George Will's "Facts and Faith" Framing

In a recent column from Newsweek, George Will takes on the topic of global warming, arguing that we don’t really know that human activity is causing global warming, and even if it was, we don’t know that this would be a bad thing.

Will’s piece provides a good example of how someone can frame an argument with only a few choice words. In this case, Will carefully chooses his terminology in the early part of the column to insinuate that he’s the rational, sober voice of reason, while those who warn of global warming’s dangers base their beliefs on unsubstantiated beliefs.

We see this even in the title of the column itself, “Inconvenient Kyoto Truths.” These are the “truths” Will sets out to present to us, as opposed to the unthinking dogma of those on the other side.

Will’s first swipe at the idea of global warming as established fact is his line, “Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must ‘do something’ about global warming.” By ironically equating senators and climate scientists, Will gets a twofer: he sarcastically suggests senators who suggests senators who comment on global warming are hardly experts at all, and at the same time, he diminishes the idea of expertise in the area of climate science.

Will then links belief in global warming to dogmatic religious belief. Global warming, he suggests, is a matter of faith not based on reason and facts. Note the word choice in the following sentence from the piece: “The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets.”

“Catechism,” of course, is a term that refers specifically to a body of accepted religious doctrine (particularly the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Coupled with this is the word “tenets,” which also carries connotations of a belief that is simply accepted as a given without criticism or reflection.

Will claims one of these “tenets” is that global warming will continue “unless we mend our ways.” Note the use of the moralistic, nearly Biblical, phrase, “mend our ways.”

Later in the essay, Will says that, “The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to ‘confront’ the challenge of climate change.” Again, we have sarcasm used to suggest accepting the idea of global warming is tantamount to religious fundamentalism.

These word choices aren’t an accident. The concentration of such specific vocabulary is intended to frame those who warn of the dangers of global warming as unthinking, dogmatic, “true believers” who accept faith-based policy rather than looking objectively at the facts and logical relationships (as Will and his ideological allies presumably do).

In fact, Will’s entire piece is based on his assertion that we don’t actually know anything for certain about global warming. For example, take this excerpt from later in the column:

And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia,
the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were
unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it
worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?

For the moment, let’s table the fact that the recent warming trend is far outside the parameters any similar previous temperature fluctuation recorded in the geological record, along with the fact that the ability to farm in Greenland as those lucky Vikings could would come at the price of significant portions of densely inhabited costal areas getting swallowed by the sea.

Let’s simply note that Will frames the argument to suggest that if any doubt at all can be raised regarding global warming or its effects, it cannot be accepted by anything other than a leap of unthinking faith. If one accepts Will’s terms for the debate, he wins, since there will always be a level of uncertainty about future events. No matter how much evidence is amassed, Will and his fellow travelers can always play the but-we-don’t-know-absolutely-for-certain card.

I suggest that Will is attempting a bit of rhetorical jujitsu here, attempting to make the weakness of his own position into a weapon to use against his foes. With hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies on global warming agreeing, without exception, that the earth is warming due to human actions, it is those who deny that it is happening who are basing their position on faith divorced from facts, largely because they feel that granting the validity of these facts would contradict the tenets of their own ideology (i.e., putting anything ahead of the free market and people’s ability to make and spend money at will is anathema). With science against him, Will tries to suggest, through clever word choice, that it’s really the other guys who hold the faith-based position.

Just one last note: Will makes another religious reference, one with a pagan flavor, when he refers to “climate change Cassandras” who insist that we must do something about global warming. Again, the idea is to suggest that those who are warning of the dangers of global warming are all just Chicken Littles shrilly shouting that the sky is falling.

I would have thought that someone with Will’s putative intellect would know his mythology a bit better. In Greek mythology, Cassandra was given the gift of prophesy by the gods. Her curse was that, although she saw the future clearly and tried to warn those around her, she was doomed never to be believed until it was too late.

Perhaps Will is more right than he suspects.