Denialism and Enviro-Inquisition
By Daniel H. Fernald
After years of effort, ever-amorous Sam Malone, of the once-popular sitcom ``Cheers," had finally persuaded perennial gold-digger Rebecca Howe to give up waiting for ``Mr. Right." In agreeing to settle for Sam, Rebecca consoled herself by saying, ``After all, it's not like Donald Trump or Robin Colcord is going to walk through the door and sweep me off my feet."
```Robin who?'" you ask. ``Never heard of him."
You've never heard of him because he doesn't exist. The ``Cheers" writing staff used a neat little trick to introduce a new character. They had Ms. Howe refer to the fictional ``Robin Colcord" as a peer of the well-known Donald Trump, and ― voila! ― a mogul is born!
The relatively new malady known as ``denialism" slouched into existence as a result of a similar sort of legerdemain.
Here's how the problem must have struck the typical climate scientist not long ago. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) once looked pretty good on paper but hasn't been panning out. People are starting to ask questions. Calling such questioners ``stupid" worked for a while, but they keep coming back. What's worse, some of them actually KNOW something about the subject, which makes for a decidedly ``inconvenient truth."
What to do, what to do? If you can't get them to shut up, the politicians and bureaucrats who allocate untold millions, even billions, for research grants might get wise and close the fiscal sluice gates that feed the public trough in which your snout is so deeply, pleasantly and warmly ensconced. Can't let that happen.
What's a grant-addicted hack to do?
``I know," thinks our unhappy protagonist. ``We'll make up a scientific-sounding name to shame them into silence. Hmm. What shall it be? Aha, I've got it ― 'Climate Deniers!'"
And that's how it went. In just the way the talented ``Cheers" writing staff created a billionaire out of whole cloth by doing nothing more complicated than putting his name next to Donald Trump's, so too did the no-less-imaginative Climategate fabulists associate those who question the AGW thesis with Holocaust Deniers.
After all, questioning a scientific theory and turning a blind eye to genocide are pretty much the same thing, right?
This underhanded version of the ``argument from analogy" worked for a while, and might well have kept on working if it were either an actual argument (as opposed to an ugly smear) or an actual analogy (rather than the shallowest and sleaziest example of ``drive-by rhetoric" I have ever seen).
But wait: there's more.
The Wikipedia entry on ``denialism" portrays ``deniers" as engaging in the following: conspiracy theories, cherry picking, the use of false experts, moving the goalpost and logical fallacies.
The very people who came up with this silly ``ism" are guilty of every one of these.
First, they attribute every challenge to the AGW theory to dark ulterior motives, and often point to an underlying conspiracy. To hear them tell it, you would think that a wicked cabal made up of George W. Bush, Halliburton, Dick Cheney, talk radio, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bird, the Dallas Cowboys defensive line and Karl Rove's tailor is trying to discredit these hard-working warriors for truth.
Cherry Picking: The tree-ring evidence used to support the temperature change assertions required for the AGW thesis were taken from a very small number of anomalous samples. Cherry-picking extraordinaire!
As for false experts, has anyone heard of a fellow named ``Al Gore?" The former U.S. vice president and college flunk-out has no scientific background, yet this eco-guru has earned a Nobel Prize for his error-riddled slide show, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-related business ventures.
And moving the goalposts: Depending on the weather during a given year, we are either told that high temperatures are evidence of global warming, or that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. (In logic, they call that a ``tautology.") Those goalposts are not just moving; they're sprinting!
Finally, the logical fallacies committed during the Climategate imbroglio are too numerous to count, but their abusive use of just one fallacy ― the argumentum ad hominem (personal attack) ― is so noteworthy that even Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog is reportedly telling them to ease up.
Gee, this makes the AGW cohort sound a lot like ``deniers," doesn't it? Hmm.
The psychological term for attributing one's own trickery and failings onto others is ``Projection."
This describes ``Denialism" perfectly: Projection of the dishonest, illiberal and anti-intellectual tactics of the Enviro-Inquisition onto those ``eco-heretics" who dare to question, however politely and intelligently, these dedicated adherents of the One True Faith.
This corruption of science is an object lesson to the rest of us never to hesitate to look with a gimlet eye at those who are more skilled in the use of invective than rational argument. The truth need not express itself with a sneer.
The writer is an associate professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. He may be reached at professordhf@hotmail.com.