Silencing skeptics isn’t a real debate

Published 7:20 pm Friday, January 30, 2015

1. Obama presents climate change as health hazard

British science writer and House of Lords member Matt Ridley wrote recently about his life “as a climate lukewarmer,” and although his comments on the issue of climate change itself are instructive, his take on the debate is far more insightful.

Only one side of the debate actively seeks to silence the other. And that has him worried.

“I am a climate lukewarmer,” he explained. “That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.”

He acknowledged that his view “annoys some skeptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk.”

He notes, however, that his view isn’t out of the mainstream of scientists worldwide.

“My current view is still consistent with the ‘consensus’ among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” he explained. “The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.”

But in recent years, Ridley says, the level of discourse has declined.

“Those who disagreed with me stopped pointing out politely where or why they disagreed and started calling me names,” he wrote. “I suppose all this fury means my arguments are hitting home. If they were easily demolished they would demolish them rather than try to demolish me. Many of the things that I was abused for saying have since proved to be right.”

But for all of that, it’s his insight on how climate science is discussed and debated that’s most meaningful here.

“I have never met a climate skeptic, let alone a lukewarmer, who wants his opponents silenced,” Ridley wrote. “I wish I could say the same of those who think climate change is an alarming prospect.”

That’s no exaggeration. Some climate change fundamentalists — for lack of a better term — are now demanding that “deniers” be charged with crimes.

“We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent,” wrote Professor Lawrence Torcello of the Rochester Institute of Technology recently. “The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

Ridley is right. The surest sign that someone is losing an argument is when they demand the other side be silenced.

That’s what’s wrong with the climate debate today.