Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric
Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric
In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.
In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?
When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.
I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.
One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.
Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?
Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?
So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.
Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?
Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?
There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.
If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.
That’s how I would look at that discussion.
r
Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.
If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).
PDF
PPS
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
"Denial" has little to do with intelligence. There are many reasons that people will deny something and usually the reasons have very little to do with their intelligence. Also, being highly intelligent is not an indication that your thoughts will always be correct.
Self induced ignorance is something else entirely. You are making attempts to learn and I would never include you into that category.
I'll put this as gently as I can. One of the properties of being intelligent, perhaps the most important property, is the ability to learn. Denialists will post again and again something that has previously been refuted substantively. No changes, no modifications, just re-post the refuted assertion. It's is tough to ascribe intelligence to such an action...unless the motivation of the denialist isn't to raise a legitimate question, but something else altogether. Many of us are unwilling to ascribe a motive, therefore, ascribing a lack of intelligence seems to be the most likely explanation that can be supported by the evidence.
Nothing in science is a 100% certainty. Why should AGW be held to a standard to which we don't hold any other science?
That said, the fact that it is rapidly warming (by geological standards) and the fact that human activity, including emission of fossil CO2 is close enough to a certainty that it should be acted upon.
"...the Genesis 8:22 [verse] that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.' My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
Normally, such a mindset wouldn't be a problem; if some under-educated Okie wants to hold views that are sharply at odds with science and common sense, that's perfectly fine. But Inhofe isn't just some harmless dude; he is the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In other words, the most influential member of the senate committee charged with protecting the environment is by his own admission directed neither by science nor a desire to protect that environment, but rather by his own superstitious belief that his deity won't allow us to screw up that environment no matter how hard we might try.
Self-induced ignorance, indeed. :-\
Inhofe has no more business making policy decisions on the environment than a habitual bank robber has making policy decisions of what hours to lock the vault. And if the GOP somehow succeeds in taking control of the Senate this fall, Inhofe will most likely become the chair for that committee.
shivers...
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
SENATOR
$1,287,950
Sided with Dirty Energy interests in 100% of selected votes
Gee, I can hardly wait...
Dirty energy? I suppose you walk everywhere. Do you own a car? Do you use plastics? Do you use electricity. Oh yes, energy is very dirty. What a hypocrite.
100% certainty? The people leading the charge to the Stone Age have been wrong with every one of their predictions. Try as they might to hide the lack of warming and the lack of correlation to CO2 increase, they can't hide facts. They admitted that they can't find the warming in their own email. If it can't be replicated, it isn't science. Sorry to say the scientific method applies to all science -- even AGW sorcery "science."
We shall not go backwards to the Dark ages, Lean Forward,
The Old ways are withering before our very eye's.
Their ignorance is only overshadowed by their Blind arrogance.
img src="Radioactive pollution from rare earths processing in China China Re-Nationalizes Rare Earths %u2013 Part One, Metal Miner by STUART on SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 That China has suffered severe and widespread pollution from the mining and refining of rare earth elements (REE) is not in doubt %u2014">
Here is another picture
"Polluted water discharged by a small rare-earth mining company in rural Baotou, in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region. China has seen environmental damage from mining and processing, and depletion of the resource. [China Daily]">
Looks real clean and green to me, how about you?
Bottom line there is no such thing as clean or green energy. In this day and age energy is dirty maybe someday we will have the technology but as of now we don't.
After you see the list, would you be willing to give up those products?
What I find hypocritical is you always try to belittle people that are having to use dirty energy while you constantly offer support for our having to do so. Now that is an excellent example of a hypocrite! What you should support is an energetic move away from dirty energy sources.
Again, your debate points are both spurious and specious.
LIke balck paint to heat a swimming pool..
like... oh forget it, you'd only seek a retort not understanding anyway..
So what... you are saying that it is ok to pollute then?
Sure we need rare earths elements. There is not excuse for the pollution though - but the pollution is what happens when there are no environmental controls. I agree with you, we need more controls to protect the environment.
That's true. Denialists have been consistently wrong in their predictions. I'm hard pressed to think of a single instance in which their predictions have been successful. Yet they continue to delay action in their effort to lead us back to the Stone Age, if you are to be believed.
Try as they might to hide the lack of warming and the lack of correlation to CO2 increase, they can't hide facts. They admitted that they can't find the warming in their own email.
Thank you for exhibiting exactly the denialist behavior that I noted in my earlier post. Two behaviors, in fact: 1. You use an out of context quote (that is innocuous when in context); 2. You use that quote despite the fact that it has been thoroughly refuted.
Now, do you do this because you lack intelligence or do you have a different motivation? I ask for informational purposes only.
The fact that CO2 is a GHG can and has been replicated many, many times for well over 100 years. So, unless the CO2 in our atmosphere is magic CO2 it will warm the Earth's atmosphere.
False dichotomy. You are indirectly asserting that mining can't be done in an environmentally responsible fashion. That might well be true, but it requires some pretty hefty evidence to support that assertion.
If, as I believe, mining can be done responsibly then there's little need to give up those things.
I've never been a big fan of astrology, but thanks all the same.
Those who live (or want to live) in the reality based community should read this, also --or instead.
They don't? Are you sure? Have you looked about thoroughly?
Hey cricket! How do you feel about environmental controls?
Show you what, exactly? A better way to mine? There's no need. It's obvious that that can be done, given the fact that you concede that mines pollute.
Please provide evidence that it is impossible to mine responsibly with today's technology.
Well, nevermind; we all know the answer.
A couple of the larger points on which Gunter screwed up:
--He referred to "Europe’s and Asia’s cold, snowy season". The fact is, the deep early-February cold snap is all that kept Europe from having one of its warmest winters ever. As it was, the deep cold was confined to southern and eastern Europe, and western Asia; both the UK and the Scandinavian countries experienced well above normal winters.
--The sun's output has been very, very low--yet the planet continues to warm. Constantly claiming that the warming will start any day now is silly; Gunter at al. may wish to wait until some actual cooling takes place before making such inane predictions.
Exactly! You have finally admitted it! That is the most probable outcome should those that wish to keep us on the path of consuming every non-renewable, fossil fuel on Earth! This is done with an increased intensity to do so.
We have already used up the cheap, easily obtained fossil fuels. The days of Jed Clampett discovering oil with a missed shot at a rabbit have long, long passed. What happens to the economy every time oil makes an extended or big jump upward in price? What is going to happen when fossil fuels become too cost prohibitive to use and we have not made a strong effort towards the renewable sources of energy? Following your lead and predictions that all will be fine with our use of fossil fuels is the quickest path that I can think of for all to live as we did during the Stone Age! Not only do you suffer from your own self imposed ignorance, but, also, you also seem to lack any reasoning ability towards any forethought at all.
China is long known for their polluting ways. As was Russia during the days of the U.S.S.R.. So were we before we decided to "clean up our act". The push for renewable energy sources are made dirtier by the methods some will use to obtain them. Better and cleaner methods are available and usable today. While there is no such thing as a completely clean or safe energy source, fossil fuels have never been clean or safe to use. When something goes wrong, in the use of fossil fuels, it usually goes horribly wrong.
Excellent question!
Ideally, it would mean "producing no pollution whatsoever." That's probably not doable for economic (not technological) reasons. Since human beings seem well-disposed toward allowing economics to tell them what to do, a more useful definition of "responsible" would be getting as close to zero pollution as economics (as that game is played now) allows.
The biggest problem for Molycorp has been raising capital, not getting mining permits. They are, however, up and running now.
Molycorp To Launch Sequential Start-Up of New, State-of-the-Art Rare Earth Manufacturing Facility This Week
...A large segment of the American public is poorly informed about science. Such ignorance can readily be exploited. And it is being exploited, by those with large stakes in the status quo, to defend their interests. Again, this is a relative handful of people. Most of the energy industry understands that global warming is real, and that the changes it will bring present new opportunities for profit. Most politicians also understand these things. But a relative handful cannot or do not accept the new reality. For whatever reason, they seek to fend it off as long as possible. Their tactics fall under the rubric of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.3
The primary goal of a well-run FUD campaign is to avoid discussing the facts of the matter at hand, when the facts don't favor your side. Global-warming Denialists have this down to a science, if you'll pardon the phrase. They cherry-pick facts, quote experts out of context, ignore unsuitable evidence, misuse statistics, and generally dismiss the big picture. Denialists leap on the slightest discrepancy in data presented by a mainstream scientist to claim that his entire study is without merit. At the same time, they ignore all rebuttals to arguments they present. Distraction is an essential part of this process. If one claim is demolished, they simply trot out another from an array of seemingly plausible arguments. By the time that one is demolished, a third one is ready. And so it goes. If this round-robin distraction should falter, the ad hominem attack is an ever-ready backup. Thus, the typical arguments depend on rotation (as already discussed), on repetition, ridicule and rodomontade — which supports my contention that they are part of a political campaign.
Repetition — Denialists do not rebut the claims of scientists; they simply sidestep them, raising the same long-discredited talking points again and again. It's not hard to figure out that their intent is to wear down the opposition (or at least the undecided public.) In fact, political attacks on the scientific evidence for global warming are on the increase, as noted here:
Meanwhile back at the ranch (Michael Tobis, Only In It For The Gold)
Ridicule — It is common for Denialist arguments to include ad hominem attacks, by turns calling the opposition shamefully gullible or shamelessly greedy. Al Gore has become the chief target of such attacks, with James Hansen a close second. Here's an example:
10 Reasons To Doubt Global Warming is Man-Made (Duane Lester, All American Blogger)
Rodomontade — There are two sides to the argument from rodomontade (boasting or bluster). One side maintains that humanity can easily adapt to the effects of global warming, whatever they turn out to be, often adding that humankind survived previous climate changes just fine — as if that's relevant to our current situation. The other side claims that global warming will actually be good for us, as this site humorously avers:
Ten reasons to love global warming (Garry Reed, From Reason to Freedom)
Finally, fear comes into play when, casting aside their nonchalance, they point to the costs of fighting global warming — costs so enormous, they maintain, that the economy will collapse. They rarely discuss the costs of not fighting global warming.
Climate scientists have recently been subject to fears of a more personal nature. These include both investigations for alleged malpractice4 and threats of death.5
Add up all their contradictory claims and you have a nonexistent phenomenon which will be largely beneficial, but whose harmful effects, if any, will be dealt with in due time through technical advances produced by the free market. The sensible course, therefore, is to ignore the doomsayers. However, if any action is taken to combat global warming, the entire world will go bankrupt.
A scientifically literate person might think that, with all the information about global warming that is freely available on the Web, in popular magazines, on television, and in scientific journals — not to mention plain common sense — these absurd arguments would have long since faded away. Sadly, I have found this not to be the case. Since the Denialists won't see reason and stop of their own accord, I conclude they must be forced to stop...
The full post and related links can be found here
Link
It was a science fiction story and the relevant excerpt is -
What type of technologies are you using to read & post on this website?
(desktop / laptop /tablet / wifi / bluetooth / dsl,... ?)
Do you own any electronics - TV, Cell / Smart phone, digital camera, MP3 Players,...? use fluorescent lighting... ?)
- The materials being extracted in the pictures you posted are not only used for "green" technologies - they're also in most (if not all) electronic devices manufactured today.
- The good news - they're all recyclable
Great article on electronics recycling. Ethical Electronics Article Link
Article about Molycorp Mine (USA) Link
The worst recycling in the world is better than the best mining in the world!
Recycling is not a form of "waste disposal". It is a form of resource extraction
In all fairness - I wasn't aware of the importance of recycling used electronics until I ran across this article - and now I've passed that awareness on to you!
I like the way you post, nymore, when you post with reasoned thought. I have seen you do so and this is one of them.
The name calling, finger pointing, disclosing anyone's personal information and comments like, "pot, meet kettle". have no place and serve no useful purpose, within a reasoned debate.
I agree that it has become more difficult to obtain permits for any type of extractions. Considering our horrific past with any type of extractions, then we should take a more studied approach to granting such permits. .. We were all assured that the oil companies could drill deep waters and could do so safely, using the current technologies. While this may all be true, it is also true that greed dictates the day and not the technology that could be used, when it is not "cost effective" to correctly use the safer technologies. They even assured us they were well prepared to quickly handle any event that may arise. We have seen the results of these assurances.
While there is no completely safe or clean way to doing the things that we do, there are cleaner and safer ways of doing things than we practice. One such example would be that we did have environmental laws in place that limited what mining companies could do with their mining tailings. Mining companies were restricted from having their tailings encroach within a set number feet of a valley or a water system. Water systems as small a creek or stream. The EPA, on May 3, 2002, altered its definition of "fill material" and this allowed for mining companies to dump their mining tailings into valleys and streams.
Some other "Events"
We could do things a lot better than we do now, yet we sometimes take steps backwards, instead of forward.
For the year-to-date, record high temperatures have outnumbered record low temperatures by 7,676 to 1,062, or 7.23 to 1. I expect that will moderate at some time over the year (last May, for instance, saw more record lows than highs) but 2011 is definitely well on its way to being yet another lopsided one.
148 ----- You are a Convicted Spammer, LOL!
Gnight>>>>>>>>>>
Servers too, ya think?
Its not new
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index