To the Editor:
Marco Rubio stuck his foot in his mouth when he was asked about climate change. He went into a long-winded tirade that climate change is caused by the changing climate and that there is no law that can be passed that will affect it. Then he said that anything we did wouldn’t make any difference because of all the pollution caused by China and India. To state that the activities of China and India are affecting climate change is to admit that human activity is causing climate change. This is a complete contradiction to his arguments and the position of many Republicans that human activity is not causing climate change.
BRUCE ROZENBLIT
Kansas City, Mo.
Note from KBJ: Let me explain it to you, Bruce, because you appear to be in the grip of religious dogma. Nothing we do will make a difference to the climate, since China and India are going to keep doing what they're doing; so why should we reduce our standard of living? And what's wrong with arguing as follows:
- Argument #1: The globe is not warming.
- Argument #2: Suppose for the sake of argument that the globe is warming; that's a good thing on balance, not a bad thing on balance.
- Argument #3: Suppose for the sake of argument that the globe is warming and that that's a bad thing on balance; humans are not causing the warming.
- Argument #4: Suppose for the sake of argument that the globe is warming, that that's a bad thing on balance, and that humans are causing the warming; there is little or nothing we can do about it.
- Argument #5: Suppose for the sake of argument that the globe is warming, that that's a bad thing on balance, that humans are causing the warming, and that there is something we can do about it; the costs of doing something are greater than the costs of doing nothing.
These are nested arguments. There is nothing contradictory about arguing in this fashion. Philosophers and lawyers do it every day.
