Consider the recent statement by an alarmist group calling itself the Union of Concerned Scientists: “A modest but effective investment has allowed [Exxon-Mobil] to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
It’s time a common fallacy was laid to rest. Call it the “Big Green Fallacy.” If it weren’t kicking around in its current form, you might recognize it from logic 101. It’s known formally as ad hominem, which means “attacking the man” (rather than his position).
One way to attack the man is to talk about the people she associates with or where she gets her paycheck, like: “Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, so her views on the minimum wage are wrong.” But any student of logic knows that Pelosi’s position can only be wrong for reasons independent of her affiliations.
Despite the availability of logic courses, this form of ad hominem is the No. 1 charge against those skeptical about human-induced global warming.
It normally takes the form: “Organization O is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change for reasons XYZ. O receives contributions from oil companies who have a financial interest in proving that climate change is not caused by humans. Therefore, O’s skeptical position is false.”
Examples:
» Chris Mooney in Mother Jones : “Ebell [skeptic] is the global warming and international policy director of [CEI], which has received a whopping $1,380,000 from ExxonMobil.”
» Center for Media and Democracy: “O’Brien has a history of associating himself with corporate-funded climate change skeptics. [He] … is also listed as an expert at the George C. Marshall Institute. In 2004, the Institute received $170,000 from ExxonMobil.”
» Laurie David in The Washington Post : “The same ExxonMobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming … has … financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus.”
Some of us read such and think Al Gore must be right. But what we’ve failed to consider are the reasons for the skeptic’s skepticism, that is: XYZ. Folks like “A Skeptic’s Guide” author Marlo Lewis — wherever they get their bread-n-butter — happen to have good reasons for their views. We won’t go into them, but rather urge people to think critically about the arguments on both sides.
Being a critical thinker isn’t easy. As a skeptic myself, I am often tempted to argue along similar lines as those true believers cited above. After all, climate scientists get funding from either Big Green or Big Government.
With gazillions going to climate research, scientists with inconclusive or lackluster findings won’t be as likely to get funding renewed. Such should make us raise an eyebrow.
But raised eyebrows don’t invalidate any scientist’s work. All we can do is ask that those intellectually equipped to evaluate the science separate facts from confirmation biases — that is, the human tendency to find what you’re looking for in your research.
If there truly is a climate change consensus, we should keep an eye out for forces within that community suppressing dissent. Ultimately, doubters’ rigorous checking and rechecking moves science forward. That’s the nature of free inquiry, never mind who pays for your microphone.
An inconvenient truth: If skeptic’s reasons XYZ are plausible, money will follow. If it didn’t, skeptics might spend their time thinking about El Nino or numismatics.
But when policymakers are threatening radically to alter the energy sector — heck, the global economy — in light of the science, someone had better be skeptical. Particularly when the economic “consensus” says proposed cures looks worse than the disease.
Max Borders, a writer in Arlington, does not receive money from the oil industry but says he would happily do so.
