AGW: The Denier’s Playbook

Though it is American, it is relevant world wide.

How to manufacture doubt:

  • Deny the Science
  • Question the motives
  • Exaggerate the costs

The Senator points out this consistant pattern on ozone, acid rain and now AGW. The only one he doesn’t mention is the similar range of points that the Tobacco industry used.

AGW: Finally an American Senator tells it like it is

Finally an American Senator calls out the deniers on their campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD):

For more than two decades the climate denial movement has been well organized and funded by the fossil fuel industry and conservative ideologues and foundations. The mission of these paid-for deniers is to “manufacture uncertainty,” to manufacture doubt, so the polluters can keep polluting.

This isn’t new. We’ve seen self-serving strategies like this one before: they questioned the merits of requiring seatbelts; they questioned CFCs causing the deterioration of the ozone layer; they questioned the toxic effects of lead exposure; and they questioned whether tobacco was bad for you—same strategy to manufacture doubt; often the same cast of characters.

So, when it comes to big corporate polluters of today leaving our children and grandchildren a damaged and more dangerous world, where then is the concern for those children and grandchildren? To have children and grandchildren pay for the care of their grandparents through Medicare and Social Security is a sin and an outrage. To force on them the untold costs and consequences of the harms done by today’s corporate polluters? For that, the future generations’ interests receive nothing from the Republicans but stony silence, or phony and calculated denial.

How did we get into this mess, when this is the anomalous speech ? Why is the body of Evidence(TM) built up over 150+ years ignored by the deniers ?

Here’s a piece from the Torygraph that is thought provoking:

Why is it acceptable, in certain educated circles, to cheerfully express total ignorance of the largest, and most important, domain of human knowledge? Someone who professed to know nothing about, say, music, or books, would be rightly scoffed at. But it’s fine, apparently, to be clueless about science and maths.

Because the deniers rely on ideology rather than science.
In fact they rely on the gullibility and ignorance of the public.
Which quite frankly is rather insulting.