From Label to Libel? How Ad Hominem targets questioning on the “Climate” narrative

How Ad Hominem Targets and Silences Dissent on the Climate-Catastrophism Narrative in Public Discourse. The Case of “Climate Change Denial” Rhetorical Instrument.

A recent question on Quora has caught our attention, and we thought it good to contribute and offer an answer. Beyond its simple appearance, this question calls for rather complex and detailed questions and analysis.

“What is the reason for calling people who deny climate change “deniers” instead of using a different term?”
Source on Quora

Regardless of where the truth lies yet with so many official statements on this alleged “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Change”, we seem to witness the emergence of an era where a self-proclaimed morally and scientifically superior group, an elite of some sort, appears to use this rhetorical instrument, called Ad Hominem (or Ex Concessis), to label those who disagree with it whatsoever.

The setting seems to be that “Deniers” deny what is deemed established, known, true, demonstrated, unquestionable etc. These “deniers” don’t even question – they know that what is claimed is not exact, it is not true, hence they reject it, they are deniers. No need to demonstrate it, circular reference.

Whatever you call each side – Climate Cultists v Climate Deniers, there can only be one side to be right, right? When you think about it, whoever claims to be right is wrong anyway because the nature of science and research is certainly not about being true, and settled: it is about questioning, challenging, and discussing things point after point.

The Ad Hominem Rhetorical Instrument

Let’s start with a little digression to add some context to this question, and tell more about the Ad Hominem rhetorical instrument.

Whether targeting a population in general as a whole or individual posts on social media, the goal is the same. The assumption is that there is a catastrophe going on with the climate on Earth, that this is due to human activity solely (“Anthropogenic Global Warming” AGW) and some cattle passing wind.

Check the news: everything and its contrary is now the cause of “Climate Change” and this claim is supported by nothing less than eminent organisations such as the UN, the IPCC, NASA, many Governments, a vast scientific community’s consensus, mainstream newspapers and big business.

In recent speeches, whether during COP28 or WEF, one could notice that the world has moved into “Climate Urgency” and even “Climate Crisis”.

So it must be true, right? If you try to know why Climate Change is true, you are possibly already on the path of becoming a “sceptic” or a “denier”, i.e. a kind although naive, illiterate/uneducated person or irresponsible idiot at best, if not a person with bad intentions and a dangerous agenda for the Earth, and therefore all the other good, innocent people living on it.

The Dogma and Motto are: have faith in Science and authority, don’t ask questions, just read the ready-made answers, consume news and save the planet – who are you, after all, to question eminent personalities working so hard at a high level, for you and your children?

It is interesting to note that the same labelling technique appeared to target individuals:

questioning the safety and testing methodology’s robustness of COVID-19 vials, the efficiency of /and the obligation to wear masks, lockdowns: “anti-vaxers”, “Covidiots” etc. Please note that saying “(mRNA) vials” rather than “vaccines” was already a reason for intense debate if not exclusion, or for having your social media account suspended if not deleted – just to give a few examples. In the same way, wondering what was the CDC’s rationale behind changing its definition of “vaccine” was almost proof of a non-constructive, negative mindset.
questioning the European Union project in any way, or worse, supporting the idea of Brexit, the campaign for it: “Eurosceptic” being the most common.
from other religions or beliefs: heretics, schismatics, sect, bigots, devotes, fanatics etc.

Again, this dialectical opposition takes place in a relativist setting: it is not about determining whether mRNA vials were “safe and efficient” and “vaccines”; what is the best option – in or out of the EU; whether Global Warming is true and even if true, is it exclusively caused by humans, or what is the exact meaning of alleged ‘global warming’, or ‘climate change’ or ‘climate urgency’, or where to find the international definition and established calculation of NetZero.

A common umbrella word for “Brexiters”, “anti-vaxers” or “climate change deniers” is often conspirationism, which seems to stigmatise a population allegedly prone to anti-progress, selfishness, hence most probably conservative, nationalist and, as a logical consequence of it all, surely far/alt-right and or fascist and so on. And the fact that some people notice that yesterday’s conspiracies are today’s reality, doesn’t matter.

At the margin, and to open a short bracket, it is always interesting to ask the person accusing someone of fascism/-t, euro-sceptic, or covid-sceptic to define these terms. They won’t be able to (but it doesn’t matter to them). Another example to think about is antisemitism, often assimilated nowadays with anti-Jewish people, anti-Judaism/anti-Israel, whilst it is not that simple in reality – Semite being seen as derogatory in certain cases: read more here.

Closing the bracket and returning to the main topic, the Ad Hominem rhetorical instrument isn’t so much about challenging you, sharing views, and listening to find common ground, but about ridiculing, stigmatising, discrediting, and framing opponents, or silencing them, in order to win or close down the argument.

This verbal warfare becomes a proxy war on facts and ideas. Once these derogatory labels appear in newspapers, they become commonplace in everyday language. News media amplify these concepts, shaping how people understand and label their reality, and influencing their thoughts and judgments about the world.

And, again, the interesting point is that the same labelling, with high consistency, is widely used to surgically frame (target) the ‘deniers’. But the use of such terminology – “Climate Change Denier” – is far more elaborated and can hardly be seen as something random. Why is it so widely used everywhere? Why not meet other terms – this is a central question and it may be because it is very difficult to sue those who will label you in such a way.

Top lawyers’ job in the background? Who knows: telling others they are idiots is nowadays offending, not very polite, and surely not politically correct. But “denier”? Such a magnanimous epithet! Poor you…

How not see this epithet ‘denier” as exercising pressure, in the forms of what can be perceived as gaslighting, passive-aggression, harassment, or bullying, on anyone daring to question the consensus? This pressure pushes individuals to accept the idea before they can critically evaluate its premises. A soft consent to the consensus extortion? You are free to go and prove it.

I won’t delve into the topic of self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” since simply asking who checks their work is often seen, again, as conspiratorial: they are most of the time established sources and should be trusted. And don’t start the topic of who owns most of the newspapers in the world because a tsunami of Ad Hominem may fall onto you! While the analogy to credit rating agencies might not be perfect, the question of how these organizations establish their credibility is a valid one: who credit rates the credit rating agencies?

Conclusion

Does questioning authority (political, scientific) truly undermine the established order, or is it essential for a healthy, iterative evolution of societies? Figures of authority shouldn’t be immune to scrutiny and accountability, as this is the essence of the narrative promoting democracy and the separation of powers. Although questioning is crucial, order and discipline do matter too for a stable state of rule.

Having reflected on the “Climate change Denier” notion, we saw that it is a quite vaguely and poorly thought-out terminology. It tends to demonstrate more contempt than respect for those who disagree – wherever the truth lies. This suggests a step away from tolerance towards silencing opponents, even if only with words for now.

The rhetorical Ad Hominem barrage attack is surely a tactical communication on the battlefield of ideas. It aims to establish a specific, often exclusionary, vision for the future and dictate how truth itself should be defined.

Please keep in mind, again, that Ad Hominen is not about discovering through dialogue what the truth or facts are. It is about winning the argument at any cost. It is a notion belonging to the Humanities space, whilst it can also be seen close to legal concepts such as allegation, accusation or defamation / Libel or Slander. Do ends justify the means?

What is good thinking then? History of thought records that Liberal movements have told societies for a few centuries, for good or bad reasons, that the Christian God’s Word, same for all, is not good enough and shall be replaced by an open and tolerant society offering a place for diversity of beliefs and convictions, with the “freedom of speech” and “freedom of thought” being its cornerstone, thus peoples liberating themselves from their dogmatic chains. This is the entire motto underpinning the French Revolution, the idea of Democracy and Liberal politics more generally in Europe and Western cultures.

As defending the truth is paramount, more and more discussions, mostly having materialised during the COVID-19 situation, urge for the making of laws and bills that ought to protect online certain categories of the population, and also fight “misinformation”, a term lacking clear definitions and potentially stifling free speech, which only reinforces this trend. But Justice must be served one can hear, whilst what Justice truly is remains a disputable concept (how we are equal before the law is a moving definition). Thus, questions appear about the potential impact of any kind of legislation on free speech and what its remit is, particularly when this seems to contradict the very freedoms it aims to protect.

It’s not inconceivable that even asking questions like the one at the top of this post could be seen as inherently subversive in the future, leading to potential consequences such as being labelled a “truth-sceptic” and ostracized. Everything you write could, one day, end up being fact-checked and tested whether hate speech-free by AI algorithms, before getting the green light to leave your computer. Infringing the Good Speak at that point could manifest as blacklisting in employment opportunities (like the UK construction scandal – no paid employment despite numerous applications), shadow-banning on social media, or even limitations on financial access (as seen in the de-banking scandal of certain high-profile individuals).

Nothing new under the sun, would you say? Not quite. This new Ad Hominem Era becomes a machine demolishing any questioning in the same way questioning was encouraged to challenge, to target the dogmatism of the “Infâme” (“écrasez l’infâme, namely ‘crush the loathsome thing’) as Voltaire framed the Roman Catholic Church in his time. No one would question the liberal character of Western Economies, the UN/IPCC or mainstream newspapers and media, would they? Quite an intriguing contradiction if not a performance to see some of the best once Liberal political instruments being not-so-good nowadays anymore.

From Label to Libel? Or even from Freedom to Freedoom? An interesting evolution surely, as we witness how the fundamental Liberal concept of Freedom of Speech is not that much needed anymore: Thanks for your revolutionary services, Freedom! Let us now quietly worship Mother Nature!

A few words about Reason

reason supports Shareholders, Board, C-Suite Executives and Senior Management Team in achieving Business Excellence and Sustainability through our Praxis unique approach.

We Make Sense with you and for you.

We work and think with integrity, are independent and fed by a very broad spectrum of robust information sources, which is certainly one of the rarest and best qualities a consultancy can offer demanding decision-makers willing to overcome challenges and reach impactful, tangible and measurable Business Excellence.

We follow reason, facts, best practices, common sense and proper scientific approaches. This is our definition of professionalism. It brings reliability, confidence and peace of mind.

Please check our offering, subscribe directly on this page, write to contact @ reasonmakesense .com (without the spaces) or click on our logo below to get redirected to our contact form.

Thank you for reading!

Reason Praxis | Make Sense

Excellence & Sustainability
www.reasonmakesense.com

There is nothing wrong in doing things right, first time.

Share this post

How Ad Hominem Targets and Silences Dissent on the Climate-Catastrophism Narrative in Public Discourse. The Case of “Climate Change Denial” Rhetorical Instrument.

“What is the reason for calling people who deny climate change “deniers” instead of using a different term?”