Big Sky Cairn

Jeff over at Speedkill has responded to my Global Warming Axioms. His contribution is constructive and well-articulated - although I do disagree with some of his points. I appreciate the opportunity to engage him in such a debate - since it is actually the debate itself that my axioms are concerned with. Note that none of my axioms make a declarative statement that global warming is false. While I am a skeptic, my skepticism is not held in those axioms. What my axioms serve to do is make discursive room for my skepticism in the face of suggestions that there is no room for debate - that the question is answered. I intend to challenge the way the left carries out the debate on catastrophic man-made climate change. And to illustrate my point, let me skip to the last sentences of Jeff’s post:

Stop debating what’s already been debated and start talking about policy. Start promoting solutions.

One of the rhetorical foundations espoused by proponents of debate is that all meaningful argument must derive from common ground. This is why discussion between pro-life and pro-choice, evolution and creation are so pointless. The sides are coming to the debate with a completely different set of assumptions that shape their beliefs. Those differences alter how they view the same set of facts and even the very rules for how the argument should be waged. Without a nugget of common ground, their ability to persuade each other dissolves and the point of argument - beyond intellectual masturbation - is nullified.

My axioms do not suggest that catastrophic man-made climate change is not real - or that it is real. They take no position on the issue itself. What they do instead is frame the issue so that we can establish common ground from which to make discussion worth having.

The debate on global warming cannot be worth having as long as one side treats the subject as gospel Truth and, as demonstrated above, want to move the debate to policy solutions while opponents refuse to engage in the policy discussion because they maintain their skepticism about the very existence of a problem that needs to - or can - be solved.

What my axioms address - what they are carefully targeted to undermine - is the notion that the first part of the discussion is settled and the next rational step is to devise solutions. I’m not sold on the problem - or man’s ability to solve it - so discussion of policy solutions is premature and the final sentences of Jeff’s post are nonsensical.

With all due apologies to Jeff, but he engages in a tactic that one often sees from both sides (although I tend to recognize it more in people I disagree with!).

He couches his argument in reasonable sounding terms, and pretends to consider the opposing points of view. As his closing sentences show, however, he’s not interested in discussion at all because his complete underlying assumption is that he is right. Start talking about solutions? To what? I thought we were still discussing the existence of a problem?

GeeGuy, you just made my point - with a lot fewer words!

I think Jeff would say that while people agree that global warming is occurring, to some level; the debate tends to be about whether or not it is man-made global warming. Jeff’s rebuttal speaks about disagreement in the face of overwhelming evidence, and I think there is such evidence for climate change. There are several claims that can still effectively be argued however:

1) Is observed climate change the result of humans.
2) Is the climate change sufficiently dangerous to necessitate action.
3) Is there any action that could affect such change in a meaningful way.

Any of which argument about i can respect; on the question of whether or not there is global warming however, we need to move away from.

Cody:

That post definitely wandered at the end and the last few paragraphs were intended to be separate points from my comments on your axioms.

I’m not sure I understand your reasons for disregarding my comments about your axioms, though. I disagreed with your axioms without assuming that human caused global warming is true. As you say at the end of your post, your axioms are aimed at people who think the issue is essentially settled. I’m one of those people. Who else is going to argue with you? People who agree with you?

GeeGuy:

Where did I actually say I considered the existence of global warming is a worthwhile debate? I took issue with Cody’s characterization of belief in global warming. My position is that it’s been debated already and the issue is settled scientifically to the point where we should move on.

[…] conservative. I was beginning to think that the right and the left in this country were lacking in common ground; that ideas took a back seat to […]