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.
Brendan H says:
June 15, 2013 at 3:24 pm
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
The rise in acrimonious comments I can agree with. I do not see where both sides support catastrophic endings, though. Could you elaborate on that?
Recently, I read a comment on WUWT that explained there is no cherry picking in regards to going back from the present time to draw an inference between an earlier time frame. That made wondrous sense to me. So simple! Actual cherry picking would be something like going back to the early 1800s and drawing a line forward, without detailing the important known facts that led up to that starting point. Such as noting the long temp rise from the 1800s till now, without mentioning that this period was preceded by a Grand Minimum. This fact which is left out by the warmists side ends up creating false understandings in many people. Another example would be a graph of whatever time frame that does not include up to the date data such as the last 5 or 10 years, where that last bit of data would negate the validity of the suppositions draw upon from the more limited data set.
Goldminor: ‘I do not see where both sides support catastrophic endings, though. Could you elaborate on that?’
What I had in mind were comments like these:
‘…Obama plans to unleash his “global warming initiatives” in July … with that he should be able to continue to do what he does best: wreck the country.’
‘The eco-collapse that we ARE going to see is not ecological, but economic!’
‘They must be defeated at the ballot box, or the U.S. and the rest of the civilized western world will perish.’
From my readings of sceptical blogs, these sorts of sentiments are reasonably common, and mirror in intensity the more catastrophist views of some warmers.
As for cherry picking, my point was that both sides accuse the other of cherry picking, so there’s that commonality, as you yourself have demonstrated.
But I don’t think it’s surprising that people of different sides of an issue should use similar arguments. After all, we are one species and there are only so many arguments to use. Inevitably, there will be both replication and repetition.
Recognising the problem of poor communication – if there is one – is not difficult. The hard part is taking steps to improve it.
Brendan H says:
June 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm
————————————
I would agree that the current administrations maneuvers will be economically harmful to the US. That does not necessarily imply catastrophe, but rather some amount of damage that will take some time to recover from. Given the weakness in the world at this time, I would say that there is some probability of that damage becoming severe over time depending on unforeseen circumstances. These are monetary issues which can be verified, whereas the catastrophic claims of the AGW believers say that the world will be destroyed and humanity cast down to the dark ages or eliminated entirely. Many animal species will be destroyed. That is catastrophic rhetoric with no proven basis for reality. Mismanaging large scale economics can have severe consequences to the well being of a nation, or in our modern global economy this can be potentially destabilizing to a large segment of the world population. History proves that this can happen, and therein lies the difference between claims made by the two sides.
The big question has to do with the true direction climate change is taking. All of the current catastrophic induced policy decisions that this administration would like to see implemented are going to severely crimp our ability to address important issues. CO2 induced warming is not proven. To make matters worse, it seems that there is a high probability of a continued cooling trend that will stay in place for several decades. This will be the complete opposite of what this administration and other nations foresee. If this potential long term cooling deepens, then everyone will be facing in the wrong direction and will have spent much treasure to joust with windmills. Where will the resources come to adapt to a potentially real threat, outside of bankrupting everyone?
Goldminor: ‘I would agree that the current administrations maneuvers will be economically harmful to the US. That does not necessarily imply catastrophe…’
My comments are not about the substance of any claimed harm to the US economy from actions of the current administration. I don’t have any particular view on that. I was answering a query you raised about appeals to catastrophe as a type of argument.
I gave three examples – just from this thread. Claims of wrecking the economy, economic collapse and the destruction of the western world easily come under the category of catastrophe talk.
Brendan H says:
June 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm
‘…Obama plans to unleash his “global warming initiatives” in July … with that he should be able to continue to do what he does best: wreck the country.’
‘The eco-collapse that we ARE going to see is not ecological, but economic!’
‘They must be defeated at the ballot box, or the U.S. and the rest of the civilized western world will perish.’
———————————————————————————-
I do not agree with Obama,s agenda in regards to climate change. Yes, I believe that his policy decisions and those of his top people will be harmful to our economy. Yet, I don’t view that as necessarily catastrophic, and there is a pragmatic basis for viewing the administrations behaviour in this regard. There are probably some that hold the view that Obama will bring catastrophe, but on the warmists side all of the supporters of the co2 concept believe in a catastrophic ending if co2 is not reined in. This is where there is no similarity between the two sides. A few sceptics opinions vs all of the warmists firmly entrenched belief system.
Goldminor: ‘…but on the warmists side all of the supporters of the co2 concept believe in a catastrophic ending if co2 is not reined in.’
That reads like a hasty generalisation. How do you know that ‘all’ on the warming side take the catastrophic view? You would need some strong evidence to support that claim. And as I say, claims about supposed catastrophe – economic and political — resulting from actions to deal with climate change are reasonably common among sceptics.
Perhaps of more interest is why people seek to distance themselves from their debating opponents. In my view, among other things it has something to do with personal and group identity, and the desire not to ‘be like them’.
If so, the potential for rapprochment on climate is probably fairly low, especially by the more committed on both sides, although I’m always hopeful that people can find some common ground.
Brendan H says:
June 17, 2013 at 2:33 am
———————————–
Yes, that is a sweeping generalization. I would agree. Almost all would have been a better choice. I make the statement, though, from my personal experience of discussing CC over the last 5 years. Initially, I was concerned about the story that I was hearing. It did not take long though to see which side of the story made more sense. During all of that time, the warming crowd became more strident in their claims and more abusive in their remarks against those who did not agree with their view. It was this last act of theirs that really woke me up. Why would a group who seemingly had all of the right answers have to resort to derogatory attacks to prove their message? I have made 6018 comments at Newsvine over that period of time and I read ‘all’ comments in an article. So I would say that I have a strong base to draw some conclusions/inferences on the integrity of the 2 sides. Of course, the main reason for taking the sceptic side 100% had to do with the growth of understanding as I input quite a bit of information into my ‘computer’.
Getting back to which side flies the ‘catastrophe banner’, I still disagree with your premise. The world of economics has a significant historical data stream to draw inferences from. The co2 conjecture does not. There could very well be catastrophic economic events. History proves this beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no history that sets the foundation for co2 to be the major driver of the Earth,s overall climate.
Clearly extraterrestrial. They could not have come from around here.
Goldminor: ‘Initially, I was concerned about the story that I was hearing. It did not take long though to see which side of the story made more sense.’
Interesting progression. My experience was the opposite. Initially sceptical, I read further on the science and was persuaded that the warming side at least had a case.
So there we have it: two narratives, same evidence, different conclusions.
‘Why would a group who seemingly had all of the right answers have to resort to derogatory attacks to prove their message?’
You could ask the same question of sceptics. Fact is, nobody comes out snow white when it comes to derogatory comments, but that’s the nature of human beings, exacerbated by the anonymous and immediate nature of the internet.
Jim said: “MattN attempts a perceived ‘fallacy of anachronism’ (re-sequencing events or possible events or discoveries in time or history);”
I did no such thing and have no idea where you get that. You guys are pretty unbelievable.