Lady Lawyers Become -- Gasp! -- Science Deniers

Two ladies, both involved in legal academia, have written an astonishing paper in the Journal of Criminology.

They insist lawyers for the defense should be called “guilt deniers”, and that defenses making points in opposition to guilt keeps or delays the state from carrying out its needed vengeance against the accused. The accused is guilty because he has been charged, they say, and those charges must be believed because they were brought by Experts appointed and funded by rulers. There is no other option but to accept the Experts’ verdict, the ladies argue, because Experts wouldn’t have made the accusation of guilt unless those Experts had been right.

Even stronger, they write, or rather darkly insinuate, those engaged in the tactics of guilt-denial ought themselves to be prosecuted! Or at least watched closely in case their guilt-denial becomes too effective.

Wait. Hold up. I see I have a few details wrong.

It’s not guilt-denial, it’s science-denial that concerns our legal ladies. Neither of whom are scientists, and so, it seems, neither are capable of judging scientific arguments on their merits. But they can judge whether some scientists disagree with their favorite Experts. And they have determined that that is a bad thing and ought not to be countenanced.

The peer-reviewed paper is “In denial: een exploratieve studie naar desinformatie rondom de stikstofcrisis” (In denial: an exploratory study of disinformation surrounding the nitrogen crisis) by Jessica Hill and Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg in Tijdschrift voor Criminologie (Journal of Criminology).

It is in Dutch, because it is in the Netherlands where the nonexistent “nitrogen crisis” is not happening. You have to hand it to Dutch scientists, original as always. They didn’t want to do “carbon” like everybody else. Nobody cares about radiation anymore. China owns PM2.5. So they picked nitrogen and their Molecule Of Death.

Some quotes (in no specific order):

…science denial, a form of disinformation that focuses on denying and questioning scientific knowledge…

…science denial does not always involve direct denial of science, but a broader strategy of sowing doubt in science to thwart certain threats to the status quo…

…the harm that can result from spreading false, inaccurate or misleading information is not limited by intentionality…

…the damage resulting from science denial is not immediately visible and it is difficult to identify a (human) victim of science denial…

The Council of State is accused of being unscientific in its use of the word ‘significant’…

If enough doubt is created, no action is taken.

The long-term harm of delaying actions to protect the environment is also a consequence of this online communication, and this should not be overlooked, certainly not by criminologists.

Now my pal Jaap Hanekamp and I have written many, many papers arguing and offering proof galore that there is no nitrogen crisis and that over-certainty in the field is rampant (here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Some nervous scientists think there is a crisis, but, well, everybody makes mistakes. We don’t hold it against them.

Funny thing is, just like with global cooling, which became global warming, which became “climate change”, you’d think our research would be greeted with at least cautious cheering. There is no crisis! What good news! But, no. Instead we get hersterical papers like this, which may be summarized: How dare you question our fears!

Now, Jaap and I disagree there is a crisis in nitrogen (and we show why there isn’t). To disagree is to deny the position an opponent holds. One who disagrees could therefore, I suppose, be called a denier.

Yet by this same logic, Hill and Kranenbarg are deniers! They deny our findings. Our science findings. They are therefore Science Deniers. Which, they themselves intimate, are the worst kind of deniers.

They also say things like “nitrogen exacerbates the effects of prolonged drought, which is becoming more common due to climate change,” which is false. Prolonged drought has not become more common. To say so is therefore disinformation. Science disinformation. It’s also amusing to consider another (and contradictory) of the frequent claims for “climate change” is increasing storms with greater amounts of devastating precipitation, causing flooding. Indeed, Kennisportaal Kilmaatadapie reports “Annual precipitation in the Netherlands increased by 26% between 1910 and 2022. Winters have become particularly wetter, but summer precipitation has also increased.” How embarrassing.

So our ladies are both science deniers and science disinformationists.

Our ladies make the common mistake of supposing predictions of doom are proof of the doom. Perhaps they believe Experts wouldn’t or couldn’t make blunders in their models. Since they say it is important to “identify financiers” of research of which these ladies disapprove, they also suffer from the fallacy that only government-approved funding is legitimate. The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is not new. Sad to see it advocated for in the law.

Here’s my favorite part, which fills me with pride:

Two scientists were also identified who are involved in the nitrogen debate. [Labeled Contrarian Scientist 1 and 2.] They are often quoted and mentioned by nitrogen doubters in alternative news media, on skeptical blogs and by populist politicians. In addition, they themselves write articles for or appear in alternative media channels.”

My pal Jaap is Contrarian Scientist 1, and I am number 2 (but I try harder). Or, if we’re not, I’d like to hear them deny it. Yet I hope we are, because I’m pasting this paper on the wall of my shack to prove it’s possible for two guys can take on the entire system and make a difference.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.