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
See the cross int he middle of the photo? that is the north pole. Draw concentric circles around that to get lines of latitude.
Look at where there is excess ice: it is all in the lower attitudes. Looka t where the anomolous melt is: at higher latitudes.
Point: all the lower latitude ice is guanteed to melt. It may shield the higher latitude ice for longer than it does in a regular summer but the rate of melt will be very high. On the other hand, the ice that is missing its shield will also melt quicker. The map you show could easily lead to the worst summer ever fro ice melt. Yes, a lot depends on weather and ice transport but I wouldn't be happy if I were you - in fact, I am not happy with the ice situation at all. Most of that lower ice is in fact recent thin briny ice, which you should know from reading this blog.
I used to think that the reason doctors didn't allow their patients to look at their own X-rays and test results was because those doctors wanted to keep all the information to themselves for power or money. But as time went on, I realized it's because most people don't have the faintest idea what those X-rays and test results show, and were thus likely to jump to all sorts of harmful and erroneous assumptions.
A little ignorance can go a long, long way. Ignorance is cured by learning. Go learn.
P.S. -- I may have missed it, but I never heard you respond about the Senator cypress fire, and the revelation that, despite what some argued as impossible, it was indeed done in by arson.
- When I come back in ten years, what will I see in Glacier National Park?
- How is climate change impacting the glaciers?
- Does all the snow we received this winter help the glaciers?
- How do receding glaciers and climate change affect the local economy in terms of recreation, agriculture, tourism?
After checking about the fire, it would seem YOU WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG. This is how I would answer
This is how you would answer, either never admit it, say there is nothing in the blog rules that requires you to answer every question or not answer at all.
Do you see the difference?
Now, if you insist on using two different charts that are presenting two different data sets based on two different baselines to make the case that there is some conspiracy afoot to make things look warmer than they really are, I'd respond that there are many more blue dots on the "manipulated" chart than there are on the "good" one. And then I'd ask why the evil scientists would put all those cool blue dots there since they know those don't support their fraudulent theory of warming.
Again, please read the links. You'll find them enlightening...
Maybe it is the same reason why folks at Iceland met wonder why their temps have been adjusted for no reason.
Well, that is the only evidence I need to see. The AGWT is just wrong and your link proves it. ;-)
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Why should anyone on this board have that answer. No one here produced that graph. I provided an email address in a previous post so that you may email your question to someone who was involved in producing that graph. If you really want an answer, then email your question to the appropriate people.
But I have a hunch you don't really want an answer. ;)
Any evidence for that statement or is that just the way that you feel.
Again, email your question to the appropriate people if you honestly want an answer. If you don't...well, I'm just gonna point and laugh.
Now you're just being silly.
Evidence that folks "at Iceland" are wondering such a thing?
Remember you said it would not get below freezing last night here, well it did.
That's all you have anyways.
All you ever bring to the blog is:
information anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am sorry but the one person who can respond to this has had one no-notice after another that he has had to respond to during the last couple of months. I am sure he cannot get to it this coming week but we will attend to it as soon as possible.
Best regards
Jay
When I get home I will find the info for Iceland again.
Link
Link
Well, that was a waste of time.
Should I invoice you? lol
Sounds like you'll get your answer. Kudos to you for actually emailing them.
2) I never said any place wouldn't freeze; I merely mentioned two locations in Minnesota that weren't forecast to drop below freezing for several days after last night.
Please try not to be so obtuse; it doesn't do your argument any good. ;-)
Maybe... but I at least have never used "Oh my" in a sentence. It's overacting.
Probably part of the reason that this same group of misfits that gives respect to anyone with integrity and an open mind, doesn't bother much with you.
As noted before, I would much rather exist in a henhouse with this group of hens than exist in a breeder farm cage like most denialists.
Waste of time? You asked "Evidence that folks "at Iceland" are wondering such a thing?" The links answered.
"No need to contact the iceland met office, they are aware of the issue and have already said:
The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.
They have started a blog at icelandweather.blog.is which they say will address this controversy."
A new study, published March 14, states that over 12,000 square miles of America's low-level coasts may be growing more vulnerable to the risk of flooding. The study, published in Environmental Research Letters by scientists at Climate Central, the University of Arizona and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, focuses on tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and may mean increased risk of devastating results for residents living on the coast.
New Jersey is a proud coastal state with its 127-mile boundary with the Atlantic Ocean, and flooding and erosion are not uncommon topics of discussion. With the effect of global warming, whether a natural earthly phenomenon or sped-up with the contribution of our human selves, it is no doubt that seas are rising and may prove to be “devastating,” nj.com reports: “New research predicts rising sea levels due to global warming will more than triple the likelihood of devastating coastal flooding by the year 2030, putting more than 230,000 beach and bay-side residents in the flood zone.” "New Jersey is going to be a battleground well into the future and long after other areas are given up on," said David Robinson, the state climatologist at Rutgers University, to the Star-Ledger. "And we’re not just talking about the major storm, the storm of 1962. What we’re talking about here is that a run of a mill storm could become much more of a problem." While the problem is nationwide, the most vulnerable states are Florida, Louisiana, California, New York, and New Jersey. “In coming decades, floods will hit more often and in places they never have before,” reports the Los Angeles Times. The predictions, based on the rising seas, high tides and storm surges, paint a “grim” outcome for the coastal states.
“The situation has the potential to be worse than what we were anticipating just a year ago,” said study coauthor Jeremy Weiss, a geosciences researcher at the University of Arizona. “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 2100 may be sufficient to irreversibly commit the planet to 4-6 meters of global sea level rise…This century, global rise may approach 1 or even 2 meters.” "It shows you how vulnerable you can be here," Toms River Mayor Thomas Kelaher told the Ledger. "Very frankly, I’m not too sure what the hell we can do (on a local level). We respond when we have to. We keep our residents informed. We have a strong evacuation plan. But short of having a magic wand, I don’t know how you can solve the risk that we have." Nevertheless, shore towns are aware of risks and consequences, and in some towns it is hard, and expensive, to insure a beach home. Areas highly prone to flooding are a known risk, yet residents still put up with the havoc of a getaway just feet from the ocean. "Often times with a changing climate, it’s something that happens in little fits and starts and can kind of sneak up on you," Robinson told the Ledger. "That can be dangerous. Whenever you get a big storm, what’s the first reaction? It’s, ‘Let’s rebuild, rebuild stronger.’ Is that the right answer? I’m not going to pass judgment. It’s a very, very difficult, contentious subject and one that will be with us for a long while." While the ultimate stake is people’s lives and homes, there’s billions of dollars that’s been put into the property and infrastructure that will be hard to move or let go. Only a storm on the radar will bring the seriousness of the problem to light.
"Everyone can look up the numbers and compare both adjusted and earlier published values. Most of the later adjustments that have been made by the IMO are concerned with changes in the observing hours that neccessiate slight adjustments. The methodology of the current calculation of monthly means is described in detail in: http://www.vedur.is/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/grei nargerdir/1995/Climatological1960.pdf. Exactly the same method has been in use since 1956."
In other words: lighten up, denialists; there's nothing illegitimate happening.A lesson I learned many years ago: just because you don't like the results of the race doesn't mean it was run unfairly.
JupiterKen, I do not understand what would be gained by falsely moving the temp data up for any particular region. Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that the temps were illogically/falsely adjusted upward for this region. This would only make it appear that any future temp readings, for this region, would make it appear as if the temps are remaining the same or dropping, for this region. Should the "alarmist" wish to make a false point then they should have adjusted the temp data down to make it appear as if the future data, for this region, showed a rapid upward trend in the temps. Do you not agree? I would think that any upward adjustments in the region's temp data would only serve to show less warming or a cooling in this region, in the future. Would that not be exactly what the "denialist" dream of seeing?
Darn! Those pesky scientist got it all wrong! AGAIN! They should have adjusted the temps down!
Link
Yes, a waste of time. You linked to some blog that claims the Iceland Met Office said something. IOW, it's second-hand, and from someone with an axe to grind from the tone of the blog. So, you linked me to garbage, therefore, it's a waste of my time.
Now, if you link me to the Iceland Met Office statement, that might actually be evidence.
That's some prodigious arrogance coming from someone who thinks that the Sun represents a gaping hole in AGW theory.
Have you thought of going pro?
Oh, and for future reference wrt Pink Floyd --I'm more of a Careful With That Axe Eugene sorta guy.
Well, as long as you're sure, that's good enough for you.
Many of us prefer actual evidence that is verifiable.
You know, I read at length about all the things that are supposedly wrong with our temperature measurements. What I don't read from the people making those assertions is what the actual temperature IS, in their opinion. Nor do they ever get around to explaining why the rate of warming shown by earth-based thermometers is nearly identical to that shown by satellite measurements. How are those bad thermometers affecting the satellites? Thanks in advance for your answers.
This isn't going to be any fun for the denialists if you go using logic on them.
Nice post.
Flooded basement
I presume that you are laughing at yourself since your question is so bizarrely funny. Seriously, ROFLMBO at that bit of silliness.
Ah, so that is why you make that kind of statement. Fair enough. I have to admit that you are funny. It's good to know that it's intentional.
Now you've lost me. Whatever does the Dewey Decimal System have to do with anything being discussed or anyone discussing it?
You are either brazenly making things up or incredibly mistaken on all counts. I understand that you've suffered a bit of embarrassment, but baseless accusations aren't the way to go, son.
That's easy. The tale you tell took place only in your imagination. So there was nothing for me to work around since I am not required to share any hallucinations that you have.
What is wrong is making things up about people and posting it on an open forum. You really should stop. Not everyone is as easy going as me.
Get well soon!
Y'all seem to misunderstand the point of the controversy in your zeal to deny.
The "corrections" to the Icelandic records were not changing recent temperatures upward but the historical temperatures downward to show increased present-day warming.
Link
P.S. -- Willie Soon, whose video you have linked to or embedded literally dozens of times, is, as has often been pointed out, does research funded almost entirely by fossil fuel interests. Since that alone makes him suspect in the eyes of many, do you think you can find a scientist unconnected with ExxonMobil and Koch Industries who shares Soon's unorthodox and unsubstantiated theory? If so, we might be more compelled and likely to listen.
And if government scientists from around the world don't demonstrate "warming" they lose their government funding, their jobs, and their salaries. Might just skew their research a little, huh? Tell me exactly what the difference is between the much greater funding coming from governments (and our freaking tax dollars) and the miniscule funding, in comparison, from private entities?
May I remind you of this snippet from Dr. Rood's blog:
Please show me the errors in the post I cited. Your snarky, no-fact protestations have no merit.
Science trumps your ideology filtered BS everytime seems.
Maybe try a career in Politics..
Edit: Remind me again what your degree is in Mr. "Scientist"
Zero blogs eh?
Maybe you can take that er, "Superior Intellect" you think you have and create for the forum here, a Coherent blog entry outlying all your pertinent points in the "perceived" debate .
0 is a hard way to fly in that respect.
Or maybe comment on the process as to which you've reached these, er,"conclusions" with.
A BS or PHD in the field is NOT a requirement for a conscience Human with avg intellect and reading skills to understand the conclusions nor process's that give the results that seem so upsetting to you sport.
Each year, when the list of coldest U.S. cities is compiled, International Falls, Minnesota regularly winds up at the top of the list, earning its title as "Icebox of the Nation". The city once hit -55°F (on January 6, 1909), and takes pride in the distinction of being the coldest city in the U.S., having trademarked the term "Icebox of the Nation" in 1948. The city recently defended the trademark against the town of Fraser, Colorado, which sought to usurp the title as the Nation's Icebox. But yesterday, International Falls set a truly phenomenal weather record for warmth.
The city's temperature soared to 77°F, which was 42° above the average high temperature for the date. Not only was it the city's hottest March temperature on record by 4°, it was just 4° shy of yesterday's high in Miami, Florida. But what was truly amazing is that the 77°F high in International Falls beat the previous record for the date by 22°! I talked to Christopher C. Burt, wunderground's weather historian, and he couldn't recall seeing a station with a century-plus period of weather records break a daily record by such a wide margin (International Falls' records go back to 1895.)
Yesterday's temperatures in International Falls were but one chapter in the on-going story of one of the most extreme meteorological events in U.S. history. Never before has such an extended period of extreme and record-breaking warm temperatures affected such a large portion of the U.S. in March, going back to the beginning of record keeping in the late 1800s. The record-breaking warmth will continue through Thursday, and I'll have much more to say in Monday's post.
Jeff Masters
Way to go Paptrap. What "perceived" debate? There is no debate here. And having a personal blog here is requisite to post? Many of the others also do not. Why do you not require the same of them? You don't don't know anything about me but, as usual, it doesn't stop the snark. Dispute the message if you will but attacking the messenger is for the no-fact biggot.
EDIT: I see you added to your original post (nice grammar).
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index