Note: Although this was prompted by a conversation with a friend, it is not meant as an attack on him.  He is a good guy.  The purpose is to show an example of a common strategy used to attack science.

This week’s House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (introduced by Waxman, D-CA and Markey, D-MA) had its share of fireworks…not just in Congress, but on Facebook.  I posted an update related to some comments made by a legislator.  A friend of mine disagreed and said he wanted “an open and honest” debate” about climate change and then said that climate change is junk science.

The thing is, “an open and honest debate” is what defines science. A robust scientific argument is not created in isolation. Scientific arguments are vetted and vigorously debated by the science community. The scientific community is self-correcting. The science of climate has been subjected to an open and honest debate and consensus has been reached that humans are causing an unnatural increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which is resulting in an increase in global temperatures (global warming). Scientists do not reach consensus by taking a vote.  This doesn’t mean that 51% of scientists agree and 49% disagree.  It means that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points towards anthropogenic climate change (called “global warming” by the media).

For a primer on climate change, go here.
For a primer on how science works, go here.

Before we go further, it is important to realize that concern brought about by anthropogenic (human impact) climate change is due to human impacts interfering with natural phenomena and accelerating climate change.  It does not imply that the climate wasn’t different (warmer or cooler) in the past.  Human impacts are causing an unnatural rapid warming of the globe – an impact that may have devastating consequences.

So, if a consensus of science is directly opposed to your views, what do you do?  Well, if you are well financed, you sow doubt.  You realize that most people do not have the time to gain a deep understanding of an issue, so you persuade them that the science is in doubt and that the scientists are biased.  I found it ironic that my friend referred to climate change as “junk science.”  The term “junk science” was popularized in the early 1990’s by a PR firm funded by Phillip Morris as a way to sow doubt about the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke.  This firm, lead by Steven Milloy, now sows doubt about the dangers of obesity, breast implants, pesticides like DDT, and climate change – all issues where the ‘status quo’ protects big business.

The Earth’s climate is incredibly complex, so it is particularly easy to create doubt around the science of climate change.  The first step is to fund “think tanks” to build the illusion of multiple sources that are at odds with climate change.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.” (Newsweek 08/13/07).

The second step – Ignore the scientists that work for the think tanks that you fund.

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995. (NYT, 4/23/09)

The third step – create and disseminate strawman argument after strawman argumetnt.  Don’t worry if your arguments are absurd, just keep them coming.  When they are debunked, say sarcastically, “oh, NOW you have a new explanation.”

This is where the need for a scientific literate population comes in.  Strawman arguments rely on people not having a deep understanding of an issue, and in the case of scientific arguments, an understanding of the process of science.  When someone makes a strawman argument about climate change, they first misrepresent a scientific finding (by distorting, only selecting portions of the data, or selectively ignoring evidence or rationales) – thus, creating a “strawman.”  Next, you ridicule and discredit that strawman.  Then, you claim that the science is obviously wrong because you defeated the strawman. Finally, repeat, repeat, repeat…  Mission accomplished.

Here are two examples of the strawman arguments used by those that have a financial or ideological reason to deny anthropogenic climate change.

Climate Denial Crock of the Week (includes video explanation of strawman arguments)

George Will and Arctic Ice (Washington Post Contributor and Conservative Pundit)