Inconvenient Science
Science has often been inconvenient for those in power. Knowlege *is* power, and those in power like a monopoly so as to enhance their power. The most inconvenient science is that which exposes power built on lies. Bruno and Galileo were famous victims, but in many small ways, the war continues. The continuing guerrilla war of fundamentalists vs. Darwin is the most famous example, but probably the more serious problem for society is the disinformation campaign conducted by corporate interests and their mainly Republican flunkies.
Tobacco was the model for most subsequent propaganda wars. The tactics are well developed: lie, obfuscate, buy a few scientists to give your lies some credibility, and above all, hide all the truth you know. Recently exposed big-lies concern the safety of several prominent drug types: cox-2 inhibiting non-steroidal anti-inflamatories (Celebrex, Bextra, Vioxx, for example), menopausal homone replacement therapy, and the cholesterol lowering statins. Probably the most egregious example, because it went on so long involves the hormone replacement therapies. Probably hundreds of millions of women took these, partly because they and their doctors were told that the hormones helped prevent heart disease and strokes - when in fact the opposite was the case.
The global warming battle is another excellent example. It's true that some qualified experts are still among the doubters, and not all of them are on energy company payrolls (at least as far as I know). However, most of the noise is coming from bought-and-paid for politicians, certified idiot hacks like the WSJ editorial page, and pollution industry flacks. There are also economists with books to sell (Bjorn Lomborg), grand-standing science fiction writers with books to sell (Michael Crichton), and even one excellent string-theorist, blogger extraordinaire, and deluded amateur climatologist Lubos M.
Their tactics say more than their science. Some years back, when the case for global warming was much less convincing, I, and I'm guessing every other member of the American Geophysical Society or the American Meteorological Society who had ever evinced any interest in climatology, received a mailing containing a Wall Street Journal editorial and a letter by one-time scientist and current defender of polluters S. Fred Singer. I was amused that anybody could consider this an argument that would influence a scientist, but now, a decade or so down the pike, their tactics are more sinister.
Phillip Cooney...
Kevin Drum has this post on the latest WSJ nonsense.
Tobacco was the model for most subsequent propaganda wars. The tactics are well developed: lie, obfuscate, buy a few scientists to give your lies some credibility, and above all, hide all the truth you know. Recently exposed big-lies concern the safety of several prominent drug types: cox-2 inhibiting non-steroidal anti-inflamatories (Celebrex, Bextra, Vioxx, for example), menopausal homone replacement therapy, and the cholesterol lowering statins. Probably the most egregious example, because it went on so long involves the hormone replacement therapies. Probably hundreds of millions of women took these, partly because they and their doctors were told that the hormones helped prevent heart disease and strokes - when in fact the opposite was the case.
The global warming battle is another excellent example. It's true that some qualified experts are still among the doubters, and not all of them are on energy company payrolls (at least as far as I know). However, most of the noise is coming from bought-and-paid for politicians, certified idiot hacks like the WSJ editorial page, and pollution industry flacks. There are also economists with books to sell (Bjorn Lomborg), grand-standing science fiction writers with books to sell (Michael Crichton), and even one excellent string-theorist, blogger extraordinaire, and deluded amateur climatologist Lubos M.
Their tactics say more than their science. Some years back, when the case for global warming was much less convincing, I, and I'm guessing every other member of the American Geophysical Society or the American Meteorological Society who had ever evinced any interest in climatology, received a mailing containing a Wall Street Journal editorial and a letter by one-time scientist and current defender of polluters S. Fred Singer. I was amused that anybody could consider this an argument that would influence a scientist, but now, a decade or so down the pike, their tactics are more sinister.
Phillip Cooney...
A former White House official and one-time oil industry lobbyist whose editing of government reports on climate change prompted criticism from environmentalists will join Exxon Mobil Corp., the oil company said Tuesday.Obscure, hide, delete, and lie. And don't forget to collect your check.
...White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was ``completely unrelated'' to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.
Kevin Drum has this post on the latest WSJ nonsense.
Comments
Post a Comment