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.
The big mistake Mr. Harris is making here is believing we can reason with unreasonable people. And the CAGW/man-made climate change crowd are as unreasonable as they come. I don’t give a d*** how good intentioned some may seem to be (remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions), the CAGW crowd absolutely cannot be reasoned with. They must be defeated at the ballot box, or the U.S. and the rest of the civilized western world will perish.
I’m not sure what needs to be discussed. There’s no evidence that “carbon” is causing any harmful climate change. There’s no shortage of fossil fuels and we have enough oil and gas resources in the USA that the “stop funding terrorists” with our oil dollars is completely invalid as we can produce enough oil to not buy any foreign oil.
So I guess a panel would simply use facts to refute the alarmists arguments, and present the position that we really don’t need to do anything, except rollback many of the harmful laws and regulations that are in effect today.
Jim Cripwell says:
June 14, 2013 at 6:54 am
“…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….”
Totally agree, Jim. Damaging as it is, CAGW is merely a spot fire of the inferno that is the postmodern politicization of science and education. Extinguish the spot fire only, and seven more will spring up in its stead. Indeed, as reason finally suppresses this particular hot spot (assuming that real science indeed proves it to be a nonissue as appears likely), WUWT and the skeptical blogosphere should broaden their regular coverage to other politiscience hot spots in medicine, agriculture, nutrition, energy, etc. as well as whatever new global crisis is being prepared to replace CAGW, the retreat of which is IMO being managed strategically so as to give time for the new crisis to be set up.
Check out Drudge. New article on how Obama is coming out with new climate change regs in July. The people quoted are full of hysteria over the climate. Not one sense of balance or context of what is actually happening (no warming for 17 years), or that China has steamed past the US or Europe in terms of emissions.
According to a Bloomberg article linked by Drudge today, Obama plans to unleash his “global warming initiatives” in July. With the markets already perceiving a coming recession, with that he should be able to continue to do what he does best: wreck the country.
Here comes the carbon Bill: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/305373-senate-panel-to-talk-climate-change-carbon-tax-bill-in-july
more soylent green! says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:35 am
I think the “stop funding terrorist” argument suffers from serious irony, to say the least, when the Obama administration decides to fund 9-11 Terrorists in Syria and is potentially offering a no-fly protection plan up to 50 million dollars a day.
How’s that for global real politic?
Perhaps you would be better employed pointing out how the panel exhibited bias
Because it has Marc Morano in it? Even the bulk of the mainstream view is represented by outliers with ties to environmental groups. If you want an actual report on the state of the climate question then commission one-done by climate scientists. It’s not hard, it’s just that he wouldn’t like the results. If you want a publicity stunt that further embarasses a nation plagued with pseudoscientific creationists, anti-vaxxers and GMO-alarmists, then this is a great idea.
R. de Haan says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:52 am
It’s a “foot in the door” bill and is DOA but still represents social decline and the wimpy and conflicted nature of the skeptical community doesn’t help. You think you that bill is going to be stopped with spaghetti graphs and science?
Not likely.
Ryan says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:53 am
What should really be done is a full political expose of “climate science” and its natural ties to statist authority, its agenda as well as traditional left-wing academic culture. It is embarrassing but it’s also reality.
As a “skeptic” I am insulted by the very premise of the panel. Bringing together unbiased skeptics and highly biased proponents of CAGW does not create an unbiased panel.
I”d call the panel balanced rather than unbiased. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, everybody is biased. The best you can hope for is to balance the biases.
@cwon14 says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:56 am
R. de Haan says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:52 am
It’s a “foot in the door” bill and is DOA but still represents social decline and the wimpy and conflicted nature of the skeptical community doesn’t help. You think you that bill is going to be stopped with spaghetti graphs and science?
Not likely.
You could be right but they said the same about the “Migration Bill”.
These people will never, ever give up. Insanity Rules.
Add FUD to the list, using fear as a tactic. Fear of frying, fear of nuke power, fear of fracking, and so on. People do not make rational decisions when they are panicked. People are not rational when they are afraid. Inciting the mob, it’s not pretty.
“Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.” –McKitrick & Essex
Those scientists must be wrong. What will James Hansen do in his retirement if the problem can’t be reduced to y = mx + b, where m is a scary number? Must all the carbon-loathing sheep abandon their dreams of becoming his little assistant messiahs? The answer is a resounding ‘NO!’ All they need is much bigger computers and more of your dollars. Lots more.
/sarc
MattN – made a very reasonable comment on Natural Gas and some folks trashed it. Guess there are short fused biased people in all walks of society. I live where I can choose coal, natural gas, wind, solar and diesel. I take that which costs me less and is readily available. But I use both propane and gasoline backup generator sets on the farm. Guess what. They all emit H20 and CO2 so I guess for some I am a “polluter” but I grow hay and trees to offset – oh but my animals defecate and pass flatulance so I go back to the polluting side. Farming is clearly bad for the environment so we should stop it and starve all the people in the cities … then there won’t be anyone to notice what we do in the country./sarc off
And Ryan, why don’t you join me out here on the farm hauling water and feed to the field at 40 below? No sarcasm Ryan. Come see how people work on the land for little or no return just because it is better than living in a smoggy city.
LOL
Any debate is better than no debate especially since the issue was long ago declared “settled”
Nothing is as we wish it, but nothing is as it seems.
“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” human-induced EGO-collapse FOR former Vice-President Al Gore and his allies.
Johnmarshall said: “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’s obvious you did not read my post at all. If you had, you would have noticed that at NO TIME in my post did I mention CO2 as a reason to get off coal. No, you just read PART of sentence #1, shut the brain down and ASS-U-MEd I was some sort of left wing nutjob. “From what (do I) intend to get energy?” You very obviously didn’t read where I clearly spelled out natural gas and nuclear. Some left wing nut job I am, huh? Stop putting words in my posts that don’t exist.
My family’s North Carolina organic beef farm is downwind in the same county as the Cliffside steam plant, so you’ll have to forgive me if I’d prefer they power that thing with significantly cleaner natural gas instead of coal….
Mr. Harris is being unreasonable here. Without the logical fallacies he gave, along with the biggie – the bogus as well as illogical “consensus” argument, the Warmists have got nothing but a wild conjecture with practically no evidence to support it whatsoever. That wouldn’t be fair, would it?
Bravo for this honest appeal for civil discourse!
I recently came across this video which evoked much thought:
When you get down to it, whether “left” or “right”, what we’re really talking about is bigotry.
Mike M says:
June 14, 2013 at 5:19 am
MattN : “Sludge lagoons from mining, the cost to the landscape, the human cost.”
I think this may be the worst comment of the decade and the life of this blog. The comment to which you made this reply was a perfectly reasonable one laying out that persons opinion and wish. He was right about everything he said and so were you BUT you failed to understand that in giving us all those benefits, coal gave us the time to improve our lives and spend time thinking of better ways to power them. We are at the next stage of those better ways and MattN is correct in what he said.
I’ve been down the redundant pits of wales, I saw the news when many children were buried alive by their waste. Yes it was a price to be payed but not the right price. Take your “vacuous” and stuff it where it cannot be reused.
Guest Blogger posted: “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.”
“And Ryan, why don’t you join me out here on the farm hauling water and feed to the field at 40 below? No sarcasm Ryan. Come see how people work on the land for little or no return just because it is better than living in a smoggy city.”
Grew up in a farm town with summers in the 110’s, thanks. I have a good handle on what work feels like.
“I”d call the panel balanced rather than unbiased. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, everybody is biased. The best you can hope for is to balance the biases.”
Balanced? Maybe. So would a debate between Richard Dawkins and Henry Morris. It still wouldn’t accomplish much or reveal much detailed truth. Real scientific truth requires details, lots of them.
Ryan says:
June 14, 2013 at 11:18 am
“I”d call the panel balanced rather than unbiased. Unfortunately, when it comes to this issue, everybody is biased. The best you can hope for is to balance the biases.”
Balanced? Maybe. So would a debate between Richard Dawkins and Henry Morris. It still wouldn’t accomplish much or reveal much detailed truth. Real scientific truth requires details, lots of them.
——-
And unfortunately the only way, it seems, to try and obtain details is through FOIA requests and lawsuits. That alone should be telling.
If you read the Climategate emails you would know why they hide behind curtains and closed doors. Climate Scientists have no stomach for the truth — it doesn’t fit their agenda.