Cover not available
Article published In:
Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 40–64

Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates

| North Carolina State University
A case study of a short televised debate between a climate scientist and an advocate for climate skepticism provides the basis for developing a contemporary conception of sophistry. The sophist has a high degree of argumentative content knowledge – knowledge of a domain selected and structured in ways that are most germane for its use in making arguments. The sophist also makes the deliberate choice to argue for a disreputable view, one that goes against the views of the majority, or of the experts. Sophistry, drawing as it does on argumentative skill, is difficult to manage. The best approach is likely to refuse debate; but if debate is unavoidable, then the sophist must be met with equal skill. It will be hard to develop such skill, however, as long as the sophist’s view is thought to be disreputable.
Keywords: argumentation, argument, sophistry, climate communication, science communication, climate skepticism, fallacies, argumentative content knowledge, scientific consensus
Article outline
  • 1.Starting points
    • 1.1Scene and dramatis personae
    • 1.2Dénouement
  • 2.Maslin v. Morano
    • 2.1Morano frames the issue – and Maslin accepts
    • 2.2Morano refutes his adversary
    • 2.3Morano provides support
    • 2.4Morano maintains composure
  • 3.Sophistry: A conception
    • 3.1The sophist’s capacity
    • 3.2The sophist’s deliberate choice
    • 3.3Managing the sophist
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo
References (47)
References
Bauman, Y. 2018, September 24. Taking fire from both sides [Blog post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Boykoff, M. 2007. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(2), 470–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. 2004. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
C-SPAN. 2009. U.N. Climate Change Opening Ceremony. Retrieved from [URL]
Ceccarelli, L. 2011. Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, H., & Evans, R. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagarin, M. 2001. Did the sophists aim to persuade? Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 19(3), 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glassman, M. 2015. Stopping the spin cycle: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ debunks deceit. Documentary Magazine, 2015(Winter).Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. 1982. The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 181, 214–227.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. 2002. Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Designing premises. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 99–114). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In S. Priest, J. Goodwin, & M. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J., & Honeycutt, L. 2009. When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 19–30.Google Scholar
Gore, D. C. 2011. Sophists and sophistry in the Wealth of Nations . Philosophy and Rhetoric, 44(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1993. Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
Hawhee, D. 2002. Agonism and arete. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation, 121, 183–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. 2003. The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leff, M. 1986. Textual criticism: The legacy of G. P. Mohrmann. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 377–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. 2014. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. 2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 65–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, K. 2008. Sophistry in and as its course. Argumentation, 22(1), 59–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslin, M. 2004. Global warming: A very short introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, F. D. 2013. Aristotle on belief and knowledge. In G. Anagnostopoulos & F. D. J. Miller (Eds.), (pp. 285–307). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Musi, E. & Aakhus, M. 2019. Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 112–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morano, M. 2009. Climate Depot’s TV Debate in Copenhagen: UK Warming Prof. falsely claims ‘5000 leading climate scientists’ in UN IPCC – Morano Counters: ‘You need to apologize and retract that immediately’. Retrieved from [URL]
Olivier, B. 2007. Pseudo-communication and the return of the sophist: Thank you for smoking, at first sight. Communicatio, 33(2), 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, R. 2010a. #17) Interview with Marc Morano, Part I: “The Muhammad Ali of Global Warming ‘Debating’”. Retrieved from [URL]
2010b. #18) Interview with Marc Morano, Part II: Naming Names (Bill McKibben, Exxon Mobil, George Monbiot, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Romm, Dan Weiss, Robert Murtha, Mike Mann, Ed Begley, Jr., Andy Revkin, and Ralph Cicerone). Retrieved from [URL]
2010c. #19) Analysis: Why Marc Morano is such a good communicator. Retrieved from [URL]
Parsons, D. 2017. Deconstructing a climate change skeptic: A podcast with Marc Morano. Retrieved from [URL]
Richardson, J. H. 2010. This man wants to convince you global warming is a hoax. Esquire. Retrieved from [URL]
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. 2010. Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Uzelgun, M. A. 2019. Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 12–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, E. C. 2004. Confronting creationism. Reports of the National Council for Science Education, 24(6), 23.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uzelgun, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. 2016. Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6) 699–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Laar, J. A. 2010. Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W. 2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp. 91–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vonnegut, K. 1961. Harrison Bergeron. Retrieved from [URL]
videoScribble. 2009, December 12). Developing World Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet [Video File]. Retrieved from [URL]
Whedbee, K. E. 2008. Making the worse case appear the better: British reception of the Greek sophists prior to 1850. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 11(4), 603–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D. 2014. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky (pp. 87–101): Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ceyhan, Gaye D. & Deniz Saribas
2022. Research trends on climate communication in the post-truth era. Educational and Developmental Psychologist 39:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Washington, Haydn & Helen Kopnina
2022. Discussing the Silence and Denial around Population Growth and Its Environmental Impact. How Do We Find Ways Forward?. World 3:4 ► pp. 1009 ff. DOI logo
Goodwin, Jean
2019. Chapter 9. Radically reframing the climate debate. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Laar, Jan Albert van & Erik C. W. Krabbe
2019. Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019. Environmental manifestoes. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.