Smart is as smart argues.
Those who wish to convince others through their intellectual prowess sometimes rely on logical fallacies, such as ad hominem and appeal to authority. The former fallacy often comes with a smug smirk; the latter, with a dismissive shrug. Such is what I observed in a YouTube video of a debate among six “experts” on climate change/global warming. Examples of people coexisting on equal grounds are rare, and tempered language even rarer. Nowhere in the annals of intellectual—a questionable modifier here—conflict is the futility of argument in the sense of a logical progression of ideas and refutations more evident than in the debate on climate change. One of the reasons for the intractable positions on either side lies in pride. Who wants to admit failure? Who is willing to say, “I made a mistake; you were right all along”? Another reason lies in bias: One side associating some inherent character flaw with the other side. Anyway, arguing is futile. Discussion is fruitless, and declarations of facts dubious because of their sources.
I took my wife to a Johnny Mathis concert some years ago—I can’t remember exactly—first because he was her favorite singer and second because I wanted to provide her with a pleasant break from her incessant work ethic. One of Mathis’ songs is “Chances Are,” a tune basically about the lover telling his loved one chances are good that what she sees in his eyes are an expression of love.
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me…
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good.
So, I wondered whether or not I might look into the eyes of Democrats and Republicans or Leftists and Rightists, or liberals and conservatives, or Alarmists and Deniers to discern the chances of either side changing views. In this milieu of divisiveness, chances are not good for anything other than satisfying confirmation bias among the like-minded.
I write this after having observed a “discussion” or “debate” on the subject among supposed representatives of both sides.
LADIEEEEES AND GENTLEMENNNN, IN THIS CORNER WEIGHING IN WITH BILLIONS OF TONS OF ANTHROPOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON DIOXIDE ARE THE TAG TEAM OF NOBEL LAUREATE MARIO MALINO, DANIEL SCHRAG, AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS. AND IN THIS CORNER THEIR OPPONENTS, WILLIAM HAPPER, LORD NIGEL LOWSON, AND RICHARD LINDZEN. *
You can watch the whole debate on YouTube if you like. But I want to point out why supposedly intelligent humans cannot carry on a logical dialogue with give-and-take that results in a change of mind, or should I say, mindset. And, though you might accuse me here of violating my own principle of “evenhandedness,” I want to use the words of just one of these eminent men, Mario Malino, Mexican scientist and alarmist who has worked on the effect of CFCs on the atmosphere and on other atmospheric phenomena.
At one point in the debate, Malino, to counter the argument of the other side, says that 97% of the scientific community agree that global warming is not only occurring, but is also occurring because of anthropogenically emitted carbon dioxide. This is a Nobel laureate in science, mind you, not someone to dismiss lightly—if we were to appeal to authority. I might understand a flippant dismissal of Yassar Arafat, terrorist given the status of Nobel Peace laureate, or Barack Obama, recipient of the same award after having worked as a community organizer and running for US President with no other discernible accomplishments save a couple of teleprompter speeches, one of which he gave in France to a crowd attending a concert. But Malino? This is a guy with credentials in atmospheric studies and the chemistry and physics of gases. Maybe we should listen to him.
Yet, his use of that “97%” mantra, so common after Al Gore used his film to announce it, makes me think that Malino is more a representative of the religion of climate change than of the science of climate fluctuations that occur for various reasons. Ninety-seven percent? Is this true? And what is the significance of the number if it is true? If, as Malino says, 97% of scientists say the world is warming anthropogenically, do they also say that warming is a problem of “existential” dimension? Has it been worth turning food into fuel (corn to ethanol), shutting down fossil fuels, and covering fertile soils with solar panels?
Trying to discern the problem of “consensus” has become a problem in itself. Really. You can see about a half dozen videos on YouTube on the subject, some saying the number is definite; others, that it is a myth. Some trace it to a work by Cook and others to a work by Oreskes. ** And the comments beneath each of these videos reveal the truth in what I am arguing: Argument—logical argument—is dead. Refutations come as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authorities on authority.
I suppose the best any of us can do to convince the “other side” that we aren’t just crazies who have been brainwashed by either Left or Right, Big Coal or Big Battery, or Lomborg, or Thunberg, is to put down a numbered list of pros and cons in the debate. But even if we do that, we’ll find that nowadays, regardless of our sources, our message won’t “hit home.” That reality, the reality of nonacceptance, is what will continue to keep us apart whenever we disagree. We have a tendency, as revealed in Malino’s reference to 97%, to emote and quote.
Chances are that you see in another’s eyes what you want to see, either love or hate, conformity or rebellion, intelligence or stupidity. The YouTube debate among those six “experts” ends with the moderator asking the large audience whether or not their minds were changed. Surprise, surprise. Only a couple of people said they had altered their thinking.
So, where are we after witnessing experts debate? Those convinced that changing climates pose an existential threat will continue their control over a Press populated by reporters and journalists who took a general science course and slept through philosophy in college. The logical fallacies will continue to be the bases for arguments, foregone conclusions will persist, and weather phenomena—which still surprise by noncompliance with TV forecasting—will stand as “proof” of climate change. And those convinced that weather phenomena are just weather phenomena fluctuating as weather phenomena always have fluctuated, and who believe that excess carbon in the atmosphere will result in a greening of the planet and a possible logarithmic warming that might expand tropical and temperate growing zones, will say, “Warming. Sure, but so what? Is it worth depressing economies when no predictions of existential threats have as yet occurred?”
Before you choose sides, I recommend your reading word-for-word through all the IPCC reports, the Paris Accord (including the footnotes that contain caveats by the signees), the Hurricane Center’s account of storm number and intensity, and a book or two on the physics of the atmosphere and on eustacy during the past 2.5 million years. Note, too, the contrary studies, such as those which demonstrate the health or expansion of ecologies like the Great Barrier Reef and the data displayed in "hockey-stick" graphs that might not include contradictory data.
Chances are…
*The debate can be seen on YouTube under "Debate: Global Warming-Krauss, Schrag, Molina vs. Lindzen, Lowson, Happer-CDI"
**In addition to YouTube videos on the 97%, you can read a review of the issue at https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980 Seems that we have turned from debating the data to debating the debate.
By the way, I would be interested in seeing a survey of those in the 97% that asks what specific changes they have made to their personal carbon footprints, such as going fossil-fuel-free, turning up thermostats in summer and down in winter, and...well, you get it don't you? How has the 97% responded personally as a demonstration of their science? Are they going about their personal business "as usual," not using for example, that gas fireplace in the Florida condo just for effect? Not leaving any lights on or any computer or player on "standby"? Using the sun to dry clothes on the old fashioned clothes line? Not ordering products that have to travel on ships that burn bunker fuel for propulsion across an ocean? And, as "scientists," can they quantify their effect on climate? Do they think the Forest Service's plan to plant one billion trees over this decade will "save" climate on a planet with an estimated three trillion trees and a species with a current habit of cutting down 15 billion trees each year? Will those one billion trees offset the loss 150 billion trees over the decade? Do any of the 97% use wood?
Those who wish to convince others through their intellectual prowess sometimes rely on logical fallacies, such as ad hominem and appeal to authority. The former fallacy often comes with a smug smirk; the latter, with a dismissive shrug. Such is what I observed in a YouTube video of a debate among six “experts” on climate change/global warming. Examples of people coexisting on equal grounds are rare, and tempered language even rarer. Nowhere in the annals of intellectual—a questionable modifier here—conflict is the futility of argument in the sense of a logical progression of ideas and refutations more evident than in the debate on climate change. One of the reasons for the intractable positions on either side lies in pride. Who wants to admit failure? Who is willing to say, “I made a mistake; you were right all along”? Another reason lies in bias: One side associating some inherent character flaw with the other side. Anyway, arguing is futile. Discussion is fruitless, and declarations of facts dubious because of their sources.
I took my wife to a Johnny Mathis concert some years ago—I can’t remember exactly—first because he was her favorite singer and second because I wanted to provide her with a pleasant break from her incessant work ethic. One of Mathis’ songs is “Chances Are,” a tune basically about the lover telling his loved one chances are good that what she sees in his eyes are an expression of love.
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me…
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good.
So, I wondered whether or not I might look into the eyes of Democrats and Republicans or Leftists and Rightists, or liberals and conservatives, or Alarmists and Deniers to discern the chances of either side changing views. In this milieu of divisiveness, chances are not good for anything other than satisfying confirmation bias among the like-minded.
I write this after having observed a “discussion” or “debate” on the subject among supposed representatives of both sides.
LADIEEEEES AND GENTLEMENNNN, IN THIS CORNER WEIGHING IN WITH BILLIONS OF TONS OF ANTHROPOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON DIOXIDE ARE THE TAG TEAM OF NOBEL LAUREATE MARIO MALINO, DANIEL SCHRAG, AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS. AND IN THIS CORNER THEIR OPPONENTS, WILLIAM HAPPER, LORD NIGEL LOWSON, AND RICHARD LINDZEN. *
You can watch the whole debate on YouTube if you like. But I want to point out why supposedly intelligent humans cannot carry on a logical dialogue with give-and-take that results in a change of mind, or should I say, mindset. And, though you might accuse me here of violating my own principle of “evenhandedness,” I want to use the words of just one of these eminent men, Mario Malino, Mexican scientist and alarmist who has worked on the effect of CFCs on the atmosphere and on other atmospheric phenomena.
At one point in the debate, Malino, to counter the argument of the other side, says that 97% of the scientific community agree that global warming is not only occurring, but is also occurring because of anthropogenically emitted carbon dioxide. This is a Nobel laureate in science, mind you, not someone to dismiss lightly—if we were to appeal to authority. I might understand a flippant dismissal of Yassar Arafat, terrorist given the status of Nobel Peace laureate, or Barack Obama, recipient of the same award after having worked as a community organizer and running for US President with no other discernible accomplishments save a couple of teleprompter speeches, one of which he gave in France to a crowd attending a concert. But Malino? This is a guy with credentials in atmospheric studies and the chemistry and physics of gases. Maybe we should listen to him.
Yet, his use of that “97%” mantra, so common after Al Gore used his film to announce it, makes me think that Malino is more a representative of the religion of climate change than of the science of climate fluctuations that occur for various reasons. Ninety-seven percent? Is this true? And what is the significance of the number if it is true? If, as Malino says, 97% of scientists say the world is warming anthropogenically, do they also say that warming is a problem of “existential” dimension? Has it been worth turning food into fuel (corn to ethanol), shutting down fossil fuels, and covering fertile soils with solar panels?
Trying to discern the problem of “consensus” has become a problem in itself. Really. You can see about a half dozen videos on YouTube on the subject, some saying the number is definite; others, that it is a myth. Some trace it to a work by Cook and others to a work by Oreskes. ** And the comments beneath each of these videos reveal the truth in what I am arguing: Argument—logical argument—is dead. Refutations come as ad hominem attacks and appeals to authorities on authority.
I suppose the best any of us can do to convince the “other side” that we aren’t just crazies who have been brainwashed by either Left or Right, Big Coal or Big Battery, or Lomborg, or Thunberg, is to put down a numbered list of pros and cons in the debate. But even if we do that, we’ll find that nowadays, regardless of our sources, our message won’t “hit home.” That reality, the reality of nonacceptance, is what will continue to keep us apart whenever we disagree. We have a tendency, as revealed in Malino’s reference to 97%, to emote and quote.
Chances are that you see in another’s eyes what you want to see, either love or hate, conformity or rebellion, intelligence or stupidity. The YouTube debate among those six “experts” ends with the moderator asking the large audience whether or not their minds were changed. Surprise, surprise. Only a couple of people said they had altered their thinking.
So, where are we after witnessing experts debate? Those convinced that changing climates pose an existential threat will continue their control over a Press populated by reporters and journalists who took a general science course and slept through philosophy in college. The logical fallacies will continue to be the bases for arguments, foregone conclusions will persist, and weather phenomena—which still surprise by noncompliance with TV forecasting—will stand as “proof” of climate change. And those convinced that weather phenomena are just weather phenomena fluctuating as weather phenomena always have fluctuated, and who believe that excess carbon in the atmosphere will result in a greening of the planet and a possible logarithmic warming that might expand tropical and temperate growing zones, will say, “Warming. Sure, but so what? Is it worth depressing economies when no predictions of existential threats have as yet occurred?”
Before you choose sides, I recommend your reading word-for-word through all the IPCC reports, the Paris Accord (including the footnotes that contain caveats by the signees), the Hurricane Center’s account of storm number and intensity, and a book or two on the physics of the atmosphere and on eustacy during the past 2.5 million years. Note, too, the contrary studies, such as those which demonstrate the health or expansion of ecologies like the Great Barrier Reef and the data displayed in "hockey-stick" graphs that might not include contradictory data.
Chances are…
*The debate can be seen on YouTube under "Debate: Global Warming-Krauss, Schrag, Molina vs. Lindzen, Lowson, Happer-CDI"
**In addition to YouTube videos on the 97%, you can read a review of the issue at https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980 Seems that we have turned from debating the data to debating the debate.
By the way, I would be interested in seeing a survey of those in the 97% that asks what specific changes they have made to their personal carbon footprints, such as going fossil-fuel-free, turning up thermostats in summer and down in winter, and...well, you get it don't you? How has the 97% responded personally as a demonstration of their science? Are they going about their personal business "as usual," not using for example, that gas fireplace in the Florida condo just for effect? Not leaving any lights on or any computer or player on "standby"? Using the sun to dry clothes on the old fashioned clothes line? Not ordering products that have to travel on ships that burn bunker fuel for propulsion across an ocean? And, as "scientists," can they quantify their effect on climate? Do they think the Forest Service's plan to plant one billion trees over this decade will "save" climate on a planet with an estimated three trillion trees and a species with a current habit of cutting down 15 billion trees each year? Will those one billion trees offset the loss 150 billion trees over the decade? Do any of the 97% use wood?
RSS Feed