When good arguments do not work: post-dialectics, argument assemblages, and the networks of climate skepticism

Abstract

This essay argues that the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an example of an argument actor that makes assemblage arguments to perpetuate doubt and skepticism on the climate change thesis. The concept of assemblage arguments challenges dialectical approaches to argument because it rejects the assumption that argument subjects are reasonable actors that strive to settle disputes through critical-rational argument exchange. To determine how this assemblage functions as a pragmatic argument actor, this paper offers an assemblage criticism of the NIPCC's argument expressions. We argue that this assemblage operates within a post-dialectical framework because networks, not reasons, drive the force of arguments.