Appeal to Detestability

Another Fallacy

“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies”

― Nietzsche¹

Dangerous indeed, but a fallacious argument can also obscure truth, often more effectively than a lie. And if well crafted can fool some who are quite in control of their convictions, even some who can instinctively smell a lie from a kilometer off. A clever fallacy can come close to fooling most of the people most of the time!

That someone would want to craft a fallacious argument would imply that he has ulterior motives not intended to arrive at truth, as does a liar. Mostly, however, the simpler fallacies are quite blindly employed and ignorantly accepted as valid argument by those of limited reasoning powers, relieving both parties of the annoying task of thinking. Some of the more advanced fallacies, however, can be quite tricky to detect, even by those trained in logic.

In a previous article of mine, Appeal to unreliability, I explored some fallacies that are currently and commonly used across the internet. If you haven't read that one, please do as it is a good prelude to the present update on the subject.

Appeal to Detestability is a fallacy commonly used by persons of such limited powers of reason that exposing its use should not even be necessary. Who of importance would be listening to such fools?

Les réseaux sociaux ont donné le droit de parole à des légions d'imbéciles qui, avant, ne parlaient qu'au bar, après un verre de vin et ne causaient aucun tort à la collectivité. On les faisait taire tout de suite alors qu'aujourd'hui ils ont le même droit de parole qu'un prix Nobel. C'est l'invasion des imbéciles. —Umberto Eco

But many internet forums thrive on shallow reasoning, and when one is confronted in a comments section with something nonsensical in reply to a carefully thought-out comment, it is salutary to have counter-responses at the ready — not, mind you, to enlighten the fool but to provide a contrast that other not so thinking-challenged readers might latch on to. Some who might possibly be swayed by a fallacious argument can nevertheless be brought back on course with a good follow-up. All this can be just trivial pursuit, as it is on that vast landscape of intellectual drought called social media. But there are a few internet forums with essays worth discussing, such as a great and increasing number of Substack publications.

Appeal to Detestability should not even qualify as a fallacy, so trivial and transparently foolish is such an argument. In fact, I wouldn't even dare to call it an argument were it not so widely seen and in need of exposure. The internet is infested with them, as well as more logical and persuasive ones. Here is my (hopefully) inclusive definition:

Appeal to Detestability — The attempted invalidation of a premise, issue, scientific theory,... on the basis of a detested person or group that has decided to use the issue for their own gain. The gain could be monetary, for prestige, for political control, or in the case of some internet trolls, just to make of themselves a great nuisance, seemingly not an uncommon motive for some computer owners thirsting for attention and with nothing better to do with their i9 multi-core processors.

Recently on a Substack article about climate change I commented:

Yes, but it's a fallacy to think that because some persons or organizations use an issue for their own gain, that the issue itself is somehow discredited or simply false.

“Oh!” you say, “all the above was merely to suck me into another panic-mongering diatribe on the imminent demise of the planet!” Well, grin and bear it for a moment and maybe I can illustrate that fallacies galore have put many otherwise wise people on the wrong side of the climate debate. And just maybe — although doubt pervades my neurons — I might bring a few, maybe just one! who has fallen prey to unsuspected fallacy around to a more logical view.

I haven't come up with a better name for this fallacy than “Appeal to Detestability”, and its short example is similarly unphilosophic: "I truly detest that guy, so everything he promotes I disagree with". “He's such a cad, how could anything he says be valid?”

For sheer idiocy, or at least a serious demonstrated inability to reason logically, adopting such fallacy as an argument in serious debate comes close to Groucho's position that, “Whatever it is, I'm against it”. Groucho was of course being funny, whereas climate change deniers and climate panic promoters are both not the least bit funny.

Now an issue as important as Anthropogenic Climate Change — whether of the heating or cooling or no meaningful change conviction — will naturally draw all sorts of exaggerators, deniers, hired thugs, political poseurs, industry-financed “experts”,... viz., fools and bumpkins of every flavor. But whatever those players do or say has no bearing whatever on whether ACC is a scientific reality.

Are human activities of such magnitude that they affect climate in ways that are beyond natural variation of the type that can be seen in the geological history of the planet? And just how "serious" is it, if so? Only the honest science can say anything relevant. And it is not easy science to prove, one way or the other! Whatever conclusions are arrived at must necessarily be based on probabilities, trends, most likely scenarios and such. And when there are so many dishonest and ignorant players in the game, real science is hard to find, a mere dim background among all the screamers and profiteers. And, amid the annoying din honest scientists tend to hide out from the toxic noise, quietly publishing their results anywhere that they can.

Here are two genuine climate scientists who absolutey need to be read carefully by any ACC doubters:

James Hansen, author of Storms of my Grandchildren

and Bill McKibben. Read his latest SubStack

'I told you so'

McKibben refers to Hansen's latest publication which presents this for an opener:

Andy Revkin recently asked whether the “climate dice” have become more “loaded” in the last 15 years. Climate dice were defined1 in 1988, after we realized that the next cool summer may cause the public to discount human-caused climate change. The answer is “yes,” the dice are more loaded as we will explain via the shifting bell curve (Fig. 1). The shift is large enough that most people notice the change, but that doesn’t prevent a person with a bias from taking the cool June in the U.S. this year (Fig. 2) as proof that global warming predictions were wrong – and, of course, a loose cannon on Twitter has done just that. That’s nonsense, of course. On global average, June 2023 was easily the warmest June in the historical record, as we will illustrate below.

debunk that one, if you can. "Oh, it's just a graph... remeber the discredited hockey-stick?!"

If you decline to read these two promoters of "the science" you should consider this: The issue of ACC is of such importance that you don't want to be on the wrong side through a lack of careful enquiry. If denying ACC on the basis of internet debunkers, fallacy flingers, hired thugs and the like, you need to reconsider lest you be complicit in actions you will come to regret.

“Science” - as many more now realize thanks to some recent events – is not fixed for all time. What is scientifically “true” evolves, yet while some scientific truths are very close to universal and eternal (how about “when water freezes it expands”) other scientific truths are in a state of flux.

The science in support of Anthropogenic Climate Change is necessarily complex, as is the planetary system that is being affected — or not — by human activity.

So how is the lay intellectual interested in a great many things to come to a conclusion about ACC? One can study “the science” but it requires considerable caution given all the hired experts — actually spokesmen for BigOil&Gas&Coal, BigCapitalism in general (especially what Michael Hudson has defined as Finance Capitalism²

Remember all the experts that were presented to us concerning the pandemic!

We often can profitably judge arguments pro and con by examining them for fallacies! Here's a typical argument I've seen multiple times on internet forums: “Well, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and that too-Klaus-for-comfort guy, and United Nations big-wigs and the like are obviously trying to install a World Government, they even admit it! The whole climate change crisis is obviously just a hoax they are promoting to get the public scared, and willing to abandon their remaining freedoms so that these ultra-rich detestables can grab power and reduce us all to peons no better off than the destitute of the Middle Ages.”

This, of course, is the Appeal to Detestability fallacy. Klaus and Kompany may well have such plans, I wouldn't be surprised, although I have serious doubts they can achive much along those lines. But, once again, their detestability, obviously, has no bearing whatever on what issues they might espouse in their attempts at control. It might be argued that such people and groups, when fishing around for an issue to promote one of their half-vast projects, would tend to choose one that was at least "somewhat true". We don't see the WHO, or WEF trying to wind us up because of the imminent threat of an invasion by extraterrestrials! (Despite all the recent "news" reports...)

Some ACC deniers, smug in their assessment of the falsity of ACC due to the horrid persons screaming "climate disaster in the offing" might then quote a dismayingly common argument I have seen multiple times in supposedly authoritative articles:

The climate has always been changing!

This is one of the most idiotic of "arguments" attempting to discredit ACC. I have seen the statement in purportedly scientific rebuttals of ACC! In fact, everything in the universe has constantly been changing since the big bang. So? What we need to know is whether the climate is changing at a rate differing from what natural variation has produced in the past. For that, you will need to do some serious study. Read Hansen et al.

“They don't want you to know that...” is a commonly seen intro to an internet "study" that may say something like, "There's more ice in the arctic than ever before" with some bogus charts presented...

Very few people actually understand why and how certain atmospheric gases must certainly increase the net amount of heat energy absorbed by the planet, and where it goes. Some engineering-level physics and chemistry is a prerequisite. Very few can even explain exactly why a classic greenhouse works. I shall attempt to clarify both issues below, at the risk of being overfly pedantic and annoying, especially to those who believe they already know the score.

So where can one get some honest science on the matter? Go back a few years to a time when the debate wasn't already poisoned. And compare what you read there with the progression of ideas, and try to judge whether some anti-anti pundit has read the books. Anyone who hasn't thoroughly read James Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" should really shut up and listen to those who are the honest scientists. Sure, that book is OLD, but so are many of the best: I don't see many who deny general relativity because that book is old. Etc.

One of the few climate change vs. CO2 arguments one might take seriously is the genuine claim that Greenland ice cores and the like indicate that in the past, high CO2 levels followed significant climate warming, and therefore couldn't have been its cause. Therefore, we shouldn't be worried about present and increasing CO2 levels. James Hansen has demolished the argment, for anyone who would care to have a look at his book.

How does the greenhouse effect actually work? I am quite sure that 99% of online commentators who pooh-pooh the idea that human activity has resulted in a net planetary warming... do not understand the processes involved.

I thought I might describe the mechanics of the process, but at the last moment, in my midsummer heat-caused lethargy I have decided to forgo the pleasure, inviting any readers here to give it a shot. There is one key process that makes both greenhouses and greenhouse gas atmospheres work. I shall offer a big reward for anyone who can describe it. Beware, it's tricky. (If I had Steve Kirsch's resources, it'd be a million!)³

1. “Überzeugungen sind gefährlichere Feinde der Wahrheit als Lügen.”

The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism Paperback – May 2, 2022

2. by Michael Hudson (Author)

4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 111 ratings

3. Here’s a couple of articles for you debunkers, enjoy!

https://www.medialens.org/2023/i-hope-to-god-i-am-wrong-climate-change-going-through-the-roof/

https://www.medialens.org/2023/a-death-sentence-for-people-and-ecosystems-the-climate-emergency-governments-and-the-public-enemy/

and a fact from one of your detested climate emergency promoters:

The climate and ecological crisis cannot be solved within today's political and economic systems. That isn't an opinion. That's a fact.

- Greta Thunberg