A good debate is both honest and efficient when the disputants declare their biases, with enough nuance that can start the debate. A further step would be to a) produce evidence in favour of one’s bias and b) take account of contrary evidence.
Consider, for example, the world-wide debate concerning fossil fuels (Industry)- a kind of solipsistic fundamentalism (a bias) and climate denial.
My bias is based on various studies produced by scientists over multiple years.
- I accept that the effect of climate change on our planet is compounding year by year and in multiple ways. For example, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that emissions from fossil fuels are the dominant cause of global warming. In 2018, 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/
- The Industry has fought against any attempt to address climate change. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/ and https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/6-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/?c_src=MDS22VX&c_src2=22vvmmembcpc&creative=515229014072&keyword=global+warming+deniers&matchtype=b&network=g&device=c&gad=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlubBgcGRgAMVCA-tBh1RqAqZEAAYAyAAEgKLA_D_BwE and https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/
- Industry advocates tend to ignore questions and issues raised by such studies. Instead, they focus on perceived effects of reducing practices that compound climate change: e.g. cost to the consumer and the economy, cheap shots against those who are trying to find ways to mitigate the effects, reliance on a few biased -which never stated- papers or organizations (e.g. the Fraser Institute or some newspapers) or non-sequiturs that serve to misguide an incautious reader or obfuscate the serious issues. https://www.times-colonist.com/opinion/comment-canadas-economic-hara-kiri-will-have-little-impact-on-climate-change-7280736
In the article printed by the Times colonist (July 15, 2023, link above) these demonstrations of biased argument are evident. For example, the only substantive points by the author are the potential impact of measures adopted by governments to reduce Industry’s contribution to climate change; a narrow perspective. These take the form of mere statements or the quotation of alleged facts (which may or may not be accurate) but are not further elaborated upon.
Industry propagandists tend to refuse to come forward with potential solutions to either the need to reduce emissions or the impact on the economy because they would have to give up their feelings of victimization and admit that there are a number of serious issues involved: not just their concern, a biased approach.
The author also resorts to snide, irrelevant comments.
a) The ‘deeply socialist NDP’. In the 1930s,1940s and 1950s the world ‘socialist’ was used to scare people, implying that the term was a synonym for ‘marxist’. Almost half of American law-makers still confuse these words: https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/h-con-res-9. The NDP, formerly known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was mostly made up of socially active Christians and jews. ‘Socially active’ is defined by the creation of and activities by the CCF in reaction to the Depression: 30% of Canadians were unemployed and 1 in 5 were looking for help in a country where there was virtually no help from government. What has developed since is a social democratic system of governance and a social contract where risk is spread over a population, to reduce negative impacts upon each individual and family. The author does not seem to know that he has been living in a social democratic country since he was born. Nor does he seem to realize that social democratic countries have been more generally successful than others whose commitment to mitigating risk to their population has been minimal. The author’s use of the word ‘social’ is not only non-nuanced but is a red herring used to deflect consideration of the claims he makes.
b) Without a nuanced statement comparing the different social experience (political and tax) between the US and Canada the author makes a number of claims about business investment, (https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-business-investment-per-worker-in-canada-and-the-united-states-2002-2021) stating that the US is superior in this respect. But without adequate nuance, the reader is left without a clear basis upon which to accept tor reject the claim (by the Fraser Institute).
c) With respect to clear biases, the author makes an assertion to the effect that if all Canadian gas and oil-using vehicles were off the road for one year, Canada’s emissions thereby avoided would offset China’s emissions for 58 hours. OK. Where did this calculation come from? His own or by comparing two different data sets? Comparing the two countries in this context is at best ill-advised as, again, the author gives no context with respect to each country’s social, tax and and overall health. This reference is classed as a non-sequitur until more information can be provided.
d) The last point in regard to obfuscatory intent is the term ‘hari-kiri’. What was the point of this reference? At the end of the article he wrote that the original definition of this term was ‘disembowelment with honour’ and applies it to Canada’s Federal Government. Given the author’s bias towards Industry and his criticism of government one would think he would at least tweak the reference: ‘disembowelment with dishonour‘. This reference is another non-sequitur because it refers to an individual’s action, not a country.