It’s interesting when a regular stringer known for a particular political persuasion or field of interest writes something which illustrates how they frame the dynamics of the debate with which they are engaged, or how they see themselves in the context of that debate.
George Monbiot, once a mainstay of this blog’s critique, has done just that in the comments section of this morning’s Guardian, in a piece titled defensively, “I’m not climate change’s Billy Graham.” (How dare someone suggest such a thing?!) It’s an illustrative little piece, written about climate change denial (the belief that climate change is not occurring).
First, Moonbeam lists some information which he implies should be enough to cause “deniers” to change their minds, and then gives the reasons he thinks they don’t: “You can argue that they are cherry-picking their experts and their data, but unless they have an understanding of the scientific process, they don’t see what’s wrong with that.”
Then, he ridicules the man who called him climate change’s Billy Graham, an audience member of a talk on climate change he had just given: “He pointed out that temperatures on Mars have risen: could that be because of all the people driving their SUVs there? Well full marks for originality: I haven’t heard that one more than 100 times since the Martian data was published.” He’s such a smart fellow, Moonbeam, in comparison to his audiences.
He then asked the guy, “What would it take to convince you that manmade climate change is taking place?” The man answered that nothing would convince him, since the climate has always been changing, and this is “just another natural cycle.”
It’s here that George betrays his understanding of the dynamics of the climate change debate, and the infallibility with which he regards his own position: “This, I suspect, must now be the position of most of those who still deny that man-made climate change is happening: that there is nothing - no evidence, however compelling, no scientific consensus, however robust - that could persuade them of the opposite case. Could there be a better definition of religion?”
Aha, see? It isn’t me that’s the Billy Graham of climate change, it’s you that’s the Billy Graham of Climate Change Denial! And what’s more, you’re not alone: every one of you are the same! Everyone who disagrees with me on this issue are merely evangelists of a pious religious movement, ‘the Deniers’!
I’ll leave aside Moonbeam’s obvious disdain for theism here. But it certainly is interesting to see how he’s pitched his own position against everyone who disagrees with him in such a straw man fashion. To adopt his theme, could there be anything more fundamentalist than to see things in such black and white terms? That he sees himself as the rational, consensus-derived standard, up against the zealots of the “opposite case” (his words), is truly indicative of his state of self-delusion on the matter.
Some months ago, I wrote an article I arrogantly purported to bring Rationality [to] the climate change debate. In it, I identified six ‘doctrines’ regarding climate change of which Moonbeam subscribes to all six. Moonbeam’s ’straw man’ argument is that he frames this debate in terms of those who agree with him in subscribing to all six positions and pitches them up against those who, like the audience member he chose to pick on in this sorry article, subscribe to none. This approach completely (and conveniently) ignores the abundance of rational, sane, unreligious people who, like me, subscribe to two or three and remain agnostic or opposed to the others.
Moonbeam is supposed to be this journalistic heavyweight in the climate change debate. So when will he engage meaningfully with those who dare to disagree with him on what to do about climate change without being climate change “deniers”?
Such would be a more potent challenge for Moonbeam, and I think that’s the very reason he’s predisposed to ignore it.
John Wright
11 responses so far ↓
1 Greg, Sacramento // May 28, 2007 at 10:40 pm
You’re right this is definitely not Monbiot at his best. But your own writing is not immune from these kind of dichotomies where sometimes libertarianism is not the only alternative to the kind of extremism you’re criticizing! There may be virtue in all kinds of social democracy or the middle ground, so to speak. Also, Monbiot never said here that the only alternative to what he advocates is pure denial that climate change is even happening (though it is true that he would probably suggest that his position is the only defendable one to take if one admits manmade warming).
2 Christine // May 29, 2007 at 8:28 am
Interesting. I am not a deniar but found your link to your six positions very useful (I am about a 5). Once in a while someone comes up with something that is good enough not only to help categorize the debate but at one and the same time to make a point of its own (in this case that agreeing with the science of climate change doesn’t mean agreeing with liberal policies about it). I think it’s awesome and deserves a page of it’s own so that people can link to it?
3 Rosalita Paglia // May 29, 2007 at 8:46 pm
John,
A nice little treat from you today since I had read that article and wondered what you would make of it. I agree with you that he is attacking the wrong people, why not focus his energy on justifying his constant attacks on liberty? Good to see you posting.
4 John Wright // May 30, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Thanks, guys. Greg, you have a point when you say that my writing is not immune from creating straw men, though I think you’ll acknowledge that I deal with the full spectrum of arguments here (as I do with the ‘Six Doctrines’ of climate change) in a way that Moonbeam simply has not. Also it’s important to note that this piece was used as an illustration of Moonbeam’s state of mind about the climate change issue; he lives in a world in which he never seems to hear (or if he does, never acknowledges the existence of) sensible, well-considered opinions to the contrary of his own, other than those of the ‘deniers’. But as I think I’ve demonstrated, all roads don’t lead to coercion.
Christine- I’ll certainly consider refining the idea, coming up with a snazzier title and giving it its own post. Thanks!
Rosalita- Good you’re still hanging around!
5 Ane // May 31, 2007 at 1:37 pm
George Monbiot is trying to make a better society for the future, you are not.
6 Dave // Jun 2, 2007 at 5:20 am
We could spend all day arguing about the truths behind climate change data, but placing your hope that future technologies and the free market will sort it all out is just wishfull thinking.
Imagine you were sitting near the edge of a cliff and your daughter was playing near the edge. 10 scientists come along - 9 of them say there is a 90% that the rocks will crumble and your daughter will fall to her death. And 1 says there is a 10% chance that she will fall. You would still go and pull her way from the edge of the cliff.
Climate change is only one of the reasons why we should reduce our use of fossil fuels.
The environmental damage caused by its extraction and transportation would be reason enough. But add on to this the increased incidence of chilhood asthma and the fact that more people die on British roads each year than were killed on 9/11, and you realise that your “right” to drive your SUV is in competition with some of my “rights” which you could argue take priotity because they relate to my health well being. Whereas your rights just relate to your freedom to drive a flashy car.
Libertarianism claims to be about rights - but more often it seems to be about lifestyle.
OK, governments should respect our rights - but whose rights take priority ? mine or yours?
7 S Quinney // Jun 2, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Dave, your cliff-edge scenario is irrelevant, and if that’s how you see the climate change debate I think you’ve just proved John’s point that many on your side of the debate are climate-fundies! For instance can you prove your assertion that 90 percent of scientists agree that human beings will die if we don’t act now to solve climate change?
A more accurate scenario would be this: we’ve built a house on a hill, and the egdes of the hill have been known to erode on their own in the past. Now we have 90 percent of scientists agreeing that the edges are eroding presently, AND that our activity is responsible for them doing so. But a good proportion of those scientists would not say it’s a ‘catastrophic’ thing, since they see that there’s a good 20 feet of land between the house and the edge of the hill. They think we could act to stop the erosion in numerous ways before then. Yet more of those scientists would look at the fact that we won’t even be going NEAR the edges of the hill once we complete building a deck that would put an end to the need to do so. The builders of the deck aren’t building it for that reason, but many onlookers see that it will likely solve the problem. The hill may continue to erode on its own at times, since that’s what it’s done for many years without our house even being on it, but at least we’ll be sure that our activity ceases to have any effect if we end up using the deck anyway.
Now, there’s no little girls falling off cliffs and dying in that scenario, is there? I know it’s not quite as appealing since you can’t appeal to people’s emotions as you did above. But the best solutions to problems like this are not emotional but purely rational. For my part, I think John is right to say that there are many alarmists involved in this whole thing, and we’d be better off without them.
8 Dave // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:08 am
S Quinney - The whole point is that we don’t know and can’t know the full extent of the problem.
I agree that we need a rational and considered approach to the problem, and that is what has led many, including Monbiot, to suggest that there could be a problem. I just think putting your faith in the future is a very brave position to take - if you can justify that to yourself then fair enough - how about addressing the other points in my previous post.
9 S Quinney // Jun 3, 2007 at 8:45 am
For people who are willing to use government coercion at the drop of a hat, what you say might make sense. If your natural political genes tell you that banning things and taxing things is the best way to get things done, then sure, it makes sense you’d want to drag that philosophy into the climate change debate. Why not, as a precaution, start to do some of the things being suggested by environmentalists? These are the same people that want to enforce healthiness by taxing or banning junk food. They’re the same people who are happy with the concept that iPod volume should be restricted. We should increase arts funding (taking money from the general population to give it to artists). We should ban trans fat. People watch too much television, and we’re trying to work out how to stop them… it’s only a matter of time.
The point is that libertarians don’t believe the government has the RIGHT to interfere in these ways. Individuals should be free to respond to any potential threats to their liberty (including climate change?) themselves without fear of government coercion. It’s here we fundamentally disagree. I want freedom, you want to be controlled. That’s fine. But now you understand the reason I won’t accept the ‘precautions’.
People don’t need to believe as I do about the principles of this to believe that coercion is wrong at this stage. There are many people who believe, rightly, that the kinds of coercion being suggested will simply take too great a toll on the economy we all rely on to live. You should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It’s not a pretty picture when people mess up the economy (people’s livelihoods) for a goal of some sort. John argues in this blog very effectively that it’s that very economy we’ll rely on MOST to provide the solutions for climate change long term. Yet the more governments govern, the more of the economy is destroyed - any economics textbook will attest to that. That fact is overlooked by people on your side of the debate, and I’ve yet to hear from your side how we’re going to solve climate change WITHOUT the free market technology changing. So you have a choice: go back to preindustrial lifestyles, worldwide (that’s not going to happen) or rely on technology in the economy which would be severely hampered given some of the controls you put forth. Sorry this was longer than I meant it to be.
10 Rosalita Paglia // Jun 4, 2007 at 9:07 am
Nice discussion. S Quinney, I love your analogy. Dave, I think you are inventing a contradiction of rights where none exists! I had asthma as a child and I lived in the middle of nowhere, cars could definitely not be blamed for my asthma. People getting run over by cars are accidents just like people falling down stairs or slicing their hands off with power tools. Using your logic we should see a conflict of rights anytime a potential accident could occur!
11 Anonymous // Jun 18, 2007 at 5:09 am
John
I read recently that the vikings completely navigated the north pole when it was virtually ice-free during the medieval warm period.
Interesting isnt it?
incidentally, the evolution of feathers debate is getting very interesting with Peter Klaver and Dylan Dog;-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html
ttfn
PB
Leave a Comment