"On Bullshit" - "Ain't No Jack S. Like OUR Jack S."

The first photo - obviously, perhaps - is U.S. Senator James Inhofe. The second is Marlo Lewis, Jr., "Senior Fellow at the Enterprise Institute." I've been listening in wondering amazement to these two guys for the past several days. Remember Al Capp's Archetypical politician, Senator Jack S. Phogbound - "There ain't no Jack S. like OUR Jack S."? I couldn't help but be reminded.

A couple of years ago, Harry G. Frankfurt, a Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University wrote a book handed to me by a friend. Pat my jet jockey friend seemed to recognize in the book my own assessment of the nation, government, and media. Entitled "On Bullshit," its central thesis is that bullshit and the related concept of humbuggery are distinct from plain lying. Frankfurt argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to audiences in a manner different and more pernicious than liars. Bullshitters deliberately construct illusory falsehoods, deliberately making false claims about what is true.

"A bullshitter," Frankfurt says, "is far worse than a liar" because "he does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does," but "opposes himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all." The other day, listening to exerpts - I really have to get myself a transcript; this has to be classic - of Inhofe's puerile posturing and pontificating as he questioned former V.P. Al Gore, I couldn't help remembering "On Bullshit." This was blathering bullshit's state of the art.

Bloviating more with his expression and pompous manner, even, than with his smart-ass schoolboy debate team semantics and elocution, Senator Inhofe repeatedly questioned whether global warming was "manmade," continually - almost continuously - attacking Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Are you ready to change the way you live?" Inhofe demanded irrelevantly. Illogical on several counts, actually, I could only wonder how this Tu Quoque Fallacy by implication might prove something about the factuality or lack thereof of Gore's contentions having to do with global warming. I also wondered why Gore didn't simply make that point, instead trying to deflect the obnoxious Oklahoman by insisting that he, Gore, was changing his personal energy sources to "green."

Gore - and while I was never a fan, the former VP is beginning to gain my respect - also cited the consensus among the world's most esteemed scientists that global warming is indeed "manmade" and is rapidly reaching crisis proportions. I also wonder how anyone living in this nation for the last several decades, as I have, can have any doubt of that.

But Inhofe was undeterred. Acting like that schoolboy I referred to a minute ago, he repeatedly interrupted and shouted (well, he didn't actually - just his manner, tenor and tone) down the former Vice President in mid-sentence. More, Inhofe trotted out his best "Bubba" bumpkin character, rudely berating his adversary - belittling him for being disingenuous. In what folks back home in Iowa refer to as a "snotty" tone, Inhofe averred that Oklahoma has experienced three "extremely" cold winters lately, and smirked, "Where's global warming when you need it?"

Leave the one liners to Jay Leno, senator - you're funny, but not the way you intend.

Did I say "irrelevant?" Yeah, think I did; I must have - there was little else in the rube impersonation, except the ad hominem stuff - much of that by simpering implication, too - that is. Real senatorial stuff.

Following fallacy with non sequitur, Okalahoma's senatorial embarrassment then condemned Gore by association denouncing "the George Soroses, the Michael Moores, and the Richard Bransons" for conspiring to frighten decent, god-fearing folk with global warming. I could just hear old-time comedian Red Skelton, doing his San Fernando Red, the Politician bit.

Inhofe also produced theatrically a placard supposedly listing the names of "a hundred scientists" who believe global warming is a hoax. I think I'd check that list, if I were the nation.

It went on that way, becoming a display of remarkable patience by Gore more than anything else. Those forbearing with the senatorial blowhard, incidentally, also included the Chairman of the committee, California Senator Barbara Boxer, who reminded Inhofe like a teacher might remonstrate with an unruly schoolboy that "elections matter," and he was no longer the committee chairman. Bubba Inhofe's Neanderthal behavior where the lady was concerned probably didn't do him any good with the distaff side of Oklahoma politics, I'd guess.

A fair summary of this the most recent display of political bloviating and bullshit would have to observe that where Inhofe is concerned, the Grasshopper in Aesop's famous fable was smarter than the Ant. He'd probably argue, too, that that was about winter and cold, this is about global warming. Senator Bubba is a stickler for details, you know.

Now, I need to point out yet again that I don't think Senator James Inhofe is as stupid as he makes himself seem. I just don't believe a man can be as educated and experienced as he surely must be, yet still sound like a flat-earther or earth-centrist. As my grandfather once counseled, this guy is stupid like a fox is crazy.

And then, we have Dr. Lewis. Right up front, I learned when I looked that he holds a bachelors in - guess? - Political Science (surprise!) and a Ph.D. in GOVERNMENT. And the subject of his supposed expertise here is physics and environmental science . . .? Why does that sound like "Doctor" Laura Ingraham to me?

Whatever. Now, I don't usually dismiss anyone's argument so cavalierly as I'm about to this one, but the whole salami where Lewis' argument is concerned can be summed up by simply noting that the good Doctor of Government and Political Science somehow become an authority on Earth Science has attempted to prove his point by disproving his opposition's argument. That's known as "irrelevant conclusion," ignoratio elenchi classically, and appeal to ignorance ("Remember Pat Robertson's "I can't prove there are no missiles in Cuba, so there must be" ?), and it proves absolutely nothing about global warming. NOTHING!

The global warming argument gets crazier all the time, and for blather, bullshit, fog and smog clearing in that regard and in the future, I refer the reader to my logic page here. You won't find many of the logical fallacies nor much of non sequitur reasoning having to do with the subject that isn't listed there. Meanwhile, I demonstrate there certain fundamentally conclusive arguments, incontrovertible ones:

"It should be clear," I note on the logic page, "even if you're as biased as Oklahoma Senator Inhofe (gee, I wonder how you bias a U.S. Senator - who are the people most associated with fossil fuel pollution, again?), that we can't breathe air that is one hundred percent carbon dioxide." Matter of fact, there must be a point - CO2 in the air, that is - where a human being begins gasping for breath. And, of course, no one disputes that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have soared since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

"So the real question - simple as hell and the one reasonable people care about - is how long do we have before we start gasping for breath (notice that no one disputes, either, that some of us are already gasping for breath on account of air pollution)? These people are trying to tell me they don't know how to discover when it is that we start choking on account of being asphyxiated? Have them call me.

There's another question, too: Why all the debate about 'global warming?' Why the effort by what seems to me to be just about everybody - that's pro and con the argument - to make it all sound so doubtful? Take the question of ocean-level rise. There are so many cubic feet of ice at the poles, a definite and estimate-able number. There is so much water on the planet, also a definite and estimate-able number.

You're telling me, Senator Inhofe and all the global warming doubters, that you don't know how much the ocean will rise, once all the snow has melted? Are you also telling me, folks - everybody supposedly debating - that you don't know how much the oceans have risen, and how much ice has melted? Call me.

As I said, this gets goofier and goofier. Crazy like a fox.

Why the "Bullshit" of which Professor Frankfurt writes.? Consider Lewis' essay:

"And the media have already rolled out the red carpet for his activism, taking every opportunity to promote green politics, from personal carbon “offsets” to massive legislation." This is political posturing, not science. More, it constitutes an irrelevant ad hominem attack, appealing to ridicule and to existing emotional bias and proving absolutely nothing.

"An Inconvenient Truth purports to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science. In reality, it is a sci-fi disaster film in the guise of a documentary." This one not only appeals to ridicule and fear, it begs the question, assuming already what it seeks to prove. Prove something, Mr. Lewis; otherwise, sit down and shut up.

"Example: Gore bombards us with scene after scene of devastation from hurricanes, floods, droughts and the like, creating the impression that global warming has made the world a more dangerous place. In reality, both mortality rates and aggregate mortality related to extreme weather events have declined by about 95 percent since the 1920s. The world has become safer as it warmed up!" Once more, appeal to ridicule, plus ("mortality rates, etc.) irrelevant conclusion (even were it true - which it isn't), and wishful thinking ("safer as it warmed" etc.), and argumentum ad logicam (even if Gore's reasoning is false, it doesn't necessarily mean his conclusion is).

"Example: Gore warns that half the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and half the Greenland Ice Sheet could melt or break off and slide into the sea, raising sea levels by 20 feet in our lifetimes or those of our children. No scientific studies support this claim." No, and that's not what Gore said, either. This one is the classic Straw Man Fallacy, particularly odious in that it plays upon and relies upon the ignorance of the audience. The person who uses it is an arrogant S.O.B.

And, "No scientific studies . . ." We need scientific studies to show that ice melts when its warmed? Whew - I'm glad we've called in an eminent scientist to help with this.

"When the former vice president calls global warming 'a moral issue,' he implies that all right-thinking people must support the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty or similar regulation to curb emissions of carbon dioxide. However, neither Gore nor the media consider the obvious moral objection to his agenda: its enormous potential to perpetuate global poverty." Appeal to fear ("perpetuate global poverty") and the Straw Man Fallacy again. Gore makes no such implication, the truth being the reasonable presumption that no one wants to ruin the atmosphere (and die of asphyxiation or worse). "

Right thinking" people will want to continue breathing, whatever the protocol otherwise. That may, actually, tell us something about people like Senator Inhofe and Mr. Lewis.

"Carbon dioxide is the inescapable byproduct of most of the energy that fuels America’s, and the world’s, economy. Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels is not even remotely possible unless China, India, and other developing countries restrict their use of carbon-based energy." That's the fact - and the author's conclusion has to be that we simply have to die of asphyxiation or starving to death. Nothing can be done. More, Lewis also states what he cannot possibly show ("unless China, India, and other . . . ), the Ipsedixit and Proof by Assertion Fallacies. This guy is a demagogue more than anything else.

"Consequently, Kyoto advocates view the treaty as just a “first step” in a long march toward a de-carbonized future. But the global economy is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Demand for fossil energy is growing, especially in developing countries." This is the Repetitive and Assertive Fallacy again ("Tell a lie often enough"); besides, it's irrelevant conclusion again. It's also Argumentum ad Numerum, the "everybody's doing (or thinks it) it, so it must be right." The fact that we're going to make things worse doesn't disprove the former Vice President's contentions. either.

Goofier and goofier, Lewis goes on: "The federal Energy Information Administration projects a 71-percent increase in global energy consumption between 2003 and 2030, with three-quarters of the increase occurring in developing countries. And in 2030 as in 2003, fossil fuels are projected to supply about 86 percent of world energy consumption." More of the same. "If you're being raped, lie back and enjoy it." Like telling an alcoholic to cure his alcoholism by drinking more, besides. That'll end the problem, all right.

"Energy poverty is a scourge, shortening the lives and impairing the health of untold millions of people around the globe. An estimated 1.6 billion people lack access to electricity. And some 2.4 billion people still rely on traditional biomass—wood, crop waste, and dung—for cooking and heating." As someone who recently lived for most of ten years without electricity, I find "biomass" fuel use less than terrifying, to say nothing of probative. You know, now that I recall, this seemed to be Senator Inhofe's reasoning, too. Man, with doctors like this, I hope I never get sick. "You're illness is well advanced, so let's just do nothing, and see what happens."

And Somebody is gonna make a dandy profit from the sale of all that electricity, right?

"Reliance on traditional biomass causes daily indoor air pollution many times dirtier than outdoor in the world’s most polluted cities, and kills about 2.8 million people a year, most of them women and children. It takes a heavy toll on forests and wildlife habitat. For people living in energy poverty, “backbreaking labor” is not a metaphor but a daily reality." ?????? Irrelevant conclusion, among several other fallacious things. If we don't destroy the planet, we'll destroy ourselves? Can we get another opinion, please?

"The real inconvenient truth is that nobody knows how to meet current much less future global energy needs with low- and zero-emission technologies. In the policy-relevant future, affordable energy for most of the world is going to be carbon-based, CO2-emitting energy." This is the fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences, of course, to say nothing of Appeal to Fear, the Slippery Slope, the Assertive Fallacy ("It's true because I say so" - over and over). Ipsedixit.

This will do. This stuff isn't an argument, it's (in both instance) a speech. It's Professor Frankfurt's "bullshit" - that of a cynical demagogue.

And it's obviously bought and paid for. The fact of what's going on is as obvious as the Rocky Mountains. The Global Warning Argument, all of it, is a colossal Red Herring. THINK! Recognition of the fact that we are polluting the planet to the point of ruin means that we have to stop what we're doing and a great deal of that has to do with our favorite toy, the automobile and things that oxidize fossil fuels. We stop burning oil. Remember what I've inferred happened after World War Two? People who had become accustomed to "earning" billions were faced with return to normal - before the war - profits.

What do YOU think that meant, and means? What would you have done, had you the power?

Now we have a corporate capitalist culture, the oil industry, grown as rich as the military industrial complex corporations (you really think they're not incestuously related by now?) facing a similar fate. Imagine how things would be, had society developed steam power and steam powered vehicles to their fullest (we may well do it, anyway - now). Whole nations - Brazil, for instance - have shifted to a rival product, bio-fuels. What would YOU do, were you in the oil companies' shoes?

On the other hand, what might it be that motivates those who say the planet's atmosphere is being polluted at a alarming rate, warming a part (or haven't you noticed the careful, almost desperate effort to talk ONLY about the warming?) What will proponents of global warming gain - monetarily or otherwise - from persuading the nations and societies of the planet to cease or control fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants?

This is far, far from the first time the Bush League has squelched and propagandized science it (and the military industrial complex lobbyists that control it) didn't like (in fact, I haven't space here to list and discuss them all).

Come on, people - even if this were as complicated as rocket science (it isn't), it's also a matter of common sense.