December 7, 2009
Media, Democracy, Global Climate Catastrophe
A free media. Democracy needs it to function fully and freely. Without free press, information can’t be safely disseminated, opinions can’t be freely formed, and politicians can’t be freely chosen or rejected. A free press is both desirable and necessary for liberal democracies.
But it has its drawbacks.
Something like 95% of scientists working in the relevant fields subscribe to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). As the Now Show pointed out on Friday, the last serious scientific organisation to agree to the theory came over in 2007 (h/t). The “dissenters”, deniers, or as I prefer to call them, Ostriches, are simply spouting nonsense in claim there’s a “debate” to be had.
The science is clear. There is no debate*. AGW is the case. There is, however, the illusion of debate. Why? I have a story: how the Ostriches found their sand.
It’s tempting to simply blame the lobbying influence of organisations that have vested interests in delaying measures to tackle climate change. Oil, electricity, aviation, construction companies etc. My suspicion is that such groups long-ago noted the success of tobacco companies in delaying measures against tobacco consumption.
The full harms of smoking were obscured for many years by tobacco company-backed scientists, wheeled out to continue a “debate” which should have long been settled in policy-makers’ minds. By creating the illusion of a lack of scientific consensus, tobacco companies delayed measures being taken against them (an illusion strengthened by the fact they also repressed findings and lied). It’s been observed that many AGW scientific “sceptics” are or have been the stooges of vested interest, wheeled-out to propagate the myth of debate. (One does wonder why conspriacy theorists don’t focus their attention on this fertile ground, and target scientists instead).
But corporate interest (alone) can’t explain the growing phenomenon of AGW Ostrichism. The levels of head-in-sand we’re seeing in the Tory Party, for example, can’t be explained by corporate interests (alone). And there’s no plausible story about Rush Limbaugh or Jeremy Clarkson being straight-forward Exxon Mobil stooges. AGW Ostrichism has become self-gestating; the myth of debate self-propelling. How?
The mainstream media is surely a huge factor. Ben Goldacre has long-charted the insanity of mainstream media outlets constantly propagating the myth that homeopathy is a viable contender to evidence-based medicine, when there is no scientific debate whatsoever as to the fact that homeopathy has the efficacy merely of placebo. Yet time and again mainstream media outlets wheel out “both sides of the story”: somebody with genuine scientific credentials is presented alongside a twit who hasn’t got the first clue about science or medicine, and both positions are presented as equal in a “debate”.
This is part of the wider phenomenon observed by Nick Davies in the book Flat Earth News; of media taking the safe route of appearing to give “balanced” coverage with the perverse consequence that balance is the last thing that’s achieved. In summary: it’s much easier for a media outlet to present “two sides of a debate”, avoiding a torrent of angry letters from whackjobs, avoiding hard editorial decisions, and – especially if you’re the BBC – avoiding charges of bias. “Balance” is the path of least resistance - plus you get cheap and exciting collision, which drags in attention. Yet this often means wheeling out “two sides of the story” even when one side consists of liars and morons, and the other side is in fact the only side because genuine debate on the issue is non-existent.
AGW is a case study par excellence. If 95% of the science says AGW is a fact, then a truly balanced media representation would give the Ostriches 5% of coverage. But they get a lot more than that, and not just due to Fraser Nelson’s attention-seeking at The Spectator. Because “balance” demands that both sides of the story get a hearing, and because a debate sells but depressing facts about how we’re headed for disaster don’t, virtually all mainstream media has been guilty of fuelling AGW Ostrichism. Even when Ed Miliband puts the boot in and explains why there is no debate about AGM (skip to 24mins), it’s already too late because the illusion of debate has been created. Meanwhile, this excellent video languishes online, rather than being the lead news item for every broadcast outlet. (h/t) Even when the BBC provides this handy resource comprehensively debunking all the ostrich claims, it nonetheless ends with “The Debate Continues Online” despite having just shown that there is no debate!
This has serious consequences. Human beings have always had ostrich tendencies. Yet what much of the media is doing by perpetrating the myth of an AGW ”debate” is providing justified permission to stick heads in sand.
This could be disastrous. There are reasons why democracy may be structurally incapable (more) of dealing with AGW. The only way of avoiding calamity may be massive demand from ordinary voters for something to be done, and done fast. That will only happen if voters are really terrified of the unmitigated AGW future, especially given how much they may have to sacrifice to prevent disaster. Yet this is never going to happen if the media-fostered myth of an AGW “debate” licenses people to take the ostrich-eye view.
The free press in the 21st Century: necessary for freedom, yet exacerbating our collective inability to save the planet. Is that tragedy, or just vicious irony?
–
OK I’m cheating a bit. There is a debate within the field of those who accept AGW is the case. Namely with those who think AGW will be off-set by complex negative feedback mechanisms, and those who think measures taken to prevent AGW will be more harmful than letting it happen. See Unity’s informative post on this matter. What I’m focusing on is the notion that there is a debate about whether AGW is occurring full stop. On that matter, there is no debate.
Climate Camp and a Red/Green way forward « Though Cowards Flinch said,
December 7, 2009 at 11:32 am
[...] unencumbered by the usual bias towards organised Capital (and, in the case of global warming, the bad science and conspiracy theories its prostitute media promotes), where the working class, including the socialist part, can talk to [...]
Freethinking Economist said,
December 7, 2009 at 12:39 pm
[...] Paul’s excellent post on the downsides of a free media is an excellent antidote to this. He compares to the “is smoking bad for you?” ‘debate’. By creating the illusion of a lack of scientific consensus, tobacco companies delayed measures being taken against them (an illusion strengthened by the fact they also repressed findings and lied). [...]
Duncan said,
December 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The levels of head-in-sand we’re seeing in the Tory Party, for example, can’t be explained by corporate interests (alone). And there’s no plausible story about Rush Limbaugh or Jeremy Clarkson being straight-forward Exxon Mobil stooges.
This is one reason why I think a Tory government would be genuinely worse than the current Labour government in an important sense. They are prepared to openly ignore mainstream scientific opinion in favour of isolated loons (read: dissenters) if they find the conclusions they reach unpleasant.
This scares me.
Paul Sagar said,
December 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Duncan,
What about Labour’s attitude to drugs?
Looks pretty much to fit this bill:
“They are prepared to openly ignore mainstream scientific opinion in favour of isolated loons (read: dissenters) if they find the conclusions they reach unpleasant.”
Lol.
Duncan said,
December 7, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I suppose so but I think the stakes are a bit higher with this one if we ignore the scientific evidence.
Denial Industry « Bad Conscience said,
December 9, 2009 at 9:09 am
[...] Climate Catastrophe, Media, Political Philosophy, Politics at 9:00 am by Paul Sagar The other day I expressed my suspicions that global warming denialism stems at least in part from vested interest industry [...]
Alex said,
December 9, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“My suspicion is that such groups long-ago noted the success of tobacco companies in delaying measures against tobacco consumption.”
Some of them are the same groups as those involved in the tobacco “debate”:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
“Yet time and again mainstream media outlets wheel out “both sides of the story”: somebody with genuine scientific credentials is presented alongside a twit who hasn’t got the first clue about science or medicine, and both positions are presented as equal in a “debate”.”
And sometimes the person meant to be on the side of reason, doesn’t actually know what they’re arguing against. How’s this for balance on the homeopathy “debate”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8382265.stm
As for the AGW, I don’t know of any climatologists that dispute that AGW is happening, nor have I seen any argue that the negative feedbacks COMPLETELY offset it. They all agree there are negative feedbacks, but the debate is between those who foresee a little bit of warming, and those who foresee a lot of warming (with everybody in between). So I just wanted to clarify that bit you put at the end. No-one I’ve seen thinks that the negative feedbacks will offset AGW.
Paul Sagar said,
December 10, 2009 at 2:52 am
Cheers for the links, Alex (that homeopathy one is painful
Agree, BTW, regarding your final point – I just felt the OP was long and complicated enough as it was, so didn’t include such (very good) points.
Copenhagen and Christmas; Carnival of Socialism #45 « Though Cowards Flinch said,
December 19, 2009 at 9:23 am
[...] stemming from Copenhagen, there’s meta-coverage on the media and green issues. There are two articles over at Paul Sagar’s Bad Conscience. Hopi Sen is pretty appalled. Sunny Hundal [...]
rogerthesurf said,
January 22, 2010 at 3:14 am
There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.
There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.
I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.
In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.
Cheers
Roger
PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)
In Praise of…William Hague? « Bad Conscience said,
February 9, 2010 at 8:03 am
[...] i’ve remarked before, the modern media presents a particularly acute problem on the issue of climate change. What to do [...]