The Serengeti Strategy

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT ® Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(1) 33–45 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: The Serengeti strategy: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563674 How special interests try to http://thebulletin.sagepub.com intimidate scientists, and how best to fight back Michael E. Mann Photo credit: Brocken Inaglory. Abstract Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once. Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages other scientists from conveying their researchÕs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is often employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worldÕs scientists about the underlying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon the authorÕs own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to such orchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how to combat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields. 34 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) Keywords climate change, communication, global warming, hockey stick, modeling, propaganda, science disinformation ritics of science frequently pre- (http://www.rachelwaswrong.org), dedi- sent scientific knowledge as if cated to discrediting Carson and her C all our understanding of a given legacy as a way of casting doubt upon all field hinges on the work of just one scien- environmental concerns. tist. Forget the thousands of evolutionary This is a classic ad hominem attack, biologists whose work over more than a consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, century has repeatedly confirmed the often focusing on irrelevant items, theory of evolution; to creationists, it whose net effect is to direct attention is just ÒDarwinismÓÑthe conclusions of away from the merits of an argument one ostensibly suspect individual named and instead to the character of the Charles Darwin. person making it. This approach appeals And it is labeled as Òjust a theory,Ó as if to feelings, emotions, and prejudices that somehow diminishes its validity. rather than intellectÑexactly the point (For that matter, gravity is Òjust a theoryÓ when the attacker is on the wrong side as well. Yet no one steps off a tall build- of the facts. This approach is not held in ing to test it.) high regard by those interested in reason This reflects a popular misconception and rationalism, based as it is upon tenets of what a theory is to scientists. While in that are the opposite of science. common parlance the word ÒtheoryÓ con- But it is effective, for a number of rea- veys something speculative, tentative, or sons. By singling out a sole scientist, it is uncertain, in the field of science the word possible for the forces of Òanti-scienceÓ refers to an understanding of an aspect of to bring many more resources to bear on the natural world that has held up repeat- one individual, exerting enormous pres- edly to scrutiny and testing over time. sure from multiple directions at once, Industry-funded front groups and making defense difficult. It is similar to their hired guns have learned that they what happens when a group of lions on can use this confusion over terminology the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable indi- to their benefit. Rather than admit that vidual zebra at the edge of a herd, which decades of research has revealed danger- is why I call it the ÒSerengeti strategyÓ in ous effects of DDT on our environment, my book The Hockey Stick and the Cli- these organizations try to lead the public mate Wars (Mann, 2012). into believing that concerns about these An additional part of the motivation chemical contaminants are just the hys- behind the targeting of individuals: It is terical speculations of one scientist difficult to take on an entire group of sci- named Rachel Carson. For example, the entists at once. But bringing down indi- Competitive Enterprise Institute (http:// viduals is easier, and it serves the larger www.cei.org)Ñan advocacy group funded effort of dismissing, obscuring, and by fossil fuel and chemical industry con- misrepresenting well-established sci- cerns and conservative private interestsÑ ence and its implications. WhatÕs more, maintains a website, RachelWasWrong these highly visible tactics create such a Mann 35 negative atmosphere that other scientists Indeed, when overseas Americans are discouraged from conveying their encounter the widespread acceptance researchÕs implications to the public. of anthropogenic climate change, they This strategy falls under the umbrella are often surprised. ÒAfter my climate of a larger, overall conception, which change book came out, I had dinner some researchers refer to as the Òtobacco with a Dutch minister from a right-wing, strategyÓ because it characterizes the conservative partyÑand he sounded like way that tobacco interests sought to dis- a Greenpeace guy,Ó commented author credit research that linked their products Elizabeth Kolbert (The Bulletin of the to lung cancer (Oreskes and Conway, Atomic Scientists, 2014) about the Euro- 2010). Whatever it is called, it has repeat- pean reception to her book The Sixth edly been adopted by the chemical Extinction: An Unnatural History (Kol- industry, big agriculture, the pharma- bert, 2014). ceutical industry, and just about any corporate interest that has found itself Climate change: A quick recap on a collision course with scientific researchÑparticularly research that re- A quick refresher about the present state veals specific potential damages or of the discourse in the United States about threats caused by their product. climate change: Despite first impressions, It is educational to see how long the only a minority of our populace clings to a use of these tactics has been around, wholesale rejection of all the established and how it was applied on a massive, evidence for anthropogenic climate wide-reaching scale to make a memeÑa change. Yet this rejection can be powerful cultural idea or belief system, similar in (and backed by powerful interests), as I some ways to a catchphraseÑgo viral, wrote in The New York Times: long before the social media era. And of course, this technique has now been This virulent strain of anti-science infects the refined and expanded upon, to include a halls of Congress, the pages of leading news- papers, and what we see on TV, leading to the barrage of messages from authoritatively appearance of a debate where none should named pseudo-news outlets, an alpha- exist. In fact, there is broad agreement among bet soup of legitimate-sounding front climate scientists not only that climate change groups, and a bevy of experts-for-hire is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent with impressiveÑor at least impressive- agree), but that we must respond to the dan- soundingÑcredentials, who together gers of a warming planet. If one is looking for form a ÒPotemkin VillageÓ (Oreskes and real differences among mainstream scientists, Conway, 2010) of antiscientific disinfor- they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, mation. One can observe this strategy and which technologies and policies offer the writ large in the current public discourse best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the in the United States over whether or not emission of greenhouse gases. (Mann, 2014a) human-caused climate change existsÑa debate that has been largely settled in Such a high level of agreement among other parts of the world, such as the any group of people is extraordinary; European countries whose citizens just try to get 97 percent of Americans have overwhelmingly accepted the evi- to agree about favorite pizza toppings. dence for it. Nothing in the field of science ever gets 36 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) 100 percent agreementÑthereÕs still a Many of the attacks have been aimed Flat Earth Society that holds monthly at undermining one of the scientific com- meetingsÑbut the fact that a few con- munityÕs great strengthsÑthe trust that trarians still exist around the topic of cli- the public has in scientists as communi- mate change may be one reason why the cators and messengers. A poll conducted public gets confused when hearing about by Yale University and George Mason the issue. They expect all experts every- University indicated that climate where to be in complete agreement, all scientists are the most trusted source of the time. information about global warming for There is no longer any reasonable voting-age Americans (Yale Project, doubt among mainstream researchers 2012). This is in line with a number of about the fact that climate change is real, polls regarding science that have been caused by human activity, and a potential conducted over the years, which consist- threat to civilization. That is the conclu- ently show that the public ranks scien- sion of every major scientific organization tists near the top for trustworthiness that deals in any of the underlying areas of (Pew Research Center, 2009)Ñwhile science, including the American Physical they put members of Congress, TV repor- Society, the American Meteorological ters, and used-car salesmen near the Society, the American Chemical Society, bottom.

Load more