Every now and again, someone on either side of the climate change debate will write an article bemoaning the futility of attempting to persuade the opposition. For example, here I cover the topic from the perspective of argumentation theory. And here is someone else doing the same but from the perspective of climate contrarians are all orcs theory. That there is an unfillable chasm between the alarmed and the sceptical is an established fact generously confirmed every time their viewpoints are exchanged. The reason why there is such an impasse is also readily explained: The debate is happening across a moral divide, and there is one side that seems reluctant to entertain the possibility that the other takes morality seriously.

This asymmetry is perhaps the only notable feature separating the two camps, since in all other respects a shared experience of the human condition unifies us all. For example, we are all subject to the same cognitive biases; although to listen to the likes of John Cook, with his FLICC taxonomy of flawed reasoning, you would be forgiven for thinking the problem of bias is exclusive to the climate sceptic. In fact, this assumption of exceptionality, running counter to all that is understood regarding the nature of intuitive thinking, can only be maintained by recourse to assumptions of a moral deficit. The sceptics are deemed serial victims of damaging cognitive bias, not just because of psychological impairment, but because their intuition is presumed to lack a guiding moral compass. Their thinking may be no more motivated than anyone else’s, but they are presupposed to be motivated by base self-interest rather than anything as noble as appreciatng the integrity of the scientific method. And it gets much worse for the sceptic, because their assumed lack of respect for science is seen to result in intuitive thinking that lacks a guiding factuality.

Such presuppositions have a number of consequences when it comes to debating the issues, the most serious of which is the failure to accept that the sceptic can be taken at face value. There is always the assumption that the sceptics are not arguing in good faith, that they are bad actors, and that they are not serious when they say they want to engage. You may think that this swings both ways, but I don’t see it that way. Whilst I have often witnessed — and been involved in — online disagreements between the sceptical and the climate pessimist, I have to say the first to accuse the other of being cynical and insincere is usually the one flying the pessimistic flag. Yes, the sceptic can be as uncharitable as the next man, but the accusation of bad faith argumentation does seem to be a favourite rhetorical tool of the sceptic’s antagonist.

Take, for example, my recent experience posting an article at Judith Curry’s site (Climate etc.) to cover the vexatious question of prosocial censorship. The article had previously been posted on Cliscep but, as is to be expected nowadays, it drew little widespread attention. The same cannot be said regarding its reposting. In particular, Professor Ken Rice was moved to post a response on his own website. He says of my own effort:

One issue I have with many who promote the idea of there being some kind of scientific censorship is that it often seems to be more aimed at deligitimising those who criticise people they agree with, than a genuine attempt to engage in a serious discussion about a complex topic. There’s also an element of irony; essentially trying to censor supposedly censorious people. The post that triggered this seems to mostly fall into this latter category. There are various examples of supposed prosocial censorship without any attempt to address any nuance.

This idea that I had made no ‘genuine’ attempt to seriously discuss a complex topic was echoed by one of those who commented against the Climate etc. article. Again, the problem seemed to be my lack of good faith:

I see no problem whatsoever with good faith and level-headed about discussions [sic] the pros and cons and reasonable boundaries of phenomena like self-censorship. In fact. I think it’s absolutely an interesting subject for serious discussion. But I see no reason to take it seriously when people seek merely to game these phenomena to push their ideological agendas.

As is the case with Professor Rice, the accusation is cloaked in a faux equanimity that is only possible when speaking from an assumed position of superior contemplation and morality:

I’m generally in favor of open expression of a diversity of views. I have been so as long as I have thought about these issues. I think that generally, society benefits from a balanced diversity. But I see a lot of what I consider unserious focus on that issue, where effectively the issue is leveraged for people to push ideological agendas.

Once more, it is the examples I had chosen to illustrate prosocial censorship that apparently betray my ulterior motivation:

One place to start might be if you consider the list of examples you referenced – each clearly intended to focus only on one side of the issue. It seemed to me no more, really, than a rhetorical flex of the muscles, not a real engagement.

However, all this talk of ‘unserious focus’ and lack of ‘real engagement’ is as nothing compared to this ATTP commenter who decided to go full orc-slayer on me:

Holy crap, that post by John Ridgway (cliscep.com/author/johnridgway4/) on Curry’s blog is nasty. If we didn’t know by his link what axe he’s grinding, we soon get the picture from his words. OMG, the smug truculence, the quote-mining, butthurt-victim-playing, false-equating, — whoa, gotta pace myself! If anyone deserves the pejorative label science denier, IMHO, it’s him. I for one would fully support a little anti-sociopathic censorship in his case.

More tea vicar?

I have to say that I am actually quite impressed by the almost superhuman perception these individuals have, enabling them to discern my true motives. Ostensibly, I had simply highlighted the existence of prosocial censorship and cited a paper that revealed just how prevalent it was within academia. Could it be that I have seriously considered the risk that prosocial censorship may result in intellectual monocultures within academia? By choosing the examples I had, could it be that I was simply anxious to use those that are most topical and most representative of the phenomenon? And was the lack of detailed exploration of my examples motivated by nothing more than a desire to avoid cluttering the article with unnecessary detail? No, apparently all I was doing was playing the victim card and indulging in a ‘rhetorical flex of the muscles’. From the dismissive Professor Rice through to the vitriol of the Orc-Slayer General, there is just a withering disdain coming from those who cannot entertain the possibility that I am just as earnest and as morally motivated as themselves.

The climate change debate surrounds the taking of decisions under uncertainty. The stakes are high and the issues, although informed by scientific enquiry, are still highly value-laden. It is no wonder, therefore, that the debate requires a moral framework. But morality is pluralistic; it isn’t a matter of black and white. Adopting a monochrome approach to morally complex issues is like trying to watch snooker in black and white.* So if you ever catch yourself thinking ‘we are the good guys here, and these sceptics are not acting in good faith’, then you need to sit back and reflect. What you may see as a reluctance to seriously engage may simply be a reflection of your own inability to see beyond personal prejudices.

* The full quote for the occasion is, “For those of you watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green“, Ted Lowe, BBC commentator.

17 Comments

  1. You’ll find the same kind of attitudes on discussions of Brexit, where the default assumption is that everyone who supported Brexit or is sceptical of Climate Alarmism must be right-wing (or “fascist” to use the preferred BBC and Guardian nomenclature). Those on the political right tend to assume that their opponents are misinformed or misguided, whereas those on the left assume their opponents to be ‘evil’.

    Like

  2. You beat me to it Chris!

    I was going to say that in my limited experience of politics I have found that folks I know on the left some of whom are good friends take the view that capitalism is the absolute cause of all our problems wheras I consider myself able to consider all sides of a discussion although of course I may not agree with the counterpoint, I have one friend who whilst very inteligent still comes back to Marx’s redistribution of wealth in order to solve societies problems but will not consider the point that wealth somehow must be created first with all the risk that involes, and seems to take the view that the state should run much of society without any consideration of how it should be managed or where the funding should come from.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. FWIW I appreciate aTTP taking the time and trouble to come here and say that. I frequently disagree with him, and (as the comment quoted by John R in the article suggests) he doesn’t moderate his site to tone down the comments of his more excitable followers, but I don’t doubt his sincerity.

    It would be beneficial to the discourse if the climate concerned and the climate sceptical could tone down the language and accept that most of the people on the other side of the debate hold their views sincerely.

    For my part, I have no financial interest in being a climate sceptic. I accept that the climate is changing and that humanity is helping to change it (in many more ways than simply by emitting greenhouse gases – deforestation and urban heat islands being obvious issues); I believe (unlike the IPCC) that climate change is at least part natural – given that the climate has always changed naturally, that doesn’t strike me as unreasonable; I don’t believe that there is a climate crisis; I have grave doubts about the wisdom of net zero and UK energy policy, both in their own right and given that most of the rest of the world isn’t following suit, so that UK net zero can make no difference to global climate while causing a lot of economic damage); and I am deeply concerned about the environmentally deleterious impact of much renewable energy. I am absolutely sincere in my views, and I believe I’m right, while accepting that I may be wrong. If everyone involved in the debate (on both sides) could truly say the same, then the debate might be more productive.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. ATTP,

    “But if I’ve ever said anything to imply that you’re not earnest and morally motivated, then I apologise. Certainly not my view.“

    I very much appreciate that you should say that; however, looking back, I don’t think I was actually accusing you personally of having implied that exactly. What you did say, however, was “more aimed at…than a genuine attempt to engage in a serious discussion about a complex topic.” And “…without any attempt to address any nuance.” These comments I found to be unduly dismissive.

    I can assure you that my article was a genuine attempt to engage and that I appreciate as much as the next person that it is a complex issue. As for the supposed failure to address nuance, I would have been more than happy to explore the nuances with anyone who was interested enough to join me in doing so; for example, by following up the links I had provided and coming back to me to discuss specific points arising.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. ATTP,

    To be fair, I did also say later on that you appeared to be assuming a position of superior morality. I feel I should take some more time to explain what I meant by that, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

    Like

  7. Climate scientists have been known to say outrageously alarmist things. If any of them has been cancelled for doing so, I would love to hear about it. Absent examples from that side, we must assume there is no penalty for making obviously wrong alarmist claims, but there is a serious career risk should you swing the other way.

    Regarding black and white thinking, that is what got us into the mess we’re in now on Net Zero. It’s also a handy tool to shut down lukewarmers, who accept global warming but not climate breakdown, or whatever the latest scream is.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. ATTP,

    “I have no idea if you’re as earnest and morally motivated as I am…”

    This is where I think you and I may differ fundamentally in our outlook. For you, not knowing anything about someone means you can’t draw comparisons with your own level of moral motivation. For me, moral pluralism draws me to the conclusion that, in the absence of any knowledge of the individual concerned, the default belief should be that their level of motivation is equally high. This, I believe, follows from the following statement to be found in one of my article’s links:

    “Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect.”

    So I wouldn’t presume that someone would be more or less morally motivated. I would expect their motivation to be at the same level even if it had taken them in a different direction. What can appear as an immoral or amoral stance may be better understood by recognising that the individual concerned is simply basing their position on a different set of moral foundations compared to your own. It is part of the human condition that we all have moral foundations driving us, even if we don’t always live up to them. Morality is in our genes. The form it takes is due to a combination of genetic influence and cultural background.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. I’m afraid all this talk of conflicting moral views having equal rights to be respected (by who, who would be the judge and arbiter in such instances?) and moral relativism, the idea that morality is flexible and may vary perfectly legitimately according to ‘culture’ just leaves me stone cold. I’m an absolutist. I believe that there exist primary human moral values which are invariant across all cultures and societies. There may be some secondary moral values which are not, but I don’t think we should be concerning ourselves with them when it comes to addressing who is morally justified (or not) with regard to alleged ‘dangerous’ man-made climate change and its supposed ‘solution’. IMO, a primary human moral imperative (at least in modern, advanced societies) is to make as careful an assessment of the facts as possible and to act in accordance with that careful assessment, whilst also weighing up the benefits and harms of so acting. Climate alarmists fail both tests: they do not honestly and fairly assess all the facts and they pointedly fail to weigh up the harms against the supposed benefits of their alleged ‘necessary’ climate action which is based upon a very one-sided analysis of science and data – which we know as the fabled Settled Science of Man Made Climate Change. Until climate alarmists look at the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts (and stop blindly appealing to the alleged unassailable scientific authority of the IPCC) and adjust their ‘science’ and policy accordingly, I’m afraid that I will always view them as essentially immoral.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Jaime,

    I respect that you are a moral absolutist, in that you assert that some things are inherently right or wrong. I also share your aversion to moral relativism, since it seems to be an excuse to abdicate all responsibility for taking a moral stance. What I am advocating is something in between, i.e. moral pluralism, in which there are real moral choices to be made, but issues need to be analysed from several moral points of view before deciding and taking action. I am starting to take an interest in areas of research which take up where sociobiology left off, whereby moral codes can be traced back to instinctive behaviours that grant evolutionary advantage. Since there are several such behaviours, there is a corresponding multiplicity of moral dimensions, and where you stand personally on a given issue depends upon the particular blend of behaviours to which you are psychologically predisposed. See, for example, Moral Foundations Theory:

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

    It is interesting, I think, that ‘making as careful an assessment of the facts as possible’ and acting ‘in accordance with that careful assessment’ is not identified in Moral Foundations Theory as being one of the basic moral foundations, i.e. it doesn’t seem to mention a moral duty to be thorough and consistent. You can either view this as a major flaw in the theory, or you can decide instead that this is just a matter of rationality. The one thing I think we can agree upon is that there are decisions being taken that carry the potential for real harm, and behaviour that is in violation of the ‘Care/Harm’ moral foundation is immoral in anyone’s book because we all share to a lesser or greater extent predispositions based upon that moral foundation.

    As a further note, you imply that ‘blindly appealing to the alleged unassailable scientific authority of the IPCC’ is a source of immorality. Interestingly, Moral Foundations Theory cites ‘Authority/Subversion’ as being one of the basic moral issues. This is one of the key battle lines because there are some who see respect for authority as a moral obligation, whilst others see it as a potential impediment to more important moral imperatives.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. John,

    Respect for authority when respect is earned is commendable and indeed desirable, even necessary for society to function smoothly. It might in that sense be regarded as a moral obligation. But by the same token, blind obedience or wilfully blind appeal to authority is undesirable and I would argue immoral in that it is neglectful of one’s responsibility to think and to question, especially with regard to issues which are highly impactful upon society. We saw that with Covid. We see it with climate change. The IPCC has not earned its elevated status as the Oracle of the Settled Science of Climate Change.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Jaime,

    “..blind obedience or wilfully blind appeal to authority is undesirable and I would argue immoral in that it is neglectful of one’s responsibility to think and to question, especially with regard to issues which are highly impactful upon society.”

    At the risk of sounding like a moral relativist, I think I should point out that you are expressing a very Western view when suggesting that the integrity of the individual is more important than the integrity of the group. In fact, there are some societies that would maintain that there can be no personal integrity if it isn’t committed to blind obedience. This may be playing to the ‘Sanctity/Degradation’ foundation in Moral Foundations Theory, in which there is a morality attributed to the ability to have faith, thereby upholding that which the group holds as sacred.

    Personally, I’m very much on the same page as you, as I find the very idea of ‘wilfully blind appeal to authority’ to be repugnant. Nevertheless, when specific cases are discussed, I suspect that I indulge in post hoc rationalisations to justify my position – just as others will indulge by saying there is safety in numbers and the wisdom of crowds to consider.

    Like

  14. John,

    At the risk of sounding like a moral relativist, I think I should point out that you are expressing a very Western view when suggesting that the integrity of the individual is more important than the integrity of the group.

    Actually, what I’m trying to say is that the integrity of the individual is vital – both for the individual and society. Covid and climate change are cases in point. If more people had followed their personal instincts and paid more attention to their personal integrity, then ultimately, society would be in much better shape than it now is post lockdowns and ‘vaccines’. Ironically, the group would have benefited if more people had taken responsibility for thinking for themselves rather than deferring to an authority which, even early on, had failed to demonstrate that it had earned the right to be deemed an authority and thus respected as such. Same with climate change. The ‘experts’ have not justified their alleged expertise and they certainly have not justified their radical policy prescriptions based on necessity, safety and effectiveness. By questioning these ‘experts’ and by refusing to defer to their assumed authority, we are being typically ‘western’ in our attitude, but we are also often knowingly attempting to protect society as a whole from the implementation of extremely harmful policies which affect us personally, of course, but also affect society as a whole. That’s a moral thing to do and I don’t think it is culturally relative. There is no reason to suppose that technologically and economically developed non-Western cultures would not, or at least should not be morally obliged to also behave similarly.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Jaime,

    The moral foundations that encourage the promotion of group-interest over self-interest are deemed to exist because they result in a cohesive group, and such groups have an evolutionary advantage over competing non-cohesive groups. Whilst that may be true as a broad principle, there are bound to be situations in which the cohesiveness is ill-judged, and this ill judgment may lead to situations that act against any presupposed evolutionary advantage resulting from cohesiveness. Hence, the co-existence of moral foundations that promote individuality that could very well provide the necessary corrective.

    Covid is a very good example to use here. Throughout the pandemic the ‘authority is good, follow the herd’ mantra was sold as an issue of morality, in which dissent was treated as inevitably leading to societal harm. Hence the ferocity aimed at any individuals who sought to introduce a corrective to the group thinking. They were, and still are, met with a moral outrage because the group exists to keep us safe.

    I see this as a battleground for two competing moralities, i.e. the one that exists because individuality can benefit the group as a whole, and the one that exists because compliancy promotes group cohesiveness. Ultimately, the issue of who has got it right can only be settled by careful, evidence-driven analysis. Unfortunately, the morality drive is still there, influencing how individuals go about performing that analysis — and keep in mind that the group-thinkers will hold the authority in such debates as far as the majority of society is concerned.  As my article suggests, dissenters won’t even be given credit for acting in good faith.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. John R / Jaime, I have followed with interest your subtle moral arguments and I have appreciated the way you have laid out them out so thoughtfully. However, I am somewhat concerned as to what happens when such reasoned argumentation is confronted (steamrollered?) by the juggernaut of a monolithic political imperative (e.g. eliminate fossil fuels now!).

    As we have seen during recent decades in the war against CO2, the juggernaut drives all before it, causing much panic, and, in addition, fortunes are made pandering to its voracious appetite. Only with the passing of the years has reason (as opposed to blind obedience) started to reappear in the public discourse. So, are we seeing (in parts of the West) that the hotheads no longer command the entire field and that the subtlety of reasoned argument such as yours is, once again, beginning to be heard in the corridors of power? I very much hope so. Regards, John C.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. John Cullen – strongly agree with your comment. Seems the moral high ground of some vocal MSM climate doom pundits (young & old) are now hitting the buffer of reality. Still a train wreck never the less.

    Like

Leave a comment

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