Guest essay by Tom Harris
Last month, U.S. Rep. David McKinley (R.-WV) hosted an unbiased climate change panel discussion in Fairmont, West Virginia. Experts from both sides of the climate debate participated without restrictions of any kind.
McKinley’s open-minded approach is one that should be copied across the United States. Considering what’s at stake—a human-induced eco-collapse if former Vice-President Al Gore and his allies are correct, or, if skeptics are right, a waste of billions of dollars and the loss of millions of jobs as we experiment with a switch away from coal and other hydrocarbon fuels to alternative energy sources—the risks are too high to do anything less.
No matter what Gore and 350.org founder Bill McKibben tell us, experts in the field know that climate science is highly immature. We are in a period of “negative discovery,” in that the more we learn about climate, the more we realize we do not know. Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Gore tells us should be done, we must recognize the doubt in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.
The confidence expressed by Gore, McKibben, and President Barack Obama that mankind is definitely causing dangerous climate change is a consequence of a belief in what professors Chris Essex (University of Western Ontario) and Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph, Ontario) call the “Doctrine of Certainty”. This doctrine is “a collection of now familiar assertions about climate that are to be accepted without question” (Taken by Storm, 2007).
Essex and McKitrick explain, “But the Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know is false. Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.”
Creating rational public policy in the face of such uncertainty is challenging. It is therefore important that America’s climate and energy experts are able to speak out without fear of retribution regardless of their points of view. We want climate and energy policies to be based on rigorous science, economics and engineering, coupled with common sense and compassion for our fellow man, not political ideology or vested interests.
Sadly, the exact opposite is the case today. Emotions run high as the climate debate has become intensely polarized—alarmist versus skeptic, conservative versus liberal, capitalist versus socialist. Implications of bias and vested financial interests, as well as logical fallacies (errors in reasoning), have taken the place of considering the facts. Many leading scientists therefore remain silent if their views are not politically correct.
We must clean up the climate change debate to make it easier for experts to participate. In particular, media and politicians should strive to avoid the logical fallacies that are distracting the public from thinking about the issue constructively. Here are some of the fallacies that must be purged from the discussion:
- Ad Hominem (discredit the man, instead of the idea): By calling those with whom he disagrees “climate deniers”, Gore commits a logical fallacy often used to equate those who question the causes of climate change with Holocaust deniers. It is also wrong because no one is denying that climate changes; only the causes are in dispute.
- “Climate change denier” is also a thought-terminating cliché. This logical fallacy appears when a phrase is used to suppress an audience’s critical thinking and to allow the presenter to move, uncontested, to other topics.
- Guilt by association: That a specific viewpoint is promoted by the ‘religious right’ or the ‘loony left’ is irrelevant. A position is either correct or not, or unknown, independent of the affiliations of the presenter.
- Straw man (arguments based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position): Republicans are not “anti-science”. Neither are Democrats. If they were, they would never fly in an airplane, use cell phones or take vitamins. They simply disagree with each other about the causes of climate change. It is also a straw man argument to imply that anyone doubts that ‘climate change is real’. Neither side actually says this. They know that climate always changes on planets with atmospheres.
- Red Herring/false analogy: Canada’s leading climate activist David Suzuki tried to associate Tennessee’s approach to the teaching of evolution with their approach to climate change education. Red Herrings like this are usually introduced to divert debate to an issue the speaker believes is easier to defend.
We need politicians and media to help set the stage for an effective discussion of this important issue by avoiding these logical traps. Rep. McKinley has led the way. Let’s hope other leaders soon follow.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition.
Related articles
- Is it a failure to communicate, or faulty climate science? (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For the record, I’m all for switching away from coal and to other sources (nat gas, nuclear). The total cost of coal is just too high. Sludge lagoons from mining, the cost to the landscape, the human cost. It’s way more than just installing high-tech scrubbers and calling it a day. Nat gas is significantly cleaner in every way, way easier to get to without risking someone’s life and we have a $#!t-ton of it that will easily carry us until we figure fusion out….
Very well-stated view of the balance that “should” occur in discussions about climate. It is such a shame that the obvious has to be stated in this way, though.
Yes. Common sense. What 97% of vested intrests fear!
Rational, fact-based public policy? Dream on!
BTW: They climate mongers claim their proposals are rational and fact-based.
@MattN
It’s lovely stuff to put on an open fire just under the logs, helps keep me warm in the winter months!!!!! 😉
MattN : “Sludge lagoons from mining, the cost to the landscape, the human cost.”
Just try to put a damn “price” on it – you cannot. When you look at how coal thoroughly transformed US economy over the last 150 years and can easily be cited as the key factor for more than doubling average life expectancy as well as making our lives MUCH easier over that time, your assertions are completely vacuous. Not only that.. coal is what saved our forests from being stripped to the bone for heat and building materials, (crude oil saved the whales too BTW). Coal enabled mass production of steel, (mining iron ore and making coke for blast furnaces), without which we would have lost WW2 and no one but no one would be talking about ‘saving the planet’ right now – we’d all be busy enough trying to save our children.
Alarmists have to use the tools described because the science does not support their position. Indeed most of the skeptics are in the “do not know” camp. As we learn more, the more we learn we do not know. It is the hard questions that evoke the name calling, straw men, and red herrings because those who pretend to know it all, do not have answers.
Good essay. I copied your bullet points to my desktop as they apply to all disagreements. Sometimes I need to remind myself of the various methods that are used to argue.
Yep. At the core of the problem remains the fact that we have not yet been able to free ourselves from the inanity of political correctness.
All completely true and as Admad said, shouldn’t need to be stated. The problem is the one identified in “Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks” – I’ve forgotten the author’s name but it’s a novel dealing with belief in spiritualism – and succinctly expressed by the mother of the UK doctor who started the MMR vaccine/autism scare; “He’ll go to any lengths to carry on believing what he already believes”. Applies to both sides of the climate debate and all other controversies.
MattN, I am afraid you live in a dream world and I wonder from what you intend to get energy? it is only those who deny reality who want to remove fossil fuel use from the energy mix. Since there is no empirical data showing CO2 causing climate change there is no need not to use fossil fuels. It is possible for the coal mining companies to clean up the mess caused by open cast mining leaving an area for wildlife to flourish it just needs forethought and a few cents on the tonne.
The shift from attempting to base policy on rational science, to rationalizing science to fit policy is the most disturbing. Typical students today upon hearing something they don’t ( won’t, can’t ) believe react by shouting about ” haters”, “denier” or the all encompassing “hate speech”. Most have no idea of how rights are acheived through obligation. They see rights as a chance to voice their opinions freely, instead of the obligation to allow your worst enemy to do the same.
johnmarshall : Did you read MattN’s comment carefully? He is not against the use of fossil fuels in general, and made no mention of CO2. All he said was he thought switching to natural gas was a good idea. Call off the dogs!
“Just try to put a damn “price” on it (coal) – you cannot. ”
I share your sentiments on coal (let’s use it – if it’s priced right), but in fact you can put a price on coal, and we’ve done so for decades.
And, in spite of EPA rulings that have required cleaner and cleaner coal burning plants, and complete reclamation of coal mining sites, coal remained so economically feasible, i.e., competitively-priced, that it has remained one of our main fuel sources. Until recently, that is, when the present administration raised the regulatory hurdles so far and so fast that coal plants are now being decommissioned. This had nothing to do with the price of coal, but rather is due to the fact that regulators anywhere are capable of changing the rules to destroy any enterprise by making the rules too expensive to abide by.
The environmental movement starts from the assumption that coal usage is bad, period. While the usage isn’t bad per se, the individual effects of mining, transporting, and burning it can of course have injurious effects. In the middle of the 20th century businessmen in coal-fueled cities would sometimes keep a clean white shirt at work to change into due to all the coal ash that had settled on their shirt while getting to work.
Over the years we cleaned up coal to the point at which no one could reasonably argue with its usage. That’s one reason the CO2 issue is so important to the rabid environmentalist; as long as CO2 production is “bad,” coal can continue to be condemned (and the regulatory burden can continue to be raised, as it has been.)
Haha look at the names. Unbiased? Are you joking, Anthony?
[Perhaps you would be better employed pointing out how the panel exhibited bias. Or are you just a troll? . . mod]
Very nice summary of what should be going on in the debate.
Of course, once you think about it the reason this isn’t happening is obvious. The debate would have been over years ago. The alarmists have nothing that supports their position. The recent warming could have been caused by many factors. The clams it is CO2 are pure conjecture. If this knowledge reached enough people the alarmists would have been laughed out of town. There’s a reason they don’t use logic … and it’s only getting worse for them as time marches on.
The fact that Dr. Paul Jones of CRU was worried about what his colleagues might say about him says volumes about climate scientists with hidden doubts who remain silent. Here is Dr. Jones in private:
More openness and honesty is long overdue. The press has started and now it’s down to the scientists who should have lead from the beginning.
Mike M…
I agree entirely with your counter arguement. We have been (and are) very very lucky to have use of coal to power our prosperity. The enviromental issues have been contained imo.
With $12 per lb uranium in Kazakhstan now supplying 33% of the worlds U.. and much more available, there is an alternate future staring us in the face once we get over our willies about nuclear power. Talk about cheap, limitless power…
Tom, along with many others I agree with the sentiments of your article. But is faces enormous hurdles in order to be implemented. One of these is the statements by the learned scientific societies; all of which overwhelmingly claim that CAGW is a scientific fact. Until these learned bodies, led by the American Physical Society, and the Royal Society, change their positions to ones that are properly scientific, what you propose is quite simply impractical.
On a similar issue, the GWPF invited the RS to set a date for a talk on CAGW on 20 th May 2013. So far there has been no response from the RS so far as I can make out. One wonders what excuse the RS is thinking up, so they can wiggle out of this meeting, and save themselves from have their team, led by Prof. Mitchell, being absolutley humiliated.
***
MattN says:
June 14, 2013 at 4:33 am
***
Your post indicates useful-idiot-level understanding, as Rod Everson’s post above demonstrates.
You don’t understand! This problem is too serious to wait to see if it even exists. We must tax, tax, tax and spend, spend, spend in the vain hope that the warming gods are appeased. We must give up or rights and live hungry in the cold and dark so that Al Gore can fly his corporate jets around the world to save us. Don’t wait! Give up everything now and avoid the rush.
The meeting referred to in this post is another indication of a slow return to reason on this debate.
As Winston Churchill said: “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” Maybe it will be thus with climate change, too.
It’s a great idea on an individual basis to improve our rhetorical and argumentative abilities. But we need collective well-financed media PR / advertising actions to compete with the hideous and insidious Goliath that we face. Put together good ad / PR campaigns, and financing would largely take care of itself, as conservatives would contribute en masse. Think about it. And this (an effective pro-skeptic ad campaign) could have a big impact on elections across the board, aiding conservatives.
We need something bigger an better than the likes of the laudable Heartland Institute, which isn’t making enough of an impact. We need something new, innovative, and big. We need to get the message out through paid media, the one area where the liberal MSM can’t taint our message. The key is that the issues are on our side, we can win.
And don’t think we can’t lose otherwise. The issues are on our side, but the MSM and the educational system is on their side, and they can easily twist the truth, and the next thing you know we could be going down the road of Europe, or worse, with a draconian cap & trade or carbon tax or what not. We need to start shaking things up, thinking bigger. Our little skeptic blogs are outstanding for forming arguments, but we are not effectively reaching the majority of voters. Conservatives, yes, the rest, not so much.
What the article is guilty of is equalizing the truly irrational, Joe Romm or Al Gore for example with those who oppose them of many stripes. There is no amount of “discussion” with bought-in advocates of AGW that is going to change reality. AGW is an existential threat to a free individual society at the core. If there are an assorted army of fools and opportunists around the core function that doesn’t matter much.
If the price for skeptics to “being at the table” is accepting basic AGW talking points as “reasonable” the current censorship and political correctness system might be better.
The eco-collapse that we ARE going to see is not ecological, but economic! Printing fiat money (this time $s) has always, i.e. 100%, in the history of civilizations, led to eco-collapse! Albore and his cronies know this, thus their frantic promotion of this scam to make lots of cash now, The bandwagon riders like McKibben et al haven’t a clue what is really meant by eco-collapse.
Socialism is great, until other peoples money dries up.