Reply to My Anonymous Critics

Anonymous Blogger Comment 1

"Environmental philosopher?

Oh for petes sakes what next?

Isn't this a bit premature this blog? When the global warming racket is
science-fraud without any evidence in its favour?

A real philosopher would have made sure he had evidence for the racket
first."

My Reply:

The expression of mild annoyance seems to betray a lack of balance. Who is Pete anyway?

I hope the new Blog is timely so that the ethics and values tied in with global warming and climate change can be discussed openly with a high level analysis. I encourage more people to enter the debate and discuss the important ethical and values issues raised by global warming and climate change. Given that global warming has already negatively affected people and non-human animals, such a discussion is an important complement to understanding the science and the biophysical impacts.

Without any evidence, a claim is made that global warming is a racket. I would like to see the evidence presented to support such a claim. The idea that global warming is a product of “science-fraud” is also interesting. The accusation of fraud is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly. It impugns the motivation and character of science and scientists. Evidence for “fraud” must be very carefully presented before such a claim can be taken seriously.

Again, there is a suggestion that I am not “real”. I thought that only extreme post-modern relativists had problems with reality. I was obviously wrong, climate change sceptics and denialists seem to have serious doubts about objective reality as well.

I am supposed to have “evidence for the racket” yet I am not the one claiming there is a racket. Anonymous is making this claim and I am not going to do his/her work for them.

I am prepared to put my name and public face to the ethics and climate change debate. I am also prepared to defend my claims and put arguments for my position(s). It would be nice if others did the same.


Anonymous Blogger Comment 2

"A real philospher would be expected to piss or get off the pot.

Do you have any evidence for more-than-neglible CO2-warming or not?"

My Reply:

It is hard to know what anonymous is getting at here. I am a real philosopher in that I exist and have a PhD in philosophy. I suspect the comment about the pot is trying to take the piss out of me?

The question about evidence is interesting in that it raised the issue of what counts as evidence? I take my evidence of global warming from the IPCC and other research institutes populated by qualified climate scientists. They all present evidence of long-term global warming that is available for all to see.

The next issue is … is the warming negligible? Again, experts say that a one degree rise in global average temperature over the last century puts in train quite serious changes to the conditions of life on earth. With the Arctic sea ice melt, glacier retreat, changes in weather patterns and biodiversity impacts already under way with such a temperature rise, I call that significant. If the temperature rises any further, even greater changes to the conditions of life are likely to occur.

Indeed with a rise much beyond 2 degrees Celsius, irreversible changes are possible and they could destroy the foundations on which humans have built their agriculture and economies.

While I do not have evidence for a runaway greenhouse effect right now, I am sufficiently worried about potentially irreversible and hugely negative changes to our earth that I take the time to reply to anonymous people who argue by attacking the person and, in the process, ignore sources of information that are freely available to them.