This is a follow-up to postings on ozone depletion published on the Moderated Discussion of the Objectivist Philosophy electronic mail list. Some names in the text refer to individuals who posted comments online in this discussion.
Tim Starr is absolutely right that ordinary people and generalists can't normally spend the time to become experts in specialized controversies (such as the ozone depletion issue), and thus must rely on experts. The question then arises: How can one gauge the reliability of the "experts"?
One way that the non-expert can pass judgments on the reliability of his sources is by asking himself whether they are truly experts, or in a position to have acquired expertise, about the controversy in question. For instance, Roger Maduro (co-author of The Holes in the Ozone Scare) is not an atmospheric scientist, and neither was Dixy Lee Ray (she was a zoologist). The same could be said, alas, of the late Dr. Petr Beckmann, who relied on secondary sources and a lot of deduction for his conclusions about the ozone issue. Does this inspire confidence, in the face of the contrary views of legions of scientific specialists and experts?
No -- I'm not saying "always trust the experts." I am simply advising caution when amateurs and non-specialists contend that experts are wrong in their own areas of expertise. At minimum, one must get the "other side of the story" -- the reasons which the experts cite for their views.
A second methodological "check" on expertise is to examine footnotes carefully. In this case, you'll find that Dr. Ray relied heavily on Maduro for her ozone conclusions (see the footnotes in Trashing the Planet). Rush Limbaugh's books, in turn, rely on Dr. Ray! In other words, the most public skeptics on the subject have relied, directly or indirectly, on a non- expert, LaRouchie conspiratorialist for their basic understanding of the ozone depletion issue. Doesn't this set off warning bells?
A third check (assuming enough time and interest) is to go to primary, not secondary or tertiary sources. This means, at the least, a reading of opposing viewpoints -- not just those that support one's ideological predispositions.
Maduro, for example, cited an impressive array of scientific papers and studies which he quoted to support his interpretations. They certainly impressed me when I first read his book. However, I then took the next steps: I acquired the original papers he cited, to see if he was quoting them accurately and in context; I also obtained and read a variety of other scientific papers not cited by Maduro, but bearing on the same topics, in order to put those he quoted in context; and finally, I contacted directly many of the authors and scientists involved in the specific issues under discussion (vulcanologists, UV experts, atmospheric chemists, Antarctic biologists, etc.) for further information and perspective.
It was in this research, for example, that I discovered that Maduro had been stubbornly resisting any evidence that refuted his main claim: that natural sources of chlorine dwarfed man-made CFCs in the atmosphere. The fact that natural chlorinated compounds usually "wash out" in the lower atmosphere was noted in numerous papers Maduro didn't bother to cite. Similarly, he ignored papers showing the actual presence of CFCs and their breakdown products in the stratosphere, and in ever-increasing percentages. The casual reader, of course, would have no way of knowing this without doing a bit of homework that went beyond what appeared in Maduro's book.
I realize that this third step -- doing your own independent study -- is something for which few people have the time or inclination. But in such cases, it's important for the layman to realize the limitations of his own research. He must keep an open mind, realizing that he may not be qualified to come to hard conclusions. And he must acknowledge that precisely in these matters, his philosophical predispositions can bias his perspectives.
I recall a phone conversation with Dr. Petr Beckmann in which I tried, in vain, to share with him some of the factual data I had been acquiring about the impact of CFCs on ozone. But he refused to accept any of it. He told me that he simply couldn't believe that Man's measly activities could have any sort of profound impact on the environment.
This is an example of the "armchair" approach to empirical questions which I criticized in my earlier post. Now I much admired Dr. Beckmann. He did a great deal to combat the rampant pseudo-science of our time. But even he apparently allowed his philosophical presuppositions, at times, to filter out facts which might tend to support intellectually uncomfortable conclusions.
In summary, here are a few basic rules an amateur or layman might use to sort out specialized issues: (1) consider the source's expertise, (2) check their documentation, (3) read the best representatives of all sides of a specialized controversy, and (4) acknowledge the limitations of your own research and expertise.
Let me also enthusiastically agree with Tim Starr in his recommendations of Ron Bailey's EcoScam and Mike Fumento's Science Under Siege. I know both of these fine journalists, and can attest that they have diligently followed the "rules" I outlined above in their exhaustive researches of environmental controversies. Of all the people I encountered while examining the ozone issue, Bailey impressed me most for his meticulous research and good judgment. His book is a clear-headed dissection of environmental scaremongering. Likewise Fumento. He and I independently researched pesticide safety and the "Alar" scam, and he also impressed me as a very diligent and careful journalist who actually investigated primary sources, rather than simply rehashing secondary sources. His book is a marvelous unmasking of the pseudo-science underlying modern cancer panics and health scares. I couldn't recommend EcoScam and Science Under Siege more enthusiastically.
I would add to the short list of truly wonderful environmental "skeptic" books Edith Efron's monumental The Apocalyptics (on cancer scares); Dr. Patrick Michael's Sound and Fury and Dr. Robert Balling's The Heated Debate (both outstanding refutations of the "global warming" scare); Dr. Julian Simon's brilliant antidotes to "overpopulation" scares, especially The Ultimate Resource; and Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's fine demolitions of food safety scares, including Toxic Terror and Panic in the Pantry.
And to this list let me again humbly include my own brief overview and primer on the environmentalist philosophy, movement and scare campaigns: The Green Machine. It is written from an Objectivist perspective; but unlike Dr. George Reisman's "The Toxicity of Environmentalism," The Green Machine is based on first-hand reporting, and is also heavily footnoted for those who want to do further research on their own. (I also address, in part, questions that Tim posed -- about why regulatory agencies have become captives of radical environmentalism, and why radical environmentalists are so influential.)