Ever find yourself agreeing with someone whom you despise on a matter of some importance? Annoying isn’t it. Imagine my dismay as a liberal leftwing idealist to find myself on the same side of the fence as the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Not pleasant. So, how did I get here? Well, Al Gore and some of the more liberal groups, particularly environmentalists, are guilty of some of the most glaring scientific lies perpetuated on a gullible public. Regardless of the politics, I abhor such abuse of truth, science and statistics. What depresses me even more, is that while many of the skeptical thinkers on this side of the water are apolitical, or profess no obvious political preference in their columns/websites, all the skeptical thinking I have read in the US comes from sites endorsed by the likes of Limbaugh and Liddy etc.
I’m not one to dismiss an argument just because I don’t like the person making the case, but it annoys me when American friends of mine assume I am right-wing, anti-environment, just because I raise certain points regarding the dubious science and statistics behind many of the claims made by those left of centre in US politics. So where are the left-wing skeptics the US? The ones who say, yes I’m a pro-environment liberal, but Al Gore is spouting nonsense, Greenpeace are exaggerating and the media are scaremongering for all they’re worth?
Oh, I do that all the time. I realize that a good idea isn’t discredited by who and in what way it is propounded. I ran for the NDP even though I disagree with Alexa McDonough on a good number of issues.
Do you have any links so that we may see what you are refering to?
I generally don’t post URLs unless asked for it (I’m not in the habit of advertising websites), but the following is yahooo’s Skeptic’s Ring.
http://nav.webring.yahoo.com/hub?ring=skeptic&list
Many of these sites deal with exposing quackery, paranormal claims, and junk science, of which my personal favourite is James Randi’s http://www.randi.org.
Websites on this ring (and some which are not on this ring) which deal media and political misrepresentation of facts, numbers and studies include:
http://www.fumento.com (superb)
http://www.numberswatch.co.uk (UK based, but worth reading even to US readers, with a great links page at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/links.htm)
http://www.junkscience.com
http://www.anxietycenter.com (very right-wing)
and others.
Many of these sites have links to other sites.
As always though, if in doubt, go to the data. There is no substitute for digging up scientific journals and chasing down references. Better that than listening to what Fox News has to say on the matter, or worse, Al Gore…
IMHO, Rush Limbaugh is in no way a skeptic. He is a conservative apologist. He blindly believes all kinds of tripe, as long as it supports his views, and he eagerly pursues any possibility of discrediting liberals, even when his information is blatently biased, twists the facts, or is downright false. That is not skepticism. Skepticism is keeping an open mind*, examining evidence, then making a decision, NOT making a decision and digging up any dirt available that contradicts your a priori stance.
I am a liberal and a skeptic. I object to kneejerk “save the planet” environmentalism. I support scientific research and cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection laws. In general, I realize that both major political camps are full of crap, and I use what evidence is available (e.g., record of prior acts, statements against political interest, influence of contributors) to determine what candidates will actually do, rather than listening to the blather coming out of their mouths.
- Within reason that is. I don’t have to approach every alien abduction story with a blank slate - past experience and knowledge of human nature is evidence to be considered from the get-go. But I am certainly open to new, reliable evidence that contradicts my prior knowledge.
That should read, “NOT making a decision and digging up any dirt available on people or organizations that contradict your a priori stance.”
OK, Kang, we got a hot one! Get the probe ready.
I’m definitely a left-wing skeptic. I believe that the environmental movement whored its credibility when it attached itself to left-wing political interests. In exchange for increased visibility and alarmism, it has sacrificed scientific rigour. An environmental movement without close ties to either side of the political spectrum would be more credible, IMHO, and might just be able to lobby for bipartisan environmental reform.
At http://www.anxietycenter.com/feature-5.htm some moron (Alan Caruba) blurts:
Now, I like a conspiracy theory as much (if not more) than the next guy, but at least I know the difference between a conspiracy theory and skepticism.
The people at the Union of Concerned Scientists are generally rather crunchy green and humanitarian (although not necessarily political leftists), but they are also devoted to establishing the scientific facts about the issues they work on and disseminating responsible information that includes caveats about the incompleteness of our knowledge. From one of their reports on global climate change:
I find their moderate and levelheaded assessments, though some of them are a little too technical for my understanding, to be a refreshing change from the oversimplified soundbites in both camps—the scaremongers and the denialists—in the general media. I think you’ll enjoy them, Lonesome Dub.
Lonesome Dub,
Some of those links look good. I too am a James Randi fan. However, one has to be careful in treading into these waters of “skepticism”. For example, my take on “www.junkscience.com” is that it appears to dispense junk science rather than debunk it.
I once tried sending them e-mail asking them who they were but got no response. Today, I had a little more success in that one of the articles on their page was written by Steven Milloy who is listed as “biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of Junkscience.com.” Hmm…The Cato Institute, now there’s a respected scientific organization for you. 
As kimstu has noted, the Union of Concerned Scientists is a very good source of scientific information for those scientists who are also environmentalists. I also know two of the people who work there (although they are in arms control issues) and can vouch for the scientific credentials of both of them. (They were a PhD student and a postdoc in physics at Cornell when I was there.)
http://www.salon.com – which is very liberal – has a number of times gleefully dismantled sloppy leftist thinking in their articles.
I guess someone less tactful than I would point out that Mr. Gore is no more a liberal environmentalist than my dog.
I would never say anything like that, of course.
And we all know that junk science and lack of critical thinking are not in the sole purview of any side of the political spectrum.
Al Gore has never been part of the “left wing.” Al Gore has never passed by the left wing in a hallway. Al Gore has never even smelled the left wing, despite the unwashed environmental activists. Al Gore and people who support him are as centrist as can be. i always thought that a healthy dose of skepticism is REQUIRED for somebody to be a true left-winger. how can we berate those who accept conservative doctrines without thought if we turn around and accept different doctrines in the same manner?
BTW, i like what ** AerynSun ** had to say. but i also wonder why we always need rigorous scientific proof for things that common sense should explain. in some cases, doesn’t this need for “proof” simply contribute to environmental inertia?
chemical pesticides cause cancer and hurt the environment. i don’t need a triple-blind, control-group scientific survey compiled over 15 years (can you tell i’m not a scientist? :D) to “prove” that to me so one pesticide can be banned.
get rid of all of them now! damn, why can’t we err on the side of caution for once? sometimes i think scientists are so busy running tests on the trees that they’re missing the forest…
Carl Sagan, author “Demon-Haunted World” (the book that got me hooked on skepticism), was considered to be liberal. His political beliefs are quite apparent in the posthumously published “Billions & Billions,” which contains several political essays about environmentalism and abortion among other things.
Those of us elsewhere in the world are quite convinced that the United States doesn’t have a left wing (which may explain why so many of your military aircraft were crashing a few years back, hard to fly with only a right wing). Indeed, since you imprisoned the Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1920’s and managed to murder the IWW leaders in the Pacific Northwest and used artillery against the labour movement in Colorado and that whole McCarthy thing… well you get the idea – your left was exterminated in its infancy. You have two reactionary parties (well to the right of center in international terms) who, to many of us, are almost indistinguishable. Let’s get serious boys and girls, the Freudian terminology of “the narcissism of small differences” is the most accurate diagnosis of the political debate in the United States.
Next time you are watching CNN and some commentator is expressing bewilderment about that whole Serb/Croat/Bosnian thing in the Balkans, rest assured that this is the same bewilderment the rest of us feel when we watch your Repubocrats and Demlicans go at it hammers and tongs.
[qiote]but i also wonder why we always need rigorous scientific proof for things that common sense should explain. in some cases, doesn’t this need for “proof” simply contribute to environmental inertia?
chemical pesticides cause cancer and hurt the environment. i don’t need a triple-blind, control-group scientific survey compiled over 15 years (can you tell i’m not a scientist? ) to “prove” that to me so one pesticide can be banned.
[/quote]
A pretty good example of the attitude decried in the OP, IMHO. We don’t need proof to conclude that all “chemical” pesticides cause cancer??? (Are there any “nonchemical” pesticides?)
Your idea of caution is to throw people out of work, greatly increase the cost of food, and hamper the fight against arbovirus disease, all without solid evidence of need?
Okay, nebuli, point taken…Yes, you can go overboard on the caution thing, in the absence of evidence. I think it would be dumb to start spending lots of money to shield people from power lines…or cell phones…because the epidemiological evidence for the dangers, as well as any sort of reasonable physical mechanism, is absent.
But, it is also possible to go too far in the other direction. And, one of the interesting facts about environmental regulation, for example, is that it consistently costs a lot less than even the EPA predicts (let alone the wild estimates by businesses) to regulate preventively…But, it tends to cost a lot more than estimated to clean up after the fact (witness superfund cleanups). One example where we have the most reliable data on costs is the EPA’s acid rain program where they allow “pollution trading”…i.e., you pay for permits to pollute, so the market in permits is a good measure of the costs. When the program was being designed in the early '90s, industry estimates were that the permits would go for $1500 per ton; the EPA argued it would be only $750 per ton. In 1997, permits were actually selling for about $100. [Source: Eban Goodstein and Hart Hodges, “Polluted Data: Overestimating Environmental Costs”, in The American Prospect, Number 35, Nov-Dec 1997, pp. 64-69.]
So, yes, don’t go willy-nilly in banning things…But, no, don’t wait until all the different climate models are agreeing to within 10% before you start to deal with global warming, for example.
Lonesome Dub, I’ve bounced over to a few of the websites you gave in your list…And, I must admit that they give me some cause for concern. After all, being skeptical means you have to be skeptical of the skeptics too, and particularly curious about who they work for and who might be funding what they do. I seem to detect a strong thread of connection with various think-tanks for example who are known to espouse strongly pro-“free enterprise”, anti-regulatory views. Just keep this in mind when you read what they have to say and make sure you also get the scientific views of those with less of a vested interest in what the data shows. (Or, at least, a different vested interest!)
Some food for thought, I hope!
jshore, you are preaching to the choir. I’m certainly not attacking environmental protection in general, or the banning of dangerous pesticides in particular.
I was merely criticising the attitude I perceived in the quoted post; an attitude I find a little too common in some environmental circles, and one which, IMHO, if left unchecked will undermine the credibility of environmentalism. I believe in giving protection of the environment and human health a high priority in cost/benefit analyses, but I also believe that those analyses must be done.