On the 'Anti-Science' Movement

I had an entertaining little game of Twitter tennis with a mutual follower this morning. I won't name them, because I didn't ask and don't want to embarrass them by doing so. Let me be clear in saying that I don't think they should be embarrassed by what they said - it's their view and I can see how they got there.

I responded to this:

'Yeah! Big cheer for science! Not confident that Australians haven't already been bought off by the anti-science movement'

with this:

'The anti-science movement? Seriously? I'll admit there's some dumbness around, but wow, there's no conspiracy. Really.'

It wasn't exactly a Wildean response, granted, but the initial challenge got me thinking. There seems to be a niche intelligentsia view that there is a properly organised 'anti-science' movement that is 'buying people off,' to use the words of my fellow tweeter.

They came back with the rather better:

'I don't really think that there's any other way to describe the climate change denial industry.'

(I said I had a better word, 'arsehats')

I think that is a very narrow, and might I say, misguided view. The climate change denial 'industry' (I don't think it's a industry as such - there are people who do and people who don't) is powered by a number of things -

1. Respected opinion

Not 'respectable' opinion, mind you. People like Bolt, Blair, Devine et al are, like some of their counterparts Farrelly and Deveney, not helpful. The deniers think we're okay and there's nothing to worry about and use 'science' to back their view. Their view is not the prevailing view within the scientific community but you will always find a scientist willing to disagree with their community for their fifteen minutes. Hence 'credible' evidence to support their claim.

2. Financial interests

a. Oil, gas and coal companies are not pleased with the recent turn of events. They've been made the scapegoats for it when we probably need to take a good hard look at ourselves and look at how we use energy. Yes, it's not always our fault dimwitted government after dimwitted government 'commits' to being green then commissions more coal-power. If anyone's being bought off, it's them. And we should be voting them out on their arses.

b. Newspapers. A long, drawn-out argument never fails to sell papers or generate page views. They'll keep printing it until we stop reading it. See point 1.

3. Climate change fanbois - here's the interesting bit. Those on the non-denial side (which includes me, by the way) are often lumped in with the loonies by parts 1 and 2a. That's pretty tedious. Climate change is happening, there is no doubt. How it's happening and to what extent is only partly proveable because we don't have as much concrete as some would like to think.

I think it has much to do with human activity and is probably a result of a natural shift in temperatures magnified by our presence and vandalism. The fanbois are nuts. They think we're all dead in fifty years, billions of people will die and it's all because of the deniers refusing to change.

Rubbish. The deniers are denying because it affects them directly and they don't want to change. The governments, chasing votes instead of truth, will happily feed that fear of change. Government says 'go green' but builds more coal-fired power, touts 'clean coal' (I need to wash my fingers after typing that) and continues to ignore renewable and sustainable energy sources. What does this say to the population? Bugger it, it's probably not true but we're paying lip service. Oh, and the 'science' behind clean coal is nicely polished by men in white coats who are paid to do so.

Science has scored a few impressive own goals over the last few years because they have allowed themselves to be led by the fanbois into the media spotlight. There is no moderate view in the media anymore, on any topic and the moderates are howled down without a second's grace. The deniers get to play it fast and loose because they're on a hiding to nothing - the science side can't do the same because there is solid evidence to back the theories.

So, anyway, this anti-science movement thing is rubbish and paranoid. The vast majority of climate change deniers wouldn't countenance using alternative medicine, not using stuff that science brings us, like, oh, modern life or deny that planes fly because of physics and aerodynamics rather than magic fairy dust.

It's this kind of patronising, academic view that pisses people off and once they've made up their mind, they won't change. Scientists told people in the 50s that smoking was good for them because the tobacco companies paid them to do so. Scientists are paid by a variety of interests to prove a point and so many are rightly regarded with the predictable suspicion. Conflicts of interest abound in the academic community because a lot of the money in it has a story to tell and they expect the results to support that story.

I lay the blame partly at the feet of the psychotic elements of New Atheism that dumps anybody who disagrees with them in the same box - the one marked Mentally Ill. People aren't as dumb as some would like to think, they just disagree. You can't disagree anymore without being accused of being 'bought off' or an idiot. There are compelling prima facie, media-friendly arguments that climate change is not our fault or even not happening (though these are sound-bit bits of evidence). There are compelling own goals that makes people think that the green agenda is about commie greenies wanting to end capitalism, as though capitalism's bedrock is oil and coal.

Dawkins, bless his cotton socks, is the sort of person I'm talking about. He publicly derides religion for being stupid and superstitious because they disagree with his world view. I understand that he feels religion attacks his chosen field - biology - when, really, only bits of it do. Sadly for him, he takes that personally, which is the sign of a gigantic ego which gets in the way of his undoubted cleverness.

He's a purporter of this anti-science paranoia. There are people who will oppose science or some of it, it doesn't make them 'religious' or 'Christian.' Or mentally ill, or bribed. Or vice versa. As I said, the people in big oil no more believe in fairy dust than they do climate change and spent a great deal of their time and money on things that the patronisers say they oppose.

It's a black and white world view that is intolerant and motivated simply by the need to be 'right.'