Before this post proceeds, please know that everything stated is said with absolute respect. Nothing of what will be stated is a personal attack nor will it be said with any ounce of ill-will. The reason for this post stems from a comment I made to a close friend's blog concerning Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. My friend, Jake, then responded to my comment (found here), which prompted a response from me. Because my response wound up being much longer than I anticipated, I chose to submit it as a post--mainly because I did not want to overwhelm his comment page with a lengthy comment. That being said, here we go.In all fairness, here is my original comment:
I cannot make any judgments on Gore's politics, simply because I haven't had the time to keep up with them. But I do find a bit of irony (if I could even call it that) in the whole enterprise, which leads me to the question of: how much jet-fuel did Gore burn while promoting his endeavor to be more friendly to the environment? It seems to me that if you want to be a poster child for being more eco-friendly, then you should find other ways to market your ideas instead of using ones that only contribute to the problem.
On a completely different but slightly connected note: I also found it interesting this past weekend that, while watching the History Channel, some scientists were working out scenarios of how to cope with a possible mini Ice Age--much like the one that hit in the 14th century. Here's why it strikes me as interesting: these scientists are running predictions for such an event taking place this century. Yet, other scientists are running predictions for global warming for this century.
Now, I cannot include Jake's response to these two comments simply because it was quite lengthy. :-) So, I refer you to the link noted above in the disclaimer. (I would maybe recommend that you open both posts in two different windows; that way, you can see them side by side).
First and foremost, both of my comments were said mostly in jest; and, as we all know, things said in jest have an element of truth in them. (I was no exception to this rule in that instance). So, my comments were originally more for fun than for anything else.
I will have to disagree with Jake (obviously) about the fallacy within my first point. I was not attacking Gore personally; my arguments were specifically aimed at the inconsistencies in his. (I have made it a point in my life to never attack a person; I only go after the arguments made). :-) To essentially say: the massive influx of fuel consumption and the unchecked emissions of dangerous gases into the atmosphere is one of the leading causes for the problem with global warming; while doing that very thing in order to convey that message is, to me, a glaring inconsistency in the argument being made. That's all I was pointing out with my first statement.
I will say that I was bit surprised by Jake's comment:
The reason for my surprise comes from the Machiavellian underpinnings of this statement--i.e., the ends justify the means.* The basic premise of my argument was: if there are other means that generate the same ends, then they should be considered--especially if those "other" means are more conducive for the greater good.** I completely understand the need for personal interaction and the benefits that come from that--especially in a public forum. In light of the message Gore wants to give, however, he could have simply made the sacrifice of having that personal touch and advertise the movie like crazy. Given the nature of our current culture, movies are one of the greatest forms of mass communication. (This is just one of the many different "other" means that he could have used to convey his message).
I should also say that I am not opposed to the arguments concerning global warming, nor am I against the issue itself. I do firmly believe that we, as a (global) human race, are doing things to our environment that are not conducive to the plant's eco-system. I do believe that if we continue on this path, we will certainly have to deal with the consequences of our journey--i.e., we ain't going to like where we end up. Where I hesitate, however, is on whether or not we have all the facts. (If this winds up sounding like an inconsistency, I apologize; I am still sorting through this issue, seeing that I am still a newcomer to it).
With respect to the issue of: our planet is steadily getting warmer and will continue to do so if we do not do something about our attitudes concerning the environment; I am not so sure that the first component necessarily stems from the second. As far as scientific evidence is concerned, we truly only have about 150 years worth of hard temperature data, so our pool of intell in this regard is not that deep. In an earlier post, I noted that several scientists in Britain were toying with the possibility that the earth's temperature is greatly affected by the state/activity of the sun--or, the existence or non-existence of sun spots. The conclusion of their findings was the possibility that the earth's temperature goes through cycles, which are reflective of the sun's solar activity. I will also point out that these same scientist rightly promoted the need to be more eco-friendly simply because not being more eco-friendly can have serious consequences when the earth happens to go through one of its cycles. This, to me, is an example of keeping the two components separate.
My second comment, which Jake addressed, dealt with the apparent contradiction between scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible ice age and the scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible global oven. My point in making that comment was that the way in which it was presented on the History Channel gave the impression of a contradiction. Jake's (valuable) insight about an ice age stemming from global warming is probably the way it should have been stated on the HC. My point was that they did not present it in this way. They presented this potential ice age as something separated from the issue of global warming. In fact, one of the closing scientists on the show basically said: is an ice age coming, or will we suffer from global warming; we cannot be sure with any certainty. That, to me, postures the whole issue as being two separate scenarios--not one caused by the other, which would be more likely.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jake about the definite need to be more conscious about what we are doing to the environment--for the sake of generations after us. And, as Jake so aptly pointed out, as Christians we should be more concerned about the state of our environment simply because God gave us that responsibility. To ignore that responsibility has global consequences--it is not something that only effects those who make such a choice. British scholar, NT Wright, once said that it's interesting that we as Christians do not take better care of this planet, when it is this planet that we will return to at the end of all things.*** The point was made in connection with the parable found in Matthew 25.14-28. God has given each person the responsibility of doing something in the service of him. What that "something" is another issue; what matters is how that person handles the responsibility given to them. We, as Christians, have been given the responsibility of caring for the home on which we live, and that responsibility was given to us by God. Therefore, to ignore the responsibility is (essentially) to ignore God; and that is an option that we cannot justifiably make while calling ourselves "Christian."
_____________________________________
*That is an ethical fallacy; and given the ethical nature of the global warming issue, making this kind of fallacy does more harm than good for the arguments made.
**My philosophical tendencies coming out in an obvious way. :-)
***One should not run the counterargument: "well, when the end of all things happens, God will simply wipe out the whole deal and start over with something greater" or, "God's going to fix everything in the end anyway, so why bother?" The parable noted is a large part of the reason why such arguments cannot and should not be made.
First and foremost, both of my comments were said mostly in jest; and, as we all know, things said in jest have an element of truth in them. (I was no exception to this rule in that instance). So, my comments were originally more for fun than for anything else.
I will have to disagree with Jake (obviously) about the fallacy within my first point. I was not attacking Gore personally; my arguments were specifically aimed at the inconsistencies in his. (I have made it a point in my life to never attack a person; I only go after the arguments made). :-) To essentially say: the massive influx of fuel consumption and the unchecked emissions of dangerous gases into the atmosphere is one of the leading causes for the problem with global warming; while doing that very thing in order to convey that message is, to me, a glaring inconsistency in the argument being made. That's all I was pointing out with my first statement.
I will say that I was bit surprised by Jake's comment:
This observation may or may not be true, although I would argue that if Gore is successful in getting his message heard, what is gained is probably much more than the fuel he uses.
(The "this" in question is a reference to my first argument).
The reason for my surprise comes from the Machiavellian underpinnings of this statement--i.e., the ends justify the means.* The basic premise of my argument was: if there are other means that generate the same ends, then they should be considered--especially if those "other" means are more conducive for the greater good.** I completely understand the need for personal interaction and the benefits that come from that--especially in a public forum. In light of the message Gore wants to give, however, he could have simply made the sacrifice of having that personal touch and advertise the movie like crazy. Given the nature of our current culture, movies are one of the greatest forms of mass communication. (This is just one of the many different "other" means that he could have used to convey his message).
I should also say that I am not opposed to the arguments concerning global warming, nor am I against the issue itself. I do firmly believe that we, as a (global) human race, are doing things to our environment that are not conducive to the plant's eco-system. I do believe that if we continue on this path, we will certainly have to deal with the consequences of our journey--i.e., we ain't going to like where we end up. Where I hesitate, however, is on whether or not we have all the facts. (If this winds up sounding like an inconsistency, I apologize; I am still sorting through this issue, seeing that I am still a newcomer to it).
With respect to the issue of: our planet is steadily getting warmer and will continue to do so if we do not do something about our attitudes concerning the environment; I am not so sure that the first component necessarily stems from the second. As far as scientific evidence is concerned, we truly only have about 150 years worth of hard temperature data, so our pool of intell in this regard is not that deep. In an earlier post, I noted that several scientists in Britain were toying with the possibility that the earth's temperature is greatly affected by the state/activity of the sun--or, the existence or non-existence of sun spots. The conclusion of their findings was the possibility that the earth's temperature goes through cycles, which are reflective of the sun's solar activity. I will also point out that these same scientist rightly promoted the need to be more eco-friendly simply because not being more eco-friendly can have serious consequences when the earth happens to go through one of its cycles. This, to me, is an example of keeping the two components separate.
My second comment, which Jake addressed, dealt with the apparent contradiction between scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible ice age and the scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible global oven. My point in making that comment was that the way in which it was presented on the History Channel gave the impression of a contradiction. Jake's (valuable) insight about an ice age stemming from global warming is probably the way it should have been stated on the HC. My point was that they did not present it in this way. They presented this potential ice age as something separated from the issue of global warming. In fact, one of the closing scientists on the show basically said: is an ice age coming, or will we suffer from global warming; we cannot be sure with any certainty. That, to me, postures the whole issue as being two separate scenarios--not one caused by the other, which would be more likely.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jake about the definite need to be more conscious about what we are doing to the environment--for the sake of generations after us. And, as Jake so aptly pointed out, as Christians we should be more concerned about the state of our environment simply because God gave us that responsibility. To ignore that responsibility has global consequences--it is not something that only effects those who make such a choice. British scholar, NT Wright, once said that it's interesting that we as Christians do not take better care of this planet, when it is this planet that we will return to at the end of all things.*** The point was made in connection with the parable found in Matthew 25.14-28. God has given each person the responsibility of doing something in the service of him. What that "something" is another issue; what matters is how that person handles the responsibility given to them. We, as Christians, have been given the responsibility of caring for the home on which we live, and that responsibility was given to us by God. Therefore, to ignore the responsibility is (essentially) to ignore God; and that is an option that we cannot justifiably make while calling ourselves "Christian."
_____________________________________
*That is an ethical fallacy; and given the ethical nature of the global warming issue, making this kind of fallacy does more harm than good for the arguments made.
**My philosophical tendencies coming out in an obvious way. :-)
***One should not run the counterargument: "well, when the end of all things happens, God will simply wipe out the whole deal and start over with something greater" or, "God's going to fix everything in the end anyway, so why bother?" The parable noted is a large part of the reason why such arguments cannot and should not be made.
3 comments:
Carl,
Thanks for your post. I'll confine my response to the first half, since I completely agree with the second half (regarding a possible ice age and our responsibilities as Christians).
I stand by my claim that your criticism of Gore's actions is not a criticism of his argument, although I suppose we can quibble about whether you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. Gore's argument, as I see it, is that global warming is a legitimate danger to our world, and that it must be taken seriously. I'm not sure what his use of jet fuel has to do with the truth or falsity of that argument. You can possibly argue that he is hypocritical in that he presents certain ways in which to curb global warming and in your opinion does not abide by them. However, that argument also has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his argument that global warming is occurring and is a danger to the earth.
I would also say that your solution (letting the movie speak for itself) is overly simplistic. The reality is that while movies are extraordinarily important in our culture, most documentaries are not. If his circling the globe ultimately furthers the cause of fighting global warming, I think it is worth it. And I think the charge that this reasoning is Machiavellian is a little overblown - it certainly has sinister overtones that I do not believe exist in this instance.
Jake,
Thanks for your comments. Here are mine in response to yours.
I may have used too many words in my post, which may have obscured the simplicity. (Like how I did it again?) :-) Not once did I make the claim that Gore's arguments were false (or, true)--I'm not debating that. All that I said was: his message is one thing, his actions are another. That's it. My "possible" argument about an apparent hypocrisy was never a possibility--it was my argument. How that got turned into an argument against him as a person, I'm still uncertain.
The claim about the movie being a possible avenue to convey a message was meant to be overly simplistic. That is why I stated it as merely an idea--or, one of the many "other" means to obtain the same end. (Pointing out to me that it was simplistic is like me picking up a coffee cup and saying, "Hey look, a coffee cup"). I never stated that using the movie to speak for itself would be the end-all solution; I was simply shooting ideas from the hip.
The Machiavellian statement was not overblown because it was never stated that the argument in question WAS Machiavellian--I simply stated that the argument had Machiavellian underpinnings, which is enough of a difference to keep me safe. :-)
I do truly thank you for your comments, and I do enjoy this dialogue. We'll more than likely talk more about it. :-)
Carl,
I have to admit I'm not real sure where to go from here - I kind of feel like you're hedging your bets so much that its difficult to say anything about your arguments. Your initial comments on my blog were in response to a post saying that people should watch Gore's movie and consider its message. Your comments regarding his actions seemed to be in response to that, and I think it was a natural conclusion that you were presenting them in possible opposition to his message. I do, however, understand your point now that you have clarified.
I do, however, think its easy to criticize his actions when all you feel the need to do is offer one possible, admittedly simplistic, idea as an alternative. In my opinion its a little too easy. If you're not willing to put enough effort into it to offer some truly constructive alternative, then I'm not sure of the validity of the criticism you offer of his actions. I hope that doesn't sound rude - its not meant to be. I just think its really easy to criticize someone, and much more difficult to offer constructive critique - the two should usually go hand in hand.
Quibble on how you stated the Machiavellian thing all you want - I'm honestly not concerned enough about the whole Machiavellian thing to split hairs about it. :) But I don't think that all arguments that appeal to a greater good are necessarily Machiavellian. Of course, I've not read him, and my knowledge of him is admittedly limited. But whatever. :)
Post a Comment