Last Friday, I pointed out that claims that the political Right is anti-science are exaggerated, selective, and hypocritical. I argued that, even acknowledging science blind spots on the right, when you look at the gyrations of environmental NGOs and agencies, the political Left is far more anti-science than the Right.
My post spread modestly around the blogosphere, here, and here, and elicited responses from both Chris Mooney and environmental journalist/blogger Keith Kloor. Aside from the uninspired personal attacks Mooney seems to find irresistible, the responses to my argument come down to five counter-arguments:
1) We of the Left police ourselves effectively.
2) We all have our nuts, but Right-nuts are nuttier than Left-nuts.
3) Left-nuts are just “out there,” they aren’t really associated with Leftist political parties.
4) Where there’s smoke, there’s fire! Right-wing anti-science dominates the news so it must be true that they’re more anti-science.
5) Don’t argue with us, just internalize our critique and be ashamed.
Let’s take the first one. Mooney says: “On the left, we eat alive our own allies when they make false claims. That’s precisely what happened on vaccines and autism.”
This is actually comedy-club material when you consider that the Left still worships at the altars of Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, and David Suzuki, who have declared the End of Days virtually every day for 40 years now. White House Science Advisor John Holdren is infamous for his extreme doomsday views and solutions, while Gore, who has a climate-footprint larger than some entire countries, just held a Climaggedon Telethon and still gets around $150K per speech from Left-leaning audiences pining for his non-existent presidency.
Now, to the second argument, that Right-leaning anti-science people are more dangerous than those on the left. Mooney says: “There is no force in American politics generating anywhere near so much unreality, in science or in other spheres, as this one. It is not just evolution, or the age of the Earth, as Green seems to think. When it comes to science, it is also anything having anything to do with abortion, reproductive health, and sexuality.” In another post, Mooney says “But it [science-abuse on the left] has relatively little mainstream influence today—and can hardly compare with the sweeping denial of huge bodies of knowledge (e.g., all climate science, all evolutionary science) that we see on the right.”
As I already wrote, I know of virtually nobody on the right who denies the core of climate science (that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere). I am also completely unaware of anyone (on the Right or anywhere else) who argues about the science of birth control, how abortion works, or how humans have sex and reproduce. As for denying “all” evolutionary science, does Mooney really think that Right-leaning farmers and animal breeders don’t understand the idea of random mutation and selective retention of traits? I suppose Mooney thinks that Chihuahuas and Irish Wolf Hounds just happened by accident, or that all animal breeders are politically of the Left. Perhaps Mooney is just confused between people who argue over scientific findings and those who argue against the misuse of scientific information in promoting a political cause. There probably are more of the latter on the right, mainly because the Left has wrapped itself in a cloak of scientism to justify social engineering for decades now.
On to the third argument, that only the anti-science types on the right are associated with the major political parties. Mooney says: “But the fringes aren’t very relevant—unless the inmates are running the asylum. That’s what you have today on the right, where Republicans and Tea Partiers overwhelmingly reject mainstream knowledge in key areas and these views are also endorsed by elected representatives and even presidential candidates.”
So let’s see who is running the asylum under Obama. As I pointed out in 2009, Obama’s science team is composed almost exclusively of environmental radicals, and until recently, Carol Browner, Gore’s disciple (and yes, a card-carrying socialist), was part of Obama’s team as well. Her disciple, Lisa Jackson, has unleashed an unprecedented tidal surge of environmental regulations into the teeth of an economic downturn second only to the Great Depression. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, apparently, has nightmares about hydrocarbons, but was apparently firmly behind funding Solyndra, the solar-cell manufacturer that just ate half-a-billion dollars in tax subsidies. Big checkbooks in the asylum, these days.
The fourth counter-argument is basically an assertion that media coverage of science abuse by the Right is so extensive it must be true. To that argument, I would point out what should be screamingly obvious: Left-leaning journalists have made environmental issues a litmus test, to be asked about in every political discussion. Right-leaning journalists ask left-wing politicians about a giant grab-bag of issues: taxes, the size of government, taxes, gun control, gropeland security, pre-marital sex, taxes, gay marriage, and taxes; asking about DDT, plastics, vaccines, and climate change science are pretty far down on the list of what’s important to them. In other words, the Right seems more interested in climate and evolution skepticism because the Journalist-Left constantly asks and writes about it.
Finally, let’s take the fifth counter-argument, by Kloor: “It’s also understandable that Green and other science-respecting conservatives don’t like this label, but their beef should be more with the direction the Republican party has chosen.”
I have to say, I really love this one. Let’s say that person A criticizes person B for the way she dressed, implying that her clothing style justified her ill-treatment. Let’s speculate that person B might respond by calling her critic a patriarchal oppressor. And let’s further assume that Person A’s response to that objection was “You shouldn’t object to the names we’re calling you, you should just feel shame.” Oh, wait, that happened, and the response was Slut Walks. While I might not agree with the tactics on that one, I certainly agree with their refutation of the idea that one should internalize shame in the face of groundless criticisms. Down with skeptic-shaming!
Chris Mooney and others on the left argue that the Right draws a “false equivalency” when it points out the anti-science shenanigans of the Left, but their arguments are riddled with emotional thinking, logical fallacy, and claims that are so outre they are laugh-out-loud funny. While the Right does have its share of those who reject scientific findings that don’t align with their philosophical orientation, the idea that this is unique to the Right is simplistic and almost entirely political.
Political debate for Evolution, medicines most useful theory and testable predictor, is the microcosm of this bias.
You’ll never hear someone with super natural faith express a desire to be an atheist, but many agnostic/atheists truly believe if they could believe in God their life would feel better.
This has got to be one of the worst essays ever written, combining ugly and false ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, illogic, gross generalizations, misdirection, and simple lies. Several master’s theses in writing, logic, scientific integrity, and rhetoric could be written about this. But worse, Green himself used bad science, known to be bad, in testimony he gave at a hearing on Capitol Hill in which I also testified. That bad science, on a discredited report on green jobs, nevertheless was used by Green to make a point that no good science supports.
Mooney sure got that right, didn’t he? Is there any pathological syndrome he cited that isn’t demonstrated in spades by this article?
Dump that over in the compost pile and let it cool off. “End of Days?”
Complete folderol.
Not to mention that Rachel Carson was exactly right. Nearly 50 years later DDT can’t be used in most places because, as Carson warned, overuse would make mosquitoes immune. More than 1,000 studies done on DDT’s harmful effects since Carson’s book — and every study verifies her warnings, or makes her look tame. Rachel Carson proved to be one of the greatest prophets since Elijah, but not as well listened to. Witness this diatribe above.
In the 1970s, policy makers listened to Holdren, changed policies, and we avoided disaster. That’s what prophets do, come to think of it.
Unclear on the concept of warnings?
Ah, the old “Al-Gore-is-fat” fallacy. 1. His carbon footprint isn’t so great; 2. Again his warnings have proven prophetic; 3. His speech fees go into science and education.
What is it you have against science and education? Did Mooney peg you, or what?
um a quite a few of us here in right wing extremist conservo land are climate warming deniers
satellite data do not show warming
satellite data do not show reduced albedo (heat trapping via reduced reflectivity)
oceanography data do not show seas rising (vs land subsiding)
meteorological data over time show current minimal warming is within historical (not hysterical)cyclic parameters
oceans rising is now reduced to warmer oceans expanding by thermal expansion, rather than icebergs melting into the warmer waters (net rise zero wjhen bergs melt into water)
and um we have reached peak oil about once per eelction cycle, scare the voters
and of course the east anglia email coverup discredits leftist alarmism
so don’t speak for me, i am a denialist
drill baby drill
Martin H,
Finally! Someone who has the courage to speak truth to power! These global warming moonbats have for too often had central stage–to the point that almost anybody on the left has an almost religious conviction in climate change, despite a complete lack of science behind it. I see climate change as a way a bunch of academics twisting sets of data around so that they can alarm the public and so they, like Mr. Al Gore, can ultimately get rich.
Even if there were climate change, even if there were something to what climate change priests are claiming, how would that be bad? With no polar ice cap, cargo ships will sail from Russia straight to New York. The growing season will advance northward, so we’ll be able to enjoy oranges from the Dakotas and grapes from Maine and Alaska. You’ll be able to swim comfortable in the warm San Francisco Bay. And if there are certain low lands that might be swamped, consider that these lands–Bangladesh, Indonesia, the seaside cities along Africa’s main coast, these slumlands teeming with disaffected youth intent on global jihad, will be wiped out, effectively ending Al Quada’s obsession to impose Shariah law on the world.
Either way, we will come out fine.
–Jonas
ED–
Not to mention that Rachel Carson was exactly right. Nearly 50 years later DDT can’t be used in most places because, as Carson warned, overuse would make mosquitoes immune. More than 1,000 studies done on DDT’s harmful effects since Carson’s book — and every study verifies her warnings, or makes her look tame. Rachel Carson proved to be one of the greatest prophets since Elijah, but not as well listened to. Witness this diatribe above.
Actually Rachel Carson was the Al Gore of her day. Of course you admire Gore so you should be okay with that analogy. So how about chicken little. To be fair to her, she didn’t call for the eliminating DDT but rather minimizing its use where practical. It was folks like yourself who took that to mean ban it and caused the death of millions of people.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/ddt.htm
She was dead right, then — you’re saying we should listen to Gore now? That’s probably wise.
DDT has never been banned in Africa, by the way. It’s people like me who stick to the facts, and who go to work to fight malaria. Because of scientists and environmentalists — whom the Rachel Carson-obsessed dismiss as “leftist idiots” — malaria has been reduced to the lowest level of deaths and infections in human history.
Malaria deaths have fallen each year since Rachel Carson published, and each year since WHO stopped using DDT heavily because it wasn’t working (1965). Your claim that millions died because of a ban on DDT is false on two sides: First, there never was a ban; second, deaths have continued to decline, not rise.
Those who wish to hurl insults instead of fight malaria will never be convinced, though.
Apparently I hit something of a nerve. I do have to wonder how many of the people who find my posts on this subject disturbing have actually ever “done” science, as in, worked in a laboratory, doing experiments, documenting what they were doing, and eventually submitting them for publication either as an article or as a thesis for an advanced degree. For the record, I did some of that – about 3 years worth for my Masters, and another year or so as a lab tech while studying for my doctorate.
It seems that people are rather confused when they use the term “science,” since they seem to think it is a universal criticism for anything they don’t like:
- So, if someone dares to challenge an analysis of the Left, or to question any of their assumptions, it’s an “assault on science”.
- If the government publishes an economic calculation of “green jobs,” and someone points out that they’re using statistical tricks to mislead people, it’s “science denial,” or “bad science!”
- If someone dares to show that a government program hasn’t done what it set out to do, and it caused harm as a side-effect, the cry of “bad science!” rings out.
- If someone dares to challenge a proposed policy of the left on any issue that is even vaguely informed by some study that someone published, they’re accused of “bad science!”
Science is not a universal hammer for hitting anything you don’t like, it is a specific set of methods developed to allow humanity to understand how things work. It isn’t a magic spell book. It isn’t fortune-telling or a guide to moral behavior. It doesn’t tell you what to do in any given situation (though it can help you decide what action would give you certain consequences).
The political Left have seized on this idea they are the only “scientific thinkers,” and that to dare question their methods, or worse, their prescriptions for the perfection of society is “anti-science.”
Frankly, that’s baloney, and the people who utter that nonsense are the most “anti-science” of all.
If you challenge someone’s statistical methods, you’re called “anti-science.” If you criticize someone’s policy prescription, you’re “anti-science,” as if there can only be one policy prescription that is “scientific” for any given challenge.
Ken, you’re completely in error about DDT.
It appears we have hit a nerve in pointing out the error.
Does the Left ever deny science? I mean, ever?
by Steve Sailer
“Right! Autism and vaccines is the example of science denial on the left. What else is there? The hounding of James D. Watson and Larry Summers out of their jobs for politically incorrect statements about the science of intelligence pales in comparison to the actions of noted leftwing intellectuals Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey regarding autism.”
Ken,
I’m a conservative, and I’m a scientist. And in my opinion, Mooney is right. When is the last time the scientific views of a Democratic candidate became a litmus test? Oh, you can whine that it’s the Leftist Media that makes such issues a big deal, but the FACT is that several of the Republican candidates have significantly changed their tune on climate change, because of pressure from voters (especially those associated with the Tea Party). Certainly it wasn’t the media pressuring them.
When you say, “Let’s see who’s running the Asylum under Obama,” you attack a bunch of administration officials for being “environmental radicals.” But that refers to their political views. And yet, you are lecturing others about conflating scientific and political beliefs.
Your entire essay shows clearly that you are simply an ideologue, who can pick apart the minutiae of arguments on the Left, but can’t for the life of you see the same problems (only worse) in your own arguments.
Calling conservatives anti-science, against the environment, against economics, against medicine, against education, against women’s reproductive rights, etc., is standard fare for the left. It’s a political tool to avoid an honest debate. It takes some form of, “They are corrupt and inferior.” (racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, stupid, uneducated, bigoted….)
Rachel Carson falsified most of her data and her work was peer-reviewed within a circle of her friends. It became the template to be used for all future environmental scares. To this day, there is no evidence to prove man-made global warming. None of their predictions have come true. They’re so deperate, now, all local, daily weather is cited as proof of global warming. Oops, I mean climate change! AGW has become unfalsifiable. Remember that big, public, national debate on global warming? No. It went from a theory, straight to a world-wide pronouncement that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, 100% of scientists agree, the science is 100% settled, and we must act (raise taxes and obey) now to stop the crisis. They skipped the part about presenting evidence. They know it takes about 15 minutes of factual information and most people stop believing in AGW. They do not want people to hear anything contrary.
Conservatives have to fight to get the truth out; liberals fight to conceal the truth. Conservatives want all sides to be heard and discussed. Liberals want only one side to be heard. Censorship and suppression, often in the form of violence, is the norm.
I’ll say this: the left has had near total control of the media message, TV news, newpapers, education, entertainment, Hollywood, magazines, etc. It must drive them nuts that people are not believing their b.s.
I’ll take that challenge. That’s a completely false statement.
Carson falsified nothing. The President’s Science Advisory Council, composed of many of the nation’s greatest scientists and including Nobel winners among them, checked Silent Spring for accuracy, and pronounced it accurate. Since 1962 more than 1,000 studies have been completed and published in peer-reviewed literature confirming her conclusions that DDT harms birds — not one contrary study.
Carson reported the peer-reviewed research of others in that book, not her own. Her citations are impeccable.
Paul from SA: Please tell us any false claim Carson made in the book — list the page number, please. Let’s check it out. I’ll wager you’ve not read the book, and you make that statement wholly devoid of any knowledge of what Carson said or any other actual facts.
Last friday, I objected to Ken thus :
Republican technophiles may be legion, but there is no significant conservative caucus fighting for control of the agendas of such major scientific organizations as the AAAS or AIP, and no right wing counterparts to such long standing foci of political activism as the Union of Concerned Scientists or the FAS.
Nary a conservative journal or newspaper of record has a science editor , and the handful that did have disposed of them. Instead of the state of the art geophysics or climate science dictating op-ed technical discourse in say, the WSJ, we get a mix of free market apologetics from science -deficient think tanks , press releases from PR flacks, and homilies from The Discovery Institute, Dominionists and evangelicals metaphysically indisposed to deal with materialists of any description.
Many on the left, most famously AAAS president Steve ( “My daddy raised me to be a Marxist’) Gould have been candid as to their political activism , but the lack of transparency as to the strings, financial and religious attached to subsidized scientific advocacy on the right combines with a ludicrously small number of scientific spokesmen and a positively demented set of blog followers to lend the ring of truth to some of Mooney’s charges.”
I concluded that Ken’s stonewalling ” just makes it easy for [Mooney ] to dodge the left’s parallel problem of an inherited authoritarian agenda of social engineering.
I still await his reply as to what he and AEI are doing to remedy the policy vacuum created by Republicans fleeing the field in the science wars.
I objected to Kens first article thus :
“Republican technophiles may be legion, but there is no significant conservative caucus fighting for control of the agendas of such major scientific organizations as the AAAS or AIP, and no right wing counterparts to such long standing foci of political activism as the Union of Concerned Scientists or the FAS.
Nary a conservative journal or newspaper of record has a science editor , and the handful that did have disposed of them. Instead of the state of the art geophysics or climate science dictating op-ed technical discourse in say, the WSJ, we get a mix of free market apologetics from science -deficient think tanks , press releases from PR flacks, and homilies from The Discovery Institute, Dominionists and evangelicals metaphysically indisposed to deal with materialists of any description.
Many on the left, most famously AAAS president Steve ( “My daddy raised me to be a Marxist’) Gould have been candid as to their political activism , but the lack of transparency as to the strings, financial and religious attached to subsidized scientific advocacy on the right combines with a ludicrously small number of scientific spokesmen and a positively demented set of blog followers to lend the ring of truth to some of Mooney’s charges
Your stonewalling just makes it easy for him to dodge the left’s parallel problem of an inherited authoritarian agenda of social engineering.”
I still await his reply , as few things are more useless that think tanks that do not permit their denizens to say what they think.
True the Right is worse. Because conservatives while friendly to the causes of progress are more change-resistant and science changes things. Lefties are very hostile to the causes of progress as they dislike some of the consequences, just as the righties do, but their POLITICAL philosophy is much much worse. Faith is as absurd a guide to anything as liberal principles are, except that Faith that survives tends to be compatible with human nature, while ‘principles’ tend to represent aspirations, a far worse touchstone. But the Lefties think that they can use science to bludgeon the uninformed, as the righties use faith. That’s what’s really going on here.
The Righties and the Lefties aren’t stupid if they were they would not be so dangerous. They take advantage of the one decent feature of direct democracy and universal adult suffrage: change is slow and therefore not as costly, usually. They use it to maintain their duopoly of oligopolistic special interest rule.
The solutions are to end both direct democracy and universal adult suffrage. Indirect democracy and citizen suffrage works as well as the other on the good stuff and is far less dangerous in the face of idiot-ology, whether the idiot-ology is defined as Right-ism, Left-ism, Pro-Science-ism, or Anti-Science-ism, and is much better at demolishing duopoly or monopoly power.
No president since the era of Benjamin Franklin has ever been so well served in scientific matters than Obama has by science and technology advisors like John Holdren. Unfortunately the public is fed by showmen like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity masquerading as political thinkers who package misinformation and divisiveness as entertainment.
Yori
“Perhaps Mooney is just confused between people who argue over scientific findings and those who argue against the misuse of scientific information in promoting a political cause.”
Personally, when something is accepted as a scientific fact by general consensus, your opinions should be based on it too. It’s fact vs fiction, not politics.