Following up on my previous note to the authors of Superfreakonomics, I'd like to add this addendum: "When you find yourself employing the same tactics as the Chamber of Commerce to defend your views on climate change, you should probably re-evaluate your entire strategy."
First, the never-ending saga of the Chamber of Commerce's identity crisis on climate change continues, with the Chamber beginning to go on the offensive. On Tuesday they filed a Digital Millenium Copyright Act notice with the Internet Service Provider of the Yes Men -- the activists that assisted the Chamber in making an utter fool of itself on Monday. This essentially strong-armed the Yes Men's small ISP into shutting down the websites of hundreds of businesses and organizations, for fear of facing the legal wrath of the Chamber. That doesn't seem very business friendly to me.
Then on Friday, the Chamber issued the fundraising email below:
The site the fundraising email links to says:
Liberal left-wing extremist groups and their leftist allies continue their attacks on us -- because we are fighting for YOU!
Don't let them muzzle us. Stand up for free speech by making a contribution below.
Leaving aside the irony of an organization that just intentionally silenced its critics saying 'don't let them muzzle us', this is nothing more than a tone deaf attempt to prove their point by way of discrediting those who disagree with them. This is where the authors of Superfreakonomics come in.
On Good Morning America on Friday, George Stephanapoulos challenged Superfreakonomics author Stephen Dubner with a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The video is not embeddable (WTF, ABC?), so I have transcribed the relevant portion below:
George: But a lot of scientists who've studied this for an awful long time say you're not just simplifying, you're over-simplifying. And here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists said about this book: "The chapter on global warming is riddled with misrepresentations... The authors appear to have taken a purposely contrarian position on climate change, science and economics."
Dubner: I think what we don't represent at all, are the entrenched political and financial incentives of the global warming activist movement. So I would hate this book too if I were the global warming activist movement.
I think it is awfully telling that Dubner's response to a salient criticism of his work was to attack the organization that leveled the criticism, without responding to the substance. And the implication that the Union of Concerned Scientists -- a highly respected and thoroughly reputable organization -- is some sort of corrupt special interest is deeply offensive. In reality, the entrenched political and financial interests in the debate about what to do about global warming are overwhelmingly polluting industries that stand to gain from delaying responsible action. This is extremely well-documented, to the extent that it is difficult for me to believe that Mr. Dubner actually thinks his characterization of the Union of Concerned Scientists is accurate. Dubner's book, whether he realizes it or not, serves the very interests that are actually subverting the debate.
Rather than defending themselves on the substance of the debate, both Dubner and the Chamber have instead resorted to attacking those who are questioning their positions. The Ad Hominem attack is often the first resort of those whose argument has no substantive leg to stand on. It seems fitting then, that both the Chamber and the authors of Superfreakonomics have employed it so aggressively.