More thoughts on Plimer, Manne, and the value of free speech

Forgive me for going on about it in a third post, but I have had even more thoughts about Ian Plimer's book, and the reaction of the climate alarmists to it.

Much of our society's greatness has come from the open debating and contestation of ideas. The greater the consequences for society of a particular policy or change in understanding, the more crucial and important has been the debate.

The policy that governments adopt on climate change will have significant consequences for society, and not least for the poorer in our society. Thus it is crucial that we have a good, robust and wide ranging debate.

Yet everywhere, we see the climate alarmists either asking for any debate to be shut down, or refusing to debate the issues, instead 'playing the man'. Robert Manne's attack on Plimer makes both mistakes. A review of Plimer's book appearing in the Review section of yesterday's Oz makes the second mistake.

The great Sir Arvi Parbo put it best, in his speech at the launch of Plimer's book in Melbourne on Wednesday: '

"The extraordinary feature of the so-called debate on global warming so far has been that there has been no debate.

“The proponents have virtually ignored the arguments of their critics.

“Instead of debating the issues, there have been open attempts, including, unbelievably, from some otherwise respected scientific institutions, to intimidate the sceptics into silence, accompanied by the extraordinary claim that the science is settled.

“The whole climate change issue has become heavily politicised.

“One would think that if there is evidence that the critics are wrong, the proponents of human-caused global warming would be only too keen to present it.

“If they don’t do so and, instead, try to silence and, sometimes, vilify the critics, doesn’t this suggest that there is no such evidence?”

Something else occurred to me, while reflecting on Robert Manne's ad hom sliming of Professor Plimer.

One of the questions that occurs to us when people like Manne ask us to take things on the authority of the experts is: 'Which expert?"

Sometimes it's not difficult to know, as the experts are in agreement. But sometimes, learned and reasonable people disagree among themselves. Climate change is one area where this happens.

Manne's argument is that we should accept what the experts are saying about climate change - not on the basis of their arguments, but for the reason that they are, well, experts.

A consequence of this is that, for his argument to succeed, Manne must deny Plimer any legitimacy. Hence, Manne never refers to Plimer's scientific qualifications, his knowledge of geology, or any other thing which might give us a reason to think that Plimer knows what he is talking about. Instead, he is dismissed as a pseudo-sceptic - with the 'pseudo' qualifier serving no other purpose than to cast doubt on his bona fides.

In order to make his 'appeal to authority', Manne must necessarily diminish the authority of those who disagree with him, and that means he must 'play the man'.

This is yet another reason why it is always best to judge arguments based on their inherent quality, rather than on who is making them. Apart from leading us closer to the truth, it is also a lot more civilised.

Postscript: Older readers may remember a time when Manne wasn't so keen on using the 'appeal to authority'. Remember his crusade against economic rationalism, against all the advice of the economists? It would seem that the arguments he uses in favour of his position change, depending on how they sought his worldview.