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