![]() |
On the front page of our local paper, and indeed in many papers today, we find the complaint that mean-spirited scientists have been calling poor old Bjørn Lomborg names. “`I really think it reflects entirely on them,’ said Lomborg, a mild-mannered Danish statistician who says global warming isn’t a big threat and that international treaties requiring sharp and immediate cuts in carbon emissions would cost a lot but do little good. Angry words and table-pounding, he said, only show `that your argument is not that strong.'”
In the story we read that E. O. Wilson referred to Lomborg as “the parasite load on scholars who earn success through the slow process of peer review and approval.” We read that Ellen Goodman compared him to Holocaust deniers, that Rajendra Pachauri compared Lomborg’s view of humanity (as, in reasonable numbers, sacrificeable) to Hitler’s; that Richard Lindzen describes this as “harassment” and Michael Mann says “There is never a reason for name calling.”
So, (1) really, that is what this article is about — people being mean to Lomborg. Not about Lomborg being someone who wants to do nothing about global warming; not someone who, for some reason, has alienated many of the respectable scholars he initially brought on board with his promise of an intellectually serious inquiry; not someone who’s so self-contradictory it would raise one’s suspicions as to his sincerity. (Those links thanks to John Quiggin.)
In itself, it’s pretty silly to write a fraught article about name-calling, especially on a debate of some import.
But (2) what gets quoted here isn’t name-calling, maybe excepting Goodman. Her analogy of global-warming denialism to Holocaust denialism is not a very persuasive bit of op-ed rhetorical flummery (I’m not really sure what it means, ultimately). But the other stuff is actually serious.
What’s Pachauri (maybe misquoted as) saying? Not “Lomborg is a Nazi” — that would be name-calling — but more like, “Lomborg seems to think entire peoples and cultures are dispensable, which is kinda reminiscent of Nazism.” What’s Wilson saying? Not, “Lomborg is a parasite” — that would be name-calling. Wilson is saying, if you have someone who gets a lot of money to say stuff that less well paid academics have, in conscience, to spend time refuting, it represents an unwarranted tax on those academics’ time — i.e., a “parasite load.”
And finally, (3) it is hereby RESOLVED: that this house blog disagrees with Dr. Mann. Name-calling is a potentially valuable and legitimate contribution to public discourse. Sometimes, if you’re dealing with scaifers or just grown-up people who, honestly, really should know better, you’re entitled to deploy the full range of irony from sly wit to full-fledged mock-making. Calling attention to the ludicrous quality of ludicrous claims alerts the reader that we’re dealing with arguments that we ought not to take seriously. It is not “harassment.” It is how ideas make their way in the agora. And of course, even sober scholars speak more brusquely in rebuttal, more loudly in the public square, than they do when they teach, or when they write their own scholarly conclusions: for even sober scholars are entitled to act as citizens in the public square.
As a corollary, let’s say you’re especially licensed, if not indeed required to pull out rhetorical stops when the guardians of discourse start saying you mustn’t. Because that’s a foul: they’re trying to shift attention from what the argument is about, to how we’re arguing about it. It’s a foul that Ritter, the AP writer, has committed in plain view here, where we see a “mild-mannered” Lomborg pitted against angry, “table-pounding,” “name-calling” scientists. Of course you’d rather stand with the mild-mannered guy against those meanies, wouldn’t you?
Better hope he has a spot for you in a well insulated retreat somewhere on high ground.
12 comments
December 14, 2007 at 5:22 pm
ac
In the U.S., the discourse has largely favored people like Lomborg for a long time, people who insist there’s no crisis or point to the business costs as they weigh against possible benefits of a change in policy. There’s only recently been a tipping point in public opinion, because of obvious evidence of melting ice and the perception that there’s more extreme weather (Katrina, the recent California fires, &c.). It’s probably the sense of that tipping that brings out the stops against the most harsh language.
It seems related to the discussion of Leo Amery and his group. I took a look at Troublesome Young Men and there was some discussion of Amery’s choice of words, whether he needed to—whether he could bring himself to—go for the stinging Cromwell quote, and he decided the peril was too great for him not to. (One interesting thing about Olson’s focus, I thought, was its theme of group psychology, and how people’s own fear of being ostracized influences the terms of debate.)
December 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm
eric
Yes, that’s true. It’s subtle, but it’s definitely there, in Olson’s narrative; she’s very good at making you feel the courage required to go against the prevailing consensus, and the penalties for not doing so.
What’s weird now is the prevailing, er, climate here seems to favor conservatives who complain about name-calling.
December 14, 2007 at 5:46 pm
ari
Hurrah for AC! This thread has been begging for comment.
That said, I’d add An Inconvenient Truth to the list of factors leading to the tipping point you describe. There’s something about drowning polar bears that tugs at the American public’s collective heart strings. Images of charismatic megafauna in peril have long been about the best way to leverage public opinion in favor of environmental change. Think of, at various key moments in the history of American conservation and preservation, whales, caribou, wolves, bears, and many others. I’ll try to add some links later. Now I must go home.
December 14, 2007 at 5:52 pm
ac
I don’t know, I think the willingness on the part of serious climate scientists to use that language signals that they think it’s starting to be their moment, what with Gore winning the Nobel and so on. This sort of Lomborg defense feels like a rearguard action. Of course, they still may not succeed, or it may be a temporary moment, but we’re at some point of possibility.
December 14, 2007 at 5:54 pm
eric
You’re so optimistic, ac. What’s got into you?
December 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm
ac
That is, I don’t know that the, um, climate is favoring conservatives.
December 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm
ac
This may be a delusion based on where I have recently moved, where people yell at you if you drive to the supermarket and don’t bring your own bag.
December 14, 2007 at 6:02 pm
matt w
I don’t know, I was in a room with a TV playing one of those silly political shows, and the Democratic strategist said something about how climate change is another issue on which the GOP is out of step with the American people, and the Republicans said something about, “We can talk about climate change all day, sure the earth is warming, does this have anything to do with you and me and cows burping, I don’t know” and basically looked uncomfortable and changed the subject real quick-like. Which makes me think that he knew it was a losing issue for him.
December 14, 2007 at 6:06 pm
ac
And yes, polar bears.
December 14, 2007 at 7:31 pm
ari
Let’s settle the climate change dispute the old-fashioned way: a steel-cage death match between the polar bear from Golden Compass and Lomborg.
December 14, 2007 at 7:44 pm
ari
I just discovered that we have black widows living in the woodpile. Neither charismatic nor mega, but still: fauna. I wonder if I can get an armored bear to take care of them. Because I’ll be avoiding that part of the yard from now on.
December 16, 2007 at 11:42 am
No emergency necessary. « The Edge of the American West
[…] events, tone by eric Thanks to a comment from IDP, we can think more about Reconstruction, tone, worst presidents, and enjoy a little Keith Olbermann. Bill Moyers asks Olbermann, on behalf of a […]