... according to Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America. Pierce's book discusses what he sees as an assault on intellectuals, on credible expertise, and perhaps more generally, on reason (also the title of a book by former Vice President Al Gore). Gore puts it pretty succinctly when he says, “reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions" (p. 1). Pierce suggests that certain intellectuals have always resided outside of the mainstream, on the fringe, with ideas not popularly accepted. However, when these 'cranks' as he calls them, become part of the mainstream public debate, merely because they've written a book, or the ideas have been enshrined on a TV show or through talk radio, then the role of the crank as a voice of intellectual diversity is diminished. He has three rules that he says govern how this 'dumbing down of the public discourse' happens:

1. Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units. Madonna 'writes' children's books. Mitch Albom tells us what five people we'll meet in heaven. Michael Crichton, MD, deceased novelist, gets on the rubber chicken dinner talk circuit to shoot down global warming science. In fact much of the PR campaign against global warming is based not on science, but on paying scientists to get their talking points out on television. Conservative authors and their books are a good example. Sourcewatch has a different take.
2. Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough. Talk radio is predicated on this. We've seen how opinion shows deal in shouting matches. Add liberals vs conservatives, and you may have yourself an audience, an audience that believes what is being said and holds those 'truths' to be self-evident. Let's face it, academics or those trained in the sciences, those with advanced degrees, in most cases are too busy doing their research and writing to worry about making TV appearances, and when they do aren't necessarily very good at it. Be wary of scientists who spend most of their time on TV, doctors who spend most of their time testifying in malpractice cases, etc.
3. Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it. There is no question but that the Tea Party movement includes many people sincerely upset about the economic crisis that has befallen the US. However, whether they have a profound understanding of the causes of that crisis is entirely another matter. Glenn Beck's 'tree of revolution' (see also Jon Stewart's parody), or Pierce's example of Alec Rawls' 'crescent of betrayal,' would seem to apply here.

Global warming: Hoax, scandal, or just honest mistake??

And how do wacky ideas get spread? Through viral videos on youtube, talk radio, cable news, facebook, etc. Rush said, for instance, that 'man-made global warming is a hoax.' Case closed. According to his climate guru, Roy Spencer. Global temperature averages have not shot up in the last decade (see the trends). So Rush, while criticizing scientists for making short term conclusions about long-term processes, does the same, using as his expert someone who's been funded and published by some of the biggest oil and gas interests in the universe (as far as we know). Climate Depot is all over this trend in termperature. Here's a more reasoned piece from a McLatchy reporter. Here is the famous 'hockey stick' graph of CO2 concentrations. Here's the growth of fossil fuel combusion over time. And finally, the Keeling Curve, showing the steady growth of atmospheric CO2 measured over Hawaii. But, over the last two years, what do you think has happened to public opinion? Who wants data and charts? Let Rush be the spokesperson, choose his experts (refer back to his description of talk radio above).

However, if you can convince people that the global warming science isn't perfect (and science never is, isn't intended to be), may be scandalous (ahhh, climategate), and that scandal gets prime air time on certain networks, for extended periods of time, in other words, discredit the scientists, and complain that the media are biased and not covering the 'other' side (which would be the 3-5% of scientists and pseudoscientists who argue the contrary about global warming), then perhaps you can pressure media to create an impression of 'balance' by covering both sides equally. One clue to sorting this out--see which scientists are publishing in their professions' peer-reviewed journals, and which are writing for think tanks funded by the oil and gas industry, and appearing on television.