I agree with Fumento that “denialism” doesn’t constitute a “mental health problem,” but I disagree that it’s a meaningless term. In every context I’ve seen the word, it has denoted the ignoring of facts for personal reasons, using rhetoric instead of science and logic to bolster one’s case. (See: Denialism.com and WikiPedia.)

To engage in denialism isn’t just to disagree with a scientific doctrine but to escape the confines of science and its methods when confronting the doctrine. So, even though Fumento is right that “denialist” has no place in scientific debate, that hardly impugns the use of the label since it refers to one who refuses to engage in scientific debate in the first place.

The cynicism of global warming Fumento mentions showcases denialism in action. To see why, let’s consider the fallacious methodology of fringe groups that Michael Shermer describes in relation to Holocaust deniers in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, Second Edition, p. 212 (emphases mine):

They concentrate on their opponents’ weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. Deniers emphasize the inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts, for example.

They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents’ conclusions were wrong, all their opponents’ conclusions must be wrong. Deniers point to the human soap story, which has turned out to be a myth, and talk about “the incredible shrinking Holocaust” because historians have reduced the number killed at Auschwitz from four million to one million.

They use quotations, usually taken out of context, from prominent mainstream figures to buttress their own position. Deniers quote Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg, Arno Mayer, and even leading Nazis.

They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. Deniers take the intentionalist-functionalist debate about the development of the Holocaust as an argument about whether the Holocaust happened or not.

They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. Deniers concentrate on what we do not know about the gas chambers and disregard all the eyewitness accounts and forensic tests that support the use of the gas chambers for mass murder.

Global warming cynics employ a similar methodology in attacking the notion of mankind-influenced climate change:

Lakes from melting glaciers

They frequently quote climate scientists out of context, in attempts either to discredit them or to portray global warming as more controversial within the scientific community than it really is. The brouhaha over “Climategate” was a case in point.

They focus on exaggerated flaws in the temperature record while paying comparatively little attention to the consilience of rising sea levels, melting glaciers, diminishing polar ice volume (which is more important than spread), and well-established greenhouse physics.

I would add a sixth item to Shermer’s methodology of fringe groups: They use conspiracy theories to explain why most experts and evidence contradict their beliefs.

“Climategate” also demonstrated this aspect of fringe methodology. The science doesn’t really support global warming, according to many cynics; scientists in league with environmentalists and socialists have just fabricated data to pad their wallets and push through “left-wing” policies.

Of course, the way science works, a theory—which, in the context of science, means not a “guess,” but to borrow from Shermer, a well-supported and well-tested generalization that explains a set of facts—is not accepted by the general scientific community until it has been confirmed by multiple lines of evidence gathered via independent observation and analysis by many different people. So, any conspiracy to promote global warming would entail either the participation or deception of thousands of scientists around the world. And that’s not likely, to say the least.

Global warming cynics, as demonstrated, are by and large not practicing science, but rhetorical legerdemain based on fallacious reasoning.

Certainly, a few global warming skeptics (as opposed to cynics) do practice science: They marshal data and make the case for why it supports their position in legitimate scientific journals, acknowledging the burden of proof lies on them when challenging accepted scientific wisdom and refraining from distorting other scientists’ work or motives. The “denier” label isn’t for them, but for cynics who don’t operate within the paradigm of science, whose beliefs therefore aren’t much different from those in alien abduction or vaccination-caused autism.

Watch this

The video series I’ve embedded below clearly and concisely lays out the evidence for humanity-influenced global warming, while debunking climate change pseudoscience of all stripes, from that of Al Gore to that of Glenn Beck.

Is global warming cynicism “denial”? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Really, how many people did the Michael Jackson trial affect? (I don’t mean, how many haters and fans had feelings about the issue, but how many lives were truly impacted by the trial?) What makes the sad case of Natalee Holloway in Aruba more significant than most of the other instances of missing children each year? Did a comatose woman in Florida merit substantially more attention than everything else happening in the country? Going even farther back, was the O.J. Simpson murder case much more compelling than the other crimes people had committed? Etc., etc.

Certainly, many of these kind of stories are interesting. Some attention to them from the media is due. But, in the coverage of news outlets who purport to tell us about the world, should these stories crowd out everything else?

No.

As someone who is studying journalism, I understand the media’s tendency to focus on these sensationalist topics. They are easy; all journalists have to do is talk to a few cops, lawyers, or celebrities, camp out in front of a courthouse or stay in a hotel, and then they have a story. They don’t have to dig through evasive, hostile, or obscure sources, and they don’t have to risk making anyone angry. Also, news organizations know their audiences will eagerly consume this fluff. It provides viewers or readers doses of excitement without challenging their preconceptions and worldviews much. Not even the Terri Schiavo affair did that, being as it was about a matter that was abstract for most people.

So, this whole cycle enables journalists to relax with unchallenging assignments, while still raking in the money. And it allows consumers to go through life without serious introspection of themselves and their societies.

But this process obscures issues that, even though they are difficult to cover and contemplate, still affect the lives and well-being of many Americans, if not all of them.

I’m talking about subjects such as these:

• Government corruption. I don’t mean just malfeasance, but abuses of power that might be “legal” but still assault the principles our nation holds dear.
• Domestic ramifications of the War on Terror. In the news, the War on Terror appears as mainly a struggle in foreign lands. We know this War on Terror impacts life at home, too, and we need to understand more about it. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable being ignorant of these things. If the intransigence of the Bush administration prevents the media from covering this more thoroughly, then the media should make an issue of that.
• The histories and motivations of people around the world. As the events of September 11, 2001, showed us, Americans hardly live alone on this Earth. What other countries and societies do can affect us profoundly. Comprehending their thoughts and beliefs is, therefore, important.
• Related to the point above, but American news outlets should tell us more in general about what’s happening about the world. For example, the savagery of the Sudanese government in Darfur and the massacre of protesters in Uzbekistan should receive more attention in the American media. No country is an island, to borrow from an old proverb, and the tragedies of one region can eventually impact us. Besides which… The country from one of those examples, Uzbekistan, is an ally of the United States in our War on Terror! If our partners conduct state-sanctioned murder and other human rights violations, the American people should know that, and be able to pressure their government accordingly.
• The environment. The health of our planet impacts everyone. It merits more than the token quoting of a scientist source every once in a while. How are Americans to know what to do about the environment if the media doesn’t investigate and illuminate the issue?
• Crime and punishment. I don’t refer to telling us Mrs. Wutherford was mugged last night. Already, local newscasters and newspapers focus too much on criminal incidents. But what no media on any level examines is, how effective is our justice system in punishing felons? Do our cops and prisons serve as effective deterrents? Does capital punishment do anything to prevent heinous murders?

This is but a small sampling of the things on which the national media should focus. Will the media ever minimize their sensationalist fluff pieces in favor of these kinds of stories?

That depends on the American people. Above all, news corporations want to make money. Sadly, that is their driving force these days. If Americans tune out substanceless vapidity and demand actual enlightenment, then the media will have to respect that. Can something like this actually happen anytime soon?…

I hope.

Sensationalist media ignores real issues is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos