The first rule of debating climate Change is, Don’t debate Climate change, and as what happens at fight club stays at Fight club, what Happens in the Scientific Academy must not trouble the Simple stories which Climate Communicators use to break it down for the Flock.
The idea is that in matters as difficult as this we need to trust the experts. We need to accept what we are told and submit to the Arguments from Authority which they hand down to us.
On Experts, I suggest the work of Tetlock and his criticisms of the Dismal Science of Economics and the seeming unimportance of their predictions ever being right.
Tetlock’s research program over the last four decades has explored five themes:
- the concept of good judgment (with special emphasis on the usefulness of forecasting tournaments in assessing one key component of good judgment: accuracy);
- the impact of accountability on judgment and choice;
- the constraints that sacred values place on the boundaries of the thinkable;
- the difficult-to-define distinction between political versus politicized psychology; and
- the usefulness of hypothetical-society experiments in disentangling fact and value judgments of the impact of competing policy proposals.
On Arguments to Authority, I suggest Schopenhauer, The Art of Being right,
But there are very many authorities who find respect with the mob, and if you have none that is quite suitable, you can take one that appears to be so; you may quote what some said in another sense or in other circumstances. Authorities which your opponent fails to understand are those of which he generally thinks the most. The unlearned entertain a peculiar respect for a Greek or a Latin flourish.
You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually, falsify them, or quote something which you have invented entirely yourself. As a rule, your opponent has no books at hand, and could not use them if he had. The finest illustration of this is furnished by the French curé, who, to avoid being compelled, like other citizens, to pave the street in front of his house, quoted a saying which he described as biblical: paveant illi, ego non pavebo. That was quite enough for the municipal officers.
This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, – although it does not in the least follow, – as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.
Draw Conclusions Yourself
When you have elicited all your premisses, and your opponent has admitted them, you must refrain from asking him for the conclusion, but draw it at once for yourself; nay, even though one or other of the premisses should be lacking, you may take it as though it too had been admitted, and draw the conclusion. This trick is an application of the fallacy non causae ut causae.
Yes, we have no bananas, and the deliveries are not in yet. So it’s carrot soup on the menu, then.
…so because the heating is intermittent and the weather is getting colder, we should visit James for a week.
The most important part of any logical argument is the final conclusion. Indeed, it is the main part that is used to suggest an action or change of some kind. A supporting rationale is, in the end, only important for proof. But if you can establish the conclusion and decision without necessarily having a perfect proof, then the actual logic of the rationale is unimportant.
In arguments, people often start with the rationale and may spend time developing their argument. This gives you the opportunity to jump in with a conclusion that suits your purpose. As it appears you have used their evidence, it makes it difficult for them to challenge your conclusion.
‘Non causae ut causae‘ is a phrase coined by Schopenhauer and indicates that the fallacy is in using reasons that are not valid. This can happen when a conclusion is true but he reasons given for it are not true or not sufficient to draw the conclusion.
‘Draw Conclusions Yourself’ is the twentieth of Schopenhauer’s stratagems.
And What of DaSein and the Being and Time of The world, The Oceans, The Land, The Atmosphere, The Sun, Stars and Moon. The Un-seen actors in the Dance of Climate?
Will our 4 gladiators engage with the facts of realism or will they take flight to the Sophistries of Polemic and Rhetoric?
Admiral Titley and Dr Mann clearly double tagged on their Communication with the flock and studiously observed the Niceties of Climatology Fight club, The word tags for each segment of the debate make the point regarding storytelling absent facts and real-world observation but very strong on the monsters of the Crisis mythology.
The most odd, indescribable thing of all
Which hardly one man there could see for wonder
Did something recognizably a something.’
‘It made a noise.’
‘A frightening noise?’
‘A musical noise? A noise of scuffling?’
‘No, but a very loud, respectable noise —-
Like groaning to oneself on Sunday morning
In Chapel, close before the second psalm.’
‘What did the mayor do?’
‘I was coming to that.’
‘Welsh Incident’ by Robert Graves.
Admiral Titley, is in the running for one of the “Kuhnt Journals” nobbles, at out inaugural dinner in Stockholm, he manages in this short segment of his talk to achieve a combination of logical fallacies worthy of the greatest Dadaist absurdist. And not just the Two strategems of Schopenhauer set out above.
Introduction Summary Segment.
4.51 mins – 19.35 mins
Dr Judith Curry’s Presentation
19.43 mins – 32.26 mins
Rear Admiral Dave Titley USN (ret.), PhD.
Dr Patrick Moore
46.25 – 61.32
Q and A summaries. All