Good
science – evidence and ideas that are repeatedly supported by observations,
experiments and models – gradually emerges from the pack and moves from being
hypotheses to theories, paradigms and laws.
Yet some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological
reasons and in doing so besmirch science’s public image. They are good at doing
this, and they often exert a disproportionate influence on policy. Some will
simply argue that the Earth is flat because “it looks flat”.
Groups with vested interests in business-as-usual (such as tobacco spokespeople
or fossil fuel lobbyists)will attempt to push so-called “scientific evidence” to
support their claims. In fact they are at best drawing selectively on a small
part of the evidence, or at worst relying on “junk” science – that is, outdated,
discredited or fabricated data and ideas. If confronted with good science,
deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by
deferring to other discredited ideas).They are hard to pin down because they
don’t want a serious scientific debate.
The Washington Post recently reported Walter Meier of the National Snow
and Ice Data Center about the parlous state of Arctic sea ice: “Flying over the
Arctic, one might perceive the sea ice cover as broad, Meier said, but that
apparent breadth hides the fact that the ice is so thin. ‘It’s a façade, like a
Hollywood set,’ he said. ‘There’s no building behind it’.”
Joseph Romm, who writes a blog on climate change and denialism (www.climateprogress.org),
commented: “What a perfect metaphor for the delayers. Their arguments seemsolid
and impressive, but it’s a façade.” Scientists should beware of feeding trolls
by engaging them on their terms. Instead be strong, well-informed advocates for
good science! Don’t think that it is enough to be merely passive bystanders.
Good science alone invariably wins these silly debates, but usually not before
denialist spin does much damage.
Active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation
of scientists, but a critical necessity. This is especially true for climate
change and environmental sustainability, where we are perilously close to
running out of time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Barry W. Brook is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.