Podcast Summary
Origins of climate change denial from a group of scientists: Historian Naomi Oreskes explores how a small group of scientists, with a history of denialist movements, have influenced the denial of scientific consensus on climate change.
The denial of scientific consensus on climate change, particularly in the United States, can be traced back to a small group of scientists with a history of involvement in other denialist movements. Historian of science Naomi Oreskes, in her book "Merchants of Doubt," explores the complex origins of this phenomenon, which is tied to issues of capitalism, communism, and the Cold War. Oreskes, who has dedicated her career to understanding the production of knowledge, did not choose to focus on disinformation but rather the creation of scientific consensus. She became interested in the question of how scientists determine when they have enough evidence to establish a fact. With the backdrop of the plate tectonics revolution in the late 1970s, Oreskes' work offers valuable insights into the shaping of our discourse and its relevance to social and communication policies.
Science acceptance influenced by social and historical contexts: Scientific theories are not solely based on evidence and facts, but also influenced by social and historical contexts, shaping consensus and decision-making in science
The acceptance of scientific theories is not a simple matter of evidence and facts, but is also influenced by social and historical contexts. The speaker's personal experience of the plate tectonics debate and the evolution of the continental drift theory illustrates this point. Initially, as an undergraduate, the speaker felt that she had missed the revolution in science, but later discovered that the same idea had been proposed decades earlier and rejected. In graduate school, she became interested in the philosophical questions of what constitutes scientific evidence and why certain types of evidence are favored over others. She also observed strong opinions among scientists about methodology and the value of different fields of science. The speaker argues that scientific knowledge is shaped by consensus, which is historically and socially contingent. Despite being a Bayesian who acknowledges the importance of remaining open-minded, she emphasizes the role of social context in scientific decision-making.
Historical and social factors impacted the discovery of plate tectonics: Discoveries are not always linear, historical and social factors can influence scientific progress, and scientists should remain open-minded and adapt to new evidence
The progress of scientific discoveries is not always a linear process and can be influenced by historical and social contingencies. The theory of plate tectonics, for instance, was on the brink of being discovered in the late 1930s but was halted due to the outbreak of World War 2. Key scientists were diverted to military work, and when they returned to their research after the war, they were influenced by new evidence and perspectives. This delay in the discovery of plate tectonics is an example of how historical and social factors can impact the scientific process. It's important to note that this is not an epistemological failure, but a natural part of the scientific process, which involves debates, counterarguments, and the consideration of new evidence. Scientists should always be open-minded and aware of the possibility that they might be wrong, but when a consensus is reached after extensive research and debate, it's important to move on and apply the new knowledge to address real-world issues. Additionally, individual scientists' intuitions, preferences, and intellectual resistance can also impact the scientific process.
Fostering Intellectual Diversity in Science: Science benefits from intellectual diversity, including various perspectives and approaches. Encouraging openness to diverse approaches and valuing non-dominant perspectives leads to progress and avoids potential pitfalls.
Intellectual diversity in science is crucial for progress and healthy scientific communities. This diversity goes beyond demographics and includes various perspectives and approaches. History has shown that when scientific communities lack intellectual diversity and become closed groups, they may not be as effective. Peer review and conferences are mechanisms to ensure that different perspectives are heard and that theories are rigorously evaluated. However, in practice, departments may find it challenging to prioritize intellectual diversity over perceived expertise. The physics community as a whole can address this issue by encouraging openness to diverse approaches and valuing non-dominant perspectives, especially when they have been divorced from experimental data for extended periods. The ongoing debates about string theory serve as an example of the importance of these discussions. In summary, fostering intellectual diversity in science is essential for making significant advancements and avoiding potential pitfalls.
The importance of diverse and independent sources of evidence in scientific research: Scientific research relies on multiple, independently obtained lines of evidence for valid conclusions, as emphasized by the concept of consilience of evidence.
The diversity and independence of sources of evidence are crucial for validating conclusions in scientific research. This concept, known as consilience of evidence, was proposed by William Whewell in the 19th century and emphasizes the importance of multiple, independently obtained lines of evidence. Naomi Oreskes's research into the history of oceanography led her to discover letters from scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the 1980s discussing the potential funding opportunities in climate change research. This discovery piqued her interest in the earlier history of scientists' understanding of man-made global warming. However, she also recognized the potential for opportunistic claims that scientists were only pursuing climate change research for funding reasons. Despite these concerns, the importance of diverse and independent sources of evidence cannot be overstated in scientific research.
Historian Naomi Oreskes finds scientific consensus on climate change: Historian Naomi Oreskes discovered a scientific consensus on climate change in the early 2000s, revealing underestimated severity and facing backlash.
During the early 2000s, when the scientific consensus on climate change was being questioned, a historian named Naomi Oreskes set out to determine if there was indeed a consensus among scientists on the issue. She found that not only was there a consensus, but scientists had underestimated the severity of the issue based on evidence from the 1970s. Oreskes' groundbreaking 2004 paper was met with hostility and even death threats, as some individuals denied the existence of climate change and saw her work as a liberal conspiracy. Despite the backlash, Oreskes' research paved the way for future consensus analysis and highlighted the importance of scientific consensus in shaping public policy.
The history of climate science controversies and other scientific debates interconnect, with the same individuals playing significant roles.: Historically, attacks against scientific consensus in debates like climate change and tobacco have followed similar patterns, with the same individuals involved.
The history of climate science controversies and other scientific debates, such as tobacco or acid rain, are interconnected, and the same individuals have played significant roles in each. This was a discovery made by historian Naomi Oreskes and her coauthor Eric Conway during their research for the book "Emergence of Doubt." At a conference, Oreskes mentioned being attacked for her climate science work, and Conway, who was also in attendance, shared that he had encountered similar attacks against scientists like Sherry Rowland during the ozone hole debate. The attacks against these scientists followed a similar pattern, and when Oreskes received materials from Conway, she found that the language used against climate scientists could be interchanged with language used against those working on the ozone hole, with the same individuals involved. This realization highlights the importance of understanding the interconnectedness of scientific debates and the motivations behind attacks on scientific consensus.
The denial of climate science is ideologically motivated, not based on a lack of understanding of the science.: Despite the scientific consensus on climate change, some individuals deny it due to ideological motivations, similar to the tobacco industry's denial of smoking's health risks.
The denial of climate science by certain high-profile individuals is not due to a lack of understanding of the science, but rather, it's ideologically motivated. This was discovered through the examination of the connections between these scientists and industries like tobacco, specifically in the case of Fred Seitz who worked for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after the bulk of the scientific evidence against smoking had been established. The denial of climate science began in the 1960s with the surgeon general report, and by the 1970s, it was clear that smoking caused cancer and other diseases. However, Seitz began working for the tobacco industry in 1979, well after the scientific evidence had been established. The tobacco industry's argument against government regulation of smoking was based on individual freedom and capitalism. Similarly, the denial of climate science is based on similar arguments, but it's not a new argument, and it's not just about the science. It's about ideology. The denial of climate science is not about scientific illiteracy, but rather, it's about the same people making the same arguments for different industries.
Tobacco Industry's Illusion of Scientific Debate: The tobacco industry manipulated public perception by recruiting scientists and presenting them as neutral voices, creating doubt and confusion about the health risks of their product.
The tobacco industry in the late 1980s recognized the power of creating the illusion of a scientific debate to undermine public health concerns. They recruited scientists and presented them as neutral voices to defend their product, even if they were on the industry's payroll. This technique was effective in creating doubt and confusion, making it difficult for the public to make informed decisions. This strategy has been used in other contexts, such as climate science, and highlights the importance of transparency and critical thinking in understanding complex issues. During the Cold War era, there was a common belief that government regulation was a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. However, the reality is more nuanced, and there are many choices between totalitarian collectivism and free market libertarian chaos. The dichotomization of thinking during the Cold War made it difficult to have nuanced conversations about the balance between free market principles and government involvement. Ronald Reagan's presidency further solidified this mindset, but there were signs of a middle ground emerging in the 1970s, with detente and significant environmental legislation. It's essential to remember that our choices are not limited to these two extremes.
Reagan era: Shift in geopolitical rhetoric and scientists' response: During Reagan's presidency, scientists challenged dangerous thinking on nuclear war and nuclear winter, facing pushback from the administration and corporate interests, but remained committed to truth.
During the Reagan administration, the rhetoric around geopolitical issues like nuclear war and environmental concerns like ozone depletion and nuclear winter shifted dramatically. Reagan's stance on arms control and the possibility of a winnable nuclear war led scientists to speak up against this dangerous thinking. The nuclear winter debate, which involved scientists like Carl Sagan, was a part of this discourse. The Reagan administration responded with a campaign to discredit this work, which foreshadowed later efforts to deny climate change. Despite political and corporate interests, scientists remained committed to their findings, driven by the belief in the truth rather than financial gain.
Ideological justifications fuel denial of scientific consensus: Ideologically driven think tanks challenged scientific evidence on environmental issues, delaying action during the Bush administration. People involved, like Bill Nierenberg, used White House access to promote their agenda, perpetuating harmful misinformation and discrediting regulatory bodies.
That the denial of scientific consensus around environmental issues, such as climate change, is not just driven by financial interests, but also by ideological justifications. The creation of think tanks and strategic influence on public policy, particularly during the Bush administration, played a significant role in challenging the scientific evidence and delaying action. The people involved in these efforts, like Bill Nierenberg, had access to the White House and used their credibility as scientists to promote their agenda. This pattern of denial and reopening settled scientific debates, such as the one around DDT, has had far-reaching consequences, including the discrediting of regulatory bodies and the perpetuation of harmful misinformation.
Effective communication shapes public opinion on complex issues like climate change: Understanding human psychology and market failure dynamics is crucial for communicating complex issues effectively and addressing societal challenges
Effective communication plays a significant role in shaping public opinion, particularly when it comes to complex issues like climate change. People are more likely to believe messages that align with their beliefs and desires, such as the idea that markets are always efficient and government regulation is bad. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and the disregard of scientific evidence. Additionally, human psychology factors into this, with people often preferring optimistic messages and wishful thinking. The concept of market failure and external costs, which are well-known in economics, are often overlooked or disregarded in public discourse. Understanding these dynamics and finding ways to communicate complex issues effectively is crucial for addressing pressing societal challenges.
The conflict between individual rights and collective responsibility in environmental issues: The cultural narrative around the marketplace and government intervention makes it challenging to address environmental issues effectively, contributing to the lack of action on climate change.
The freedom to act in ways that impact the environment can conflict with each other, leading to complex philosophical questions about individual rights and collective responsibility. These issues have been discussed throughout history, but the cultural narrative around the marketplace and government intervention has made it challenging to address effectively. This narrative, which sees the market as an efficient solution and government as an inefficient problem, is particularly prevalent in the United States and has contributed to the lack of action on climate change. While there are psychological factors at play, a cultural explanation is needed to fully understand this phenomenon. For instance, the effective lobbying by certain groups has shifted political discourse, leading some to adopt beliefs that diverge from scientific consensus. To address this issue, it's essential to remind people of the historical context and the need for collective action to protect the environment.
The spirit of Republican environmentalism: efficient solutions and connection to nature: Republican environmentalism emphasizes finding efficient solutions to environmental problems while allowing people to connect with nature, shaping US environmental movement history. However, not all transactions belong in the marketplace.
The spirit of Republican environmentalism, as exemplified by figures like Gifford Pinchot and Russell Train, emphasized the importance of finding efficient solutions to environmental problems while recognizing the need for people to connect with nature in their daily lives. This perspective, which originated in response to urbanization, has shaped the environmental movement in the United States throughout history. However, it's important to remember that the marketplace, while a powerful force, is not an acceptable place for all transactions, as evidenced by the historical example of slavery. The upcoming book "The Magic of the Marketplace: The True History of a False Idea" will delve deeper into this topic, focusing primarily on the 20th century and the ongoing battle between corporations and government regulation.
Markets fall short in certain areas, societal intervention necessary: Markets may allow harmful practices, societal intervention leads to positive change, examples include child labor and slavery
While markets can be effective in many areas, there are instances where they fall short and societal intervention is necessary. The history of debates over slavery and child labor in the United States serves as a reminder of this. Although the market may allow certain practices, such as child labor or slavery, the vast majority of society would not condone them. However, it took regulations and laws to put an end to these practices. The example of child labor also highlights the potential for a race to the bottom in markets, where companies may be tempted to engage in harmful practices to maintain a competitive edge. But, the good news is that societal intervention can lead to positive change, as seen in the elimination of child labor and smoking on airplanes. The hope is that similar progress can be made in addressing climate change, despite the current challenges.
Social contagion and regulatory incentives driving tech adoption: Scientific evidence and social change are crucial for driving progress on complex issues like climate change. Combining both can lead to a virtuous cycle of growth and efficiencies.
The adoption of new technologies and societal shifts, like the widespread use of electric cars and solar power, can create a virtuous cycle. Social contagion and regulatory incentives can help drive the initial growth, leading to economies of scale and market efficiencies. However, it's crucial to recognize that both scientific evidence and social change are essential for driving significant progress on complex issues like climate change. The tobacco control efforts serve as a prime example, where scientific evidence of the health risks combined with a social movement led to substantial change. Therefore, to effectively address climate change, we need to continue to advance scientific knowledge and communicate it effectively while also fostering social and cultural shifts.
Scientists and activists must collaborate to tackle environmental issues: Scientists need to engage politically while activists require scientific knowledge to effectively address environmental concerns. Bridging the gap between science and activism is crucial for addressing complex issues like climate change and vaccine skepticism.
Scientists and activists must work together to address environmental issues. Science is crucial, but it's not enough on its own. Scientists need to engage politically, while activists must be knowledgeable about the science. The scientific community's reluctance to get political is a barrier, but the stakes are high. The facts don't speak for themselves, and there are those who reject them. It's important to remember that rejection of science can come from various ideologies and backgrounds. The anti-vaccine movement, for instance, is a complex issue not easily categorized by political affiliation. The goal should be to understand why people reject science and address those reasons, regardless of political leanings.
Political Leadership Imbalance on Climate Change: Despite some Republican leaders denying climate change, history shows even the most vocal opponents can change their stance and make a difference.
There's an imbalance in political leadership regarding climate change between the two major parties. While democratic leaders generally don't publicly dismiss climate scientists as being in it for the money, some Republican leaders have become deeply invested in denying climate change. However, history shows that even the most staunch opponents can make significant shifts. For instance, former President Nixon, known for his anti-communist stance, surprised many by opening relations with China. This example suggests that even the most vocal climate change deniers could potentially become heroes by acknowledging the issue and taking action, rather than facing political suicide. It's a complex situation, but there's a glimmer of hope that a coalition of Republican leaders could make a difference without sacrificing their political careers. We can only dream, but it's a possibility worth considering.