Jan
21
Yes, I must admit to being rather pleased that this year’s Nobel Prize was awarded to Al Gore. To be fair, the award was also given to the horde of scientists who have contributed to raising our awareness of climate change. However, if you had to pick one person who has made the most significant impact in raising our knowledge level on what climate change is, how it happens, and what can be done about it, Gore is the guy. Not surprisingly, the announcement that Gore was chosen by the Nobel committee stimulated yet another boisterous round of climate change denial and personal attacks. For the philosopher, it is important to take note that the theoretical roots of such a reply are ancient and pervasive.
Doubting climate change is essentially a manifestation of the inescapable problem of skepticism. The first skeptics lived during the golden age of ancient Athens and were contemporaries of Socrates and Plato. The Sophists were the original skeptics, and they formulated the theory that for every view one could hold, an equally strong alternative view could be given in response. Truth was perpetually elusive, and winning the argument was the only reasonable goal one could have. Thus, the Sophists utilized the skill of rhetoric in producing and defending arguments that supported their views, regardless of what was actually true.
With such a rich history, it is not surprising that skepticism is still with us. It is an especially compelling view for the climate change doubters because the doomsday-type predictions that people like Gore rely on are still in the somewhat distant future. The lack of tangible results and the slow progress of climate change effects make it very easy to doubt what is largely a matter of fact in the scientific community. As time goes on, climate change skepticism will be increasingly difficult to defend, but for now we will likely continue to be exposed to this viewpoint.
Another popular negative response to Al Gore and the climate change “crazies” is to utilize personal attacks, known amongst philosophers as ad hominim fallacies. Although many individuals are swayed by this technique, it is philosophically without merit. Referring to Al Gore’s mansion or the fact that he flies all over the world in huge jets does not alter the factual realities of climate change, nor the force of Gore’s position.
For those of us who believe, as Gore claims, that climate change is the greatest moral challenge humanity has yet faced, it is important to be aware of these popular, but relatively unconvincing replies to proponents of climate change awareness. A healthy level of skepticism can be a good thing, but climate change has been exhaustively researched, and the consistent conclusion seems to be that this really is a serious problem and humanity is definitely responsible for the effects of this phenomenon.
Ad hominem attacks, on the other hand, are decidedly lacking in validity and should be disregarded without response. To discredit an individual may be rhetorically effective, but it serves primarily as a distraction from what is often a very strong argument.