One of the terms I am often guilty of using is ‘climate debate’. It’s a term that conjures up images of a scholarly exchange which, when carrying the modifier ‘heated’, permits a certain amount of finger-wagging. For the heated debate I could use ‘climate argument’, but I prefer not to because I hate to admit that I could get involved in anything so objectionable. That said, there is really no reason why I should maintain such a pretence. Firstly, because it would be wholly unrealistic of me to ignore the extent to which we are all guilty of being so inclined. And secondly because methods of argumentation actually have quite a long and distinguished history going back to the days when the Greek toga first made its appearance as a catwalk sensation.¹ The tradition of arguing the correct purpose and approach for arguing survives to this day in the form of Argumentation Theory, a multidisciplinary study that preoccupies a slew of philosophers, logicians, linguists and sociologists who can be found (now in suitable modern attire) at a number of respectable symposia held by organisations such as the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), the National Communication Association and the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).

The reality is that argument is a serious business and not just the province of conspiracy theorists with strong opinions and weak evidence. It takes a number of different guises depending upon whether one is a lawyer, mathematician, scientist, politician or scholar of argumentation.² Its recognised purposes include persuasion (the promotion of a given point of view), negotiation (seeking to arrive at a compromise), enquiry (a genuine search for the truth), deliberation (deciding the correct course of action), or simply getting one over the other bastard (referred to in polite company as ‘eristic dialogue’).³

The main reason why I am raising the topic of Argumentation Theory is to try to determine just exactly what is going on in the world of climate debate, climate argument, climate donnybrook, or whatever else you might want to call it. When we write our articles here on Cliscep are we attempting to persuade, seek compromise, determine the truth, argue for a particular course of action, or just make the authorities look stupid?

It is often said that the essential components of an argument are a set of premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion. However, even more fundamental has to be the existence of dialogue between at least two protagonists or between conflicting ideologies. Without someone to argue against, argumentation becomes mental masturbation. So the first question we should ask of ourselves has to be: Is there anybody out there?

Take, for example, Robin Guenier’s attempts to persuade his MP that the Government’s plans for Net Zero are unachievable, disastrous and pointless. As an example of argumentation, Robin’s appears to tick all the boxes, with assumptions and premises clearly stated in support of a pretty solid deductive reasoning. Sincerity is also evident as Robin has vigorously maintained the practical value of attempting such persuasion. However, whilst there appears to be the pretence of dialogue, the responses provided by the MP concerned are just platitudinous boilerplate that doesn’t even begin to attempt to address the points raised. In fact, despite the polite and inviting tone used by the MP, the only counter-persuasion on view seems aimed at encouraging Robin to go away. So whether any of this amounts to a climate argument is up for scrutiny.

On the other side of the same coin, Government mouthpieces such as the BBC have spared little of licence-payers’ money in attempting to persuade them of the imperative for Net Zero. But, once again, no actual argument is discernible simply because the BBC has long-since abandoned the policy of entertaining balanced debate on anything related to climate change. Ultimately, democracy is founded on the essential importance of dialogue between the Government and its voters but when it comes to matters of environmental policy the opportunities for genuine democratic feedback are looking worryingly sparse.⁴

As for negotiation, this all depends upon whether there is a compromise being sought. It would be lovely to think that the benefits of achieving Net Zero are being seriously judged against its costs and risks, because that would mean that someone is looking to optimise in a realistic, fair and equitable manner. However, those who advocate for Net Zero are anxious to present it as a win-win enterprise, in which ‘cost’ morphs into ‘investment’, and ‘risk’ (such as the impossibility of finding a suitably skilled workforce in sufficient numbers) morphs into ‘opportunity’ (such as the elusive green jobs bonanza). Those who can find plenty of risk and uncertainty in the problem domain seem remarkably poor at finding any in the solution domain. Therefore, opportunities for any meaningful negotiation just don’t arise. It is very difficult to negotiate with anyone whose opening, and final, position is ‘What are you waiting for, just get on with it’.

But what scope remains for arguing as a means of determining the truth? Well, once again, the prospect for such a dialogue depends upon there being a generally held view that the truth has yet to be established. In practice, however, any two protagonists are more likely to consider that they already know the truth and that the task is to enlighten the other guy. This certainly is the stance taken by advocates for Net Zero, who will tell you that they are following the science, before pointing to the levels of scientific consensus. From that position, it is easy to see the opposing view as anti-scientific, and hence in need of rectification. A dialogue motivated by enquiry cannot get off the ground because the opinion of the sceptic is not one to be taken seriously but rather to be studied as an example of pathological thinking.⁵ That said, it is only fair to point out that argumentation designed to protect a position, rather than determine a truth, is prevalent on both sides of the ‘debate’. When was the last time you saw anyone in an online debate earnestly striving to determine the strength in someone else’s argument in order to get at the truth?

However, perhaps the greatest gap between argumentation in theory and argumentation in practice exists when it comes to deliberating so-called climate action. Deliberating the action is deemed so redundant nowadays that it is labelled ‘delayism’. Frustratingly, those who were denied the right of enquiry on the basis that they were ‘deniers’ now stand accused of shape-shifting into equally ‘bad actors’ who ‘weaponize’ deliberation. But once again, the reality is that there are still those amongst us who sufficiently value argumentation to believe it has an important role to play when committing to a fundamental restructuring of society that carries enormous risk. Certainly the present UK Government had no need of deliberation in 2019 when it came to amending the 2008 Climate Change Act. That amendment was passed through with virtually no parliamentary debate whatsoever.⁶ But let us for a moment imagine that deliberation should still take place, albeit belatedly. What a world that would be.

So, if persuasion, negotiation, enquiry and deliberation have had their day, what role remains for the honourable art of argumentation? Unfortunately, there is only one other role left on the list. Remember eristic dialogue?

The whole purpose of eristic dialogue is to win the argument. There is no search for truth (as there is in dialectic), nor is there any compromise or deliberation. It is the party piece of the sophist, where the best argument is the one that wins. As such, eristic dialogue has its own pedigree as old as argument itself. And it is a skill that lives on in courtrooms and the chambers of debate haunted by our politicians. Which is to say, it is a skill that isn’t universally admired. In fact, when it is possessed by your average climate change sceptic, it is a skill that is openly reviled. It’s not just a case of us being students of Schopenhauer who know 38 ways to win an argument; we are accused of being bad actors who peddle misinformation and disinformation in ways that are dangerously persuasive.

Much as I would like to take credit for being a master of eristic, I think one has to acknowledge that everyone in the climate debate is playing the same game, and just as skilfully. When all is said and done, power is all that matters. And when power is the object to be obtained or exploited, any means of winning an argument, legitimate or otherwise, becomes acceptable. When Robin’s MP fobbed him off with platitudes, he wasn’t really seeking to persuade — he was just looking to take advantage of his position of power and win the argument by endlessly restating the postulate to be proven (stratagem 6 in the Schopenhauer list). And just about everything the BBC spews out on the subject of climate sceptics is designed to persuade its audience, not the sceptics themselves (stratagem 28). It’s eristic all the way down.

In conclusion, I can’t say that argumentation is all that fit and healthy in the world of climate change discourse. It usually takes the form of an adversarial monologue and no longer serves the intended purpose of legitimate argument. And yet arguing is still better than rolling over and meekly accepting what seems inevitable. Whether one is trying to stop your MP from supporting what seems a suicidal course of action, or trying to provide a counterview to the authorised narrative of climate crisis, there is something to be said for laying your cards on the table. Even if one ends up playing solitaire, there is still plenty of satisfaction to be had. So forget what I said about not wanting to be objectionable; just carry on and take no notice of what the big bad man says about you.

Footnotes

[1] Yes, I know the Greek philosophers wore the chiton and the himation, whilst it was the Romans that adopted the toga. If you were looking for accurate history maybe you’ve come to the wrong place.

[2] I might add that argument played a central role in one of my previous incarnations as a safety systems engineer. Any safety-related system has to have a formal safety case submitted for approval before it can be accepted into service. At the heart of the safety case is a safety argument providing the evidence and reasons for believing that the proposed system will be sufficiently safe in operation. Ideally this argument should be formally structured using something like Goal Structuring Notation (GSN).

[3] Regarding persuasion, it is somewhat ironic that argumentation theorists, whilst presumably being experts on how to settle a dispute, and despite the number of symposia held, still seem incapable of agreeing what constitutes argumentation. It seems that the art of persuasion lies in surrounding oneself with the gullible, not other experts.

[4] Particularly if one dismisses the risibly specious Citizens’ Assemblies on Climate Change.

[5] As is done by the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook with their Debunking Handbook. Even more so, we have the latter’s marvellously unimpressive FLICC taxonomy.

[6] How does ninety minutes in the presence of a virtually empty chamber grab you?