The contest is joined. On one side there is the
near-unanimous conclusion of thousands of active climate scientists
throughout the world: the global climate is changing and human technology is
the primary cause. From the other side we are told that “climate change” is
at worst a “hoax” or at least a normal and natural phenomenon not
significantly affected by human activity. This position is endorsed by
right-wing media, almost all congressional Republicans, and a few bought-off
“scientists” (“biostitutes”) lavishly funded by fossil fuel industries.
So how do you deal with a “denier” willing to engage you
in a debate?
If the “denier” tells you that “God would not allow the
climate to change” or that “Jesus will fix all that when he comes back in
the next few years,” and then quotes the Bible as “evidence,” save your
breath and his time. His is a hopeless case.
But if your adversaries are citing what they believe is
“scientific fact” or otherwise exhibit some indication of a capacity to
yield in the face of scientific evidence, they just might listen to reason
and consider evidence – but don’t count on it.
You might proceed by citing scientific studies, to which
your opponent will likely respond with anecdotes, out-of context quotes, and
citations of dissenting “biostitutes” (Cf. “The Tobacco Institute”). But
this promises to be an endless harangue. As one wit put it, “for every Ph.D
there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.” Except, of course, in this case, with
regard to the weight of empirical evidence, the “experts” in question, while
“opposite,” are not equal.
Three Questions for the Denier:
Instead of citing an endless list of scientific studies,
I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions.
“How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged
facts?”
Now he might reply that the press has lied: that there
never was such a survey, and that there is no such thing as the IPCC. But
such a reply will only confirm that your adversary is a certified citizen of
Fantasyland, and that it is time for a polite but prompt exit.
But if your opponent answers the first two questions
affirmatively, it seems that there are only four conceivable responses to
these compelling facts:
1. “Global climate change” is a hoax, perpetrated by
a world-wide conspiracy of thousands of scientists.
2. Those scientists have been “bought off” by funding
agencies – primarily governments – who have a secret agenda (variously
described).
3. These scientists, along with their inferences from thousands of
peer-reviewed accounts of field and laboratory studies, are all simply
wrong.
4. The consensus conclusion of these scientists is
correct: global warming is real and homo sapiens have caused it.
A Hoax? Bribery? Scientific Error? Our Response:
Is climate change a hoax?
If so, then it is a “hoax” deliberately and collectively
perpetrated by thousands of active climate scientists from dozens of
countries throughout the world. It is a “hoax” endorsed by virtually every
national and international scientific organization, including the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of
Sciences. In other words, this “hoax” amounts to an international
conspiracy.
What possible motive could unite so many individuals and
nations from so many differing cultures, traditions, religions and national
interests – a motive so compelling that it leads them all to participate in
a colossal fraud? None that I can imagine, save perhaps personal financial
gain, which we will deal with next.
There is, however, another common motive which might lead
all these climate scientists to the consensus that global climate change is
real and largely of human origin: Scientific integrity.
That integrity is achieved through by strict adherence to
scientific method and rigorous peer review prior to publication. Conversely,
a violation of this integrity, for example by presenting non-replicable
“cooked” evidence or purchased conclusions, can end a scientific career.
Have climate scientists been “bought off” by funding
agencies?
If you wish to trade in your scientific reputation for
cash, don’t look to the United Nations, the United States, or other
governments for that payoff. You will do far better if you solicit the Koch
brothers, or Exxon-Mobil, or Peabody Coal. To be sure, a few scientists have
done just that, but not enough to make a dent in that roster of climate
scientists who have joined the consensus.
But bribing thousands of scientists around the world to
affirm a conclusion that they all know to be false? What agency could
conceivably be behind this conspiracy? National governments that are members
of the United Nations? But why would any national government, much less all
governments, prefer a finding of climate change to that of a steady-state
climate?
And what independent evidence exists of this colossal
bribery? If there were any, you can be sure that it would have been trumpeted
by the corporate media. Of these thousands of allegedly corrupt scientists,
have any of them “fessed up” to their crimes? None that I know of. If they
had, we would know of it, believe me.
In one noteworthy case,
Stanford climatologist Richard Muller,
on record as a “climate change skeptic,” accepted a grant from the Koch
brothers to critically examine the validity of the scientific consensus.
Muller’s conclusion: he was wrong and the consensus was right. Anthropogenic
climate change is very real.
Are all these scientists and their supporting studies
simply wrong?
Conceivable, but highly improbable. In fact, the
“conceivability” that the consensus view might be wrong is essential to the
likelihood that it is true. Scientists call this
“the falsifiability criterion.” An explanation is in order.
We can imagine a world in which evolution is false. In
such a world, there would be no fossil record, no DNA similarity among the
species, no random mutations, etc. But that would not be the world that we
live in. Evidence in this “real world” confirms the truth of evolution.
We can imagine a universe in which Einstein’s relativity
theory is false. In such a world, light from a distant star would not “bend”
in an eclipse in a manner precisely predicted by Einstein’s theory. Nor
would particle accelerators behave as they do, etc. But scientific
experimentation proves that we live in Einstein’s universe, not another that
is conceivably different.
In brief: assertions of fact, if they are to be
scientifically valid, must in principle be capable of describing what it
would be like for such assertions to be false.
Thus the consensus conclusion of 98% of active climate
scientists is that the world we inhabit is undergoing significant man-made
climate change. Moreover, it is easy to image a world in which this is not
happening. In such a world, the Arctic ice cap and the terrestrial glaciers
would not be decreasing, the acidity and temperature of the oceans would not
be increasing, the CO2 content of the atmosphere would be steady. Sadly,
that is not the world that is measured, confirmed and reported by the
climate scientists.
The climate change deniers would have us believe that
despite all the accumulated evidence by those thousands of scientists, the
conclusion therefrom that the global climate is changing is false. On the
contrary, they tell us, the world in which we live has a steady-state
climate, or if not, then climate change is “natural,” occasional, and of no
great concern.
If so, then where is the evidence? And where is the
argument that the data from these field and laboratory experiments do not in
fact support the consensus view?
There are none that survive scrupulous, peer-reviewed
scientific scrutiny. Instead, we get citations of the rare and insignificant
errors in the mountain of confirming data. We get out-of-context reports,
such as “proof” of global cooling taken from
arbitrary data points in a temperature graph that, in full context,
unquestionably displays an upward trend line.
In fact, the very flimsiness of the refuting arguments serve, in the minds
of the informed and critical observer, to significantly weaken the
denialists’ assertions. “If that’s the best that the deniers can come up
with, they don’t have a case.” Unfortunately, this is not the response of
the typical FOX News viewer, or of virtually all GOP members of Congress.
And what of that dissenting 2% of climate scientists? I
have not seen a breakdown of that statistic, but I would guess that a large
majority are “skeptics” rather than “deniers.” They have seen the evidence,
might find it compelling, but “are not yet convinced.” That would leave less
than one percent who are “deniers,” and that, in science, constitutes “proof
beyond reasonable doubt.”
Could the consensus be right – is anthropogenic
climate change a reality?
This, by process of elimination, must be the only
plausible explanation of the world-wide scientific consensus.
And yet, as scientists, they are open to the possibility
that they are wrong. Scientific integrity demands this openness: its called
“the falsifiability rule.” All that is required is scientifically compelling
contrary evidence and inference.
So far: nothing.
Furthermore, as compassionate human beings with children
and grandchildren, and with concern for the future of humanity, these same
scientists must hope that they are wrong. Sadly, their evidence offers them
no solace.
The Climate Change Denier Responds:
Our hypothetical opponent may still be unconvinced, and
thus not quite done with us. Here are a few denialist responses that I have
encountered personally, and which are no doubt familiar to those who have
been following the climate debate.
What do you know? You are not a climate scientist!
Granted. I am not a climate scientist. So I rely on the
findings of those who are.
But neither is Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity, or Senator
James Inhoff, or any of the denier Republicans in Congress, climate scientists. In
fact, the only Member of Congress to come close to expertise in the subject
is physicist Rush Holt (D, NJ). And he, of course, believes in climate
change.
So you are a victim of the fallacy of argument from
authority.
Guilty as charged. Almost everything I know is via
someone else’s say-so.
Likewise yourself, gentle reader. Indirect knowledge
(from “authority”) is an indispensable condition of education and of modern
civilization.
I know directly that it is sunny outside, that I’d rather
be paddling in the Pacific Ocean right now, and that my wife is about serve
me a spaghetti dinner (I just checked). Virtually everything else – that
Barack Obama is President, that the Declaration of Independence was signed
in 1776, that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and so on ad infinitum
– I know “by authority.” And regarding the boiling point of water: if I
confirm that by looking at a thermometer, I believe it only on the
authoritative assumption that the thermometer is accurate.
So “argument by authority” is unavoidable. But it is also
occasionally fallacious. If my doctor writes out a prescription, I trust
that he is qualified to do so. But if a retired Olympic skating champion
tells me on TV that I should take Vioxx, I should be skeptical. How do we
know how to make that distinction? By examining the qualifications and
motives of the alleged “authorities.”
In short, some alleged “fallacies” aren’t.
Distinguishing sound from fallacious reasoning requires a critical “case-by-case”
examination of the alleged “fallacies.” (See my
“That’s Just Your
Opinion”).
So it comes down to this: My hypothetical critic takes me
to task for “citing authorities,” which he says is a “fallacy.” In return,
he cites his own “authorities,” as he must. How do we settle this “he said -
she said” confrontation? By examining the qualifications of the opposing
“experts,” and the empirical foundations of their research. On my side
thousands of qualified climate scientists, with conclusions following
billions of dollars and billions of hours of peer-reviewed research. On the
other side purchased “biostitutes” and corporate funded public relations
campaigns.
No contest.
Scientists have been known to be wrong in the past.
Again, true. But how has scientific error been discovered
and corrected? In all cases, this has been accomplish through better
science.
So to the deniers, I have this challenge: present your
“better science” if you have it. So far, silence.
In the meantime, the scientific community remains
permanently open to well-founded contrary evidence. As we noted above (re:
“falsifiability”), that is how science works.
Conclusion:
The political, economic and media opposition to
scientific research, as exemplified in the climate change debate, is not
new. We have seen it before: acid rain, cigarettes and cancer, Rachel
Carson’s “Silent Spring,” aerosols and ozone, as Naomi Oreskes and Eric
Conway have documented in their outstanding book,
Merchants of Doubt.
Corporate propaganda is powerful, but it is not
omnipotent. In all these cases, the weight of scientific evidence eventually
prevailed. But this time, we can’t wait for “eventual” vindication. The
findings of the IPCC and of those thousands of climate scientists portend
unimaginable horrors., unless the global community of nations and their
scientists act immediately and decisively.
“Eventual” vindication of their warnings will be too
late.
More Readings for Unconvinced Climate Change Deniers
Jill Fitzsimmons:
“Meet the Climate Denial Machine.
James Hansen: Storms
of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our
Last Chance to Save Humanity,
James Hoggan:
Climate Cover-Up.
William D. Nordhaus: “Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong.”
Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway:
Merchants of Doubt.
Ernest Partridge:
“A Convenient Delusion."
Ernest Partridge: “Climate Reality Bites the Libertarians.”
Stephen H. Schneider: Science
as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate,
