Monday
Feb142011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Are science writers all lefties?
Feb 14, 2011 Blogs Climate: other Martin Robbins, writing at the Guardian, worries that the lack of right-wing science writers and bloggers is denting the credibility of science.
Seems like a reasonable surmise to me.
There's a lot of discussion of needing to find common ground in order to put forward a message successfully, which again is something we can probably agree on. I wonder if he might find things easier in this regard if he stopped using the d-word?
Reader Comments (74)
What do theories on climate change have to do with left and right? As a scientist, I don't believe in CAGW, but does that imply that I am or should be politically right-wing, or against the left? For me, these things are unrelated. It may be that there is a *demographic* correlation between Left-Alarmist and Right-Skeptic, but that is irrelevant to the actual discussion. Or am I missing something?
Problem is, the left view their ideology as the only true measure of reality, whereas they see conservationism as outmoded, myopic and often evangelical. This all descends from Karl Marx of course, whose theories hold just as much relevance to the left today.
While it is true that most conservatives will never own up to the most egregious flaws in capitalism, it would be entirely irrational to discount capitalism entirely. This is where most leftists prove to be parochial and rather non-progressive. It's the thinking leftists and the thinking conservatives who tend to lean towards libertarianism syndicalism or anarchism; often without being fully aware of it.
Conservative thinkers are somewhat anomalous today, in fact, it seems that society at large have fallen into a sort of progressive malaise, symptomatic of the arts, academia, humanitarianism and independent media. Is this the fault of conservatives for being out of touch and failing to make themselves relevant? -probably. There's a rising tide of conservative reactionism today; conservatism is a dirty word and many of the believers accept a moral-less, non-secular, Marx-based egalitarianism as the new paradigm. In a sense, leftists are therefore conservative in the true sense of the word.
Conservative thinkers have plenty of fodder at the moment, there just seems to be not many of them out there.
The least progressive thinkers could do is distance themselves from ideologue leftists who seem to be taking over the world and are a danger to it.
Jerry, your comments re Jo Nova indicate that you must be a Green, or at least have Green sympathies. I have read and enjoyed (and largely agreed with) the comments on Jo's site, and have been more than a little unimpressed by the Green's environmental performance in Australia reported there. I thought the campaign she initiated to support the cattle feedlot owners who were/are being monstered by officials who kept shifting the goalposts was anything but 'driveby shooting. Would you give some actual examples to back up your claims, or are you a 'driveby shooter' taking potshots at Jo?
@Saynotofearmongers - yes, I am sure there are some benefits from GM seeds and crops, but I was thinking more of developing world farmers - and I doubt the the negative issues are all down to a green con - for example the over selling of GM seeds in India - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
And it seems the it hasn't taken long for mother nature to find a way round the GM seeds' resistance to the pink bollworm - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/86939/India/Bt+cotton+has+failed+admits
Bishop,
In western economies as a rule 65-70% of journalists/media types describe themselves as left/left-of-center. It is not unreasonable to assume that amongst eco-journalists the ratio is higher, so I don't really understand what the Guardian is moaning about.
That said, if the Guardian, the BBC, CBC,ABC, NYT and other "socially progressive" media outlets stopped refering to us a deniers and stopped telling the world that we are somehow mentally ill, we might see more reporting by people of other political stripes.
@Lapogus
Crop protection is an ongoing issue - we can't rest on our laurels because we're always selecting pest, disease and weed populations for resistance to whatever control action we take.
The suicides issue is yet another Green-manipulated falsehood - http://www.ifpri.org/publication/bt-cotton-and-farmer-suicides-india gives a far more temperate view on the issue than the Daily Mail is capable of.
And even the Green-infested waters of Nature aren't having any:
Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-9.html
I think there was a time, perhaps it began to fade from the late 1970s onwards, when many leftwing journalists and environmentalists saw themselves in a somewhat heroic light, battling against the establishment on behalf of not just nature, but also on behalf of the poor polluted 'people'. That was the 'leftwing' destiny - champions of the poor and downtrodden! Now they are defenders of the establishment, and the poor 'people' have been pushed way down the pecking order, somewhere below the spotted newt. To get a glimpse into this partly new establishment, take a look at the supporters list for what I trust will be the damp squib of March, 'damp' even in a month not particularly noted for squibs: Climate Week - http://www.climateweek.com/supporters/.
I suppose the left-inclined have still been drawn to journalism, perhaps with a hint of that old-fashioned 'change society, fight the man, help the poor' still in place. They just find themselves now beached like legless frogs on a platform which is against the interests of the poor, especially the cold and hungry poor, on the side of 'the man' who has taken impressive steps to legitimate carbon trading etc, and now they want to change society not in any progressive sense but in a regressive one, with less energy, less growth, and more oppressive government. The poor things. Their shameful parroting of IPCC lines on climate is just part of their disgrace. The 180 degree about-turn to disregard the poor and their prospects is another.
I was a bit of a leftie and a greenie in the 1970s myself, and I still clutch to the hope that there was some merit so to be. But knowing what I know now, today I would be ashamed to be either. Paul Driessen has chapter and verse on some reasons why here: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
JP
"What do theories on climate change have to do with left and right?"
The primary role of the modern corporate media is to divide and rule the population into seperate cultures. There are a number of advantages to this. It only took a few million extra dollars of TV money to elect Barack Obama, the most compliant president Wall Street has ever owned. The population is polarised with relatively few floating voters.
Neil Craig
Yes, there has been a new collection of lies made into a film to appeal to right wing Americans.
Will Carbon Nation succeed where An Inconvenient Truth failed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/11/carbon-nation-climate-change-documentary
Alexander K: "I have read and enjoyed (and largely agreed with) the comments on Jo's site..."
Reading and enjoying a blogger and the comments says nothing about the quality of the writing. From my reading, Jo Nova not only allows her polemic to get the better of her, but also commits the logical fallacies she deplores in others.
"Where is this science association that would never dream of uttering an ad hom, or argument from authority, and would never declare that the “debate is over” and grovel before the false prophets of science?"
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/time-for-a-new-rigorous-association-of-scientists/#more-13312
But perhaps her most egregious fault, from a journalistic point of view, is her flagrant misuse of the possessive apostrophe. In the above article she achieves this feat at least three times: "ignoring it’s members objections...to serve it’s members...it’s constitution".
Speaking from an American perspective, I think it is the Republican Party that needs to reach out to scientists and academics. They might start by denouncing Creationism. Then they might apologize for all the times they used artists as scapegoats and all the times local conservative groups tried to get various literary works banned from the public schools. And then they should acknowledge that the science of climate change is basically sound but that they aren't satisfied with the current crop of ideas on how to address it.
Are you serious Bishop?
"There's a lot of discussion of needing to find common ground in order to put forward a message successfully, which again is something we can probably agree on."
This reminds me of the story about Bernard Shaw which end with the line "I know what you are, we are just arguing about the price".
It isn't so much an intelligence thing, it's a knowledge thing. Anyone who knows anything will have a left wing bias. ...so their is knee jerk support from academics.--E Smith
Right. A knowledge thing.
Political magazines simply don't cover science well. The only exception I know of is Ronald Bailey at libertarian Reason.com, who covers science/tech/policy but not much climate change.
http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all
E Smith said
"Academics are generally well informed and educated, therefore they will be well left of centre. Global warming has been incorrectly labelled a left wing issue, so their is knee jerk support from academics."
So anyone well informed and educated will be a leftie but at the same time they are stupid enough to support global warming just because it has been labelled left wing?
I'd suggest if they take a position on major issues like climate change on the basis of whether it is labelled left or right wing then they are neither well informed or educated.
jorgekafkazar
I saw the mistake mistake mistake. It was caused by re-arranging the sentence . Maybe I should have edited the post again ? Not possible. Or created a new one ? Not reely worf it mait.
"So anyone well informed and educated will be a leftie but at the same time they are stupid enough to support global warming just because it has been labelled left wing? "
Yes, exactly right. Most people are too busy to research an individual issue as complex as this, especially since there is a mountain range of mendacity to climb. Your academic consumer believes what he reads in his favourite liberal newspaper. He assumes incorrectly that it will take the side of the citizen against the corporation. That may have been true 40 years ago. It certainly isn't now and AGW is a perfect illustration.
To followup on my first comment, here is a classic example of how conservatives push scientists away.
<A href=http://twitpic.com/3yporx>http://twitpic.com/3yporx
This was from a conservative meeting in DC sponsored by CPAC. Conservatives are invited to through an egg at Al Gore or Michael Mann. (I found it on a liberal climate blog you are probably familiar with.) Whatever you think of Mann's work, how could any working scientist not feel pushed away from the GOP? Imagine they had a booth for throwing eggs at prominent blacks or gays? To their credit some Republicans are reaching out to gays, and one anti-gay group boycotted the same meeting because of this. There is no intrinsic reason for gays or blacks to be liberal. They tend to vote liberal because of how conservatives have treated them. While "political correctness" is an issue on many American campuses, the biggest factor in low support for the right among scientists and academics is how they have treated us.
...for what it's worth, I meant 'secular' in my post.
There seems to be a campaign to promote intolerance to sceptics. I was never aware of any tolerance in the first place
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/carllafong/coolinshot/84/science-is-the-new-god/
@Alexander K
Actually I am one of the more 'anti-Green' people you could meet. I am also one of the more 'Anti-bandwaggon' people you could meet
My description of Jo Nova as a drive-by shooter is based on her basic tactic. Viz
- Choose a hopeless but endearing case. (Manufacture it a bit if required)
- Support the hell out of it.
- If it 'fails' the St Jo has done her honourable bit
- If it wins the St Jo has saved the day.
Whatever happens St Jo turns out to be the good guy (Gal).
The feedlot is a classic example.
Please leave me alone from self publicists. Show me some people of principles
Jerry
agree about Jo Nova. Something stunk about that feed lot fiasco and it wasn't the cows. Can you point to any literature that sheds more light on the story? I'm certain that like the case for Peter Spencer, there is something Jo isn't telling us.
Martin Robbins is a regular poster on Ben Golacre's Bad Science website and also runs a contributary blog called LayScience. I believe he did some research work on the Antarctic and considers himself somewhat of an expert in ocean currents.
He might be ideologically right wing somewhere deep down but his recent pedigree displays left leaning associations. Maybe be should be considering his own experience. Did he write to the FT, Telegraph etc. to try to get an environment correspondent job? I suspect they would have laughed in his face. So if lefty rags are the only ones willing to entertain pro-green issues as news then guess where the politics of the reporters will be?
Robbins is supposed to be a smart guy. I'm told.
Re: My post above. He's seems to have left BadScience in the last day or two.