One of the terms I am often guilty of using is ‘climate debate’. It’s a term that conjures up images of a scholarly exchange which, when carrying the modifier ‘heated’, permits a certain amount of finger-wagging. For the heated debate I could use ‘climate argument’, but I prefer not to because I hate to admit that I could get involved in anything so objectionable. That said, there is really no reason why I should maintain such a pretence. Firstly, because it would be wholly unrealistic of me to ignore the extent to which we are all guilty of being so inclined. And secondly because methods of argumentation actually have quite a long and distinguished history going back to the days when the Greek toga first made its appearance as a catwalk sensation.1 The tradition of arguing the correct purpose and approach for arguing survives to this day in the form of Argumentation Theory, a multidisciplinary study that preoccupies a slew of philosophers, logicians, linguists and sociologists who can be found (now in suitable modern attire) at a number of respectable symposia held by organisations such as the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), the National Communication Association and the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).

The reality is that argument is a serious business and not just the province of conspiracy theorists with strong opinions and weak evidence. It takes a number of different guises depending upon whether one is a lawyer, mathematician, scientist, politician or scholar of argumentation.2 Its recognised purposes include persuasion (the promotion of a given point of view), negotiation (seeking to arrive at a compromise), enquiry (a genuine search for the truth), deliberation (deciding the correct course of action), or simply getting one over the other bastard (referred to in polite company as ‘eristic dialogue’).3

The main reason why I am raising the topic of Argumentation Theory is to try to determine just exactly what is going on in the world of climate debate, climate argument, climate donnybrook, or whatever else you might want to call it. When we write our articles here on Cliscep are we attempting to persuade, seek compromise, determine the truth, argue for a particular course of action, or just make the authorities look stupid?

It is often said that the essential components of an argument are a set of premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion. However, even more fundamental has to be the existence of dialogue between at least two protagonists or between conflicting ideologies. Without someone to argue against, argumentation becomes mental masturbation. So the first question we should ask of ourselves has to be: Is there anybody out there?

Take, for example, Robin Guenier’s attempts to persuade his MP that the Government’s plans for Net Zero are unachievable, disastrous and pointless. As an example of argumentation, Robin’s appears to tick all the boxes, with assumptions and premises clearly stated in support of a pretty solid deductive reasoning. Sincerity is also evident as Robin has vigorously maintained the practical value of attempting such persuasion. However, whilst there appears to be the pretence of dialogue, the responses provided by the MP concerned are often just platitudinous boilerplate that doesn’t even begin to attempt to address the points raised. In fact, despite the polite and inviting tone used by the MP, the only counter-persuasion on view seems aimed at encouraging Robin to go away. So whether any of this amounts to a climate argument is up for scrutiny.

On the other side of the same coin, Government mouthpieces such as the BBC have spared little of licence-payers’ money in attempting to persuade them of the imperative for Net Zero. But, once again, no actual argument is discernible simply because the BBC has long-since abandoned the policy of entertaining balanced debate on anything related to climate change. Ultimately, democracy is founded on the essential importance of dialogue between the Government and its voters but when it comes to matters of environmental policy the opportunities for genuine democratic feedback are looking worryingly sparse.4

As for negotiation, this all depends upon whether there is a compromise being sought. It would be lovely to think that the benefits of achieving Net Zero are being seriously judged against its costs and risks, because that would mean that someone is looking to optimise in a realistic, fair and equitable manner. However, many who advocate for Net Zero are anxious to present it as a win-win enterprise, in which ‘cost’ morphs into ‘investment’, and ‘risk’ (such as the impossibility of finding a suitably skilled workforce in sufficient numbers) morphs into ‘opportunity’ (such as the elusive green jobs bonanza). Those who can find plenty of risk and uncertainty in the problem domain seem remarkably poor at finding any in the solution domain. Therefore, opportunities for any meaningful negotiation just don’t arise. It is very difficult to negotiate with anyone whose opening, and final, position is ‘What are you waiting for, just get on with it’.

But what scope remains for arguing as a means of determining the truth? Well, once again, the prospect for such a dialogue depends upon there being a generally held view that the truth has yet to be established. In practice, however, any two protagonists are more likely to consider that they already know the truth and that the task is to enlighten the other guy. This certainly is the stance taken by advocates for Net Zero, who will tell you that they are following the science, before pointing to the levels of scientific consensus. From that position, it is easy to see the opposing view as anti-scientific, and hence in need of rectification. A dialogue motivated by enquiry cannot get off the ground because the opinion of the sceptic is not one to be taken seriously but rather to be studied as an example of pathological thinking.5 That said, it is only fair to point out that argumentation designed to protect a position, rather than determine a truth, is prevalent on both sides of the ‘debate’. When was the last time you saw anyone in an online debate earnestly striving to determine the strength in someone else’s argument in order to get at the truth?

However, perhaps the greatest gap between argumentation in theory and argumentation in practice exists when it comes to deliberating so-called climate action. Deliberating the action is deemed so redundant nowadays that it is labelled ‘delayism’. Frustratingly, those who were denied the right of enquiry on the basis that they were ‘deniers’ now stand accused of shape-shifting into equally ‘bad actors’ who ‘weaponize’ deliberation. But once again, the reality is that there are still those amongst us who sufficiently value argumentation to believe it has an important role to play when committing to a fundamental restructuring of society that carries enormous risk. Certainly the present UK Government had no need of deliberation in 2019 when it came to amending the 2008 Climate Change Act. That amendment was passed through with virtually no parliamentary debate whatsoever.6 But let us for a moment imagine that deliberation should still take place, albeit belatedly. What a world that would be.

So, if persuasion, negotiation, enquiry and deliberation have had their day, what role remains for the honourable art of argumentation? Unfortunately, there is only one other role left on the list. Remember eristic dialogue?

The whole purpose of eristic dialogue is to win the argument. There is no search for truth (as there is in dialogic), nor is there any compromise or deliberation. It is the party piece of the sophist, where the best argument is the one that wins. As such, eristic dialogue has its own pedigree as old as argument itself. And it is a skill that lives on in courtrooms and the chambers of debate haunted by our politicians. Which is to say, it is a skill that isn’t universally admired. In fact, when it is possessed by your average climate change sceptic, it is a skill that is openly reviled. It’s not just a case of us being students of Schopenhauer who know 38 ways to win an argument; we are accused of being bad actors who peddle misinformation and disinformation in ways that are dangerously persuasive.

Much as I would like to take credit for being a master of eristic, I think one has to acknowledge that everyone in the climate debate is playing the same game, and just as skilfully. When all is said and done, power is all that matters. And when power is the object to be obtained or exploited, any means of winning an argument, legitimate or otherwise, becomes acceptable. When Robin’s MP fobbed him off with platitudes, he wasn’t really seeking to persuade — he was just looking to take advantage of his position of power and win the argument by endlessly restating the postulate to be proven (stratagem 6 in the Schopenhauer list). And just about everything the BBC spews out on the subject of climate sceptics is designed to persuade its audience, not the sceptics themselves (stratagem 28). It’s eristic all the way down.

In conclusion, I can’t say that argumentation is all that fit and healthy in the world of climate change discourse. It usually takes the form of an adversarial monologue and no longer serves the intended purpose of legitimate argument. And yet arguing is still better than rolling over and meekly accepting what seems inevitable. Whether one is trying to stop your MP from supporting what seems a suicidal course of action, or trying to provide a counterview to the authorised narrative of climate crisis, there is something to be said for laying your cards on the table. Even if one ends up playing solitaire, there is still plenty of satisfaction to be had. So forget what I said about not wanting to be objectionable; just carry on and take no notice of what the big bad man says about you.

Footnotes

[1] Yes, I know the Greek philosophers wore the chiton and the himation, whilst it was the Romans that adopted the toga. If you were looking for accurate history maybe you’ve come to the wrong place.

[2] I might add that argument played a central role in one of my previous incarnations as a safety systems engineer. Any safety-related system has to have a formal safety case submitted for approval before it can be accepted into service. At the heart of the safety case is a safety argument providing the evidence and reasons for believing that the proposed system will be sufficiently safe in operation. Ideally this argument should be formally structured using something like Goal Structuring Notation (GSN).

[3] Regarding persuasion, it is somewhat ironic that argumentation theorists, whilst presumably being experts on how to settle a dispute, and despite the number of symposia held, still seem incapable of agreeing what constitutes argumentation. It seems that the art of persuasion lies in surrounding oneself with the gullible, not other experts.

[4] Particularly if one dismisses the risibly specious Citizens’ Assemblies on Climate Change.

[5] As is done by the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook with their Debunking Handbook. Even more so, we have the latter’s marvellously unimpressive FLICC taxonomy.

[6] How does ninety minutes in the presence of a virtually empty chamber grab you?

26 Comments

  1. Much as I might wish to argue with you (and so provoke an argument (of whatever brand)). I find I cannot. Dammit!🤬

    Liked by 1 person

  2. John: I’m not sure that your reference to my exchange with my MP altogether supports your view. Scroll down to my post on 22 July at 5:04pm where I quote his reply to my initial email. His agreement that ‘… it is senseless for the UK to reduce its fossil fuel usage when India/China are not doing the same is correct. Frankly, none of what the world is doing on the environment makes sense unless the fast growing developing countries play ball’ is critically important and isn’t – at least to my mind – intended to encourage me to go away.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Robin, that is a very interesting quote from your correspondence, that reveals what seems to me to be an extraordinary mindset on the part of your MP. In essence, he agreed with you, then he proceeded to continue behaving as though that exchange never took place. It’s bizarre.

    Like

  4. Thought -provoking. Thanks.

    Why do I write articles at Cliscep? You are almost certainly correct that I am preaching to the converted, and won’t change anybody’s mind.

    I suppose I do it for a number of different reasons. I harbour a faint hope that occasionally something will reach a wider audience. Writing helps to clarify my thoughts. I hope that sometimes I am able to bring to the attention of our audience snippets of climate and net zero nonsense that might otherwise slip under the radar. And I want a record of everything we have pointed out to be available when the great day comes (with luck it won’t be too late) when it dawns on our leaders that we were right and they were wrong.

    Finally, I suppose I hope that it might make a difference, though I am enough of a realist to accept that it probably won’t. Having said that, there are signs that the worm is turning, and so we have to keep our shoulders to the wheel. Individually we may be weak, but collectively we might make a difference.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. However, those who advocate for Net Zero are anxious to present it as a win-win enterprise, in which ‘cost’ morphs into ‘investment’, and ‘risk’ (such as the impossibility of finding a suitably skilled workforce in sufficient numbers) morphs into ‘opportunity’ (such as the elusive green jobs bonanza).

    Yep, one feels debate with ‘Aardman’s classic clay character’ might well be more productive.

    A better way to look at it imo: as Davos deliberates we choose the role of Fool in King Lear.

    Who did I hear talking recently about how universal this concept of the Fool is? (Quick google.) It wasn’t the video The Psychology of The Fool but that looks interesting too, with nods to Jung and Dostoevsky’s Idiot.

    There isn’t any real debate, for the reasons you give. Is it wiser to talk back or be silent? A conundrum the book of Proverbs handles nicely:

    But that’s the other meaning of fool. There are plenty of those.

    (Larry Sanger is the guy who took the wiki idea invented by Ward Cunningham and persuaded Jimmy Wales to use it for their failing online encyclopedia. The guy who suggested it to Larry was Ben Kovitz. I knew Ben well in the online sense – just like I do John Ridgway. I’d spent two days with Ward in Portland before all this happened, discussing agile software ideas as well as wiki. Anyway. Founders of Wikipedia has more.)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Robin,

    You are quite right to pull me up on what was actually a gross oversimplification regarding the nature of your exchange with Bim (another bit of a Greek toga moment to be honest). In an essay that had to cover quite a lot of ground as quickly as possible I had to take some licence at times, and that’s what I did when characterising your exchange. I saw nothing eristic about your contribution to the dialogue but I’m afraid I cannot say the same of your interlocutor. There were moments of apparent agreement (as you rightly point out) and yet an overall impression that the seemingly sincere dialogue wasn’t necessarily what it seemed (as Mark rightly pointed out). Ultimately, I think you were fobbed off in the nicest possible way albeit with some notable concessions having apparently been made along the way. If he was negotiating with you I’m not sure of his motives for doing so because he gave no inch when it came to his political intentions. I may be being too cynical but it could be that Bim was employing Schopenhauer stratagem number 4 (Conceal your game).

    Whatever, I apologise for my oversimplification.

    Like

  7. Richard, nice reference to Proverbs advice regarding fools. A more complete quote shows wisdom in the seeming contradiction, namely a tension between damage to oneself or the fool’s damage to himself. (Quotes in ESV)

    Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

    Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

    So joining the argument over global warming/climate change exposes one to accusations of foolishness, but failing to do so leaves the ignorant thinking themselves wise. Even worse, they are likely to become those for whom Mensa coined a word: Ignoranus: one who displays both ignorance and arrogance.

    There is also the point that free speech about climate science and policies is a litmus test for social freedom.

    Free Climate Speech is Freedom Litmus Test

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Richard,

    Surely you are not trying to suggest that we are just fooling around.

    Just a minute…

    My God, you are right!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. For those who may have missed it, a case study in climate science argumentation occurred last November at Judith Curry’s blog. All of the argumentation styles described in Ridgway’s post are on display. Fortunately, the author whose paper occasioned the dispute published the lead post along with the commentary from all sides. The text is available at the website of D. Koutsoyiannis entitled Causality, Climate, Etc.

    https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/2353/

    Like

  11. As far as argumentation theory goes I think we can all gain by studying Peter Boghossian’s street epistemology, and attempting to apply it to open the mind of a climate cultist close to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boghossian#Street_epistemology
    1. Peter Boghossian Says We Should Burn the University System to the Ground https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPhMykrnqx4
    2. Street Epistemology channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6SSDTX20XM

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Thanks, Mark P.

    I admit that I had only heard of Peter Boghossian in the context of Sokal Squared and his subsequent cancellation. I’ll have to look up SE.

    Like

  13. Great article John – having had thousands of ‘debate’ encounters with alarmists, I find most of them are religiously indoctrinated, not interested in debate, only spurious regurgitations of the blobs narrative, followed by ad hominem attacks – the only things that may wake them from their hypnotic climate crisis / net zero beliefs, are power cuts, food shortages, poverty (financial & energy), increased cold related deaths, a lack of mobility, or having to eat bugs etc, in other words, pain

    Like

  14. Energywise,

    Thank you.

    I think we have all suffered such frustration, but I’m sure our opponents think the same way about us 🙄

    Like

  17. By a somewhat remarkable coincidence, whilst I was writing this article Willard, of ATTP fame, was posting his own on a very similar theme. The article is called ‘How to cavil like cranks’, and concludes with the following:

    “So why cavil with contrarians? I see only two good reasons: intellectual curiosity, and artistic beauty.”

    An interesting take, you’ve got to admit.

    Like

  18. John: my exchange with Bim Afolami was not really a debate and certainly not an argument. It has taken many forms: email, telephone, face-to-face – even (from him) a hand written letter. The fact that he chose the latter is I believe especially significant in that it reveals his true position: essentially, he agrees with my main points but is reluctant to be caught on record saying so because of his overriding need to be liked by the Tory establishment and to thereby gain office. And it’s working: he’s now Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I believe that overriding need to be liked by the Tory establishment (rather than the voters) is typical of many of today’s Tory MPs. Hence last night’s absurd vote on the Ruanda bill.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Robin,

    All valid points.

    I wasn’t trying to suggest that your exchange was argumentative in the finger-wagging sense but an example of argumentation in the technical sense. I’m sure you are right regarding Bim’s compromised position. I think it explains many of the dynamics of the exchange.

    Incidentally, I have inserted the word ‘often’ into my account in an effort to be a bit more accurate.

    Like

  20. Intellectual curiosity has to be applauded. I would like to think it is true of those who visit us here, and also those who visit aTTP. The difficulty is that when they visit us and we visit them, the discussion always seems to degenerate fairly quickly, and so we go round in a circle: what’s the point of arguing?

    Like

  21. Mark,

    I fear the intellectual curiosity is not what you have assumed. I suspect that he is curious to know just how wrong a ‘contrarian’ can be, and he sees some artistry in our sophistry which is to be admired on a purely academic and ironic level. I hesitate to say more.

    Like

  22. Of course, there is one other time-honoured way of winning an argument. Just cheat:

    “Climate chiefs admitted net zero plan based on insufficient data, leading physicist says”

    “Key committee only looked at ‘a single year of data’ when making controversial green energy claims”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/20/climate-change-wind-farms-royal-society-green-energy/

    “Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Change Committee only ‘looked at a single year’ of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.”

    And:

    “In response to further questions, the body [the Climate Change Committee] admitted that its original recommendations in 2019 about the feasibility of meeting the 2050 net zero target were also based on just one year’s of weather data. The recommendations were heavily relied upon by ministers when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target into law as prime minister.”

    But:

    “Asked if the CCC dispute Chris’s account, the spokesman said, ‘We have nothing further to add’.”

    In other words, this argument is over. We won!

    Liked by 1 person

  23. The accusation would be of picking cherries. The bloody fingerprint would be if the chosen year was atypically windy.

    Like

  24. Jit,

    It isn’t just that a particular year was cherry-picked. Whatever the case, a projection based upon a single year’s data couldn’t possibly be reliable. If a projection is to be made regarding a climatic variable, then only an average taken over a climate-defining period (30 years) can be valid. This is what the Royal Society had done in their own study and it is by comparing their projection against the CCC’s invalid calculation that they were able to say that the CCC had grossly underestimated the energy storage required to cover expected interruption of supply.

    Taking a single year’s data — any year — is just rank incompetent. But when gross scientific incompetence just so happens to give the answers that suit the political agenda, one has to doubt whether incompetence is the right word.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. But what scope remains for arguing as a means of determining the truth? Well, once again, the prospect for such a dialogue depends upon there being a generally held view that the truth has yet to be established.

    Argument cannot determine Truth.
    any more than debate can.

    here is one hand,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

    Like

  26. Oh dear. You may be right, but don’t let BBC Verify hear you say that 😉

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.