The Spread of Ignorance (bbc.com)

New submitter Eric Eikrem writes: BBC Future has just published an interesting article on Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who studies how people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge. The spread of ignorance follows certain patterns, whether it is about tobacco or climate change. 'Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups -- like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.'

Comments

Re:I see this with nuclear power

[blindseer]

I go get an oil change and one of the "mechanics" comes out to tell me I need new wiper blades. He then follows up with a claim that he can swap them for new ones for the low low price of $30. I did not notice a problem but he claims to be an expert. So I take that into advisement. I find out later that I can buy new wiper blades from an auto parts store for $10 and replace them myself in 15 minutes. It only took that long because I didn't read the instructions first. I saw no improvement in my ability to view the road. Now, wiper blades do wear out and so I don't feel bad about getting new ones every so often. If I replaced my windshield wipers every time that an "expert" told me I must, and paid their price to do so, then I'd be out a lot of money for the benefit of the "experts".

I see a report from the IPCC, a part of the UN, saying that the experts see a problem with the climate. I saw no problems but they are the experts so I tend to believe them. I then find out that the UN plans to address this problem by taking money from the USA and spreading it over the poor nations of the world. I then see that there is another solution, nuclear power.

I see an entity with an interest of taking my money. They show a problem to me and propose a solution. Assuming it is in fact a problem then I would expect a truly disinterested party to propose many solutions, including those by which this party would not benefit. The UN is in my eyes no different than that oil change "mechanic". That "expert opinion" serves their purposes, growing the power of the UN and enriching nations at the expense of a few wealthier nations.

Of course these papers on climate change do not mention nuclear power, because if they did then more people might consider it even if the paper said nuclear power would be worse than climate change. If they say nuclear power is worse than climate change then we'd have people trying to improve nuclear power, show that in fact nuclear power is better than climate change, or people conclude that perhaps climate change would not be that bad after all. They cannot even acknowledge nuclear power exists, they must only show that climate change is bad and that they have a solution. If they cannot show a solution then people will merely accept defeat.

So we have the UN telling us we have a big problem with carbon output, they propose a solution that benefits them. If we agree to their solutions then we'd be out a lot of money, empowering the UN and enriching many of it's members (which are largely made up of tyrannical assholes), and perhaps see no benefit. I will agree that burning oil and coal is a problem, just not the big problem they claim. I see something that reduces our carbon output, reduces our dependence on one set of tyrannical assholes, does not require giving money to another set of tyrannical assholes, but also destroys the tyranny I see in my own nation.

I do the math and I see that perhaps the people that claim we have a problem are perhaps not telling me everything, are not being completely truthful about the problem, and are doing so because ignorance makes them more wealthy and/or powerful. I do the math on nuclear power and it looks to be like a solution that is too good to be true. But then if it was too good to be true then we'd have no nuclear power plants at all. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, safe, and exists now. It seems to me that the only thing holding it back is ignorance and misinformation spread by the people that would gain from a global warming scare.