We're constantly told that any slip of the tongue or exaggeration on climate science can destroy our credibility. If we ally ourselves with respected scientists like Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley who believe there is a strong connection between hurricanes and climate change, we open ourselves to charges of alarmism, hysteria, and demagoguery. In the favored phrasing, we provide "ammunition" to conservative ideologues.
Well, we have before us a paradigmatic case study demonstrating where those ideologues really get their ammo. It can serve, I hope, as a cautionary tale. Follow along.
Chapter 1: Pielke Jr.
Way back when, Roger Pielke Jr. coined the term "non-skeptic heretics" for people who believe that global warming is happening, that it's anthropogenic, that it poses an unprecedented long-term challenge, and that we should take immediate action to respond to it ... but who aren't, you know, dirty hippies.
Now, Pielke Jr. didn't intend primarily to characterize global-warming activists as hysterical dirty hippies. He just doesn't like the policy stance of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. He wanted to make a place in the debate for people who accept global-warming science but don't agree with FCCC policy recommendations. He had his own reasons for playing off the dirty hippies.
Everyone has their own reasons. But watch what happens.
Chapter 2: Revkin
Respected New York Times science writer Andy Revkin then did the world a grave injustice by lending credibility and a huge audience to Pielke Jr.'s silly idea, which was redubbed "nonskeptical heretics," rendering it even more nonsensical. Revkin wrote a story on the "new middle" in the climate debate, a middle occupied by people who believe that global warming is happening, that it's anthropogenic, that it poses an unprecedented long-term challenge, and that we should take immediate action to respond to it ... but who aren't, you know, dirty hippies.
Now, Revkin didn't intend primarily to characterize global-warming activists as hysterical dirty hippies. He just wanted to draw attention to a different, more measured way of framing global-warming mitigation, more as a long-term program of risk management than an emergency mobilization. He had his own reasons for playing off the dirty hippies.
They all do. We continue.
Chapter 3: Mooney
Science journalist Chris Mooney has been researching a book on the connection between hurricanes and climate change. In the course of his research, he's come across a lot of people in the public press mischaracterizing the science, stating categorically that there is or isn't such a connection, when the scientific consensus is that it's just too soon to tell (PDF). This led him to write a post repudiating the dirty hippies and embracing the "non-skeptic heretic" label (with lots of fine-print hedging).
Of course, Mooney didn't intend primarily to characterize global-warming activists as hysterical dirty hippies. He was just trying to make the point that in this area, hurricanes, the science has been abused by everybody. He had his own reasons for playing off the dirty hippies.
Who doesn't? We move on.
Chapter 4: Kleiman
Policy wonk and combative progressive blogger Mark Kleiman has become enamored with "geoengineering," the practice of deliberately altering large-scale earth systems. He wants to use it to fight climate change. He's perplexed and upset that it doesn't get enough research dollars or enough attention in the popular press. He blames the dirty hippies for this state of affairs, accusing them of squashing any policy option that doesn't involve heavy taxation and regulation.
Of course, Kleiman didn't intend primarily to characterize global-warming activists as hysterical dirty hippies. He was just trying to advocate for increased attention to geoengineering. He had his own reasons for playing off the dirty hippies.
These dirty hippies sure do come in handy when you want your own position to look moderate, huh?
But then, inevitably:
Chapter 5: Young
In the Boston Globe, Cathy Young -- a contributing editor at Reason magazine, funded by the libertarian Reason Foundation -- makes good use of Pielke Jr., Mooney, and Kleiman in a state-of-the-art piece of agit-prop. She says global warming skeptics are always getting yelled at, so why is no one yelling at the dirty hippies, for whom "environmentalism has become a matter of not just ideology but quasi-religious zealotry"?
She quotes Mooney saying that sometimes "environmental groups and their ilk oversell the science." She quotes Kleiman saying that the dirty hippies' "eagerness to believe the worst is just as evident as the right wing's denialism." And to cap it off, she cites Pielke Jr.'s "'nonskeptical heretics' -- those who believe that human-caused global warming is a real problem, but one that can be met in part with technological management and adaptation." And to boot: "Mooney has come to embrace such a viewpoint as well."
This is a classic of the genre, lifted straight from template. Note carefully what's happening: The denialists have been discredited. Now, the right wing is eager to cast the debate as having two equivalent sides, "alarmists and deniers." That way they use the marginalization of denialists to marginalize advocates. It's really a clever piece of judo, one the right's become incredibly adept at using.
It relies, of course, on everyone accepting that there are "two sides." That way, having given up the ghost of denialism, the right can now turn to advocating weak, industry-friendly policies and calling them the "sensible middle."
It's bullshit. Once more for the cheap seats: there is no equivalence between denialists and global-warming activists. None. Their motives are not the same. They do not have equal credibility or deserve equal respect. They are not "two sides" of anything. There are people within the reality-based community who disagree with one another over the proper way to communicate about climate change and the proper way to respond to it. But those internal disagreements are microscopic compared to the disagreement between denialists and reality.
Chapter 6: Regrets
To their credit, both Mooney and Kleiman realize what's been done to them. In a follow-up post, Mooney says that Young "appears to have put me in a box that I don't wish to occupy." He says that ...
... after reading it, one might get the impression that I think (as Young apparently does) that the "industry" and "environmentalist" sides are equally culpable when it comes to misusing science in the global warming debate. In fact, however, I don't think that at all.
Misinterpreted? Oops!
In a follow-up post of his own, Kleiman says "Young and I don't agree nearly as much as the column suggests." He say she's "carrying even-handedness a little bit too far," and insists:
I was careful to say, in anticipation of such a misinterpretation, that the two sides aren't "equally wrong," and to point out that on this issue the stubbornness of the right in denying the problem has robbed it of credibility when it comes to discussing solutions.
Misinterpreted? Oops!
Mooney and Kleiman both adopt a tone of bemusement, as though Young has innocently misconstrued them. Are they really so naive? Young is following a right-wing script that dates back decades.
This is how the far right colonizes the debate: they caricature a far-left strawman position, attribute it to "some" on the other side, and then cast their own position as the "center" between the far-right position and the mythical or marginalized far-left position. They've done this dozens of times, on a whole panoply of issues.
To help in the process, they enlist the aid of people on the left who bash other people on the left. Sure, Pielke Jr., Mooney, and Kleiman all had their own idiosyncratic reasons for bashing dirty hippies. But do you think it's an accident that Young stripped all those idiosyncratic reasons away and left only the hippie-bashing? Far from it. That was her whole intent.
That's where conservative ideologues get their "ammunition" -- from progressives who, in a vain attempt to bolster their own credentials as moderates, use activists as strawmen against which to define themselves. It's the self-appointed centrists who are giving the right the ammunition it most needs.
As for Pielke Jr.? He thinks Young's column is "pretty much on target." But then, he's been playing footsie with denialists and right-wing ideologues for years; they're his biggest fans. Unlike Mooney and Kleiman, who got duped, Pielke Jr. knows exactly how the game is played.
Nobody will deny that there are overenthusiastic voices in the climate-change coalition. But no sane assessment of the current political and climatological situation could conclude that they are the big problem. The problem is the enormous inertia of an elite politico-corporate establishment that will fight substantive change with every resource at its disposal. Yes, bashing that establishment is the "obvious" thing to do, but it's obvious because its right. Let's quit trying so hard to be mavericks for our ego's sake and start being warriors for future generations' sake.
In short: everyone, please, luvagod, forget about the goddamn dirty hippies.
Comments
View as Threaded
Benny Big Eye Posted 8:13 am
16 Jan 2007
It seems that whenever someone praises Pielke, or he praises them, they are always right-wingers. Yet, Pielke keeps up this "middle ground" dance and journalists keep falling for it.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:16 am
16 Jan 2007
I have to disagree with you, here. There are plenty of progressives with extreme and unrealistic views of both the climate problem and the solution. (I'm sure that the same is true on the right, but they are better at making their people shut up, toe the party line, and stay on message.) There's no shortage of them here on Grist, proposing things like a complete and immediate end to all energy subsidies. (Nice idea, but even if it were politically feasible, it would crash the world economy overnight.)
They are a problem, politically speaking, because they are loud, undisciplined, full of angst, and short of workable solutions. They do color the public's perceptions of what a climate change activist is like, strongly. They've done a great deal of damage.
As I see it, Revkin and Mooney are simply trying to do what you say Young is doing (albeit with a much greater level of integrity): claim the reasonable center. They may have not done as good a job, and your point about their apparent naivete (or equally likely, generosity of spirit) is well taken. But consider:
Now, the right wing is eager to cast the debate as having two equivalent sides, "alarmists and deniers." That way they use the marginalization of denialists to marginalize advocates.
This only works if you equate (or allow to be equated) the alarmists with the advocates. And this equation has been made, I fear, in the public perception. But it doesn't have to be this way, and it doesn't have to stay this way.
For a long time, the position of reasonable progressives on climate change seemed to be: "It's OK to exagerate a little bit, because the situation really is dire (even if it's not that dire) and we need to get people's attention".
That may have been a legitimate tactic 2-5 years ago. But the game has changed, and the denier's position has collapsed. Public awareness and concern is at an all-time high. Now is the time for progressives to establish themselves as the reasonable voices on climate change, before the Right does so in our stead. That means that we need to distance ourselves from the hysterics on our own side of the debate, while maintaining, unflinchingly, the seriousness of the problem and the degree of change in our lifestyles that will be required to address it.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:40 am
16 Jan 2007
This is frequently stated but rarely substantiated. What historical analysis shows that fundamental change happens only when activists become moderate and reasonable? Seems to me that change happens when loud, angsty people take to the streets and demand it. (See here.)
But put that aside. Again, here's the situation. You've got a large group of people who agree about the existence and threat of climate change. They disagree about how to frame the threat and what action to take. Then, off in the corner, you've got an assorted collection of wackjobs and corporate shills who refuse to acknowledge the problem.
There's no "middle" there. To say there is insults the very people -- those unwashed, undisciplined activists you and so many others seem eager to repudiate -- who have worked so hard to bring this issue before the public. (It strikes me that these alleged undisciplined prevaricators are almost never named. Can you name one?)
Many people, you included, have a kind of temperamental or aesthetic preference for calm, reasoned, fact-filled debate. And that's fine. But don't mistake your preference for efficaciousness. What you prefer and what works are not necessarily the same thing. And we all urgently need to figure out what works.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:41 am
16 Jan 2007
But the game has changed, and the denier's position has collapsed.
Don't I wish! The denialists are just getting started. Their strategy may no longer be a static block, but the name of the game is still to deflect, obfuscate and minimize. Maybe at this point carbon control regulations can't be avoided, but they certainly can be eviscerated and made ineffective.
Now is the time for progressives to establish themselves as the reasonable voices on climate change, before the Right does so in our stead.
It just ain't gonna happen and we don't have to worry about it. What we do have to worry about is handing the other side free ammunition.
Also, who gets to decide what's reasonable? Is An Inconvenient Truth reasonable? Is James Hansen reasonable? I'm afraid the question of reasonableness is just as political as global climate change policy.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:48 am
16 Jan 2007
Please explain to me why it would be a problem if the Right became a reasonable voice on climate change.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 1:46 pm
16 Jan 2007
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:57 pm
16 Jan 2007
David is correct (except when he says forget about us goddamn dirty hippies! makes me want to grow my hair long again!).
One of the interesting things, though, is that the right never apologizes for people like Rush and Hannity and all the extremists who talk about weird things (do I need to make a list?).
Only progressives seem to think they need to be "centrists". The right says they are centrists no matter what they're saying!! (Die penguins die! is a centrist opinion, see?)
When we let them decide whether we are reasonable or not, we are still letting them frame the debate. As long as we let them frame the debate and make the rules, we are gonna lose.
Reasonable is what we say it is. Personally, I am quite conservative (in a green marxist vegetarian sort of way).
Seriously!!
patrick
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:45 am
17 Jan 2007
The media is both the abused and the abuser here -- it is the media that anoints the "reasonableness" that leads to invitations on some and denies it to others, even as it is constantly looking over its shoulders at the right wing enforcers to make sure that reporting a little reality doesn't draw too heated a charge of bias. Meanwhile, the right understands the "working the ref" game and constantly works to keep the press dressing up its right flank.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:11 am
17 Jan 2007
Thing is, I think we're actually in a position of (potential) relative advantage for a change: the denier community is scrambling to do damage control because their position and their support is starting to unravel. They're going to try to occupy the apparent center, because the extreme position is no longer tenable on their side of the argument. But the distance from their extreme to a position of apparent reasonableness is much longer than the comparable distance on our side of the debate.
I'm suggesting that it does not do our cause a disservice to distance ourselves from those who make loud pronouncements of certain and impending catastrophe. Doomerism is not helpful, especially now that the public is beginning to wake up, because it presents people with a hopeless future, and motivates them to stuff their heads back into the sand. It also makes us easy targets for caricature by the right.
As to the question of who/where these people are: They're here (in relatively small numbers, thank the gods), on The Oil Drum (also in small numbers) , on the EnergyResources list (in sadly very large numbers), and lots of other places in the blogosphere and in real life. If you don't believe me, get hooked in with the environmentalist community in Sebastopol, for example, where the dirty hippie stereotype is alive, well, and walking around. (In fairness, some of those dirty hippies are my friends. Some of them are also very effective and powerful activists. But plenty of them are just pissed off and scared, and really haven't grappled with the problem in a meaningful way.)
Permalink