One of the sites we check most days is the very helpful Climate Debate Daily. Run by the folk who set up Arts and Letters Daily, it provides a great resource to keep up with the debate over climate change, with a representation of both pro and con articles and protagonists.
Every so often the site comes up with a pearler. George Monbiot writes a blog for The Guardian. He is an ardent climate change protagonist and warrior. One of the things which has been apparent for a long time is the tendency for the climate change folk to resort to ad hominem when dealing with opponents. We are certain that the other side is not guiltless in this regard. The standard ad hominem accusation is to accuse climate change sceptics of being paid by "big oil" so that sceptics are portrayed as prostituting propagandists, meaning that their arguments can be dismissed.
Ad hominem is said to be the first resort of the lazy mind. If you cannot deal with your opponents arguments, deal to your opponent's person (education, motives, class, interests, etc) and by implication his arguments are dismissed. Monbiot recently came up with an exemplary presentation of the ad hominem fallacy.
He launched a three-pronged ad hominem attack upon his opponents, whom he labels "Climate Change Deniers." There are only three kinds of Climate Change Deniers apparently.
The first kind is the psychologically weak or venal denier. This is the person who thinks that the burdens and threats of climate change are just too great to bear, or dealing with it is too disruptive to his lifestyle. This group is to be pitied and sympathised with. Their denial is a psychological disorder, nor evidentially or rationally grounded.
The second kind of denier belongs to a group of predominantly men (that will get the feminists swinging in behind), who are in their sixties or above (somewhat ageist, George, don't you think), who are "not paid for their stance" (the blanket ad hominem of big oil prostitutes is wearing thin), who have achieved "a little post-retirement celebrity through well-timed controversialism". Apparently this second group of deniers are little more than aging gadflies with too much time on their hands, who seek faux celebrity status. Clearly they and their arguments are not to be taken seriously.
Have you ever come across such a wonderful example of ad hominem as the following:
Then there is a smaller group of people - almost all men, generally in their sixties or above - who are not paid for their stance, but who have achieved a little post-retirement celebrity through well-timed controversialism. It has kept David Bellamy in the news, long after his wonderful career on television sadly (and wrongly, in my view) ended. It has lent more recognition to people like Philip Stott and Tim Ball than anything they published during their academic careers. It attracts adoring fanmail (from people in category one) for journalists like Christopher Booker and Melanie Philips. It permits men like Lord Monckton to indulge their fantasies of single-handedly rescuing humanity from its own idiocy. Their intellectual acrobatics are as blatant as that of the people in the third category, but they appear to be driven by vanity, not cash.
OK. So the first kind of denier is psychologically disturbed. The second group is driven by vanity. The third group are the traditional prostitutes who are paid by oil companies to militate against the climate change thesis.
Therefore, QED. Case over. Next please.
The climate change protagonists are arguing that on the basis of their belief in a coming devastation of the planet, mankind ought voluntarily to consent to unprecedented pain, suffering, self-imposed poverty, disease, and global human abnegation to avoid the greater harm of a warming planet. Surely this is so serious, either way, that it deserves careful substantial considered debate. Surely, Monbiot--one of the leading public protagonists in the UK for the cause--can do better than childish ad hominem against his opponents. It is not even advocacy. It is cheap misdirection and deception. If this is the best a leading public advocate can manage the climate change cause is in deep, deep trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment