Still More on "The Environmental Wars"

Dear Chris,

Thanks for providing the link to the comments by Mr. Shermer. Particularly noted is his question:

"If anything, even with Crichton and Stossel, the overall slant of the conference is decidedly left leaning, so we can hardly be accused of unfair play. Finally, why is it always the left who whines so much about these matters? Why haven't I received a single complaint from anyone on the right about including all the noted lefties on our speaker's list?"

Why? indeed.

See you at Cal Tech.

Regards,
Bob

According to Scientific American (see above link), Skeptic Society's Shermer said the following:
"Finally, why is it always the left who whines so much about these matters? Why haven't I received a single complaint from anyone on the right about including all the noted lefties on our speaker's list?" -- Michael Shermer

Always the lefties who whine so much. I see. (Would you like a little "Lefty-cheese" with your "Lefty-whine"?)

Perhaps Dr. Shermer himself has not received or read any e-mails from any "righties" (to borrow his colorful terminology), but that clearly does not mean that NO such e-mails have been received by ANYONE at Skeptic Society.

In fact, I would simply have to say that Shermer probably has NOT been talking to the people who handle the e-mail addressed to Skeptic Society lately.

Here's a response to an e-mail I myself wrote to Skeptic Society:

From: SKEPTICMAG@aol.com
Subject: Re: Michael Chrichton invite to Skeptics Society Conference????
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:44:12 EDT

You may or may not find it interesting to know that we have gotten complaints from people who feel we don't have enough people invited who share Stossel and Chrichton's viewpoints.

///////////////////////////

There was no signature on the e-mail, so I can only ASSUME that the above e-mail response is actually from someone at Skeptic Society -- and NOT from some diabolical third party intercepting and sending replies to e-mails addressed to them, for example.

I will also say that I got a nod of agreement from a scientist on the list of speakers at the conference, in response to an e-mail I sent to that scientist which expressed my "disappointment" that Chrichton and Stossel had been included as guest speakers at the conference.

Damned lefty scientists.

It should be pointed out to Dr. Shermer that Stossel and Crichton have no scientific qualifications whatsoever (in contrast to Nobel prize winner Baltimore for instance). Therefore, his rant that this is leftist whining is total rubbish. By inviting two unqualificatied whackjobs to share a platform with real scientists, he places them on the same footing. Surely he could have found a competent scientist (e.g. Fred Singer) to present the global warming skeptic position.

"Finally, why is it always the left who whines so much about these matters?"

I think Michael Shermer is missing the point. I don't consider myself "left," although my rants over the last couple posts haven't helped prove that. The thing is, it's not really about the politics of these two men, or any of the other speakers at the conference (most of whom I don't know). It is that they both have proven track records of distortion and misrepresenation on the topics they're being asked to speak about, and it leaves me scratching my head about what they could contribute to the debate.

That said, I didn't realize Skeptic magazine gave space to even the most extreme viewpoints, such as Holocaust deniers. It is an interesting tactic although I'm not convinced it is always the most successful one. I remember Skeptic's apprach the Bjorn Lomborg, giving him several pages to express his viewpoints then following it up with a relatively short rebuttal (a sort of "he said/she said"). Far better, I thought, was Scientific American's approach, which gave the scientists he criticized a chance to dissect his arguments. SciAm's coverage of the issue was more helpful for non-scientists like me.

There is nothing wrong about debating whether the media and green groups are overstating the risks of certain environmental problems. And there's nothing wrong debating which side abuses science more, as Mooney and Bailey will do. But these two speakers really bother me for the fact they have records of attacking legitimate science. Let me repeat that: legitimate science, not just environmental groups, which deserve all the criticism they can get when they misrepresent the data or overstate the risks.

While Shermer points out that most speakers fall to the left of the political spectrum, I still wonder if Crichton and Stossel would be speaking if they didn't appeal to the libertarian streak of some skeptics. Yes, I'm very aware of the crowds they could bring in, although I'm not sure what the overall benefit of that would be if they're allowed to speak unchallenged.

Dr. Shermer's "lefty-righty" statement makes it clear where he is coming from -- and I thank him for being so candid.

Whether "complaints" (posted here or sent to Skeptic) have merit matters not.

This is all about theatrics and generating publicity (which seem to go hand-in-hand with Skeptic Society events).

Unfortunately, those of us who have posted here with the best of intentions have simply played into his hand.

Perhaps Crichton and Stossel were invited because they're Big Names and Big Names insure greater attendance and more publicity in the media. I'd wait until the conference is over and we have comments from the attendees before passing judgement. That said, I must agree that Crichton and Stossel are among the worst possible Big Names to have been chosen.

Perhaps Chris Mooney should ask Ronald Bailey what he thinks of the latest ad campaign by Competitive Enterprise Institute, given Bailey's relationship with CEI**:
http://streams.cei.org/

Think Progress has some relevant info about the CEI ad campaign and where CEI gets some of its funding
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/

Specifically, I would like to see Chris ask Bailey MORE than simply "Is human-caused Global warming a real EFFECT?"

This would be a waste of time, at nay rate, since Bailey has recently acknowledged that it IS a real effect.

What I would REALLY like to see Chris ask Bailey is this:

"Is human-caused Global warming a REAL (ie, significant) PROBLEM that humans NEED to do something about?"

It is possible for an effect to be "real" and simultaneously "insignificant" and acknowledging the former does not mean acknowledging the latter.

**Bailey was Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at CEI, currently an adjunct scholar at CEI and edited the CEI book "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death").

Let us assume for the moment that Bailey answers "Yes" to the question "Is human-induced Global warming a REAL PROBLEM that needs to be dealt with?"

Given Bailey's editing of the book "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths", it is logical that Chris would also ask a followup question:

"How is it that yesterday's 'myth' has somehow become today's reality?"

I was under the impression that myths are fictional stories -- like the myth that the earth is carried on the back of a giant tortoise. "Once a myth, always a myth" is the way I thought it worked.

But perhaps I was simply mistaken -- and fanciful stories about gigantic tortoises in outer space -- and all-powerful Greek Gods who hurl lightning bolts from Mount Olympus -- DO come true after all. What a pleasant surprise, Virginia.

Yes, if Bailey worked for CEI, this would be the perfect time to take him up on industry-funded think tanks. You could go right into defending what disinterested scientific research does (government, academia, etc.) vs. what think tanks do. All you have to do is follow the money. Academic money goes to research. A large part of think tank money goes to PR and spin. If CEI is so sure of their science, why don't they use their advertising budget to pay researchers and publish papers? The fact that they're buying 30 second ads shows that they've given up on that. They're spending their resources on sophism, not science.

'CO2: they call it pollution, we call it Life.'...Because we don't have one. We sit at our desks all day trying to figure out how to play the public.

This may have been linked already in one of the other threads, but here's Shermer's conversion piece: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000B557A-71ED-1… . Given his past complaints about exaggeration by environmentalists, it's interesting that it wasn't the scientific literature that persuaded him.