Critique of Cal Thomas’ article “More Abandon Climate ‘Myth’”
at 1:05 pm on Wednesday, 9 June 2010
“After spending years promoting ‘global warming,’ the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong.”
Just who are these media he talks about? Given the title of the piece, and this opening, one would suppose that some startling new evidence of flaws in the science was causing “media” to abandon the “climate myth.” However, Thomas does not cite any new science at all and doesn’t actually use any scientific information. He simply refers to some old denier scandals, such as the notorious and oft refuted climate-gate even though most of the articles don’t connect to the science at all, but to public opinion.
That quote is the first paragraph of the article and Thomas apparently didn’t read any further or he would have discovered that the article does not support his argument at all. We learn that the “rebellion” was from a tiny percentage of the Royal Society, who had been selected because they were hoped to be sympathetic to the cause, and asked to sign a petition to open the discussion on climate to more deniers. The article says that only a third of those asked actually signed, and nearly all of them were non-climate scientists and were retired.
The conclusion of the Royal Society? “Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change.”
Hardly a groundswell of opinion shift. Add to this fact that the London Times has been a leading denier of climate change from the very beginning. The reference to this article is completely empty of information and is used only to vaguely suggest that the Royal Society is being forced to change its stand on climate change because of something wrong with climate science. Thomas is counting on the reader’s just taking his word for it that the article suggests scientists were suppressing the truth, and will not go to the trouble to find and read what the London Times article actually said.
Thomas next refers to a Newsweek article titled “Uncertain Science”, in the May 28 edition of newsweek.com, which he admits up front doesn’t support his thesis very well. The article, by Stefan Theil (who is not a science writer), is about how the general pubic is losing confidence in global warming, primarily because of other issues they hold to be more urgent, and because scientists have not done a very good job of communicating. No news there. No sudden abandonment of the “myth”.
Next, he drags out the old “polar bears are thriving” argument. According to Arctic Focus, October 27, in a routine re-evaluation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) the convention recommended that all commercial trade in polar bears will be against the law. The Nunavut, whose income depends heavily on guiding sportsmen on polar bear hunts, claimed that polar bears were not currently under any stress in their part of the arctic, and asked for the hunting restrictions not apply to their territory. It is obvious that the Nunavut have a special interest. In fact, the polar bears may be thriving in their particular part of the arctic. That would not suggest that the science of climate change is affected in any way by this occurrence. Hence, there is no support here for Thomas’ assertion that climate change is a “myth”. He just need an opportunity to say “polar bears” and “thriving” in the same sentence, which is, in fact exactly what he did.
His reference to the New York Times has to be quoted in full to be appreciated:
LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?
When I first read this I couldn’t believe that a New York Times editor had let such an obvious gaff pass. But then, unlike Mr. Thomas, I read the article. The article described a meeting in which hundreds of scientists and others gathered to discuss why global science had gone from being one of the hottest topics amongst the general public in Britain to being taken seriously by less than 30% of the population. The Times writer used two of the commonest of all logical fallacies to help explain the sudden shift. It was a “rhetorical” question with no fewer that two classical logical fallacies!
First it the equivocation on the word “consensus.” “Consensus” means “agreement”, or solidarity of opinion. The question about consensus is agreement amongst whom? The big question is “If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea. . . “Scientific consensus” would clearly mean a general agreement amongst scientists. In his very next sentence Thomas declares that there was not a consensus. It would seem that consensus should refer to “scientific consensus” above, but, no, the next sentence boldly declares that the consensus is amongst “those of us who didn’t get an ‘A’ in science”! By using a perfectly common word to mean two entirely different things, he has bamboozled himself. Or is he trying to deliberately bamboozle us?
The simple fact is: anyone who didn’t get an “A” in science does not get a vote in a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is an agreement amongst experts. There was an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, and the consensus has grown even stronger as more and more evidence supporting global climate change becomes available.
Appealing to a consensus view for support of an opinion or belief is called an “appeal to authority”. The value of the argument depends entirely upon on the quality of the authority and the relevance of the authority’s expertise to the subject. I think most reasonable people would agree that a “consensus of scientists” should carry more authoritative weight than a “consensus of those of us who never go an “A” in science” in the evaluation of a scientific thesis. Once one has determined whether the authority is reasonable and likely to actually be an expert in the subject under consideration, one must decide how much to depend on that authority’s opinion.
The 20th Century philosopher, Bertrand Russell, provided a good guide to evaluating expert opinion in his little book Let the People Think (London, 1941, p.2):
“When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;
“When [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert;
“When they all hold no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion to exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.”
In the case of global warming the consensus of scientists is a trustworthy authority. And the experts (the climate scientists) are in agreement (over 94% at last count — an overwhelming majority).
Next, this big question (If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?) is, itself, an example of the fallacy called argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers) or argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people). It is a logical fallacy that is taught to ever college student who takes freshman English. It is an appeal that is often used in political advertising, as in: “Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.” How many people believe a thing has nothing to do with its truth or relevancy to a current situation. The oceans are getting warmer. Masses of data from all over the world demonstrate it. It does not matter at all what you or I or ten thousand Scandinavian sailors believe. Facts are facts. And the overwhelming number of expert scientists agree that the science behind climate change is good science. According to Bertrand Russell, any opposing view is unlikely.
The big job for scientists now is to try to get those who never got an “A” in science to understand enough about climate change that they will vote for people who can effect the kinds of change that will be required to mitigate the situation.
The horrifying thing about Thomas’ using this paragraph (in which he used both an unqualified) in an argument that is opposite to what Elisabeth Rosenthal was demonstrating in her quoted material, is that he fell for both fallacies! This seems to prove, beyond any doubt, that Thomas didn’t read the article. He took what he thought served his purpose and ran off to write his article.
Thomas obliquely refers to an article in the third most popular newspaper in Germany, Focus. He doesn’t actually cite anything in the article except the mention of El Nino, La Nina, and “shifting winds” as drivers of weather. These three phenomena are thoroughly described and accounted for in the scientific literature. He missed a big chance to enumerate a whole list of popular denier arguments that were featured in the article. (All of the arguments in the Focus article have long been debunked.
He then appeals to an authority, the meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, recently of the Weather Channel. Mr D’Aleo would seem to be a person who is qualified to speak on the subject of climate. Unfortunately, if Thomas represents D’Aleo’s views correctly, he is the person who confuses cause and effect in discussing El Nino, La Nina, and “shifting winds”. Also if we follow the advice of Bertrand Russell, since Joe D’Aleo is in the tiny minority of scientists who deny the importance of climate change, his conclusions are unlikely to be correct. It is fair, in this instance, to mention that almost all of D’Aleo’s publications are sponsored by Exxon, so he also has a vested political and financial interest.
TO BE CONTINUED
“Thomas is counting on the reader’s just taking his word for it.” He’s one of those regular newspaper commentators, isn’t he? like George Will, another despicable ideologue. These people are no better than Rush Limbaugh or the rest of the gasbags on radio and TV.
The sainted Ronnie Reagan is the one who got the “fair and balanced” rule in media dumped. It has never been revived. Clinton had the chance and blew it. Anyone who wants to try to get through to the folks who never got an A in Science classes, or maybe can read but that’s about it–is blocked by the fact that newspapers are no longer obliged to carry opinion columns that approach issues from more than one side of the political pulpit.