Denialists' Deck of Cards
choofnagle | March 7, 2013Helen Epstein has an interesting review of Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner, in the current New York Review of Books. The review is worth reading to better understand the public policy problem of lead in products and the environment. But I cannot help but point out that the article could be used to provide more footnotes to the Denialists' Deck of Cards:
... The lead companies also paid scientists who produced flawed studies casting doubt on the link between lead exposure and child health problems. When University of…
choofnagle | October 16, 2008We have not played with the Denialists' Deck of Cards for some time! Let's pick them up again, because the economic downturn gives all sorts of businesses the opportunity to play the "Bear Market" card.
Stephen Power brings it in today's Wall Street Journal:
"We know something needs to be done [to cut emissions], but we've got to get the economy on its feet before we do something economically irrational," said Mike Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co. of Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Morris and other executives fear lawmakers will use revenue from pollution permits to pay down the…
denialism | December 19, 2007I'm flattered that Pandagon liked our post on a terrible ad campaign for diamonds.
But if Amanda thought that was bad, she should see some of the latest "reason" coming from our libertarian friends at Cato. David Boaz writes a post for Cato entitled "All Those Who'd Like to Live in Rwanda, Vietnam, or Cuba, Raise Your Hands" in response to a Parade article complaining about the lack of female representatives in Congress:
Parade magazine frets:
In the current U.S. Congress, women account for only 16.3% of the members: 16 of 100 in the Senate and 71 of 435 in the House of Representatives…
denialism | October 24, 2007I'd love to see what the angry toxicologist thinks of this scary article from CNN Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies.
Michelle Hammond and Jeremiah Holland were intrigued when a friend at the Oakland Tribune asked them and their two young children to take part in a cutting-edge study to measure the industrial chemicals in their bodies.
"In the beginning, I wasn't worried at all; I was fascinated," Hammond, 37, recalled.
But that fascination soon changed to fear, as tests revealed that their children -- Rowan, then 18 months, and Mikaela, then 5 -- had chemical exposure…
denialism | October 3, 2007I'm loving the Non Sequiturs about Danae setting up her think tank.
I think Wiley must be reading the blog. Stop lurking and show yourself!
denialism | October 2, 2007PZ has found this wonderful cartoon that I think sums up the problem nicely.
Danae should go to work for AEI or Cato!
denialism | August 28, 2007It's that time again. Bora's got the scoop on this new organization PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine). They purport to be the saviors of scientific publishing, protecting us from the evil of open access. But how much do you want to bet they're the same old industry lobbying group, disguising themselves as actors in the public interest? Well, there's an easy way to tell. Let's apply the deck of cards!
There's not a lot to work with yet, but I think we've got some classics to go after right away. After all, we have an industry group - the publishers -…
choofnagle | June 8, 2007
And finally, we come to the final card. Perhaps industry's strongest card--"we'll lose money"--is not really denialism, but it is what motivates so much of the bad rhetoric in public policy debates.
And of course, the truth is more nuanced. Proposals for reform create new opportunities, and many businesses have thrived under the very proposals they said would wreak havoc.
"Wall Street...has greeted practically every important market regulation introduced in this century with howls of dismay and predictions of disaster. In 1934, the head of the New York Stock Exchange told Congress that if…
choofnagle | June 7, 2007
Suricou Raven guessed it--after calling your opponent "Unamerican," you call them "Communist." Here, use loaded phrases, such as "the proposal smacks of the paternalistic 'command and control' of Communism."
choofnagle | June 6, 2007
Almost any proposal can be styled as "Un-American." Typically this is bundled with wild, inaccurate claims about European regulations (i.e., you can't do business in Europe at all). You'll wonder if the denialist has even been to Europe!
Update: Mark H provides this article as an example of "Unamerican" in today's Wall Street Journal. It contains, among others, this great example:
The German took the floor first. His was a bold thesis: The economic transformation required to address global warming will bring huge energy efficiencies--and hence huge economic benefits--even if there is no…
choofnagle | June 5, 2007
The denialist can almost always argue that a proposal is unconstitutional. After all, businesses were afforded many civil rights before women achieved suffrage.
choofnagle | June 5, 2007
This is a very powerful argument in the post-9/11 environment. And if you're a denialist worth your salt, you can figure out a way to claim that your industry is a potential target for terrorism.
Danger! can be used to get things done quickly, as Verisign realized when it wanted to move a "root server" without following normal process. In Department of Commerce officials' emails, Verisign made pleas to declare an emergency to get their way: The company wants "to push us to declare some kind of national security threat and blow past the process," one e-mail said. The subject line of another…
choofnagle | June 4, 2007
"Can't be enforced" is a different argument than "it won't work" (the Jack of Diamonds). Here, the denialist is usually threatening to operate an offending practice overseas, or oddly enough, arguing that because a proposal doesn't give someone a right to sue, it isn't worth passing.
Of course, if the proposal gives one a right to sue, the denialist uses the opposite argument: the proposal is enforceable, and the denialist will complain of frivolous lawsuits.
choofnagle | June 2, 2007
Giving money to the leadership of the Senate and House is a great strategy, because no proposals will be considered at all if the leadership blocks them. The leadership is rarefied; one only taps them in desperate situations
choofnagle | June 1, 2007
Believe it or not, I've heard industry lobbyists say that they'd stop doing business in California/America if certain consumer protection regulations passed. It's totally implausible, but still a high-value card.
choofnagle | June 1, 2007
The denialist can always raise the specter of "big government." As in, the proposal at issue will create bigger government, complete with appeals to fears of world government and stuff like satan. This is a high-risk card because big business loves big government.
choofnagle | May 31, 2007
Sometimes the success of a consumer intervention will create "blowback," and allow the industry to not only win but also demand other concessions.
An excellent recent example of regulatory blowback came with the creation of the federal Do-Not-Call Registry. In creating the registry, the Federal Communications Commission also tried to tighten regulations on "junk faxes," unsolicited commercial fax messages. The FCC ruled that "junk fax" senders had to document that they had consent from recipients of their messages. The junk faxers organized into a huge coalition (the deceptively-named "…
choofnagle | May 30, 2007If the denialist is on the brink of losing, a number of high stakes arguments can be made. The bear/bull market argument is one of my favorites. Just look at tax policy--no matter what the economy is doing, tax cuts are the solution. And in privacy, if the economy's weak, there shouldn't be interventions to protect consumers; if the economy's strong, interventions could make the market weak!
If there's a bear market, obviously there shouldn't be interventions in the market, right?
If there's a bull market, obviously there shouldn't be interventions in the market, right?
choofnagle | May 29, 2007
Two related arguments--the denialist will say that the regulation won't work. And they won't help in finding a way to come to a reasonable solution.
Finally, continuing in the teenager theme, the denialist will argue that they won't comply, even if directed to by law. Rule of law be damned!
choofnagle | May 28, 2007
The fifth hand brings increasing petulance. One common tactic at this point is to admit to the behavior in question, and like a teenager, say "we'll we've always done this," and therefore we should be able to continue to do so.