By Rick Landry, Corvallis
Who turned the parrots loose in the echo chamber?
There are some familiar surnames which all to often dominate the Bitterroot Star’s LTE pages; lately they’ve begun to remind me of noisy parrots squawking in an echo chamber. However, I believe actual parrots would resonate a more meaningful message. At least it would be honest.
So let me focus on STAR frequent flyer Dennis Hick’s climate change denial letter, in which he directs readers to a video featuring his bedrock source, a Mr. Tony Heller. You may also know Mr. Heller as ‘Steve Goddard’, an alias and pseudonym which the non-climate scientist employed for many years. Hicks refers to Goddard/Heller’s credentials as having a degree in Geology and Electrical Engineering, which is true. And also, in this discussion, absolutely irrelevant.
There are an enormous number of climate change denialist blogs written and maintained by non-climate scientists out there, and Goddard/Heller’s ‘RealClimateScience’ is a prime example . Heller is no more credentialed to speak ( with authority ) on this subject than a butterfly collector, or entomologist. In fact, he has established himself as a longtime conspiracy theorist, which evidently is enough to satisfy Hick’s validation process.
Heller likes to think of himself as part of a ‘Climate Change Demolition Team’, and is allied with other denialists who are or have been directly associated with the petroleum industry. But don’t take my word for it: visit https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard and check out his illustrious background for yourself.
Now, many climate deniers, often motivated purely by either an agenda or their pet-ideology, bristle at “denier” as a perjorative, and prefer to be addressed as “skeptics”. But don’t be put off by their feigned offense; instead recognize this as a tried and true tactic the denier’s rely upon. If they display personal offense at the label, they have an excuse to ignore your arguments by claiming denier is a “slur”, and they would force you to use the word of their choosing, which may be “skeptic”. You might think of skeptic here being a neutral assignation, not unlike “agnostic” when discussing religion.
Genuine scientific skepticism is, I agree, a good thing. In fact, it’s the heart of the scientific method. Genuine skeptics don’t come to a conclusion until they have considered the evidence. In contrast, people who deny well-established science come to a conclusion first, and then discount any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are in fact polar opposites! In my opinion, this seems quite logical, but to avoid any possibility of Mr. Hicks reacting that I am untrustworthy because I have utilized a slur, I will suggest instead his point of view on climate change is perhaps that of a “pseudo-skeptic”?
Despite his insistence that Heller/Goddard’s opinion is a more reliable and better informed source on climate change than the consensus of 97% of the world’s leading climate science experts,—where I might call Heller to do the electrical wiring in my garage or barn,—I am inclined to go with the overwhelming majority of climate-specific expert’s conclusions on this timely and well-substantiated subject.
I recognize that in today’s atmosphere, where truth does not depend on anyone’s opinion, the deniers, skeptics, and even the pseudo-skeptics figure their opinion about what is true outweighs thousands of climate scientists. It’s all a “global conspiracy”, naturally, and no doubt somehow fills the pockets of George Soros or Al Gore. Because for individuals like Heller and Hicks, the only thing that ever makes a scientist credible is their sharing the “right” opinions, the ones which naturally conform with their own.