“... where is the open scientific debate in this [global warming] matter?”
— Jim Sutherland
“I am not interested in a p-----g match about global warming ... you would not change my mind. ...”
— Jim Sutherland
Can you see the disconnect?
When attacking the science on climate change, local freelance columnist Jim Sutherland complains that there is no debate. But when I asked him to debate (in a recent email), he refused, implying that his mind is made up and that he is impervious to any inconvenient evidence.
That kind of stance, when it comes to objective scholarship and unbiased journalism, is inadequate.
OK, so what about the other charges that Sutherland has laid down?
Apparently, Al Gore has a “… zero-science political career. …” I didn’t have to look very far before I found out that he was the chair of the Science and Technology committee in the U.S. Congress for four years. Now, I have criticized Gore in these pages for being a jet-setter and living in a big mansion, but I don’t think it’s fair to denigrate the man without even researching his background.
Sutherland doesn’t seem to like the word “denier” applied to folks who ignore the vast body of scientific literature. He says that it “… purposely categorizes them with people who question the Holocaust.” Actually, I think it’s just meant to categorize them as people who question the fundamentals of climate science that reach back to the work of Joseph Fourier in 1824. If Sutherland doesn’t like the word “denier,” what would he prefer as a label? Repudiator? Challenger? Debunker? Refuter? Invalidator? I’m fine with any of them, since it seems quite obvious that the real problem is that Sutherland denies (whoops, I mean refutes) the value of open debate.
To his credit, he did put forth a few arguments in his column that are intended to invalidate the science.
For example, he stated that because the feedback effects associated with climate change haven’t fully kicked in yet, then something must be fundamentally wrong with the science.
The flaw in the logic, however, is that feedback effects are hardly ever linear. They start small, and then, boom, they’re out of control. The perfect technical example is the so-called “tank slapper” that can sometimes affect a motorcyclist. The front wheel starts vibrating and then in a split second, the handlebars are whipping back and forth, and the rider is in for a nasty fall.
But that’s just one answer to one of Sutherland’s arguments. To fully explore the climate change issue, I hereby challenge him — yet again — to a debate. It would be via emails, and we could each post the points and counterpoints on our respective websites, and at www.reddeeradvocate.com. That way, our readers could also benefit from the discussion.
Sutherland may respond that he was just referring to a lack of debate among scientists; not a lack of debate among columnists.
However, he could have easily learned that in that last month or two, there has been a vigorous debate between Richard Lindzen (a climate scientist and a so-called climate skeptic, by the way) and others about whether more clouds mean more insulation for the planet or whether they would more effectively serve to reflect sunlight away from the planet. And in the last year or two, there has been an equally vigorous debate about whether the deep ocean is storing enough heat to mask the net warming of the planet.
So to say that there is no scientific debate is to ignore the evidence.
Ever since the days of Galileo, we have known that science is essentially just one long, never-ending debate. Observations enable hypotheses, which then enable theories, which prompt further debate and then more observations.
So the real question is not whether climate science is open to debate. The real question is whether Jim Sutherland is open to debate.
Evan Bedford is a local environmentalist. Direct comments, questions and suggestions to wyddfa23@telus.net. Visit the Energy and Ecology website at www.evanbedford