The playbook that influenced how deniers view environmental science

[FirstAscent]

This document was not necessarily intended for you. It was intended as a playbook for Republicans, conservatives, Big Oil, and those think tanks such as The Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and so on. It's not science. It's how to engineer a political attack on science.

It is the Luntz memo: https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf

[1715389615]

1715389615

[1715389615]

1715389615

[1715389615]

1715389615

[FirstAscent]

On page 137 (page 7 of the PDF document):

The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Emphasis is not mine, but verbatim from the document.

[FirstAscent]

Page 138 is particularly illuminating.

[bb113]

The luntz institute needs to get a cleaner, safer scanner.

[FirstAscent]

The luntz institute needs to get a cleaner, safer scanner.

Huh? Luntz is an individual, not an institute: Frank Luntz.

[bb113]

Oh, well I ran that through an OCR and it came out gibberish. I was just messing around. What year is this from?

[FirstAscent]

Oh, well I ran that through an OCR and it came out gibberish. I was just messing around. What year is this from?

Your comments on the document are welcome, not the technology behind its delivery. 2002. Just click on the link.

[bb113]

I did, I was trying to make it easier to quote. There is an admission that the "scientific debate is closing [against us]". So, in the author's opinion, they bet wrong and are trying to win an election/elections despite that.

Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency

So they don't care either way. "Save the environment" or don't as long as it is in a way that gets them swing voters without losing their base. I think the word for this is sophistry.

[TECSHARE]

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-up-on-science-makes-grey-literature-official/

[muyuu]

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

Thing is, truth is only part of it in politics. People cannot be bothered with complex reality if you expect a positive reaction. This paper is quite decent actually. Do you have more like this?

[FirstAscent]

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?

[muyuu]

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?

It shows how do experienced people carry out manipulation.

[bb113]

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-up-on-science-makes-grey-literature-official/

I dunno, from my reading of the IPCC AR4 (which I never got around to really studying so it was more just skimming), it seemed pretty reasonable. I more have a problem with the way climate science is reported in the media. I doubt the commentator's on that site have studied it themselves. Instead they use heuristics like:

Funny how Canadian Donna LaFramboise discovered that 30% of the 18,500+ citations in the AR4 were not even close to being peer reviewed.

Honestly peer review doesn't mean that much, and even if all the references were peer reviewed you could just call it "crony reviewed" or whatever. So who cares.

[FirstAscent]

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-up-on-science-makes-grey-literature-official/

I dunno, from my reading of the IPCC AR4 (which I never got around to really studying so it was more just skimming), it seemed pretty reasonable. I more have a problem with the way climate science is reported in the media. I doubt the commentator's on that site have studied it themselves. Instead they use heuristics like:

Funny how Canadian Donna LaFramboise discovered that 30% of the 18,500+ citations in the AR4 were not even close to being peer reviewed.

Honestly peer review doesn't mean that much, and even if all the references were peer reviewed you could just call it "crony reviewed" or whatever. So who cares.

More to the point, junkscience has an agenda, and it is: deny climate change.

[FirstAscent]

Most of its arguments are still true. LOL

In what way is it true or 'quite decent', as you put it?

It shows how do experienced people carry out manipulation.

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

[muyuu]

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

[FirstAscent]

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

Partially correct in the general sense. Entirely incorrect in a more specific sense. In this particular discussion, specificity beats generality.

Thus, if I could summarize my reply in one word, it would be: Incorrect.

[muyuu]

Manipulation at the expense of science for the purpose of obfuscating.

Yep, that's the way it works. Not that there's solid evidence either way, so each side lobbies their cause using techniques as described in this paper. That's the way it is.

Partially correct in the general sense. Entirely incorrect in a more specific sense. In this particular discussion, specificity beats generality.

Thus, if I could summarize my reply in one word, it would be: Incorrect.

Cool story bro.