Last month, U.S. Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) hosted an unbiased climate change panel discussion in Fairmont, W.V. 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 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 or sanction, 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 commercial interests.
Sadly, the exact opposite is the case today. Emotions run high as the climate debate has become intensely polarized. Implications of bias and vested financial interests, as well as logical fallacies (errors in reasoning), have taken the place of meaningful consideration of 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:
l 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. No one is denying that climate changes; only the causes are in dispute.
l “Climate change denier” is also a ‘thought-terminating cliché.’
l 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.
l 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 cellphones or take vitamins. They simply disagree with each other about the causes of climate change. Climate always changes on planets with atmospheres.
We need politicians and media to help the stage for an effective discussion of this, one of the most important issues of our time, by avoiding these logical traps. Rep McKinley has led the way. Let’s hope other leaders soon follow.
What do you think?
[First published in The Gazette.]