Michael Fumento of the Competitive Enterprise Institute posted yesterday, “‘Denialism’ has no place in scientific debate,” maintaining, “‘Denialist’ is an ad hominem argument, the meaning of which is defined entirely by the user, intended to discredit the accused without evidence.” To illustrate his point, Fumento quoted an article from The New Scientist in which an expert claims, “[D]enialism is a mental health problem.” Fumento concludes with, “Thus there’s no difference between not accepting the party line on global warming and believing vaccines cause autism or HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.”
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.
About the Author
I'm Jason Vines, a web developer at a research institution in Washington, DC. I graduated from George Washington University with a bachelor's degree in political science, with a minor in journalism. I enjoy philosophy and web scripting, as well as reading, writing, history, video games, travel, and photography.
[...] aren’t much different from those in alien abduction or vaccination-caused autism. (…) Is global warming cynicism “denial”? | Hypersyllogistic Of course that's only relevant if you're interested in a calm, level-headed examination of the [...]