Nothing is more certain about who will win a war than if only one side turns up, armed to the teeth, while the other sits at home, enjoying a cup of tea and chatting among themselves of how much more superior they are to their opponents. Welcome to the climate wars.

This war is about winning hearts and minds (in that order)—something that the climate change wonks haven’t latched onto yet.  Feeling somewhat superior that their science and policies are soundly based, they seem content to let their arguments speak for themselves.  Unfortunately, inning hearts and minds doesn’t work that way.

Looking forward to a fight, professional skeptics employed an extensive armory to deploy in the war. Their tactics owe very little to Lord Queensberry and his old-fashioned ideas of gentlemanly conflict.  Before launching their first arguments, they disarm the other side by labeling them as “alarmists” whose science is shoddy or simply a hoax to trick everyone into bending down before a false god.

This is only the beginning of their sloganeering.  For example, “cap-and-trade” quickly became “cap-and-tax.”  They accuse climate scientists of using peer review to keep out contrary opinions; the more aggressive skeptics call it a “conspiracy.”  And they set up a preposterous proposition that until the science is “certain,” no action can be taken.  In modelling future risks to the climate, predictions can only be couched in probabilities, so uncertainties can never be eliminated.  In this instance, the evidence is so overwhelming, action is well and truly justified.

Skeptics are supported by a large segment of media outlets, particularly those owned by Rupert Murdoch, which promote opinions as equal (if not above) scientific research.  Moreover, articles by professional skeptics crowd the op-ed pages, and, as polished media performers, they run rings around scientists, who are cautious with their statements, adding qualification upon qualification as good science demands.

Even in countries where action is taken on climate change, it is usually a political fix, with politicians genuflecting before cashed-up lobbyists to provide concessions and engineer loopholes.  Politicians will get away with such obfuscation and steer clear of a good policy—unless they are faced with heart-felt public support for climate change.  Sadly, there appears to be no one out there trying to win hearts and minds.

I often receive many ill-informed emails (some just crazy) that are being circulated by the professional sceptics, yet have seen no responses from the other side.  Skeptics have made the blogosphere their own.  And for ordinary folk, with little scientific training or no access to the facts, these bloggers sometimes sound frighteningly credible.

It is good that we have clever policy wonks and scientists beavering away, but unless they are willing to spend some time in the frontlines, engaging the professional skeptics, their time will be wasted and the war will be lost.

6 Comments for this entry

  • QT says:

    Yeah, people! It just makes more sense to wait until ALL the glaciers melt before we take any drastic steps to prevent them from melting.

  • Leon Beckford says:

    You’re just pissed off that the skeptics are winning the debate!

  • Estevao says:

    There are a moral and/ethical dimensions to this war. It is increasingly becoming a war between ´good and bad´; needless to say, we know who´s winning so far. Why are climate change wonks still slow or reluctant on entering more forcefully into the battlefield? Who the are actors and what do they role they play in perpetuating the scepticism? Who benefit from the status-quo?

    • Harry says:

      Fact-based scepticism is part of good science. Politically-motivated skepticism , however, is poisoning science.

  • Nick says:

    It’s a vexed issue- scientists are not equipped to win a war of public opinion through their chosen medium- Nature magazine or academic journals- the ‘public’ don’t read it, nor do they understand it.

    The problem is that when Scientists try and compete with sceptics on the merits of climate change, they are easily outflanked by simplistic yet appealing arguments- but if they do try and fight fire with fire (ie: with absolutes and less caveats), they have to defy their scientific sensibilities AND potentially come up against criticism from within which can easilly lead to a beat up story of scientists ‘lying’ or ‘missleading the public’. So how do we win the public relations war?

Leave a Reply

partners:

Even more troubling, nearly sixteen million Americans must now travel at least thirty minutes or prada sunglasses for women more to reach a trauma center. Over the weekend prada sunglasses for women a new feature of Hulu was added - and then Cartier Sunglasses Men taken away. It is in light of this recently begun and still on-going exposure of the habitual and commonplace pederasty of priests that I find the Catholic Republican candidate for the Presidency's remarks about freedom of religion to be quite ingenuous. prada sunglasses for women Just recently I was told they finally found a prada sunglasses for women few bones after prada sunglasses for women many years of being buried in the sand. Although the fish were biting, I threw the boys in the car and raced down the canyon.

At some point, the crowd became restless and then they stormed forward, breaking down doors, tearing up papers and knocking over furniture. Cartier Sunglasses Men In addition to Assad stepping down and the observer mission continuing, the Arab League plan has called for the removal of heavy Cartier glasses weaponry out of the cities of Syria, including the capital, Damascus, an end on attacks on protesters, especially peaceful, unarmed protesters. During the observer's mission, nearly one thousand people were killed, including louis vuitton sunglasses women a large number of women