The Discovery Institute is annoyed because their version of Scientific Denial. . . isn't!

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer is up in arms that a National Review article about scientific dissent forgot to mention the Discovery Institute (DI) and Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID).  His post "Leaving Evolution Skeptics Out of a Discussion of Suppressing Scientific Dissent" is pretty funny.  Before looking at klingy's post, I would like to examine the original article, mainly for two reasons.  First of all, I do not trust anything quoted by a member of the Discovery Institute.  One of their favorite tactics is quote-mining, that is to deliberately take a quote out of context in order to make it sound as if it means something completely different.  The second reason the source he is quoting, the 'National Review', is not one of my favorite sources of information.  While they may not be guilty of quote-mining, they definitely like to spin things in a certain very right-wing direction.  So I would like to deal with their article before trying to makes heads or tails out of anything klingy has written.

The original post is "Who Are the Real Deniers of Science?", pulled from the National Review and written by Jonah Goldberg 20 May 2016. Just looking at the headline, you might guess how I would answer that question. But let's see what Jonah has to say:

"Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic."

I agree, but I have to wonder if Jonah and I agree on who uses this tactic.  The ones that come to my mind include:

• The makers of lead additives to gasoline, who for years poisoned our environment while earning millions, if not billions of dollars.  They had a few scientists on heir payroll and successfully fought to keep poisoning us for decades;
• The tobacco industry who also obfuscated the dangers of tobacco with phony scientific claims for decades so they could keep selling poison for a profit;
• and The oil and gas industry who are currently doing to same when it comes to addressing climate change, once again for the purpose of making billions.

Ah, Jonah takes a slightly different tack and takes aim at liberal causes, which does make sense considering the far-right leaning of the National Review.  Ah, here is an old trope:

"Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does."

Yes, by itself that statement is true, but the context is misleading. Science does question itself, constantly. But that doesn't invalidate what is known to be true today. Jonah makes it sound as if science cannot be trusted because it might change its mind.

However, when you think about it . . . to use my examples from above.  

• Did science change what it knew about lead additives from the 1920's when the danger was discovered through to the 60's, 70's, and 80's when it was finally removed from gasoline?  Yes, and the more we learned the worse it got.  
• Tobacco was the same way.  We learned it was bad and the more we learned the worse it got!  
• Climate change and the relationship to fossil fuels and human activity is currently fighting that same argument.  The more we learn, the deeper the problem becomes and the more we need to take action.  But that action is seen as a threat to the industry folks who make billions off of it . . .. just like the makers of lead additives and tobacco.  

At no point in time did scientists 'change their mind', they only confirmed, re-confirmed, and refined the dangers.  Were we wrong about lead and tobacco?  Hasn't all the evidence from multinational sources of climate monitoring confirmed climate change?  The decade long fights to remove lead and force the tobacco industry to own up to its responsibilities and admit it's lies were not because of science changing its mind, but because of the political and legal activities of the industries behind them. One more quote form the article and then we'll move on to klingy's latest whine:

"Many liberals believe that “denying” climate science should be a criminal offense . . ."

That's a lie!  No one has said denying climate science, or climate change, should be a criminal offense.  What has been said was the people who deny climate change for the express purpose of profiting from it should be investigated for possible criminal activities.  Exactly like the Tobacco industry was!  Remember what they did.  They didn't just push tobacco products.  They had years and decade of research on the dangers of tobacco and they hid it and denied it.  That was criminal!  It deserved an investigation.  What if we find evidence that the fossil and gas industry was well aware of the dangers and suppressed them for the purposes of continued profits?  What if they colluded with other companies and politicians to hide the truth in order profit?  Wouldn't that deserve to be investigated?  But Jonah put a conservative spin!

Having an opinion about climate change is a matter of free speech.  But using that opinion to mislead others so you can continue to profit . . . that's a different story.  OK, enough about Jonah, let's see if klingy actually adds anything to the conversation.  Actually not much.  He's more annoyed that any conversation about science denial doesn't include those people who laugh at Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID).  Here's a quote:

"Except there is no mention of the subject on which censors have done the most to silence dissenters. That subject is Darwinian theory, of course. Not one word."

You know, klingy is simply repeating a common tactic of claiming Creationists and ID supporters are being censored for their views.  As you know, I disagree.  While the DI spins a different tale, anyone who looks at the situations objectively knows that Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Croker, Nathanial Abraham, and a few others had some negative career occurrences for failing to do their job.  Yes, the reason they failed to do their job might have had something to do with the time and energy they spent promoting Creationism, but the reason they got into some trouble was failing to do their job.  Folks like John Freshwater also got into trouble for assaulting students by burning crosses into their arms with an electrostatic device and also lying about what he was doing and what he was teaching.  David Coppedge was an ass who was held accountable when it came time to downsize a JPL program.  Of course the DI doesn't call him an ass for failing to keep his skills relevant and being known to be 'difficult' when dealing with customers and harassing co-workers on California Proposition 8 (Gay Marriage) and Intelligent Design.  But when you can't say something true, you spin things and declare Coppedge some sort of C/ID hero (Time to Re-Write History . . . Again)!

Another related whine is that the DI's stable of C/ID pets cannot get published in legitimate science journals.  I have two things to say about that.  The first is I am not aware of them actually submitting work to legitimate science journals.  That would tend to be a worthwhile statistic . . . if they are actually being turned down.  The second aren't my words, but the words of Mark Chancey, the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University:

"When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day." (SMU Daily Campus)

Little klingy closes with a quote from a Christian Professor who fears that coming out of the closet for Intelligent Design might get him fired. Here is the quote:

"It's not that they're being persecuted for belief in God. They're being persecuted for being associated with this movement [intelligent design]. So for example, I'm a Christian. None of my colleagues have a problem with that. But if I came out positive[ly] for intelligent design, the movement, I would probably be in danger of losing my job."

I would say the professor is more than a little paranoid.  Has Lehigh University fired Michael Behe for being an ID proponent?  Has any public university fired anyone for being a Christian, a Creationist, or an C/ID proponent?  No!  The only ones that have gotten disciplined in any way are the ones who failed in performing their job!  I bet Michael Behe hasn't let his interest in C/ID interfere with his work at Lehigh?  That's the problem!  Not being a proponent, but not doing their job!  That's what happened to Gonzalez at IU and Croker at George Mason.  Also, to be accurate, they weren't fired.  Gonzalez didn't get tenure and Croker's adjunct contract wasn't renewed, but the reason was their not doing their job!  Again, not because of ID, but because they didn't do the job they were hired to do.  Click the links and check out some of the actual facts and not klingy's spin.

As I said in other posts, I do consider the DI a nest of science deniers.  My reasoning is not that they support C/ID, but that they spend an inordinate amount of time arguing against evolution and a surprisingly little time developing their own ideas.  Look at their tactics?  How many of them are aimed at supporting ID as actual science?  Any of them?  Not that I can see.  They are all aimed at undermining science education with the intention that they can slip C/ID in without bothering to do the actual scientific work that would get them in the front door.  That makes them science deniers to me.  

As usual, klingy doesn't say much worth reading, but he does try and spin things around to draw attention to C/ID while claiming to be some sort of victim here.  It's another one of their common tactics.  They, the DI, are doing the denial of actual science while accusing the rest of the scientific community with imagined examples of censorship and suppressing scientific dissent.  You know, shouldn't Creationism/Intelligent Design actual be science before you can accuse of anyone arguing against them as science deniers?  But that would make sense, at least to me.

I Think the Spin is Finally Getting to the Discovery Institute

You know if you get on a fast spinning ride, it can upset your equilibrium.  The faster the ride, the larger the impact.  It can be enough to make some people sick.  I think the spin is finally getting to the Discovery Institute, at least that can be about the only explanation for this little ditty: "Refer Questions of Scientific Controversy to the FBI?".  It's by that less-than-thoughtful davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Does he really think that's what's going on here?  Probably, it's not like he puts a lot of thought into his posts.  He says this:

"Questions about global warming turn upon clashes of legitimate scientific opinion. The climate controversy is not a focus for us here, but preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science very much is."

Sure, that's what the DI is all about, preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science.  Are they sure about that?  Evolution is settled science and people are still free to debate about it . . . although when you do what the DI does and drag religion into the discussion, no one takes you seriously.  Climate Change is also settled science, just like the dangers of lead and tobacco.  In each case there are deniers, but that's not illegal, not matter how much klingy wants you to think the government is about to make it so.  That's simply not true . . . but when the truth isn't enough, the DI applies more spin until even they start getting dizzy.

OK, so what is going on?  It's simple, and we discussed it once before in "Hey Discovery Institute, there is a difference between Criminal and Unethical".  The actions of SOME climate-change deniers are coming under the heading illegal actions, like fraud, . . . but unlike klingy, I am capable of reading for comprehension.  It's not the fact they are climate change deniers that is being investigated, it's the fact they are denying climate change for the purpose of making money and is doing so may be committing illegal acts!  Much like the tobacco companies suppressed their own research and denied the dangers of tobacco for decades.  What these select deniers are doing may well cross the line into illegal activities and if so, they should be prosecuted!

Klingy. and the DI, are of course trying to spin this as to letting the legal system decide what is science and what is not.  And . . . of course . . . have to try and bring up Judge Jones and the Dover decision into it.  So, let's recap for a second.  The defense during the Dover Trial claimed that Intelligent Design is science and therefore they were well-within their rights to do the things they did.  The Judge ruled that it wasn't science and therefore they were not within their rights.  In all honesty, with the defense they put forth, the Judge had little choice but to rule on the issue.  But since it was contrary to what the DI wanted and even predicted the result of the trial would be, they have been very unhappy since.

On the one hand the DI claims the ruling had little impact, but their actions show the decision hurt them greatly and have done everything they can to vilify the Judge and misrepresent his opinion.  Later in klingy's article he says

"Referring huge questions of science to a federal judge for adjudication is bad enough."

Now, if you read even the things klingy quotes, it's easy to see that the investigation is not addressing whether or not Climate Change is science, but  . . . here, let me re-quote part of what klingy quoted:

"The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected, . . ."

The Tobacco Industry was not indicted for claiming the science behind the dangers of tobacco was controversial, but because of the FRAUD they committed in fighting against changes in the regulation of tobacco products.  The question at hand is not whether climate change is science, but whether or not climate change deniers, like the companies that profit from fossil fuel industry, are committing and abetting fraud.

Of course that makes klingy nervous, after all he's paid for doing something very similar . . . science denial.  However, the difference is the DI depends on donations for their livelihood.  That's different than the fossil fuel or tobacco industries.  If it comes to pass that their science denial starts actually hurting people . . . then they might become a target themselves.  But to date their denial has been much less effective and more entertaining than anything else.

(Source: http://starphoenixbase.com/?p=1119)