Fallacies In Fred Singer's Arguments

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

This lecture was hosted by Dr. Andrew Hoffman from University of Michigan. As suggested by the title, this lecture was a “diluted” version of considerable research from his book, which focused on understanding the effects of culture and politics on the notion of climate change. Dr. Hoffman started the lecture by providing many scientific studies and facts proving the reality and seriousness of climate change. So the question is, why do some people choose to not believe and oppose the scientific consensus on issues of climate change, while all the proofs are present? And the simple answer he gave was that, the debate over climate change right now is not about science, is not about climate models, but about politics and the conflicting worldviews of these people and the values that are threatened by the notion of climate change. Dr. Hoffman then explained that one of the key arguments is that a scientific consensus does not necessarily reflect social consensus.

In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.

Singer’s main argument is built upon the “assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231). It is the duty of the utilitarian to attempt to relieve this type of suffering. His standpoint is that people should attempt to prevent bad things from happening: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). Singer contends that this is largely an uncontroversial principle since it only requires that people do not make undue sacrifices in order to promote the greater good. The example he gives to demonstrate his point is that of walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. To save the child, all that is required is for a person to get a little muddy or damp. For an immaterial sacrifice, something very bad is being prevented and therefore there should be no debate about a person’s actions.

The premises of Singer’s argument is as follows; The first “official” premise- “I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” The second premise- “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything or comparable moral importance. Then we ought, morally, to do it.” Box 4 is the heart of Singer’s argument; “If it is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral important. Then we ought, morally, to do it.” The conclusion of the argument is “… we ought to give money away [thereby acting to prevent further suffering due to lack of food, shelter and medical care], and it is not wrong to do so.

Peter Singer, is an Australian moral philosopher, who bases many of his arguments around the idea of Utilitarianism. He uses those ideas to help argue why people should do certain things in today’s society. In this specific argument he makes a case that people should feel obligated to donate lots of their own money to people suffering around the world.

Propagandist use words that are bland and euphemistic. Special appeals are to accommodate certain groups of people. The use of plain-folks is to make the group believe that their ideas or views are “of the people”6. The band wagon use of propaganda is for people to think that since everyone else is doing something, so should they. False connections leads to the technique of transfer. Transfer constantly uses symbols and its main purpose is to “carry over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept”7. The testimonial technique is when someone famous or someone that a person respects says something and since they say it, well then that must be right, even if that person has no real knowledge of the statement made. The question of bad logic or propaganda is that there is logical and illogical conclusions. The propagandist “deliberately manipulates logic in order to promote their cause”8. Another part of logical fallacies is unwarranted extrapolation which basically is when the “communicator attempts to convince a person that a particular action will lead to disaster or to utopia”9.

Perhaps the most well-known spokesperson for climate change, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, recently attracted a lot of media attention for his emotional rant against climate skeptics. When he spoke at the Aspen Institution in Boulder, Colorado in early August, he compared climate skeptics to those who argued that smoking was not harmful to human health in the 1960s.

As a lover of meteorology, I have always paid attention to the weather and natural world around me. I have noticed and taken record of the change of temperature, major weather events, and the changes in my backyard. When people mention climate change, I automatically think of a phenomenon that is true, and because of my personal experience with observation. I also have believed this to be true because those around me have never presented me with evidence to the contrary. The way that I know climate change is real is because of my perception. While others may perceive no significant change in the environment or the weather patterns that surround them, I recognize a change. I would therefore present the argument of climate change as one that is not just obvious, but supported by many scientists as well. Because of the way I would present this, my statements would not be left open to interpretation, as the way that scientists often present factual

Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept cli­mate change because they do not under­stand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.

     Scientific data collected over the over the last 140 years suggesting that there is global warming has been replaced with satellites. Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling. Jerry Taylor, director of Cato Institute’s Natural Resource Studies, observed that NASA satellites and weather balloons show a slight cooling trend over the past 19 years. Taylor points out that previous land based data “only unevenly covers the three quarters of the earth’s surface covered by oceans and virtually ignores polar regions” (Taylor 2). University of Alabama climatologist John Christy, the originator of the satellite

On the other side of the argument we have anti-climate change activists, who are sceptical about the issue of climate change. They argue that climate change is an attention seeking stunt, and financial recognition of an irrelevant sector of the science community. Often just trying to convince people that climate change is a hoax.

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

For over a hundred years, scientists have been carefully gathering and verifying data on the earth's temperature. The latest data reveals some striking trends:All 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years The 1990's have already been warmer than the 1980's- the warmest decade on record The global average surface temperature has risen 0.5 degrees (site source)For the first time ever, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative international body charged with studying this issue, concluded that the observed increase in global average temperature over the last century "is

A meeting discussing global warming and the ongoing climate change (and the impact CO2 emissions have on the growing problem) has been in session in Peru for the past few days. Dozens of world leaders are gathering to discuss possible changes that can be implemented to halt the increase in temperature seen around the globe. However, many prominent scientists have stated that it may be too late for these world leaders to make any significant impacts (Associated). These scientists, and many other people around the world, believe that humans have contributed significantly to global warming, and as a result mankind needs to do whatever it can to combat this ongoing crisis. Nearly 3,500 miles away from Peru, United States Senator James Inhofe is in Washington D.C., representing Oklahoma in the United States Senate. Senator Inhofe is one of the loudest preachers of the belief that global warming is not the dire threat that so many scientists make it out to be. Inhofe has claimed that it is “arrogant for people to believe human beings are able to change what He (God) is doing in the climate” (Tashman). The Senator believes that only God controls the climate and the environment, and to even think that humans are impacting the earth’s climate is misguided (Tashman). These two opposing viewpoints bring with them questions of religion, politics, human responsibility, and ultimately the fate of the planet. On one side, there are those who say that the science is so concrete, and the