Words are more important than greenhouse gases

I’m a climate change sceptic. There - I’ve said it. It’s true - I am sceptical about claims made about climate models and about the data on which they are based. On the other hand, I am very confident that the models are right (within their own error bounds) and that data on which they are based is good. There’s no inconstancy between scepticism and confidence – they are entirely compatible. Indeed, belief in the science of climate change would not be a ‘scientific’ belief if it were not also sceptical. (The reason we can be so confident is a topic for a future post. Today I’m focusing on semantics.)

The trouble is, the term ‘sceptic’ has taken on a new meaning in relation to climate change. It still carries positive, sciencey connotations but the word has become attached exclusively to people without confidence in climate science. ‘Climate sceptic’ has come to mean someone who believes climate science to be bunk – not someone who goes along with it sceptically. A ‘climate change sceptic’ is a science sceptic rather than a sceptical scientist. For sceptical scientists (‘real’ sceptics) it’s irksome in the extreme to have the term appropriated by the opposition. “They are not ‘sceptics’ so much as ‘cynics’ or ‘deniers’” we say. 

And here’s where it gets messy. We are wont to call them deniers because this term carries negative connotations of holocaust deniers motivated by fascism, and that’s just rude. On the other hand, the term diffuses the positive connotations carried by the word ‘sceptic’ that we believe properly belong to our side of the debate: rationalism, the enlightenment, science, etc. There are few viable alternative ways to label the two sides in this particular dispute. Most of the names we can come up with will have pejorative connotations for one side or the other. ‘dangerous wishful-thinking morons’ is how I’m tempted to describe the opposition, but that would not help the debate.

Does it matter? It’s just words isn’t it? 

Merely being right about climate change is not enough. Being right is not sufficient to win the argument – it’s not even necessary – but winning the argument is vital because the stakes are so high. Unless hundreds of millions of people understand the threat, billions of people will die. Winning the argument is more important even than reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it is a pre-requisite for any reduction. So-called-sceptics are enjoying a huge ascendency at the moment and it is they who appear most open-minded and rational to people who are currently unaligned. How have they pulled this off? Just words.  (The way it works is what semioticians would call ‘second order signification’ but that’s not important right now. The bottom line is that words are more important than greenhouse gases.)

So it makes a difference what we call things. ‘Climate war’ is another problematic term in common use. Is this a ‘climate war’? You are in a large building when a fire starts. You realise that everyone should get to the South exit but others believe it would be better to head for the North exit. They are wrong, and they are dangerous and obstructive, but are they an enemy we should go to war with? In the middle of a crisis, the last thing you need is a war. The climate ‘debate’ is not a war, it’s an argument that can’t be lost – the distinction is important.

I will make this point more emphatically: Don’t go to war with climate change deniers. It’s not a quick way to win the argument. It will destroy the rational basis for action on climate change because upon the declaration of war the notion of a ‘disinterested’ position evaporates and ‘us’ vs ‘them’ predominates (at which point the BBC would be right to seek to ‘balance’ every call for action on climate change with someone who claimed that climate change was not happening). Being right counts for nothing when you are at war. We (confident sceptics) could not win a war, which is why we have to win the argument. Arguments about climate science must remain disinterested or they cease to be science.

Leadership

In our burning building how do we convince the unaligned to follow us South and how do we show the ‘North-sayers’ the error of their ways? (The analogy with climate change is very loose by the way, but stick with it.)  The path of quick leadership is to shout very loud and sound very confident about what you are shouting. The path of slow leadership is to help people lead themselves out of danger – to have their own sense of the right direction, not just a sense of who to follow. Both the North-sayers and the South-sayers will try both approaches.

In relation to climate change, these are the options:

 

What to do

How to do it

Help people to lead themselves out of danger

·      Help people to understand the threat by understanding the science

·      Help people to understand why they can be confident in the science (and a lot less confident about alternatives)

Get people who can’t or won’t lead themselves to trust your judgment

·      Spell out the threat

·      Explain why you have confidence that the threat is real

·      Explain why you have confidence that your proposed action will be efficacious

Avoid war at all costs (see above)

·      Never sacrifice a disinterested position in favour of an aligned one, however expedient it seems at the time.


Whether you want to lead by helping people to lead themselves or lead by creating trust, the absolutely key part is explaining why you can be confident. Understanding where the confidence comes from – why scientific consensus provides us with reliable knowledge even though it is contingent knowledge – is more important that understanding the science of climate change. It is not just a bit more important, it is much more important than understanding the greenhouse effect, etc. when it comes to winning the argument and allowing us to act on climate change.

The problem we face is that the source of the confidence is really poorly understood. Ironically, scientists themselves are especially confused about what makes scientific knowledge reliable. (Scientists understand ‘nature’ not ‘science’. Once scientists have assured themselves that scientific knowledge is reliable they don’t spend a lot of time wondering why it is reliable - they leave that to philosophers. Individual scientists know why they can trust scientific knowledge but not why the rest of us should.)

Confidence in climate science is a topic for another time. The point here is:

·      Words are more important than greenhouse gases (because they are a pre-requisite for reducing them)

·      Explaining why you have confidence in climate science is more important than explaining climate science

·      The climate ‘debate’ is not a war, it’s an argument that can not be lost

·      If the climate debate becomes a war, climate change deniers will win

 

Michele Bachmann: the stupidest politician of them all?

I seem to have written a lot about numeracy, climate change, politicians and science lately. Michele Bachmann brings it all together: a stupid, innumerate politician who passes off a risible pastiche of science as the real thing - and gets away with it!

Her initial argument is, 'if carbon dioxide is good it can't be bad' (See Is carbon dioxide good or bad?) She goes on to argue that as there's not very much of it carbon dioxide can't be a problem (See If carbon dioxide is a 'trace gas' why is it a problem?) In explaining how little of it there is she overstates the concentration of carbon dioxide by a factor of 100 (3% rather than 0.0388%) and understates the proportion that is anthropogenic by a factor of 10 (3% rather than 30%). None of that really matters to her though - she knows she is right so why does she need to know what she's talking about? Her understanding of science does not get past the public relations definition of science.

UK politics is not exactly inspiring at the moment, but I'd like to think that any MP who made a speech like Michele Bachmann's in the House of Commons would be laughed out of Westminster. At the very least, he or she would get a hard time from the press. How is it that Americans let their politicians get away with it? I wouldn't trust Michele Bachmann with a Soda Stream, let alone a planet. (A Soda Stream is a device for carbonating drinks.) It's time the rest of us realised that we can't leave the future of the World in the hands of US politicians - they aren't up to the job and I'm not sure there's much that the American people can do about it. 

Is this a disaster movie or a thriller?

Climate change sceptics think we are living in a thriller in which plucky heroes fight dark conspiring forces. But no - it's a disaster movie in which plucky heroes fight self-interest and complacency. Casting has already begun. Which role will you play?

The public response to climate change is so much like a disaster movie that we can learn a lot from films like The Towering Inferno (1974) and The Savage Bees (1976). In particular we learn that both greed and lack of imagination will be punished with severe irony. 

 

 

Disaster movies tend to work like this:

  1. A few people (the heroes) recognise a threat (e.g. killer bees) and try to warn the other people.
  2. The threat is inconvenient for most people (e.g. because they are organising a flower festival for Mardi Gras) so their response is sceptical (but not 'critical') and complacent:
     a. ‘It won’t affect us’ (wishful thinking)
     b. ‘Why is this idiot trying to spoil everything?’ (indignation)
  3. Somebody (the villain) who was either the cause of the threat or who stands to gain from a poor response to it encourages the wishful thinking and indignation of the people and so hampers a timely response from the heroes.
  4. Lots of people die needlessly and a few people who started off as sceptics become heroes… and then die.
  5. The remaining heroes get the girl/boy and the villain gets what’s coming (e.g. a deadly bee sting).

In the disaster film that is climate change, you can cast yourself. These are the available roles and their prospects:

Do you want to be... Prospects
An action hero who’s prepared to use your intellect (like Steve McQueen playing the Fire Chief in The Towering Inferno) Good: You’ll probably survive and get the girl/boy too (who may be the intellectual hero)
An intellectual hero who’s prepared for action (like Paul Newman playing the architect in The Towering Inferno) Good: You’ll probably survive and get the girl/boy too (who may be the action hero)
An intellectual or technical hero who’s nice enough, but slightly odd, and not really cut-out for action Bad: You’ll probably have to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure your friends can go on to save the day. On the plus side, although the audience won’t like you much while you are alive, they will warm to you once you are dead.
An action hero who’s loveable, but a bit dumb Bad: You’ll probably have to make the ultimate sacrifice for your friends. There won’t be a dry eye in the house. If you are lucky, you will return Lazarus-like towards the end of the movie having been saved by improbable means and tears of joy will spill from audience and cast alike.
A sceptic who comes to realise the error of your ways Good though precarious: when the crisis comes, you will reveal your intelligence and strength of character, which may save you from the fate of the sheep-like masses but may also put you in line for an ultimate sacrifice or two.
A determined sceptic who is not an inherently bad person but who suffers from a lack of imagination. You are probably also arrogant and ugly. You are responsible for the delay in responding to the threat, but it’s not totally your fault because you are flawed and gullible and have been manipulated by the villain. Very bad: lack of imagination, and the actions of the unimaginative are punishable by death. You will die saying something like, “But no… no… It can’t be… Aggghhhhh”
A villain who’s self-interested, ruthless and evil and who is responsible for the threat but doesn’t care. (like Richard Chamberlain playing the greedy electrical specialist in The Towering Inferno) Very bad: not only will you die, but it will also be a painful and ironic death, and the audience will cheer. (George W Bush – you have been warned!)
An extra Very bad: you are only there to reveal the scale of the disaster. The best you can hope for is to still be around at the end of the movie to symbolise the despair of a broken people and the new challenges facing humanity.

Climate change sceptics feel they are in a different film genre altogether – not a disaster movie but a thriller. In their film, dark forces in powerful institutions are manipulating the people for nefarious reasons. Only a few heroic characters can see through the deception. They have to fight both the indifference of the people and the dark forces themselves to ensure the world continues to be safe and free.

The questions you have to answer for yourself are:

  • Am I in a disaster movie or a thriller?
  • Which character am I going to play?

It’s pretty clear to me that we are in a disaster movie, not a thriller – and I’m Paul Newman :-)