A while back I wrote about Howard Hayden, the retired physics professor who spoke at UNC-Chapel Hill on behalf of the anti-environmental group named CFACT. I documented just a couple of the errors Hayden made in his speech. I then promised to discuss a puzzling question: How is it that educated, intelligent people can be taken in by arguments full of blatant errors of fact and of logic?

The answer to this question doesn't just apply to Howard Hayden. For instance, the "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror" rhetoric strikes a chord with plenty of smart, thinking Americans, despite its clear illogic. The same is true of many other claims widely repeated in our culture.

To refresh your memory, here's an example of the statements typical of the talk:

Hayden began with a discussion of the term "green energy." His thesis was that the term is "ill-defined jargon," because energy is not, in fact, green; it is colorless.

I leave it to the good taste and shrewdness of my readers to notice that the word "green" in this case is a metaphor. Just as Americans do not believe that Communists are literally colored red, environmental advocates do not believe that the electrons generated by a photovoltaic panel are actually green. It is a stunning misrepresentation to say, as Hayden did, that environmentalists who use the term are psychotic.

Now don't get me wrong, the "energy isn’t really green" line wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark. Indeed, the argument was a central point of Hayden's talk.

Hayden holds a PhD, and he is a scientist. He must know how to put together a convincing, cohesive argument, and yet he chose not to do so. Paradoxically, though, his claims must have been convincing: one audience member said afterwards, "I think that what we saw here was good, hard science."

Robert Brown and Carl Herndl are communications scholars who asked the same question I'm asking: "How does bad logic happen to good people?" Like me, they are interested in seemingly irrational rhetoric.

To develop an explanation, the two scholars studied the rhetoric of the John Birch Society. The John Birch Society makes a number of claims that appear absurd: ozone depletion doesn't exist (or if it does, it's not harmful); rainforests are unnecessary to the health of the planet; there are no environmental limits to the size of the human population.

Herndl and Brown theorize that rhetoric serves multiple, simultaneous purposes. First, and most obviously, rhetoric can be used to convince and to persuade others.

People also use rhetoric to scratch out a piece of their own communicative turf. Just as a fence indicates the boundary of a suburban yard, statements that seem irrational to outsiders mark the edges of a rhetorical community.

The two scholars understand this rhetoric

as a complex social exchange through which the members of the John Birch Society assert the power and prestige of their language, beliefs, and, as we argue, their social identity and position...

This is the rhetoric of group solidarity, not of deliberation or proof. From this perspective, the fact of flawed logical and scientific particulars matters little. [Emphasis added.]

This makes sense to me. To the "us" in "you're either with us or against us," it doesn't matter that the statement is a false dichotomy. That's not the point. The most important thing is to be one of "us."

Similarly, to those who laugh when environmentalists are termed "psychotic," the literal truth of the statement is irrelevant. My disgusted response to the claim only marks me as a non-group member, not the intended audience. Thus, this "irrational" rhetoric is rational in its own way, in that it accomplishes the specific, intentional goal of delineating a group boundary.

As Herndl and Brown point out, the rhetoric of social solidarity is resistant to logical and scientific deconstruction.

If recent history tells us anything, it tells us that merely offering more, and more careful, scientific arguments has little or no effect on the position and rhetoric of groups like the John Birch Society.

So where does that leave those of us used to arguing from a science-based or logical perspective? I'm stumped. Any thoughts?

***
Reference: Brown, Robert L. and Carl G. Herndl. "Beyond the Realm of Reason: Understanding the Extreme Environmental Rhetoric of the John Birch Society." Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Ed. Carl Herndl and Stuart C. Brown. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. 213-235.

Many people are surprised to learn that the environmental movement is internally fractious and diverse. In fact, environmentalists sometimes spend more energy disagreeing with each other than with outsiders.

I've compiled a list of the distinguishing characteristics of various environmental philosophies. I certainly don't mean the following discussion to be comprehensive. I intend it, rather, as a challenge to those who believe every environmentalist is a granola-crunching tree hugger. Feel free to make corrections or additions in the comments.

Conservationists believe the environment is important because of its economic value. Conservation, including reforestation and anti-flooding efforts, are essential to maintaining commercial use of natural resources. Examples of organizations espousing a conservationist philosophy are Trout Unlimited, hunting groups, and the National Forest System.

In contrast, preservationists believe that nature is valuable because of its ability to touch the human soul. They believe that in addition to its usefulness for commercial gain, the natural environment is a place to escape from daily pressures. As a result, preservationists often push for the most beautiful places to be set aside as national parks. The Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and the World Wildlife Fund are examples of preservationist environmental organizations.

The closely related reform environmentalists view the environment as possessing both utilitarian and intrinsic value. Reform environmentalists recognize the seriousness of environmental problems, but do not believe society must undergo a fundamental shift in values to overcome them. Rather, environmental problems can be solved by existing tools, such as legislation, education, technology, and a "greening" of the economic system. The National Sierra Club, which also espouses a preservationist philosophy, is an example of a reformist environmental group.

The philosophy of stewardship is based on the Judeo-Christian responsibility to serve God and to take care of God's creation. In this philosophy, nature has both intrinsic and instrumental values. That is, stewardship is a Christian moral principle; thus environmental protection will lead to happiness and favor with God. An example of a stewardship organization is the Evangelical Environmental Network.

A broad class of environmentalists, whom I term eco-centrists, believe that nature is of value because human life depends on it; the health of ecosystems is essential to human health. This wing of the environmental movement traces its roots to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which discussed the effects that pesticides have upon ecosystems. Eco-centrists include ecologists and other scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the American Lung Association.

Political ecologists/social ecologists/environmental justice advocates argue that it's pointless to discuss environmental problems as separate from societal issues. For instance, they believe that the hierarchies that keep people poor preclude viable environmental solutions. They also believe that society, humans, and the environment are all natural entities. Political ecologists strongly emphasize social justice, recognizing that environmental risk is greatest for marginalized groups of people.

Deep ecology is a philosophy of environmentalism that centers on nature's intrinsic value. Deep ecologists focus on the interconnectedness of all things and systems. They theorize that human beings are nature's way of thinking about itself. Environmental problems, according to deep ecologists, can only be solved by fundamental changes in society. Therefore, they advocate new forms of ethics, such as the "rights of nature," and argue that the principles of ecology are the source of happiness. Earth First! is an environmental organization that espouses deep ecology.

Eco-feminism focuses on the intrinsic value of both nature and "feminine" qualities such as empathy. Eco-feminists believe that the principles of dualism and domination at the heart of the patriarchy are at the root of environmental problems. They are interested in a revival of "women's spirituality" and the recognition of the cultural linkages between women and nature. Like deep ecologists, eco-feminists believe environmental problems can only be resolved by a fundamental shift in society and human psychology. For more information on eco-feminism, try The Death of Nature, by Carolyn Merchant.

The first person to guess which environmental philosophy I most closely agree with gets a cookie.

Human Events Online, a conservative weekly, recently published a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. "The Communist Manifesto" topped the list.

In the publication's description of the Fifth Most Evil Book, John Dewey's Democracy and Education, I found this little gem:

John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a "progressive" philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking "skills" instead. [Emphasis added.]

Egad!

"If I could get more money from oil companies I would." - Martin Andrade, past president, University of Minnesota-Minneapolis CFACT.

(To be fair, he also said, "I'll even say that the fact the national group gets oil money is reason to be skeptical.")

[6/3/05 - Edited for typo.]

Barry aka Ampersand of Alas, a Blog has joined the comments section of the post entitled "Are you a survivor of the abortion Holocaust?" (His livejournal name is "Hereville.") I'm delighted to have him here, and it's an interesting discussion, so check it out.

In the comments of the post entitled "Tired of the Pro-Choice Interests" (scroll down to May 24th), Dustin Ingalls makes an interesting claim:

[B]eing pro-life for a Democrat is not usually the same thing as it is for a Republican. It's usually a personal position for Democrats, while Republicans mean that they want to actively advance legislation that restricts abortion rights.

I say this hypothesis is interesting because the degree to which it is true should determine the electoral strategy of abortion-rights activists.

If Democrats can be counted upon to oppose restrictions of abortion rights, then NARAL and similar organizations should work to ensure a Democratic majority, regardless of candidates’ stances. Conversely, if pro-life Democrats sometimes vote to restrict abortion rights, it makes sense for the organizations to pursue a more complex strategy, including supporting strong pro-choice candidates of all parties. Dustin clearly thinks that the former strategy is the correct one:

Justin: "[T]he best way to protect a women's right to choose would actually be to elect a Democratic Senator, even if he is personally pro-life...[H]elping Democrats win a majority in the Senate is the most important thing."
Dustin: "Exactly."

But do Democrats really avoid restricting abortion rights? Not at all.

Let's look at examples of "partial-birth" abortion bans on both the state and federal level. As I will show, bans on these procedures restrict access to abortion. If Dustin's hypothesis is correct, Democrats – even those identifying as pro-life - would not vote in favor of them. And furthermore, under Dustin’s hypothesis "partial-birth" restrictions would not pass in a Democrat-controlled legislative body. Remember, Dustin's making a distinction between pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans, stating that even pro-life Democrats avoid abortion restrictions.

In July 1997, the Rhode Island General Assembly approved a ban on "partial-birth" abortions. On a number of counts, this ban was astonishingly restrictive:

1. It did not include an exception for the woman's health; nor did it contain an adequate life exception.
2. The law effectively required the woman to obtain the consent of her sexual partner and parents before having the abortion.
3. The law was vague and failed to clearly define which procedures were prohibited.
.

(Source.)

A district court ruled that the law was "unrestrained and pernicious to the Constitution" and would "strangle constitutional rights." In 1999, a federal judge struck down the ban. (Source.)

I'm not sure how anyone could disagree that this legislation restricted abortion rights. But many Democrats in the Rhode Island Senate voted for the ban; indeed, it would never have had a chance without Democratic support. Here's how the vote broke down:

In favor of the ban: 28 Democrats; 5 Republicans
Not in favor of the ban: 11 Democrats; 4 Republicans
Not voting: 2 Democrats

Source: Providence Journal-Bulletin, June 26, 1997.

In 2003, the U.S. Congress passed a similar ban on "partial-birth" abortion. Like the Rhode Island ban, the legislation did not contain an exception for the health of the mother. And so far, it's met the same fate as the Rhode Island law; three judges have found it unconstitutional.

Here are the names of the Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Bayh, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, Nelson, Pryor, and Reid. (Source.)

I have a hunch that a comprehensive study of federal and state politics would mirror what I've shown here: Democrats do not always vote along party lines in support of abortion rights.

I suspect that Dustin's original statement came out of a misreading of this essay that's been filtering around the Internet:

We have to strip that language advantage over the issue of abortion away from the Republicans. That is, we can stay where we are, winning handily on the issue of pro-choice but losing over the issue of regulating abortion, or we can totally take the issue away from the Republicans, and put them on the defensive.

[...]

So if a politician says I am pro-life and Democrat, lets hear them out. The Republicans will snicker and respond, no you aren't. And if the politician responds by saying yes I am, I do not like to see abortions, but will not legislate or have the government intruding into this private decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor. That's a politician that belongs in the Democratic Party. And boom, this is a politician that's going to put the Republicans on the defensive.

Let's be clear: this essay is advising pro-choice Democrats to recast themselves as "pro-life" in order to win at the ballot box. Personal opposition to abortion coupled with disapproval for government intrusion is the position formerly known as "pro-choice." Now, if pro-choice Democrats want to call themselves "pro-life" in the context of framing the abortion debate, I have no quibble. But we must not mistake this language for a literal change in policy on the part of true pro-life Democrats. The original pro-lifers will still favor governmental abortion restrictions.

***

This discussion originally came out of debate over NARAL's recent endorsement of Republican Lincoln Chafee. So I'll point out that as usual Ampersand of Alas, a Blog has an insightful summary and analysis.

The Carnival of Bad History is up today. It's hosted by Coturnix over at Science and Politics, and described in this way:

"The world is full of bad history. Best-selling novels are full of it. Nostalgia-dripping reruns on Pax and the Hallmark channel are full of it. Blockbuster summer movies are full of it. Statements by the leaders of public opinion are full of it. Boy, are they full of it."

I particularly recommend the link to Libertarian Revisionist History, which critiques bad history by libertarians.

Check it out!

According to this organization, called "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust":

If you were born after 1972, we challenge you to consider yourself a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. It's time to take an active stand on behalf of those that have already been lost and for those scheduled to die.

A youth-oriented group, the organization's mission is to "speak out on behalf of the 1/3 of our generation that was lost to abortion since 1973." Volunteers of the organization tour college campuses advocating the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, the organization is banking on bad history. The "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" site's authors, in referencing the year of Roe's passage, falsely imply that the legalization of abortion caused abortion rates to increase suddenly.

If Roe's passage caused the death of one third of a generation, we would expect birth rates to have declined drastically after 1972. In fact, nothing even close to that happened.

On Alas, A Blog, I found these statistics on US birthrates since 1972:

Year	Births	Birthrate
1972	3,258,411	15.6
1973	3,136,965	14.9
1974	3,159,958	14.9
1975	3,144,198	14.8
1976>	3,167,788	14.8
1977	3,326,632	15.4
1978	3,333,279	15.3
1979	3,494,398	15.9
1980	3,612,258	15.9

(For birthrates from 1910 to 2000, see this site.)

What these data show is that the legalization of abortion did not usher in a new "holocaust," because women who wanted to end their pregnancies were already doing so prior to 1973. That is, the decriminalization of abortion didn’t increase abortion rates.

Conversely, as Alas, a Blog notes, there is evidence that the criminalization of abortion doesn’t decrease abortion rates:

[W]hat happened when Poland banned abortions in the 1990s? If pro-life policies reduce abortion significantly, there would have been a spike in Poland's birthrate. But Poland's birth rate remained steady. (See Reproductive Health Matters (Volume 10, Issue 19, May 2002): "The restrictive abortion law in Poland has not increased the number of births.")

Thus, it would be more accurate for the makers of the "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" website to say that every single person alive today, including persons born before 1972, successfully avoided abortion.

Bad history can lead to half-baked conclusions. The "Survivors" organization invests quite a bit of energy into ending legal abortion. Nevertheless, even if the group is successful, the number of fetuses aborted is not likely to decrease.

Addendum: A friend points out this data from the CDC. Abortion rates have actually declined in recent years, but the data show that even at the peak of abortion, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were about 350 abortions per 1,000 live births, or ~26% of potential babies aborted. In 2000, the figure was about 20% of pregnancies ending in abortion. So the claim that "1/3 of our generation ... was lost to abortion since 1973" is simply not true.

Further addendum: One reasonable refutation of my argument would be evidence that birth control use decreased dramatically after abortion was legalized in 1973. I've seen reference to a study that found that the use of contraception by women undergoing repeat abortions was similar for both legal and illegal abortions. ("Repeat Abortion", Schneider and Thompson, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 126(3): 316, October 1, 1976). Has anyone seen any other data on contraceptive use pre- and post-Roe?

In April David Bellamy, a well-respected botanist, sent a startling letter to New Scientist. Contrary to the claims of climate change scientists, he announced, most of the world’s glaciers "are not shrinking but in fact are growing ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980" [emphasis added].

Climate change skeptics immediately seized upon Bellamy’s words. But now, thanks to the investigative journalist George Monbiot, we know that Bellamy’s claim is utterly false.

Monbiot called the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the reputed source of the "555 of all the 625 glaciers" claim. "This is complete bullshit," a Service representative said of Bellamy's letter. In fact, Bellamy

had cited data that was simply false, he had failed to provide references, he had completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.

So if the 555 figure had not come from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, where did Bellamy get it? Below, Monbiot describes how he traced the ever-weirder path of the claim:

I emailed [Bellamy] to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.

[...]

Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post.

They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?

I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.

[...]

I phoned New Scientist to ask if Bellamy had requested a correction. He had not.

Monbiot closes with an important point:

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.

Article.

(Hat tip: M.)

From the NC Peace and Justice Update list:

Last night, Wednesday May 25, "Several motorists spotted a tall burning cross near Interstate 85 and Hillandale Road around 9:15 p.m. It was located near the back parking lot of St. Luke's Episcopal Church. At the same time, callers to 911 reported another cross burning near Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and South Roxboro Street.

About an hour later, Durham firefighters responded to another burning cross on Dillard Street in downtown Durham, just across from the WTVD studios. Fliers purportedly from the KKK were left at that location. The United House of Prayer for All People is located nearby. The crosses were several feet tall. Officers took away the burned crosses for further investigation". (From ABC 11 Report)

The Religious Coalition for a Nonviolent Durham is calling for vigils at all three locations tonight, Thursday May 26, and believe strongly that a large community response to the cross burnings is important. The NC Peace & Justice Coalition encourages everyone in the area to join in a loud community response to these acts of violence, hatred, racism and intimidation.

PLEASE COME TONIGHT TO ONE OF THREE CANDLELIGHT VIGILS TO STAND AGAINST KLAN VIOLENCE, CROSS BURNING, AND RACISM IN OUR COMMUNITIES: BRING YOUR CANDLES!

DOWNTOWN VIGIL: 6:00 community dinner and discussion on the cross burnings and the communty's response, 7:30 pm Vigil: Meet for both at the Durham Main Library parking lot, at 300 N Rosboro, between Holloway and Liberty streets. The dinner will take place within walking distance of the library. The vigil will likely take place near the site of the cross burning, 2 blocks away at the United House of Prayer on Dillard and Holloway. If you can help bring a dish, banners, or candles please Contact Andrew Pearson, kangaroo@email.unc.edu 360 2028.

WEST DURHAM VIGIL: 8:00 pm At or near ST. Luke's Episcopal Church, (919) 286-2273, 1737 Hillandale Rd, Durham 27705, near I-85. The Church pastor and neighborhood and community groups are involved in the planning. Contact: John Schelp, bwatu@yahoo.com, Old West Durham Neighborhood Association,

SOUTH DURHAM VIGIL: 8:00 pm on the sidewalk on South Roxboro Street, near Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., in front of the site of the cross burning. The plan at present is to have everyone gather on the sidewalk at the site of the burning on South Roxboro Street tonight at 8 pm and bring a candle "to shine some light in this moment of darkness." Churches and civic organizations are being contacted and fliers are being printed up. Contact Terry and Ann Lee Mosley, mosgen@earthlink.net, 489-8592.