Editor - Jan Weaver
415 Tucker Hall, MU 65211
by Jan Weaver
Science is seen by the public as objective, pragmatic, egalitarian and shielded from political and economic interests. Therefore it provides ideal cover for political and economic interests, and it makes sense, from their point of view, to try to manage the public perception of what science is saying. These attempts to manage perception can be particularly intense when it comes to health and environmental issues.
Two main strategies are used. One is to create the impression that a large number of scientists support your position. This is done by creating 3rd party interest groups (or "front groups") that obscure your identity, but still push your agenda; by finding scientists who favor your position and grooming them to speak directly to the media (who are always looking for the dissenting voice to provide "balance" ) instead of going through peer review; and by setting up invitation only meetings that circulate petitions or reports which are presented as a disinterested statement of concern about the other sides' misuse of science . *
The second strategy is to call the other side's science "Junk Science" - your own science is, in comparison "Sound Science". This approach relies on the average person's perception that "real" science involves experiments with controls and replication. However many serious problems do not lend themselves to direct experiments. For example, by the "direct experiment" criterion, there is no proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer in smokers. The only evidence of the link is statistical correlations, animal studies and modeling of known physiological processes. There is no randomly selected group of people who were made to smoke and then compared to a randomly selected control group (because it would be unethical). For similar reasons we cannot "prove" the effects of pesticides or other pollutants on humans. And for problems like climate change, there is only one earth, so it is not possible to compare our earth to a control whose inhabitants are not adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
The "Junk Science" strategy was initiated as a project of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a group launched in 1994 under the directorship of Steven Milloy by the PR firm APCO Associates on behalf of Philip Morris. TASSC is gone, but the "Junk Science" strategy lives on, still under Milloy's direction and currently available on Fox News' website.
Threaded through both strategies are frequent violations of logic and rhetoric - selective use of evidence, non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, arguments from adverse consequences, and straw man arguments. The specific arguments fall into five mutually incompatible categories. Many of the strategies, violations of logic and rhetoric, and incompatible arguments are illustrated in the debate surrounding climate change (anti-global warming arguments are in italics)
What problem? Europe was warmer in the middle ages, so the climate is really cooling. It is easy to find places on the globe that are cooler, but this selective use of evidence doesn't mean the average global temperature is going down. Land, sea surface and deep ocean temperatures, melting glacial and polar ice, longer growing seasons, and range extensions of tropical insects all point to global warming. Even satellite data, when corrected for the change in satellite position, show global warming.
It's not a problem, it's good for us! Plants benefit from carbon dioxide (CO2) so environmentalists are wrong to argue it is bad for the planet. Just because plants use CO2 doesn't mean it cannot trap infrared radiation and cause the planet to become warmer.
It's not us, it's some other guy (or nature)! The Max Planck Society (MPS) has shown that sun spot activity might be what is making the earth warmer. The website that featured this information neglected to add the MPS qualification that even the increased sunspot activity could not account for the rate of warming seen in the last 30 years.
It's not fair! Why does the US have to limit its greenhouse gases but China and India don't? We produce about 20,000 tons of CO2 per person, per year. China produces 2,000 tons and India about 1,000. It might be hard to find opportunities for reductions in a population that doesn't have many refrigerators, air conditioners, or SUVs. Besides, it's not clear that implementing the Kyoto Protocol will hurt the economy as a whole. (What's good for GM is not necessarily good for the U.S.) Oil giant BP managed to save $650 million by reducing greenhouse emissions from its operations. Perhaps it could give us some tips.
It's too late to do anything, we should just adapt! Instead of spending $60 billion on the Kyoto Protocols, we should help eliminate malaria and hunger, and just move the 80 million people living near coastlines (or build sea walls). It should only cost about $10 billion. This argument pretends we have to choose between paying for Kyoto or saving people from malaria, hunger and flooding. But warming will make existing malaria and hunger problems much worse, and the $10 billion they propose for adaptation works out to only $125 per person just for relocation costs.
The best defense against this orchestrated misuse of science is to be aware that not every source that claims it is scientific is actually basing its arguments on science. The most objective, pragmatic, egalitarian and interest free science opinions are going to come from professional, member supported scientific societies**. Their websites will have the history and purpose of the organization, and have links to their journals, meetings and other activities related to professional development. It will also have a consensus opinion, if there is one, among the experts in the field. If a site with a scientific sounding name lacks these things, it is probably a front group.
The next most reliable source would usually be government websites. However, some governments have allowed non-scientists to rewrite scientific conclusions so that they are consistent with government positions - instead of limiting their revisions to policy statements. This makes the politically important science conclusions coming from such governments suspect.
Media could be as reliable as government, but many journalists do not have enough scientific training to evaluate scientific arguments with confidence, so they rely on balance as a proxy for accuracy. This can lead to misrepresentation of the scientific consensus on an issue. Furthermore, some media outlets have specific political, social or economic agendas which may skew their presentation of scientific information.
Finally, any groups with an agenda (libertarian, industry, environmental, etc.) will select only the evidence favorable to their argument so it is impossible to get the whole picture. On the other hand, taken together, they provide insight on the diversity of views.
It's a junkyard out there, especially where health and environmental issues are concerned. So be careful where you get your information. And, if anyone uses the term "Junk Science" or its complements " Sound Science" and "Rationality", it's money in the bank that they are trying to use science to hide their real agenda.
* Dueling petitions. The Heidelberg petition does not argue against climate change, though it is sometimes presented as though it does. It calls for using science (instead of emotion) to fix the earth's problems. The Leipzig and Oregon petitions are specifically anti global warming. The Leipzig petition was a product of an invitation only conference and includes 80 signatures, including some from people who swear they didn't sign it. The Oregon petition was distributed with a paper formatted to look like a National Academy of Sciences paper, but disavowed by them, claiming to be the latest science on climate change. The 17,000 signers did not include titles or affiliations, and it has signatures from the doctors on M.A.S.H. and a Spice Girl. On the other hand, approximately 100 Nobel science laureates (along with over a thousand other scientists) have signed petitions calling for action on climate change.
** Real scientific societies - these scientific societies have endorsed the idea that the global climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU).
Special Events/Programs/Classes/Talks
PLANT PROPAGATION: Monday Feb 13, 7 pm , UU Church, 2615 Shepard Blvd. Wild Ones - Ann Wakeman
MANUFACTURING CONSENT: Wednesday Feb 15, 7 pm, Lee Hills Hall, MU Campus. Film on Noam Chomsky
SLAVES, GRAVES AND HIDDEN TREASURE: Saturday Feb 23, 1 - 4 pm, Rock Bridge Memorial State Park, call 573-449-7402 to register. History of Rock Bridge and surrounding area
INTRODUCTION TO PERMACULTURE: Thursdays Feb 23 to March 23, 7 - 8:30 pm, $20 General, $10 Students. Cover basic concepts, ethics, practices, develop a design plan - Cherith Moore, forms at Peace Nook, 804 C E Broadway.
NOAM CHOMSKY LECTURE: Monday Feb 27, 7 pm, Missouri Theatre
VOLUNTEER PARK AIDE TRAINING FOR ROCK BRIDGE MEMORIAL STATE PARK: Tuesdays March 7, 14, 21, 4:30 - 8:30 pm. Registration required - 573-449-7402. Aides are expected to serve 40 hours per year, assisting with interpretation, service and maintenance activities
TUG-A-SUCKLE: Saturday March 18, 1 - 3 pm, Devil's Icebox Parking Lot, Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. Help tug out invasive plant species and encourage the restoration of native plant species. Register at 573-874-0171
RENEWABLES CONFERENCE: Wednesday March 29, 9 am to 5 pm, Anheuser Busch Natural Resources Building, MU. Science, feasibility and economics of wind, biodiesel and other alternatives. $25 includes lunch and conference packet. Register at http://weather.missouri.edu/webs/index.html, or 7:30 to 9 am at conference.
RAIN GARDEN CONSTRUCTION: Saturday April 8, 10 am , check http://wildones.missouri.org/calendar.html
EARTH DAY: Sunday April 23 (rain date April 30), noon to 7 pm, Peace Park , MU. Street fair registration forms at Peace Nook, 804 C E Broadway ($10 nonprofits not selling, $20 nonprofits selling, $30 artisans, $50 businesses)
MU Organization Meetings and Contact Information
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: http://www.missouri.edu/~jesse105/committees/pages/environmental.htm
RECYCLING COMMITTEE: 882-3091
SUSTAIN MIZZOU: http://students.missouri.edu/~sustainmizzou/
Organization Meetings and Contact Information
AUDUBON SOCIETY: 874-3904 / columbia-audubon.missouri.org Meet 3rd Wed 7:30 pm, USGS, 4200 New Haven
BOONE COUNTY SMART GROWTH COALITION: http://smartgrowth.missouri.org/, 1st Weds 7:15 Boone Co Govt Ctr.
CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVING: 875-0539 or http://peaceworks.missouri.org/
CHOUTEAU GROTTO: http://chouteau.missouri.org/, Meet 1st Wed, 7 pm, The Casteel Building, 1518 Business Loop 70 East
COLUMBIA FOOD CIRCLE: 882-7463 or email hendricksonm@missouri.edu for information.
COLUMBIA PUBLIC WORKS VOL. PROGRAMS: 874-6271 or http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Volunteer/Opportunities/#PW
CITIZENS WATERSHED COMMITTEE: (573) 526-8916, Third Tuesdays, 6:30 pm, Daniel Boone Bldg
COMMUNITY GARDEN COALITION: 875-5995 or cgardenc@yahoo.com or http://cgc.missouri.org
ENV EDUCATION WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES: http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/teacher/workshops/
FRIENDS OF BIG MUDDY: friends@friendsofbigmuddy.org or www.friendsofbigmuddy.org
FRIENDS OF ROCK BRIDGE M. S. P.: 815-9255 or http://rockbridge.missouri.org/ Outdoors Bldg, 200 Old 63 S.
GREENBELT COALITION: 442-4789, gbelt@coin.org or http://greenbelt.missouri.org
MISSOURI ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: www.meea.org
MISSOURI NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY: npshawth@hotmail.com, http://columbianativeplants.missouri.org, 2nd Mondays in Jan, Mar, May, July, Sept, Nov at 7:00 p.m., Unitarian Universalist Church, 2615 Shepard Blvd, Columbia, MO.
MISSOURI RIVER COMMUNITIES NETWORK: 573-256-2602 or www.moriver.org or moriver@coin.org
PEDNET COALITION: email: pednet@pednet.org or http://www.pednet.org
RIVER RELIEF: http://www.riverrelief.org/
ROCK BRIDGE MEMORIAL STATE PARK: 449-7402 or http://rockbridge.missouri.org
SHOW ME CLEAN STREAMS COALITION: (573) 751-4115 ext 3169 or www.mostreamteam.org
SIERRA CLUB: 875-2916 or http://sierra.osage.missouri.org Meet 3rd Tuesdays 7:30 pm Hillel Foundation, 1107 University Ave
WILD ONES: 573 882-9909, ext 3257 or email wildonesmo@yahoo.com, http://wildones.missouri.org Meetings 2nd Saturdays.
Feedback - Got an opinion? If we have space, we will consider publishing it. Submit it by email (envstudy@missouri.edu), snail mail (Environmental Studies, 211 Lowry , MU, Columbia MO 65211), or call Jan Weaver to talk about it (882-7116). MU Environmental Network News is published by MU's Environmental Studies Initiative. All opinions expressed are the responsibility of the editor. Any part of this newsletter may be copied for distribution but please give us credit.