Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I'm very proud to be on Scienceblogs with Mark, and for my first posts, I'm going to be introducing the Denialists' Deck of Cards, a humorous way to think about rhetorical techniques that are used in public debate. Those who pay attention to consumer protection issues, especially in product safety (especially tobacco, food, drugs), will recognize these techniques. The goal of classifying them in this way is to advance public understanding of how these techniques can be used to stifle reform in consumer protection or on other issues. So, the Denialists' Deck is extremely cynical. But it is a reflection of and reaction to how poor the public policy debates in Washington have become.
First, the big disclaimer: Arguments in the Denialists' Deck can be cogent. In many circumstances, they are legitimate arguments in a debate. For instance, many of the cards deal with appeals to competition, and the ability of the market to solve problems. Of course, competition is a very strong force for reform, but appeals to this force are often false because a certain market isn't actually competitive, or because the problem is too nuanced or important to just be left to the market.
With that, allow me to introduce the 2 of Clubs, "No Problem."
Public policy debates on consumer protection and the environment almost always start with the "no problem" theme. The argument emphasizes that whatever consumer reform being debated is unnecessary. This is because there is no problem.
"No problem" is the chorus of a denalist argument. The skilled denalist, even after engaging in a debate for an extended period of time, will never concede that a problem exists. One should get used to hearing it if on the consumer protection side, and one should practice saying it if on the industry side. "A solution in search of a problem" is a typical 2 of Clubs saying.
Here's an example from the network neutrality debate: "'The proponents of network neutrality regulations have yet to show there's a problem,' says Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. 'It's truly a solution in search of a problem.'" Grant Gross, Advocates push for network neutrality policy, Network World, Apr. 5, 2004.
Another example from the genetic discrimination debate: "The health insurance group denounces the genetic discrimination bill as 'a solution in search of a problem.' According to HIAA President Dr. Donald Young, 'health insurers do not currently use genetic information in determining coverage or in setting premiums, nor do they plan to do so in the future.'" Ira Carnahan, Gene Policy, Forbes.com, Oct. 22, 2003.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 2 of Hearts, "Bad Apples"
Yesterday, I discussed how "no problem" is a chorus in denialist rhetoric. But sometimes, something bad has happened, and it's more or less impossible say "no problem" with a straight face. What can a denialist do?
 | The 2 of Hearts, Bad apples! Yes, to the extent that something bad may have happened, blame it on "bad apples." You know the type. The barrel isn't rotten. Therefore, there's no problem! Remember, "no problem" is a chorus. Get used to saying or hearing it. |  |
Watch for this important technique--a spokesperson from a trade group will make some guarantee that an industry won't engage in some practice. This promise is illusory and cannot be enforced. Accordingly, it allows the industry to promise never to do what the bad apples are doing, while really not promising anything.
An example--a year ago, the DC attorney general brought suit against a company for not processing rebates. The lawsuit was based upon 2,000 complaints! Still, it was just bad apples! "'We respectfully disagree with the Attorney General's assertion...,' Greg S. Cole, senior vice president and corporate treasurer (of InPhonic), said in a written statement. 'Any time you're dealing with millions of customers, as we are, there are going to be occasional concerns.'" Annys Shin, D.C. Sues InPhonic Over Rebate Restrictions, Washington Post, Jun. 9, 2006.
A variation on the "bad apples" argument is to say that a regulation should not be promulgated because bad apples won't comply: "'The irony is that do-not-call lists are not going to stop the bad apples in the industry,' [Lou] Mastria [of the Direct Marketing Association] said. 'They are not going to use the lists. The states would be better off targeting illegitimate telemarketing firms for enforcement.'" Direct Marketers Grappling with Proliferation of State No-Call Laws, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Sept. 23, 2002.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 2 of Spades, "Mere Inconvenience"
Are you practicing the "no problem" hand? You know how it goes--"there's no problem" (damn persnickety do gooders)! And even if people sometimes think that there is a problem, the problem that isn't a problem is caused by bad apples. But it really isn't even a problem.
 | It's just a mere inconvenience! Therefore, there's no problem! Remember this argument from the do-not-call debate on telemarketing? |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 3 of Hearts, "No Harm"
Okay, my industry lobbyists in training. You've said "no problem" over and over. You've dismissed problems as attributable to bad apples, or diminished the problem as a "mere inconvenience." But people still seem to think that the problem that doesn't exist still exists. You're getting more and more press calls on the non-existent problem. What next?
 | Simple. No harm. The problem that doesn't exist doesn't cause harm, so there's no problem. |  |
Denalists' definition of harm typically is elusive. They won't acknowledge harm until blood is spilled, but when that happens, it can always be blamed on a "bad apple."
Here's an example concerning digital video recorders and their ability to monitor every second of viewing behavior (combined with the 2 of Clubs!): "...the Information Technology Association of America...opposes television privacy proposals. 'We're not quite sure there really is a harm that needs to be addressed,' said Mark Uncapher...of the ITAA. Uncapher said most digital video recorder-makers have strict internal privacy policies, and called the scenarios...'phantom' privacy problems." Lisa Friedman, But Who's Watching Tivo? Congress Concerned About Makers Selling Private Information, The Daily News of Los Angeles, Dec. 1, 2003.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 3 of Spades, "Dolittle and DeLay"
 | At this point, the denalist engages in delay. The problem that doesn't exist, and the harms that do not occur will continue not occur in the future, if we just wait. |
A great "wait and see" tactic is to "shift the goal posts." The denialist does by stating, "we don't know that there is a problem until X is demonstrated." The denialist will set unrealistic expectations for X, and if X is shown, it can easily be changed to Y. In the climate change debate, denialists claimed that we did not have enough historical information to make determinations about global temperatures. In 1998, Michael Mann's research allowed scientists to view 1,000 years of temperature data. That wasn't enough for the denialists. New advances enable a far deeper knowledge of global temperature, but with each new advance, denialists say it does not go far enough.
Another is to delay by calling for a study of the non-existent problem. I call this the Mustapha Mond option. In the California RFID debate, industry lobbyists argued against setting security and privacy standards, and instead suggested that a "study committee" be formed. This committee would produce a non-binding report with recommendations, some time in the future. The buys the industry time, and then allows a completely new debate over whether the study was proper.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Second Hand, Consumer Education
Okay, you've tried denying that the problem exists, you've tried to trivialize the problem, and you've even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn't a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What's next?
 | Consumer Education Solves the Problem that Doesn't Exist. Therefore, there's no problem |  |
While continuing to deny that there is a problem, argue that if it exists, it benefits the economy, and if consumers really care, they will become educated and avoid it. Therefore, no problem.
Denialists can endorse consumer education because they know individuals are busy and that most won't pay attention to it. Tobacco is the obvious low-hanging fruit here, but remember, the same approach was taken with food safety until the creation of government agencies vested with inspection and safety duties, and expansion of legal liabilities. Prior to these developments, the argument was that consumers could educate themselves, and only choose brands that they trusted in order to avoid impurities and hazards.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 4 of Diamonds, "Consumer Freedom"
 | Given that there is consumer education, any attempt to limit the practices in questions threaten consumer freedom. Denialists will assume that people are perfectly rational and in possession of all relevant information. Thus, individuals choose the problem being addressed, and to limit it frustrates consumer freedom, because they like the problem or harm at issue. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Consumers Want It, Or They Don't Know What They Want
The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute. All it says is: "Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear." - Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle
 | You've argued that consumer education can set individuals free. Now argue that because something exists, people must want it. After all, the market is perfect, and even if it produces a seemly odious product, it's not really a problem. On the other hand, if consumers start making choices that the denialist doesn't like, the denialist will say that individuals don't really know what they want. |  |
So, whether you go with consumers want it or consumers do not know what they want, you conclude with the "no problem" chorus.
 |
Here's a great example of the second argument: Qwest once argued that the government should not restrict the sale of phone records because it was paternalistic, and because individuals don't know that they really want their records sold so that they can receive more advertising: "the government cannot depress the communication of lawful speech to potentially interested persons in order to protect uneducated, inattentive adults."
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 5 of Spades, "Delay Tactics"
 | Delay always benefits the denalist. At this point, any number of delay tactics can be employed to wait and see whether consumer education will solve the problem that doesn't exist.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Clubs, "Our Rights"
Allow me to jump ahead in the Denialists' Deck of Cards, in light of Verizon's claim that giving customer records to the National Security Agency is protected by the First Amendment:
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy "is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to communicate."
This is a great example of "Our Rights!"
 | The denalist can almost always argue that any restriction on business activity is unconstitutional. After all, businesses were afforded many civil rights before women achieved suffrage. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Third Hand, Competition is Magic
 | A denialist does not soft pedal competition. It is a religious term. It is frequently employed, because any market can be described as competitive, regardless of the facts or the myriad factors that practically limit choice.
Competition solves all problems. Period. If competition doesn't solve the problem at issue, then it isn't a problem, or people really like the problem (4 of Spades, 5 of Hearts). Because competition is magic, there are no problems to solve. And those that may exist will be solved, eventually. The denialist will say: "give competition a chance" or "sometimes a competitive market takes time to reform" (3 of Spades, 5 of Spades). |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 6s, "Stifles Innovation" and "Technology Can't Be Regulated"
Competition is magic. But this argument must be amplified! How? Easy, appeal to "innovation."
 | The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're banning technology."
Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still widely-used argument--that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever intervention the denialist opposes. |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Too Much Regulation, or No Regulation
Many cards in the Denialists' Deck allow one to make a bogus argument no matter the situation.
 | So, with the Six of Spades and the Seven of Clubs, you use one card if your industry is highly regulated, and the other if it isn't. |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 7 of Hearts, "Jobs!"
 | The trick to using the "Jobs" card is to totally over inflate the size of your industry and the number of employees it has. It's quite a compelling argument, and sometimes it's true. But I've seen many cases where a regulation creates new jobs and economic development. |
A great recent example of the 7 of Hearts was occurred in the debate surrounding adoption of the federal Do-Not-Call Telemarketing Registry. The telemarketing industry claimed that they employed 6 million Americans, and had $668 billion in sales. But the economic census showed that telemarketing only accounted for 500,000 jobs and $8 billion in sales. A closer look at the numbers showed that the telemarketing industry's figures were grossly inflated--they included both in-bound telemarketing (like when you call Delta to buy a $2k ticket), and telemarketing sales among huge businesses (like when Delta calls Boeing to order a plane) in the $668 billion figure. Neither of these types of sales are affected by Do-Not-Call legislation.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Responsibility's Good, Except for Us
 | This pair should sound familiar. Industry lobbyists love the idea of individual responsibility. And so they will argue that individuals should be responsible for addressing a problem (paired with the 4 of Clubs or the 6 of Clubs). But in other contexts, accountability goes out the window. They need total immunity from lawsuits. |  |
Many technology companies have sought and obtained immunity for failure of anti-terrorism technologies. "'The unintended consequence of even a single failure in a well-intended system or device we might provide could result in significant legal exposure that could financially ruin a company,' Northrop Grumman president Ronald D. Sugar said in congressional testimony..." D. Ian Hopper, Tech Cos. Push Terror Legislation, Associated Press, Jul. 10, 2002. This argument could apply to any company making any product.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Fourth Hand, Spread Confusion!
Now, the debate starts to get fun. This group of Denialists' cards are all about spreading confusion. The more that one muddies the waters, the harder it is for anyone to do anything.
And so, the place to start is with the Red Herring.
 | The "red herring" argument is a frequently-employed and efficacious tool to confuse everyone. A red herring is a specious argument--one that sounds cogent, but isn't really responsive to the issue at hand. Just make something up that sounds good.
My favorite example of this is in the financial privacy sector. A few years ago, when California was trying to establish opt-in (affirmative consent) requirements before a bank could share personal information, banking industry officials claimed that it would cause the ATM network to break. Why? Because the complex process of dispensing cash would be interrupted by having to ask the consumer for her consent! This was a bogus argument because the legislation in question clearly allowed information to be shared in any circumstance where a consumer requested a specific service. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: State and Federal Issues
Okay industry lobbyists in training, you've started just making up arguments to confuse everyone. That's a method of confusing issues. Now you should start confusing individuals' roles in the policy process. It's time to start playing government officials off each other.
 | If you don't like what the federal government is doing, say that it is a state issue.
Of course, if the states are active on the issue, you should argue that it is a federal issue, and that state action will create a "patchwork" of conflicting requirements. The "patchwork" argument is also an effective tool to broaden opposition to a measure. |  |
In the 1970s, a variety of industries attacked the Federal Trade Commission because it took an aggressive stance on a number of consumer protection issues. The specter of deregulation was raised, supported by the idea that the federal agency was usurping state authority.
But, in the 1990s, after federal regulatory agencies took weaker stances on consumer protection issues than state authorities, the industry switched its argument: now, states were the problem, and there were making appeals to the value of federal "uniformity" and preemption of state law. I'm willing to bet that when the democrats take over, industry will flip flop again, and want regulation at the state level.
The broader you can make a measure, the more industries will oppose it. For instance, industry groups said they opposed Senator Hollings' privacy bill (S. 2201) because it would have only regulated online businesses: "Technology companies have been working diligently for years to protect consumer data collected online," said Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance. "Singling these companies out for additional regulation and liability will not promote these efforts, and may hinder the growth of electronic commerce." You see, by trying to pull in offline businesses, many others would oppose the legislation. The tactic broadens the coalition of businesses against the measure.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 8 of Spades, "Duh!"
"Duh!" is one of my favorite lobbyist tactics. I've seen it used many times.
 | With "Duh!," the denalist deliberately misunderstands, misinterprets, or plays dumb when presented with others' questions or proposals. One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until they're asked a question they don't want to answer! |
In the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandal, this exchange between Rep. Eshoo and Fred Adler, a company investigator, is an excellent "duh" moment:
ESHOO: ...If you say no, then I'll accept your answer.
ADLER: OK.
ESHOO: You said no?
ADLER: No in regard to what?
ESHOO: Well, you know what, you have to be smart to play dumb. So I think I've been pretty direct about my questions. I asked you if rusing has been used. And you asked me to define it. I give it to you, and then..." House Hearing on the Hewlett-Packard Pretexting Scandal, CQ Transcriptions, Sept. 28, 2006.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Nit Pick, and Muddy the Waters
Two more tactics for those of you who want to be an industry lobbyist, or for those who want to recognize their two-bit tactics.
 | With nit picking, the denialist finds one problem with a fact asserted or the proposal for reform, and then harps on the problem incessantly.
A variation on the 8 of Clubs (red herring) is "muddying the waters." This is where the denialist brings forth any information, whether specious or not, to confuse the issues. |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 9 of Diamonds, "Poison the Well"
 | You should all be familiar with this tactic--poisoning the well. You know the trick: provide derogatory information about your opponent to undermine her arguments. |
And here's a great example: In defending Channel One, Jack Abramoff's lobbyist Dennis Stephens proposed that Peter Ferrara pen an oped that "hammered the 'anti-technology' crowd:" "When I talked with Peter this morning, he was planning to draft a press release hammering the "anti technology" crowd per Jeff B's request and will also be distributing Grovers nice piece on Channel One. A nice balance, a positive piece on the good guys and a hit piece on the bad guys. Sound good?"
Find this and other illuminating documents on Jack Abramoff here: Senate Finance Committee Minority Report on Jack Abramoff (PDF) (2005).
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 9 of Spades, "Exploit Others' Ignorance"
 | The 9 of Spades is different than previous confusion tactics. Remember that most legislative staffers handle many different issues, and often are not expert in any one of them. This tactic leverages incomplete information to promote confusion.
Here, the denialist simply does not offer information, or allows others to hold misconceptions if it benefits the denialist. In technology and consumer protection, this usually occurs where an industry can fix a problem, but does not want to, and so its advocates don't mention their capabilities or practices. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Joker, "Temper Tantrum"
 | At this point, the consumer advocate has proceeded far along the path of moving some type of proposal. It's time to sacrifice a high-value card--the joker. The denialist throws a temper tantrum. This may sound distasteful, but it actually works.
There is a certain tone that an industry lobbyist can generate when truly pressed. It sounds porcine, and if you hear it, you'll know that the Joker has been played. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Fifth Hand, The False Expert and Growing Petulance
 | The denialist is in serious trouble at this point. Whatever problem that didn't exist has continued to capture regulatory attention. It is time to devote serious resources to fighting the proposal being debated.
The denalist should have a fake consumer group or academic group at this point. It will pay off with fake research and fake experts that provide a patina of legitimacy to the denialist's points. |
One of my favorite examples of the bogus research group was presented by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, on Georgetown University's "Credit Research Center:" "I make only a simple empirical observation: As far as I can tell, the Credit Research Center, funded by the credit industry, has never produced a single piece of work at odds with a credit industry position on any subject, while it has produced multiple papers that support the industry's call for more pro-creditor, anti-debtor legislation--always in the name of independent, academic research."
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 10 of Hearts, "You Don't Understand Us"
 | An industry lobbyist can buy time by becoming petulant. After throwing a temper tantrum, the next step is to play the 10 of Hearts. Play this card by saying that your industry is misunderstood. It is a sophisticated, nuanced entity that needs more understanding before any proposals advance. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 10 of Diamonds, "Bureaucrats!"
 | Okay, everyone, practice your sneer, because it's time for the 10 of Diamonds: Bureaucrats! Everyone hates "bureaucrats," whether they ever met one or not. So, the industry denialist often plays the bureaucrat card in order to denigrate proposals that would vest decisionmaking with those fat cats in Washington (Cato has over 3,000 hits for "bureaucrats"). |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 10 of Spades, "Self-Regulation"
 | At this point, the denialist must propose "self regulation" to deal with the problem that doesn't exist. Self-regulation is a set of rules that an industry generates to govern itself. The cool thing about self regulation is that it cannot be enforced, and once the non-existent problem blows over, the denialist can simply scrap the rules!
For instance, in the runup to passage of bank privacy legislation in the late 1990s, data brokers created an organization called the "Individual Reference Services Group" that proposed rules for selling personal information. After the legislation passed, IRSG promptly disappeared. And it was those weak, unenforceable IRSG rules that made it possible for identity thieves to subscribe to data services and buy more personal information (even the FTC spotted that risk). |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Jack of Clubs, "You're A Ninny"
 | It's time to go on the offensive. Call your opponent a ninny! |
One of the best examples of this comes from--you guessed it--our friend Jack Abramoff. One of Jack Abramoff's teammembers, Dennis Stephens, once proposed to attack Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert because Ruskin's group was criticizing "Channel One:"
From: Dennis Stephens
To: Chad Cowan
Cc: Abramoff, Jack
"Have you guys ever looked into Gary Ruskin, a Nader protege who runs Commercial Alert (which is attacking Channel One, our client)...The guy is a weasel...Someone should consider doing an in depth piece on Ruskin and his Nader front groups. We should have lunch and review the options."
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Jack of Hearts, "We've Always Done This"
 | The fifth hand brings increasing petulance. One common tactic at this point is to admit to the behavior in question, and like a teenager, say "we'll we've always done this," and therefore we should be able to continue to do so. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Two Jacks, "Regulation Won't Work" and "We Won't Comply"
 | Two related arguments--the denialist will say that the regulation won't work. And they won't help in finding a way to come to a reasonable solution.
Finally, continuing in the teenager theme, the denialist will argue that they won't comply, even if directed to by law. Rule of law be damned! |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Sixth Hand, The Gloves Come Off
If the denialist is on the brink of losing, a number of high stakes arguments can be made. The bear/bull market argument is one of my favorites. Just look at tax policy--no matter what the economy is doing, tax cuts are the solution. And in privacy, if the economy's weak, there shouldn't be interventions to protect consumers; if the economy's strong, interventions could make the market weak!
 | If there's a bear market, obviously there shouldn't be interventions in the market, right?
If there's a bull market, obviously there shouldn't be interventions in the market, right? |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Queen of Diamonds, "We Need Regulatory Relief"
 | Sometimes the success of a consumer intervention will create "blowback," and allow the industry to not only win but also demand other concessions. |
An excellent recent example of regulatory blowback came with the creation of the federal Do-Not-Call Registry. In creating the registry, the Federal Communications Commission also tried to tighten regulations on "junk faxes," unsolicited commercial fax messages. The FCC ruled that "junk fax" senders had to document that they had consent from recipients of their messages. The junk faxers organized into a huge coalition (the deceptively-named "Fax Ban Coalition"), lobbied Congress, reversed the FCC's rule and actually make it easier to send junk faxes by having deceptively-named "Junk Fax Protection Act" passed.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Queen of Spades, "Big Government"
 | The denialist can always raise the specter of "big government." As in, the proposal at issue will create bigger government, complete with appeals to fears of world government and stuff like satan. This is a high-risk card because big business loves big government. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The King of Clubs, "I'll Sail Away"
 | Believe it or not, I've heard industry lobbyists say that they'd stop doing business in California/America if certain consumer protection regulations passed. It's totally implausible, but still a high-value card. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Red Joker, "Give Money to the Leadership"
 | Giving money to the leadership of the Senate and House is a great strategy, because no proposals will be considered at all if the leadership blocks them. The leadership is rarefied; one only taps them in desperate situations |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: Two Kings, the Proposal "Can't Be Enforced," or "Lawsuits (It Can Be Enforced)"
 | "Can't be enforced" is a different argument than "it won't work" (the Jack of Diamonds). Here, the denialist is usually threatening to operate an offending practice overseas, or oddly enough, arguing that because a proposal doesn't give someone a right to sue, it isn't worth passing.
Of course, if the proposal gives one a right to sue, the denialist uses the opposite argument: the proposal is enforceable, and the denialist will complain of frivolous lawsuits. |  |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The King of Spades, "Danger!"
 | This is a very powerful argument in the post-9/11 environment. And if you're a denialist worth your salt, you can figure out a way to claim that your industry is a potential target for terrorism.
Danger! can be used to get things done quickly, as Verisign realized when it wanted to move a "root server" without following normal process. In Department of Commerce officials' emails, Verisign made pleas to declare an emergency to get their way: The company wants "to push us to declare some kind of national security threat and blow past the process," one e-mail said. The subject line of another message described the company's "request for immediate authority to effect address change." |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Clubs, "Our Rights"
 | The denialist can almost always argue that a proposal is unconstitutional. After all, businesses were afforded many civil rights before women achieved suffrage. |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Hearts, "Unamerican!"
 | Almost any proposal can be styled as "Un-American." Typically this is bundled with wild, inaccurate claims about European regulations (i.e., you can't do business in Europe at all). You'll wonder if the denialist has even been to Europe! |
Update: Mark H provides this article as an example of "Unamerican" in today's Wall Street Journal. It contains, among others, this great example:
The German took the floor first. His was a bold thesis: The economic transformation required to address global warming will bring huge energy efficiencies--and hence huge economic benefits--even if there is no global warming problem. But vested interests in the energy sector stand in the way of that transformation. "We cannot," therefore, "wait for the industries that in many cases will be the losers . . . to make the necessary changes," he told the audience of American and European industrialists.To this American ear, this smacks of the tales about the man who invented a car that runs on water, but was bought out by Detroit to protect their market. But from a European perspective, it makes more sense.
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Diamonds, "Communism!"
 | Suricou Raven guessed it--after calling your opponent "Unamerican," you call them "Communist." Here, use loaded phrases, such as "the proposal smacks of the paternalistic 'command and control' of Communism." |
Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Spades, "We'll Lose Money!"
 | And finally, we come to the final card. Perhaps industry's strongest card--"we'll lose money"--is not really denialism, but it is what motivates so much of the bad rhetoric in public policy debates.
And of course, the truth is more nuanced. Proposals for reform create new opportunities, and many businesses have thrived under the very proposals they said would wreak havoc. |
"Wall Street...has greeted practically every important market regulation introduced in this century with howls of dismay and predictions of disaster. In 1934, the head of the New York Stock Exchange told Congress that if the Securities Exchange Act, which became the foundation of market regulation in the U.S., was made law there was a chance that stock trading in the U.S. would be "entirely destroyed." Needless to say, it wasn't. In 1975, when the S.E.C. abolished fixed commissions, the Street claimed that its business would be demolished. Instead, after transaction costs fell, trading volume shot up. And in 2000, when the S.E.C. required companies to disclose material information to all investors, rather than just to insiders, we were told that this would strangle the flow of information to the market and make stock prices swing wildly. But, as numerous academic studies have found, it has actually done the opposite..." James Surowiecki, Over There, New Yorker Magazine, Feb. 2, 2007.
Denialist Deck Applied: PRISM
It's that time again. Bora's got the scoop on this new organization PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine). They purport to be the saviors of scientific publishing, protecting us from the evil of open access. But how much do you want to bet they're the same old industry lobbying group, disguising themselves as actors in the public interest? Well, there's an easy way to tell. Let's apply the deck of cards!
There's not a lot to work with yet, but I think we've got some classics to go after right away. After all, we have an industry group - the publishers - who are trying to avoid being regulated so that they're forced to open up publicly-funded research to the public (after a delay). Let's start with their frontmatter:
* undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it;
Undermining peer-review! Commercial journals can't compete with open access! That sounds like:
* opening the door to scientific censorship in the form of selective additions to or omissions from the scientific record;
Now this is just utter BS. I have no idea where they manage to get this idea that forcing open-access will lead to censorship, but I can't help thinking this sounds like:
* subjecting the scientific record to the uncertainty that comes with changing federal budget priorities and bureaucratic meddling with definitive versions; and
Well this one is easy:
Going through the Prism Principles I found more fodder for the cards. We have
* Scientific knowledge should incorporate new research as part of the scholarly record based on merit alone-not tradition, ideology, or political expediency. Society is best served when the pursuit of scientific knowledge takes place in an environment of intellectual freedom-where objectivity and independence are guaranteed, and where published expression is protected from governmental or other controls, and is free of censorship or bias.
* Scientific knowledge must be documented and preserved in perpetuity, free of alteration, political or ideological pressures, or the threat of uncertain funding.
* Research funding is best spent on new and important research studies, and should leverage rather than duplicate the valuable publishing infrastructure built over decades by private sector publishers working in partnership with the research community.
I know that one:
* Society is best served by sustainable business models and reasonable copyright protections that provide positive incentives for publishers to continue innovating in their distribution of scientific knowledge, investment in peer review, and exploration of preservation technologies.* The free market of scholarly publishing is dynamic and competitive, responsive to the needs of scholars and scientists, and balances the interests of all stakeholders in making research widely available. It encourages publishing innovation and diversity, and should remain free from government mandates that favor particular business models.
Nope, not impressed with PRISM. Seems like the classic industry lobbying tactics applied to protect publishers' profits against a business model they can't compete with. No real substance here, just a plea for government protection of their business model.
A cartoon summary of the Denialist Deck of Cards
PZ has found this wonderful cartoon that I think sums up the problem nicely.
Danae should go to work for AEI or Cato!
Wiley Miller on think tanks
I'm loving the Non Sequiturs about Danae setting up her think tank.
I think Wiley must be reading the blog. Stop lurking and show yourself!
Toxins!
I'd love to see what the angry toxicologist thinks of this scary article from CNN Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies.
Michelle Hammond and Jeremiah Holland were intrigued when a friend at the Oakland Tribune asked them and their two young children to take part in a cutting-edge study to measure the industrial chemicals in their bodies."In the beginning, I wasn't worried at all; I was fascinated," Hammond, 37, recalled.
But that fascination soon changed to fear, as tests revealed that their children -- Rowan, then 18 months, and Mikaela, then 5 -- had chemical exposure levels up to seven times those of their parents.
"[Rowan's] been on this planet for 18 months, and he's loaded with a chemical I've never heard of," Holland, 37, said. "He had two to three times the level of flame retardants in his body that's been known to cause thyroid dysfunction in lab rats."
Oh noes! The toxins!
I kid, but in the midst of an article which is a bit over-the-top in scaremongering are some important issues that probably should result in increased regulation of chemicals going into everyday products. For one, Elizabeth Whelan of the ACSH, true to form, spouts the standard industry denial - no problem:
Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, a public health advocacy group, disagrees."My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false," she said. Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks.
Public health advocacy group? The ACSH? Please. Try instead, an industry can do no wrong advocacy group. While I agree that trace measurements of most of these chemicals is likely not a health problem, that doesn't mean there is "no problem".
The main problem here are the standards by which the EPA regulates chemicals which are routinely going into household products:
The Environmental Protection Agency does not require chemical manufacturers to conduct human toxicity studies before approving their chemicals for use in the market. A manufacturer simply has to submit paperwork on a chemical, all the data that exists on that chemical to date, and wait 90 days for approval.Jennifer Wood, an EPA spokeswoman, insists the agency has the tools to ensure safe oversight.
"If during the new-chemical review process, EPA determines that it may have concerns regarding risk or exposure, the EPA has the authority to require additional testing," she said. EPA records show that of the 1,500 new chemicals submitted each year, the agency asks for additional testing roughly 10 percent of the time. The EPA has set up a voluntary testing program with the major chemical manufacturers to retroactively test some of the 3,000 most widely used chemicals.
Now, this makes sense in the context of our understanding of toxicity before more sensitive methods of testing for these chemicals in the body emerged. When these rules were formulated it simply was not understood that low-level environmental exposure to many chemicals would lead to small amounts being absorbed, ingested, inhaled, etc., by the body. While it's not clear that any level of these chemicals should be a concern for health, it simply isn't acceptable now that we know they eventually get ingested to treat them as benign and harmless as a default. At the very least it needs to be made clear to consumers exactly what they're buying, but even that isn't really enough, as the woman in the article complains:
"I'm angry at my government for failing to regulate chemicals that are in mass production and in consumer products." Hammond says. "I don't think it should have to be up to me to worry about what's in my couch."
This is a very reasonable complaint. It is simply not possible for an average or even extremely above-average consumer to understand the impact of all these chemicals in ordinary household products even if they were informed of the content. Instead there simply must be more significant advanced safety testing, labeling, and retrospective testing, with the costs incumbent on the industry, for chemicals that ultimately end up in our bloodstreams. It is fundamentally unfair to expect consumers to tolerate chemical contaminants in their bodies, without being informed, given consent, or being minimally protected by toxicity and safety testing in animals.
Sexism or just idiocy from Cato?
I'm flattered that Pandagon liked our post on a terrible ad campaign for diamonds.
But if Amanda thought that was bad, she should see some of the latest "reason" coming from our libertarian friends at Cato. David Boaz writes a post for Cato entitled "All Those Who'd Like to Live in Rwanda, Vietnam, or Cuba, Raise Your Hands" in response to a Parade article complaining about the lack of female representatives in Congress:
Parade magazine frets:In the current U.S. Congress, women account for only 16.3% of the members: 16 of 100 in the Senate and 71 of 435 in the House of Representatives. Eighty-four nations have a greater percentage of female legislators than the U.S., including our neighbors Mexico and Canada, as well as Rwanda, Vietnam and Cuba.It's not exactly clear that legislatures with more women produce better government. So why, then, as Parade notes, does the United States demand that emerging democracies have gender quotas that we would never accept in our own politics?
After the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the United States made sure that when those two countries held elections, 25% of the seats in their legislatures would be reserved for women.
So what do we think people? Stupid? Sexist? Both?
No one in their right mind would read the quoted paragraph from Parade and make the idiotic leap that they were suggesting those governments are better. In fact, it's a sign of how pathetic it is that our government lacks women that these governments we consider repressive still manage to surpass us in female representation. It's a little bit like being behind Alabama in adult literacy. Gender quotas, further, are necessary to prevent countries that have deep problems with female equality from oppressing 50% of their population.
Why is Boaz playing stupid with us? He knows full well the purpose and reasoning in both cases. Is there no better argument sexists can use for the promotion of the status quo than the "duh" card?
It is pathetic we don't have more women in congress because after all these years, almost 90 now since women's suffrage, we still don't have anything approaching equal representation in government. We have never elected a female president. Why does it matter? Because as long as moralizing cranks are going to occupy office and make decisions impinging on women's health, and not men's we've got a problem. When Viagra gets covered by government health programs but contraception is cut, we've got a huge problem. When the best solution government can come up with for improving families is covenant marriage, and abstinence education in the face of higher teen pregancy rates, we've got a ridiculous problem. Other than just fundamental fairness, recognition of the equality of females, and human decency there are specific instances in which women are having decisions made for them that affect their health and their bodies by a majority male government, and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Surely these are arguments for advocating women in government that even an libertarian could understand. I hope we don't have to dumb it down even more.
Here Comes the Downturn Denialism
We have not played with the Denialists' Deck of Cards for some time! Let's pick them up again, because the economic downturn gives all sorts of businesses the opportunity to play the "Bear Market" card.
Stephen Power brings it in today's Wall Street Journal:
"We know something needs to be done [to cut emissions], but we've got to get the economy on its feet before we do something economically irrational," said Mike Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co. of Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Morris and other executives fear lawmakers will use revenue from pollution permits to pay down the federal deficit."The likelihood that they would try to take these revenues for other purposes, particularly in an economic downturn, is great," says James Rogers, chief executive of North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corp.
Do not feel so bad for these guys, because when the markets are up, they play "Bull Market." If the market is doing well, you should not mess with success.
