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)
“Climate scientists and meteorologists will discuss 2013’s coldest spring in more than 50 years, analyse droughts and floods in 2012, which made it one of the wettest years on record as well as the extremely snowy winter of 2010.”
http://news.sky.com/story/1103633/wild-weather-met-office-calls-urgent-talks
“Tuesday’s emergency meeting will also debate whether the changing weather pattern in the UK, and in northern Europe, is because of climate change or simply variable weather.”
“And unfortunately the only way, it seems, to try and obtain details is through FOIA requests and lawsuits.”
No, that’s how you get quotes to take out of context. The state of climate science is quite easily accessible through multiple reports in all kinds of places.
Ryan says:
June 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“And unfortunately the only way, it seems, to try and obtain details is through FOIA requests and lawsuits.”
No, that’s how you get quotes to take out of context. The state of climate science is quite easily accessible through multiple reports in all kinds of places.
——————
Really? Please point me in the direction of a report that details the multiple revisions made to the GISS data, and explanations and justification for why this was done, who approved it, etc.?
Also please explain the context of Phil Jones saying “Why should I show him my work? He’s only going to find something wrong with it.”
What context makes that acceptable behavior for taxpayer funded scientist?
johnmarshall says:
June 14, 2013 at 6:11 am
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.
—————————————————————————————————————
That is a good point. Although one has to wonder why this was not done in the first place. They should have tacked on those extra pennies, so that they could make a profit and safeguard the public,s need for a healthy environment. Look at that terrible coal waste spill from several years ago. People had their properties destroyed and water contaminated by that toxic sludge. All because the company would not put enough effort into monitoring their pile and making the containment as close to bulletproof as possible. They will never get that ground back to a usable state for a long time to come. Nature will probably have to do most of the cleanup over time. I would like to see them take a few hundred tons of that waste and dump it on the multi-million dollar properties of the big shots who call the shots. Let them feel what it is like to have your dream, your castle ruined by carelessness and thoughtlessness.
It’s too late anyway. The debate is over. The Climatists have lost, though they will try to continue on, as there’s tons of funding at stake, as well as careers and over-inflated egos.
Folks – Especially Mr.Watts – I can’t agree more than a neutral rational debate would be a huge advance.
How about a truly anonymous blog, heavily moderated – editing responses – to remove all the propaganda BS on both sides, the debating tactics noted in the article. If we started to see real debate between real climatologists speaking without fear, it could be a huge advance.
Could save the world. Is it possible? What technical/administrative processes are needed?
I’d be up for doing some moderation!
Unbiased climate policy? Replace the President of the USA, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html the EU Apparatchiks and the UN, undo Agenda 21 and close down the Club of Rome. In short start a counter revolution to end the “First World Revolution”: http://green-agenda.com
They never give up. It’s like a herpes infection. You have to kill the host to get rid of it.
Science is not a debate. Having a debate, regardless of the outcome, will prove one thing; science is not a debate.
Steven Mosher says:
June 14, 2013 at 3:58 pm
That’s correct, Steve, at least, it is in the context of REAL science – i.e following the scientific method ! – which climate ‘science’ clearly does NOT!
BUT – and this is the crux of the AGW argument – If if WERE real science – with data, hypotheses, proofs and observations to properly VALIDATE the hypotheses (I refuse to use the term theory!) – there would be no need for fecking DEBATE ! Real science works THAT way – not the pseudo climate science way!
The only reason ‘we’ are debating is because the science (and yeah, climate science is not in that category IMHO) is NOT, repeat NOT, settled. The alleged ‘experts’ are telling us that something is ‘black’ – when we can all clearly see that (the data) is is actually ‘white’, or at best a slightly off-white! – but they and the warmists are too stupid and full of zealotry to see it.
Tom Harris is right about the need for open debate, and the various methods used to discourage criticism.
However, a proper evaluation needs some ground rules. In a criminal court, there are rules of evidence that apply equally to both prosecution and defence. CAGW makes projections about a future catastrophe. It does not ask closed questions (true/false, guilty/not guilty) but questions of degree. There are the same questions that a court would ask (weighting of evidence, from high-quality DNA to hearsay), but also questions of magnitude and likelihood of events that have yet to happen (if at all). This I introduced last year.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/10/26/costs-of-climate-change-in-perspective/
There is also another aspect Tom Harris touches upon. If Climate Science was a confident, progressing science, it would be trumpeting its past successes, demonstrating how it was building on the best scientific traditions, and showing a moral concern that the policy recommendation were being properly monitored – to prevent the “medicine” being worse than the original problem. None of these have happened.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/05/29/three-positive-ways-to-counter-climate-denial/
====================================================================
Or just the right tree ring.
“Kev-in-Uk says:
June 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Steven Mosher says:
June 14, 2013 at 3:58 pm
That’s correct, Steve, at least, it is in the context of REAL science – i.e following the scientific method ! – which climate ‘science’ clearly does NOT!
##################
A) climate science is like every other observational science.
B) there is no such thing as real science. There is science as it is practiced. The
way to judge climate science is to compare it to other observational sciences.
I assume you know the difference between labratory science and observational
science.
####################
BUT – and this is the crux of the AGW argument – If if WERE real science – with data, hypotheses, proofs and observations to properly VALIDATE the hypotheses (I refuse to use the term theory!) – there would be no need for fecking DEBATE ! Real science works THAT way – not the pseudo climate science way!
A) there is data.
B) there are hypotheses> For example, in the 18th century scientists predicted that
If C02 increased the temperature would go up. The original estimate was a bit high.
Not unlike original estimates for the speed of light.
C) Hypotheses are never validated. You dont understand science. Hypotheses are
confirmed or disconfirmed. Science is induction not deduction.
D) You may think there is a need for a debate, but you havent established that with anything
No data. no hypothesis. no evidence that a debate is needed or helpful.
E) real science works exactly how it works. Observe what scientists do. They are doing
science. If you think they should do something else, then you are making an ethical
argument or normative argument. You have no standing to make this argument.
If you think they should do science differently, do you own science. I did. It was fun.
############################################
The only reason ‘we’ are debating is because the science (and yeah, climate science is not in that category IMHO) is NOT, repeat NOT, settled.
A) there are other reasons you are debating.
B) no science is settled, but you dont debate gravity. That is, like all sciences climate science is not settled. read AR4 or Ar5 you will see that it isnt settled. So, you are not debating the science merely because someone said it was settled. If I told you 2+2=5 was settled, would you debate me because I said it was settled or beacuse I was wrong.
Logically, you are not debating this because someone said it was settled. You debate it because you think it is wrong, perhaps.
“The alleged ‘experts’ are telling us that something is ‘black’ – when we can all clearly see that (the data) is is actually ‘white’, or at best a slightly off-white! – but they and the warmists are too stupid and full of zealotry to see it.”
Really? I’ve always seen data presented as grey +-. Maybe you should read more real science and less blog science.
Kev
‘The alleged ‘experts’ are telling us that something is ‘black’ – when we can all clearly see that (the data) is is actually ‘white’, or at best a slightly off-white! – but they and the warmists are too stupid and full of zealotry to see it.””
I also found this odd. If I told you that up was down and down was up why would you want to debate it with me? In other words, you seem to be convinced that the thing is “white” at the same time you claim that science isnt settled. But in your mind it is settled that the thing is white. While you also think the other guy says the thng is black and he thnks his position is settled. That seems like a fruitless debate. he can never convince yu that black is white and you can never convince him that white is black. So a debate would be the last thing you would want. A war would be a better option.
Lastly, by demanding a debate you guys realize that you are practicing post normal science.
RERT says:
June 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Folks – Especially Mr.Watts – I can’t agree more than a neutral rational debate would be a huge advance.
How about a truly anonymous blog, heavily moderated – editing responses – to remove all the propaganda BS on both sides, the debating tactics noted in the article. If we started to see real debate between real climatologists speaking without fear, it could be a huge advance.
Could save the world. Is it possible? What technical/administrative processes are needed?
I’d be up for doing some moderation!
++++++++++++++++++++
I think Anthony does a stellar job with moderation –and when clipping posts, he does it so we can see why a post was clipped. He and mods keep us well-behaved and balanced. Al points of view get their say. What you’re asking for is what’s on SkS… they consider anyone who pokes holes in the belief of CAGW to be “propaganda BS” etc. and don’t allow it. Hence their site performs to your recipe. Sorry, but I believe in free speech, not “heavily moderated…” content. I’ll stick with WUWT.
Wouldn’t the debate be geared more for public consumption and education? Right now as it stands most people probably get their climate change storyline from watching media that is almost entirely composed of one side of the argument. It is that way because the backing behind the hypothesis has gained significant political inroads to have their voice as the sole source for mainstream. I have a neighbor friend that I talk with. His view is completely from the one sided point of view that he has garnered from watching ‘TV’. AGW proponents have claimed that the science is settled. All that we need to know is already known. No less than the main US idiot in charge, the less than honorable Moniz, has declared that there is no other side to this conversation. How scientific is that?
Or implicitly calling for a Science Court, which was proposed back in the early (?) 70s, before (?) PNS.
Steven Mosher says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Kev
‘The alleged ‘experts’ are telling us that something is ‘black’ – when we can all clearly see that (the data) is is actually ‘white’, or at best a slightly off-white! – but they and the warmists are too stupid and full of zealotry to see it.””
I also found this odd. If I told you that up was down and down was up why would you want to debate it with me? In other words, you seem to be convinced that the thing is “white” at the same time you claim that science isnt settled. But in your mind it is settled that the thing is white. While you also think the other guy says the thng is black and he thnks his position is settled. That seems like a fruitless debate. he can never convince yu that black is white and you can never convince him that white is black. So a debate would be the last thing you would want. A war would be a better option.
Lastly, by demanding a debate you guys realize that you are practicing post normal science.
+++++++++++++++
Mosher: YOU JUST BROKE THE RULES AND SET UP A STRAWMAN.
No: You changed the words that Kev used. Kev said white or off white, but not black. Then you through in two new words omitting that there was some doubt to make it seem he was saying something he did not say. Then you say he made a claim that what you said he said was odd. What is odd is you Mosher.
He is saying that the models were WRONG. That’s easy to say because they were wrong and they admit that now. It is not debatable that the models were wrong. I think you really do understand what you’re doing with your clever wordsmithing. But it’s in the troll territory and I call fowl on you.
MattN attempts a perceived ‘fallacy of anachronism’ (re-sequencing events or possible events or discoveries in time or history); natural gas was _not_ an option in the not too distant past and MattN would seem to assume in his argument that it _has_ existed, but simply was not used or utilized (for reasons unspecified) … things like this seem ‘common’ among lay people and simple consumers of services and supplies who don’t / have never considered other ‘logistics’ besides making the simple ‘mental’ decision or choice.
The ‘changeover’ from a solid combustible to a gaseous (liquid under special circumstances) fuel in the generation of electricity is not a zero-cost option. Much in the way of distribution / transportation logistics as well as end-point infrastructure (boilers, gas turbine equipment, etc) change-over or -out are required as well, and none are zero-cost.
.
Asking the right question: Question for Merkel: Who decides if climate change is happening?http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/06/15/frage-an-merkel-wer-entscheidet-ob-es-den-klima-wandel-gibt/
The chance to have an honest debate has long since passed. IMO, the only thing that will resolve this issue is to have a no-holds barred slobberknocker of a fight between the two sides of this issue. Both sides may bring anything and everything at their disposal and have it out in full view of the public, totally uncensored, and then let the public decide who has the better argument.
“Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.” –McKitrick & Essex
Now, this quote has been taken in context. We are talking about people who figure that defining “average temperature” is a problem too hard to solve. Geometric, harmonic or aritmetic mean is equally sensible, and it makes perfect sense to replace missing data with 0 C in your calculation.
http://rabett.blogspot.se/2005/11/temperature-rex-bites-essex-and.html
“We need politicians and media to help set the stage for an effective discussion of this important issue by avoiding these logical traps.”
Politicians and media to help? Well, in the person of Rep. David McKinley, we can realistically claim at least one politician is helping to set the stage for an effective discussion (not overlooking the efforts over many years of Sen Inhofe and a few others).
But where is the old media? Can anyone recall just one alphabet network reporting this story? And regretfully, most politicians only care about face time on these networks, if doing so supports their ongoing campaigning efforts. Change the media and we can change the politicians. However, currently both are of a singular mindset. That current mindset is not one of openness nor transparency. Based on the stalling and obfuscation displayed by various factions of government witnessed (but seldom reported) in the recent congressional hearings while attempting to investigate the many scandals perpetuated by a large number of government agencies coupled with a collective old media group yawn, I remain skeptical the majority of the old media will decide to help set the stage for any honest discussion on any topic.
Regardless, kudos to Rep. McKinley for reintroducing common sense to the discussion. As Mr. Harris pointed out….it’s a start.
JimF says:
June 14, 2013 at 8:48 am
The warming proposals are designed to placate the hard core left (warmers and greens of course) as the XL Pipeline is going to be approved. It’s still evil as it confirms the junk science ideas of the left while making a minor concession on the pipeline.
If, according to an earlier column on WUWT, we haven’t had a statistically significant rise in temperature since 1850 (0.8 C if memory serves) – why are we even discussing man caused warming?
Mosher: ‘he can never convince yu that black is white and you can never convince him that white is black.’
And this points to another interesting aspect of the climate debate (and of any debate for that matter): the remarkable similarity between the arguments deployed by both sides, especially at the extremes.
Thus there are common appeals to catastrophism, and common claims of funding corruption, hidden agendas, ideologically induced bias, name calling, cherry picking and so on, not to mention the garden-variety accusations of ad hominen and various other forms of logical fallacy.
Given these similarities, and their ubiquity, ‘cleaning up the debate’ would be a heroic task, although certainly one worth pursuing.