GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
I don't pose the subject question lightly, especially considering the predictable assumption by some that I'm trying to equate skepticism about Global Warming to the Nazis (which I'm not) or that I'm implying that Global Warming skepticism is equal to Young-Earth Creationists (which I'm not). Instead, I'm asserting that the same rhetorical styles, structure, and in some cases almost verbatim arguments (with a few changed words) are used by the most staunch anti-AGW circles as have been used by both Creationism proponents and by Holocaust deniers. The clear and distinct anti-intellectualism rooted in the anti-AGW positions very clearly mimics the anti-intellectualism rooted in Creationist and Holocaust denier positions as well, even though the ideological boundaries between the three are exclusive from each other-- though not mutually exclusive, as a YEC believer can also be a Holocaust denier or hold the anti-AGW view-- they are simply distinct ideologies not pertinent to the position I'm putting forth.
To wit:
The similarities in structure and argument between the anti-AGW and Holocaust denial are as follows...
The similarities in structure and argument between the anti-AGW and Creationism are as follows...
Throughout the above-listed similarities (which is by no means complete), there is an overwhelming anti-intellectual element underpinning the anti-AGW arguments, as if it were the fact that this issue is so immense and complex, requiring an intellectual examination of the issue to make an actual informed decision, were somehow part of the problem and not simply a statement on the size and complexity of the issue itself. I understand that the issue of AGW is in its implications that will require a huge restructuring of how we conduct our lives on a day-to-day basis, and will be costly. What makes it so frustratingly baffling is that even if the anti-AGW crowd somehow turns out to be correct about the man-made portion, unfortunately the science on the changing climate itself is pretty conclusive-- the world is getting warmer, and noticeably so, whether our current activities are contributing or not. Regardless of the outcome of the AGW debate in the political and media discourse, the fact still remains that our subsequent generations are going to be dealing with a set of factors that will require our civilizations to change regardless of the current debate being raged. This isn't in doubt except by the most fringe type of folk who are typically enamored of all sorts of conspiracy theories (like Jerome Corsi), so my suggestion to those who are ideologically opposed to the AGW theories on the grounds that it will mean costly and unsettling change is this: get used to it, because it's pretty much unavoidable regardless of what you think is causing it. The structural similarities I detail above are significant in that they tend to disconnect the arguer from the consequences, and the ideology which is driving the debate to its current epic proportions is not based in rational thinking. Debate the steps to take, argue about what changes should be made, and how quickly they should be made-- those are all valid and rational stances that are significant to the future of the US and all other nations. Let's move on to the logistical debate instead of staying locked in this anti-intellectual debate on the merits of science, which tends to be mostly useful only to wingnut authors and politicians anyway. Let's move it out of the realm of its similarities I've listed above and into the realm of applied critical thinking.
Amirite?
To wit:
The similarities in structure and argument between the anti-AGW and Holocaust denial are as follows...
- Similar focus on a single person as a "spokesman" to be against - This one is a fairly obvious similarity because it's a fairly common ideological tactic to use. The anti-AGW groups constantly focus on Al Gore as a target, while the popular target to focus on for Holocaust denial groups tends to be Simon Wiesenthal for their vitriol. Obviously, neither individual is the nexus of knowledge or the crux of the proponent arguments for Global Warming or the Holocaust (respectively), but both have lots of political (and ideological) connection to the causes, as well as both having had conveniently clay feet on at least a few occasions (neither have led perfect lives). Naturally, the arguments using these two individuals tends toward implying that the hypocrisy being claimed in the assertion reduces legitimacy of the overarching argument, which incorrectly assumes that either of the two have anything at all to do with whether the thing being argued about is accurate or not. Naturally, in both cases, Gore and Wiesenthal could be completely discredited as individuals and neither would ultimately affect the accuracy of the Global Warming or Holocaust issues in anything but a political sense. Of course, this is a useful tactic for both the anti-AGW and the Holocaust denial crowds, since one of the goals of the ideological movements is to garner political sympathy, and pointing out flaws in the other side's political standing is one way to sway fence-sitters or undecideds (or the uninformed) regarding their ideological stance. It's worth noting that this isn't something that is done only by these two types of ideological arguments, and it's certainly prevalent throughout political argument, but the similarities in nature between these two in how this tactic is employed and how prevalent it is in the arguments makes it noteworthy as a comparison. A typical anti-AGW Al Gore rant as an example (I'm not linking Holocaust denial Wiesenthal rants because they tend to be unusually venomous and inappropriate).
- Arguments using dissenting exceptions - This happens to be one of those tactics that is shared between all three ideologies mentioned here, as well as with numerous political ideologies. The tactic includes taking a dissenting opinion that directly opposes or seems to contradict a consensus (whether it actually does or not) and claims that as support for their ideological argument. A common anti-AGW tactic is to use some local climate pattern reading as an example against the argued global pattern (example), while a common Holocaust denier tactic is to use any (perceived) flaw that could be found in survivor accounts (no human skin lamps or soap from the dead). Another example in the anti-AGW argument is to cite (supposed) non-consensus opinions from some researcher or scientist (example), regardless of any status of the peer opinions of the research or scientist statements as support against AGW being "conclusive" (more on this with the Creationists), while Holocaust deniers readily cite their own people who are admittedly studied in much of the WWII-era history but put forth conclusions dissenting against the historical consensus about the Holocaust, again regardless of the peer opinions about the dissent or the applicability of the research that went into the dissenting opinion. Sometimes, even, the dissenting opinion is using valid research to imply an air of deceit and/or fraud by claiming the scientists producing the work are either caught up in some type of god complex (example) or other personal attacks instead of presenting an accurate debunking of the science, which is similar to Holocaust denier tactics of dismissing any accumulated evidence stemming from the Nazi war crimes trials as being biased or made-up instead of providing any substantiation to dismissing such evidence.
- Present the view opposing theirs as being conspiracy-driven - The notability of the "Jewish conspiracy" theories prevalent in Holocaust denial should have to be highlighted much, since they're so loud and common as to have infiltrated a number of other conspiracy theories still floating about already. With the recent "climate-gate" incident, however, the conspiracy allegations against proponents of Global Warming by the anti-AGW crowd have grown more obvious than they were previously (example). Both ideological arguments present a firm case that the "truth" is being withheld from the public, and constantly present cases of what they allege are obvious examples of the hoax and fraud being perpetrated by the climatologists (another example). Like the personal attacks against Gore, the tactical benefit this rhetorical method has is in both reinforcing the outrage of the anti-AGW crowd-- or, in the Holocaust denial circles, those claiming the Holocaust was a hoax-- as well as influencing fence-sitters or those uninformed about the actual content being discussed. Now, a lot of what has driven the anti-AGW crowd into conspiracy theorizing is that the issue has become highly politicized between the political left and political right, with most common anti-AGW conspiracies implying a left-wing conspiracy to promote fraudulent science for some mixture of anti-right, anti-Capitalist, and/or anti-Christian campaign against the free world. Clearly this is part of where Al Gore comes into the picture, but the conspiracy theorizing from the anti-AGW crowd has gone way beyond Al Gore since the original release of Gore's books (and movie) on the subject.
- Present disagreements in the field as 'proof' against the conclusion - This is another one that Holocaust denial also shares with Creationism, and one taken as full advantage of as possible by the anti-AGW crowd. The tactic here is to inflate any disagreements or conflicting data (like this case) as if it were a series of silver bullets against the overarching argument, by claiming that even the experts in the field can't agree and thus the consensus is a sham. Intellectual investigation into any of the fields concerning three ideological arguments in question will find that there is no lockstep agreement on all of minute details on the subject-- which kind of shoots the conspiracy allegations in the foot, yet the conspiracy theories abound-- while the larger conclusions on the subject remain mostly the same almost across the board. Why is this? The answer is simple, and the same for all three: the subject matter itself is massive and prone to differences of opinion on implications and interpretations of data. However, as with any good scientific theory, the more data that is collected should continue to consistently support the overarching theory even if details are subject to change or alteration. This integral part of the Scientific Method is consistently disregarded by the anti-AGW, the Creationist, and the Holocaust denial crowds as a rhetorical tactic used to poke holes in the ideological argument they are disagreeing with. Science just doesn't work that way, and even with scientific principles that have withstood the test of time there are still discussions and debates ongoing about the permanence of their conclusions and the boundaries to which their conclusions are limited-- for a good example of this, take a primer on quantum physics and find out how it has affected our views on long-standing concepts like gravity, the separation of particles and waves, and other physical properties of the universe that had gone for centuries as being considered practically immutable. To assume that there should ever be a 100% completely finished debate on climate change science is to demand an unreasonable condition to a field of science where such things just don't happen (or don't last).
The similarities in structure and argument between the anti-AGW and Creationism are as follows...
- Arguments using dissenting exceptions - see above in the Holocaust denial comparison for the longer explanation. Creationism has groups like The Discovery Institute and similar organizations, while the anti-AGW crowd has organizations like the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and similar orgs. Both present themselves as scientific organizations with as much legitimacy in the debate as peer-reviewed research, yet the "scientific" data they produce is re-wording of core ideological positions into language resembling research papers.
- Present disagreements in the field as 'proof' against the conclusion - see above in the Holocaust denial comparison for the longer explanation of this, as this is shared between all three. Creationists use differences in discovery or interpretation of evolutionary science data to support their arguments, just as anti-AGW proponents do the same with the discovery and interpretation/prediction of climate science models.
- Injecting non-scientific debate into the scientific argument on a regular basis - this method is a signature tactic by the Creationism crowds, and has grown to be a common method in the anti-AGW arsenal as well. Again, this is at least partially related to the proselytizing on the issue by Al Gore, which as a result turned it into a partisan issue that has practically drawn a political line in the sand. It would be difficult to find an anti-AGW source out there that doesn't insert some form of politicizing of the issue along right-left political boundaries, despite climate change science (or any science, for that matter) having nothing to do with political affiliation on the fact and data side of things. While Creationism tends to go the way of politics and religion mixed into the arguments, the anti-AGW ideology tends to inject politics and nationalism, economics, and/or sometimes religion into the debate as a tactic to sway undecideds or preach to the proverbial choir.
Throughout the above-listed similarities (which is by no means complete), there is an overwhelming anti-intellectual element underpinning the anti-AGW arguments, as if it were the fact that this issue is so immense and complex, requiring an intellectual examination of the issue to make an actual informed decision, were somehow part of the problem and not simply a statement on the size and complexity of the issue itself. I understand that the issue of AGW is in its implications that will require a huge restructuring of how we conduct our lives on a day-to-day basis, and will be costly. What makes it so frustratingly baffling is that even if the anti-AGW crowd somehow turns out to be correct about the man-made portion, unfortunately the science on the changing climate itself is pretty conclusive-- the world is getting warmer, and noticeably so, whether our current activities are contributing or not. Regardless of the outcome of the AGW debate in the political and media discourse, the fact still remains that our subsequent generations are going to be dealing with a set of factors that will require our civilizations to change regardless of the current debate being raged. This isn't in doubt except by the most fringe type of folk who are typically enamored of all sorts of conspiracy theories (like Jerome Corsi), so my suggestion to those who are ideologically opposed to the AGW theories on the grounds that it will mean costly and unsettling change is this: get used to it, because it's pretty much unavoidable regardless of what you think is causing it. The structural similarities I detail above are significant in that they tend to disconnect the arguer from the consequences, and the ideology which is driving the debate to its current epic proportions is not based in rational thinking. Debate the steps to take, argue about what changes should be made, and how quickly they should be made-- those are all valid and rational stances that are significant to the future of the US and all other nations. Let's move on to the logistical debate instead of staying locked in this anti-intellectual debate on the merits of science, which tends to be mostly useful only to wingnut authors and politicians anyway. Let's move it out of the realm of its similarities I've listed above and into the realm of applied critical thinking.
Amirite?
