Are we entitled to our opinions?

By Rick Landry, Corvallis

In a recent LTE, the dual authors advanced their opinions that there exists “no convincing evidence for global warming” upon a vague, non-sourced allusion to “31,000 scientists” having joined together in a denialist coalition. My intention here is not to respond to these individuals in a defensive or personal manner as is so often the case in these forums, but rather to explore what I believe may be a much more intriguing, and timely question: What makes us entitled to our opinions?

Nearly everyone I know would be a little incredulous of my question, perhaps considering it an effrontery and answering indignantly that of course we are all entitled to our opinions! However, applying critical thought and examining this premise with objectivity, you might discover this is not necessarily true, and certainly not a foregone conclusion.  

Now, before you become apoplectic with rage, let me break this down: entitlement to one’s opinion comes with a built-in ambiguity. That is, there is the political or legal interpretation, by which we are all entitled to any opinion we might have, however groundless it may prove to be. This is deeply ingrained in our culture, and most likely covered under our First Amendment rights. However, entitlement also has an epistemic interpretation; that is, one related to the truth, a factual basis, or established knowledge. 

You may be entitled to your opinion, in this epistemic sense, only when you can demonstrate a sound basis for holding it. Far from existing as a universal, this epistemic entitlement is the kind you must earn.

To put this all another way, your opinions only have value or merit when they are based on something factual, truthful, or are constructed upon solid footing. If they are not, you may be entitled to your opinion, yes, but your opinion will have no real weight and be utterly meaningless, vapid, vacuous, and contributing little value.

So with this as background, let us reconsider the foundation for the opinions of the global-warming denialists. If the goal in an exchange of “opinions” on a given topic is to see one’s argument, case or point prevail, how can one expect to achieve this goal if the underlying premise is based upon fraudulent sources, outright lies, deceits, and discredited? Assertions based upon fictions, lies or something which radically departs from a known factual basis erode the credibility of the speaker while simultaneously invalidating their “opinion.”  

To defend their assertion that global warming has no connection to man’s activities, the authors responded: “To start, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine quoted as saying 31,000 scientist did not believe in Global Warming.” (sic)   I admit this reiteration confused me since in my reply to their original LTE, I had covered this point in depth, revealing the 1998 source (a gentle reminder: that’s 21 years ago and climate science and climate change have progressed accordingly), ‘The Oregon Petition’, and this ersatz organization under whose auspices the now widely-debunked document was created, the ‘Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’ (or OISM), which is  curiously situated in a windowless barn at the end of a private, dirt road, with a single sign adorning it, have been exposed as total shams.

The OISM is in fact just one man, Art Robinson, and is located on Robinson’s isolated farm near Cave Junction, Oregon. ‘Sideshow-Art’ is an extremist by any measure, a fundamentalist Christian with a pronounced anti-Darwinist bias, an individual who has lost five elections in a row to the same incumbent, believes radiation is good for you, and who adamantly proclaims that AIDS is inflicted by God as punishment for homosexual behavior. There are many who suggest ‘Sideshow-Art’ has lost more than a few from his meager collection of marbles.

The “Oregon Petition” was Robinson’s brainchild, and has over the past two decades been revealed to be a poorly-construed, overtly transparent hoax, a fraudulent document which purports to claim having gathered the signatures of 31,000 “scientists” who reject mankind’s role as a factor in global warming. Kevin Grandia, an investigative reporter for the Huffington Post, points out that when one breaks down those in the realm of climate science who signed this petition, only .001 have a background in Climatology. If you add in the validated Atmospheric Science signatories, the total percentage of signers on the Oregon Petition with expertise in climate science rises to .005, or one-half of one-percent. That means just 155 people knowledgeable in the climate sciences, not nearly the 31,000 claimed.  This exaggerated disparity raises very real ethical questions surrounding the petition’s founders.

This disreputable petition, generated solely to influence the debate on climate change, further sought to dupe participants by including documents “made” to appear like official documents from the National Academy of Science. They were essentially counterfeit letterhead or faked documents, there only to mimic, mislead, and misinform. Over the intervening years, the Oregon Petition has been branded as misinformation by the National Academy of Sciences, the Science Policy Department at Colorado University, Real Climate.org, and at SourceWatch.org. Snopes and other online fact checkers have concluded the petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, and is lacking any accountability as to the authenticity of its signatures whatsoever. 

If all this is not convincing enough, here is a news release quote from the National Academy of Sciences itself: “The Oregon Petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.” Here is where you get to choose whom to believe: the National Academy of Sciences, or Darwin-skeptic “Sideshow-Art” from his remote farm in southwest Oregon?

Mr. Grandia, the investigative reporter, concludes his essay on the bogus petition, thusly: “Given all this, it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into doubt the reality of climate change.”  

I began this letter framing the audacious question: Are we entitled to our opinions? Using logic, I then defined the ambiguity inherent in the term “entitlement” when applied to this issue of vocalizing one’s personal opinions. I then demonstrated how veracity provides a qualifying determinant in distinguishing between conflicting points of view.  I have deconstructed the foundation of the LTE writing-duo’s “opinion,” which I believe is revealed to be at the least disinformation, and at worst, an egregious lie.  Please remember, dear readers, not to be consumed by your own confirmation bias and lower your standards to the point where you disregard falsehoods, and dismember the Truth.