David Suzuki Should Set a Positive Example in Climate Debate

Global warming discussions need to be cleaned up if we are to develop rational policy
July 12, 2013 Updated: March 14, 2016

I deny that I am a “climate-change denier” as David Suzuki implied in his Epoch Times article titled “We Ignore Scientists at Our Peril.” I am a denial denier.

Climate changes all the time. The only constant about climate is change. It is has been changing since the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago and will continue to change until the planet is enveloped by the Sun 5 billion years from now (at which time global warming will indeed be a problem). Thoughtful readers will likely conclude that Suzuki’s attack is merely an attempt to discredit scientists who disagree with him about the causes of climate change and frighten newspapers into not publishing us.

I also deny that the science of climate change is in any way settled. 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 Al 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 and Suzuki 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) 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 climate experts are able to speak out without fear of retribution regardless of their points of view. We want public 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 change deniers,” Suzuki commits a logical fallacy often used to equate us 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,” as Suzuki has asserted, 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): Conservatives are not “anti-science.” Neither are liberals or socialists. 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: Suzuki has also 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 prominent Canadians such as David Suzuki to help set the stage for a mature, adult discussion of this important issue by avoiding these logical traps. Considering what’s at stake—a human-induced eco-collapse if climate activists are correct, or, if skeptics are right, a waste of billions of dollars and the loss of millions of jobs—the risks are too high to do anything less.

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. ICSC is not right wing (its participants come from across the political spectrum), is not funded by “big oil,” and there are no lobbyists or “shills” for industry of any sort. Tom Harris has never worked as a lobbyist or PR rep for any company or sector.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tom Harris
Tom Harris
Tom Harris is executive director of the non-partisan Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.