From anti-vaxxers to climate deniers to a general simmering scepticism of science, denialism in all its forms is everywhere. Crikey is presenting a multi-part series on how the seeds of doubt are planted and how they blossom through media and politics. Read the second, third and fourth parts.
But first, let’s break down some of the main denialist theories and examine the people who believe them.
Wind farm opposition
What they believe: Opposition to wind farms is often couched in NIMBY-ish concerns about farmers, noise pollution and, most prominently, the health effects of the turbines. “Wind turbine syndrome” was first coined in 2009 by New York paediatrician Nina Pierpont, and has gained considerable traction among anti-wind groups.
What the science says: Pierpont’s initial study was methodologically questionable, leaning heavily on anecdotal evidence. Simon Chapman, professor of public health at the University of Sydney calls “wind turbine syndrome” a “communicated disease” which spreads by being talked about, even though there is no evidence indicating it is a legitimate condition.
Who believes it: Many conservative politicians irrationally hate wind farms. Joe Hockey called them “utterly offensive” and “a blight on the landscape”. Nick Xenophon has long peddled the health argument, while absentee Energy Minister Angus Taylor has regularly spoken at rallies held by Stop These Things, an anti-wind group.
Climate change denial
What they believe: Climate change denial comes in many shapes and sizes. Some denialists argue weather variation is natural, particularly in Australia with its droughts and heatwaves. Linked to this is the belief that the climate is actually cooling. Others, particularly in the Liberal Party, highlight the economic importance of fossil fuels, and the high costs of renewable energy.
What the science says: Numerous peer-reviewed studies indicate that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is human-induced. Meanwhile, denialists are almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. The CSIRO warns droughts, bushfires and heatwaves will likely continue, and according to a recent IPCC report, we have just 12 years to avoid a catastrophic 1.5 degree rise in temperature.
Who believes it: While a majority of Australians are now worried about climate change (a number that keeps increasing), denialists have a huge amount of influence, both in the media and in politics. Influential sceptics include former prime minister Tony Abbott, conservative media figures such as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, and mining magnate Gina Rinehart.
Vaping
What they believe: The science around vaping is unsettled. Advocates cite studies showing vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, and point to pronouncements by public health bodies in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, where vaping has been endorsed as a tool to quit smoking. But in Australia, vaping regulations are something of a minefield — in some states sale of devices is illegal, while in others the nicotine in the vape is banned.
What the science says: It depends on who does the science. Many of the claims commonly touted by vaping activists — that vaping is vastly less harmful than smoking, and that it has led over 6 million smokers to quit in the EU — have their roots in research by scientists with deep historic ties to the e-cigarette industry, which is increasingly controlled by big tobacco. Meanwhile, studies which are independent of vested interests have outlined far more health risks.
Who believes it: While there is a widespread push to legalise vaping, many of the big players have ties to the tobacco lobby. In Australia, a charity created by doctors to lobby for legalisation of vaping was discovered to have been initially bankrolled by e-cigarette manufacturers. A group of UK MPs who called for a softening of e-cigarette regulations were also found to have been repeatedly schmoozed by lobbyists.
Anti-vaccination
What they believe: Anti-vaccination activists believe that the risks of vaccines — particularly childhood vaccines — outweigh any benefits of herd immunity. This includes a belief by some anti-vaccination advocates that there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism.
What the science says: The accepted science is that immunisation for a variety of diseases vastly reduces the risk of children and adults getting serious or deadly diseases.
Who believes it: The World Health Organisation has declared the anti-vaccination movement one of the top health threats of 2019. Though Australian experts believe we are a particularly pro-vaccination country, there are still pockets of activists around the country who maintain that vaccinations are not safe.
A public and media backlash often follows any statements from high-profile anti-vaxxers in Australia. Even Pete Evans, known for non-mainstream views on health topics including his paleo diet and the dangers of sunscreen and fluoride, has generally stayed away from vaccination. He faced a strong backlash when he hosted American holistic doctor Kelly Brogan on his podcast last year, who has anti-vaccination views.
The Australian Vaccination-Risks Association, headed by Meryl Dorey, is the most prominent group advocating the anti-vaccination line in Australia. Overseas, there are quite a few celebrity anti-vaxxers.
Flat Earth
What they believe: One of the more fringe denialist theories is that Earth is flat, and that evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy by NASA and government agencies. The leading flat Earth theory holds that Earth is a disc, with the Arctic Circle in the middle and Antarctica as the outer rim. They’ve also “discovered” that Australia doesn’t exist.
What the science says: Earth is round. This is a fact humans have known for more than 2000 years.
Who believes it: A growing number of people reportedly subscribe to the flat Earth theory, primarily driven by YouTube stars. The Flat Earth Society held its first convention in the United Kingdom in 2018, hosting speakers from around the world, and the society says its numbers have grown by 200 since 2009. Celebrity believers include cricketer Andrew Flintoff and American rapper BoB.
AIDS denial
What they believe: AIDS denialists believe that there is no proven connection between the HIV and AIDS viruses, or that HIV and AIDS don’t exist.
What the science says: HIV is real and, if left untreated will develop into AIDS.
Who believes it: In the ’80s and ’90s, when fear of HIV and AIDS was at its highest, there were far more sceptics than today about the relationship between HIV and AIDS and their causes. But the belief lingers on in some circles, with real-life effects. Former South African president Thabo Mbeki took on this theory while he was in office, and it’s believed that his reluctance to fund anti-retroviral medication could have cost 330,000 people’s lives.
Inoculate yourself against the spin
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today to get your first 12 weeks for $12 and get the journalism you need to navigate the spin.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
I would add denial of economic reality. There are many candidates, but since I live in Canada I nominate Trump’s denial of the law of comparative advantage and thus the benefits of free trade.
One welcome addition to this list would be who benefits or pushes certain conspiracies rather than just who believes them. E.g. the groups or people who quietly behind the scenes promote certain conspiracies that they likely don’t even believe themselves but benefit from them being spread.
If I had to guess, I would think that the oil, coal and mining lobbies are behind a lot of the propaganda and funding of wind turbine syndrome and global warming denialism for example.
I’m personally pro-vaping. As a non-smoker, I find vapers less offensive olfactorily than cigarette smokers, who smell as though they’re burning old rags.
I’d probably try it if it wasn’t for the ‘turning Japanese’ side-effect?
One hopes you’ll cover endodontic denialism a little; ‘Root Cause’, a marvelous piece of propaganda is currently available on Netflix: just why, I cannot understand.
Is it because no-one at Netflix actually reviews this type of content? They bill it in all seriousness as ‘documentary’, and fair enough, the opening scenes show Schoolies in Queensland which undeniably occurs. But that’s where any contact with Real Life starts and finishes.
I found and read a review by Spring Hatfield. It’s easy to find with a quick Google search of ‘Root Cause.’
I’ve had root canal treatment many years ago because of recurrent periodical abscesses causing considerable pain and suffering intermittently for years. I haven’t had any trouble since then (besides my dentist needing to fit crowns – I suspect because he wants to buy a new Mercedes – as the dental enamel wears away with increasing age).
No Wayne, or, perhaps maybe, you never know (about Mercs), but, try Googling ‘vertical root fracture’ (as a reason for extra-coronal restoration of endodontically treated teeth).
My dentist always tries to explain to me what he’s advising me to have done and how he’s going to do it. I always tell him not to bother, and accept his advice regardless. I have absolute faith in my dentist.
A conceptual problem for the decarbonising movement is the eradication of gas. We find it easy to talk to each other in terms of getting rid of coal or gasoline, but we seem to gag on the idea that we must get rid of gas. Trouble is, if we cannot envisage a realistic replacement for gas-fired power stations, we might as well be sacrificing goats to appease the climate gods, as Tony Abbott would put it.
Never seen any evidence of this and I read up on this stuff a lot. Gas is both a lesser and greater problem. Natural gas is mostly methane CH4 meaning it has the highest ratio of hydrogen to carbon and produces much less CO2 per unit of energy than coal and still less than petrol which is mostly octane isomers. However much of the new non traditional gas production leaks lots of methane straight into the air. It’s a much worse global warming agent than Co2 but persists for a much shorter time.
There are plenty of ready replacements for gas, nuclear and all fossil fuels for most applications the current exceptions being sea and air transport. There are already commercially available small electric aircraft with 1000km range.
Sea transport can go back to wind and sail for all I care. At least the cost of imports will push us back into local manufacturing and jobs for us locals.
Air transport? What about airships? We can produce the hydrogen (no, it’s not as deadly as portrayed re “Hindenburg”) and electric motors will easily drive maybe thousands of passengers across our oceans. Isn’t helium a byproduct of the nuclear fusion process? If we ever get a fusion reactor running cheaply and reliably then helium supply won’t be a problem for airships.
I am an airship enthusiast for hydrogen – the most abundant of elements compared to scarce and rapidly depleting helium which has less than 90% the lift of hydrogen.
The Hindenburg disaster was due to the doping used to coat the outer skin – it burned like rocket fuel bright orange whereas hydrogen burns blue green and didn’t even catch until the end of the catastrophe.
The problem of descent with airships – physically pulling them down – is easily solved by running the engines on hydrogen for the final part of the journey or even recompressing it.
Great to see a fellow hydrogen based airship fan. It is hard to believe, with modern materials, that “compression on demand”couldn’t be made to work, perhaps even by physically reducing the size of the hydrogen envelope (a bit like a fish’s swim bladder)? In any event, would be nice to see dirigibles getting a modern reboot.