Climate Debate Needs New Voices
What it doesn’t need is Al Gore, which is kinda the subtext of the quotes from prominent academics and pundits in this USA Today piece by Dan Vergano, who elicits feedback on the recent Climate Reality event. This snippet caught my eye:
Gore trying to change public opinion over climate change puts the political cart in front of the horse, says sociologist Robert Brulle of Drexel University in Philadelphia. “People are busy, if Rush (Limbaugh) tells them it’s crap, it probably is and that’s good enough for them,” he says. “All the research suggests that what really changes people’s views are their opinion leaders saying something.”
The political divide between Republican and Democrats on environmental issues is simply a long-growing four-decade fact of American life, Brulle adds. “This is really all about political power.” Until unexpected voices start venting different views, Brulle doesn’t see climate politics changing.
So what “unexpected voices” would it take to move the arrow?
Maybe Keith Kloor’s. You’ve bee umpiring this tennis match for a while now. Maybe you should pick up a racket. (I almost said get into this racket…)
ha, ha, hah. Nice compliment, thanks, but I’m no voice of authority, nor do I have much standing.
What Brulle presumably means are credible voices with stature and a following.
You’d have to think it would need to be a pretty big personality to not be thrown under the bus. For arguments sake let’s say one of the top five right wing pundits does an about face on climate change, wouldn’t the other four just decry them as a sell out?
If you really want change in climate change politics you need:
-A return of strong economic growth
-Tangible, easy to attribute suffering from AGW here in the present. And I mean felt by people in their day to day lives and not just by people who approvingly read whatever Bill McKibben writes in the Huffington Post.
silly american. it’s racquet. to anwser your question Keith, I would suggest that in the U.S., the ‘new’ voices probably need to come from the evangelical community and from security establishment types…
IMHO There isn’t an rational discussion to be had at this moment in time as to ‘action’ on Climate Change.
The energy security acts of 2005 and 2007 along with ‘economic recovery’ funds created an economic space to at least ‘demonstrate’ at utility scale a number of ‘potential’ solutions. The jury is still out on many of those solutions as to their effectiveness and cost.
Some of the solutions that 5 years ago looked extremely promising such as ‘biofuels’ have ended up having unforseen, unintended consequences. (Cutting down forests in the 3rd world to plant crops for biofuels or an increase in the price of foodstuffs in poor countries).
Others potential mechanisms loan guarantees for nuclear plants have yet to be demonstrated as to their financial viability.
I believe that the $8 billion dollar loan guarantee for Voglte #3 and Vogtle #4 will end up proving to be good value for money, it’s also possible that it will end up being a boondoggle like the Solyndra fiasco.
It’s not just the width of the error bars on the ‘Climate Science’ end of the spectrum that is producing the shouting match. The width of the error bars on the ‘solutions’ side is also enormous.
Marlowe,
There are somewhat new, prominent voices from both of those communities and it hasn’t really had much of a dent. But you’ve reminded of something I’ve wanting to write about for a while, so thanks.
Menth, I agree fully with your take. The only thing I’ll add is this, which is probably what it will come down to: If the climate movement becomes a serious player on the political scene, meaning they constitute a a passionate, fully engaged bloc of voters that enables them to put pressure on politicians, then they might be able move the needle.
Agree with #3, Menth. I need to see the change, somebody like Prince Charles or Al Gore telling me that my lifestyle is unsustainable does not work. Sell your own damn mansions!
Might well be that climate is changing so slowly that I will literally die of old age (and boredom) before anything really drastic happens.
But in order not to disencourage Keith, I nominate Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin. Well, ole Mahmud might just jump the bandwagon to build more nuclear facilities 😉
Keith I agree that we’ve yet to see any significant impact from those communities. However, both have considerable sway among Republican circles — which is where most of the convincing needs to be done….
I don’t think any voice, new or old, really can change the dynamics. Only events can do so. By validating some voices and undermining others, and that will also make it possible for new voices to enter the fray. Too many people just listen to voices they already agree with, and don’t trust others. But most people believe what they personally see and experience even more. Only when events progress enough to convince a significant number of people to change their mind will the dynamics change in a major way.
If the left denounced Hansen, Gore and Mann-Jones (threw them under the bus) then new unexpected voices could gain more attention.
Ad far as new unexpected voices expect more people like Freeman Dyson to weigh in.
Sashka,
I don’t see why throwing under bus is necessary for new voices to rise.
Keith,
Because the herd is mostly listening to the opinion leaders. Until old opinion leasers are under the bus, the new voices will talk to small audiences.
I see the suggestions that the way to move the arrow in the climate debates is to have pro-AGW mitigation statements come from more right wing commentators. Isn’t that the problem,? We have constant “no regrets” proposals about AGW. That the “no regrets” proposals are the same ones that these commentators have urged for years without regard to AGW is said to be beside the point. They are supposed, in some obscure way, to be good for AGW and be good to do anyway. At least that is how AGW is presented here in Canada.
AGW proposals are seen merely as a way of dressing up the favored policies of the commentator as stalking horses designed to fool the public. So we have seen AGW measures dressed up as means for energy security. We have seen AGW measures dressed up as means to end the harm done by consumerism and consumption. AGW has been used in this way for as long as I can remember the issue being discussed.
Maybe a new proposal would be to discuss the issue honestly with the public. Describe the science and the economic issues with all of the uncertainties and potential risks. Now, if an AGW commentator speaks, people instinctively know that what he/she is saying is not quite the truth. Maybe if pro-AGW-mitigation people would just be frank and candid and not use hyperbole (.e.g. worse than we thought) tehn people would learn to trust them. Maybe climate sciecne would get some respect outside of its flacks.
Maybe the search for the magic bullet in AGW communication should just stop
Have you considered have fewer statements from the more obviously left-wing commentators? Do they put right-wing people off?
Better (good faith) communication between technical skeptics and mainstream climate science seems to be the only viable way forward. The merchants of doubt era of skepticism is now replaced by a public based skepticism, which is very engaged. The ‘oil shill’ meme as well as the ‘climate science is a hoax’ meme serves no purpose other than a political one and both need to be left behind.
Less demonising of opponents and more engagement. Who’s to say nothing good would come out of it?
Paul Harvey
Would it matter who now claims that Saddam really did have WMDs?
This debate doesn’t need new ‘voices’ – unless one is willing to admit to the obvious fact that it is now all about politics and PR.
If it was about science it would need new solid evidence. And that is what it needs for this now political PR campaign too.
Doesn’t matter who spouts off the same old AGW stories because the majority of people simply don’t buy them anymore. All that wolf crying has had the predictable results.
Climategate – and the related Copenhagen flop – was the tipping point, and it was accelerated by all the ridiculous ‘cold is warm’ and ‘climate change causes EVERYTHING stories. Now Humpty IPCC is just a carcass at the bottom of the wall – where it belongs.
This has been the worst thing that has EVER happened to science and the cost to the credibility of all environmental science will take a very long time to repair… if it ever is. So sad.
Of course, if everyone listened to me, everything would work out just fine.
Edg, your crocodile tears are touching.
Nullies (15),
You mean lefties like Kerry emanuel and Richard Alley?
#20,
Keith, I’m not saying that only lefties speak out for global warming, I’m suggesting that people are influenced as much by not wanting to follow the other side’s opinion leaders as they are by wanting to fit in with their own. Having the Democrat ex-VP be the figurehead for the movement is not going to endear you to right-wingers. It’s seen as a left-wing position because all the most prominent left-wingers make such a big deal out of it. If you want the issue to appear less partisan, you have to avoid using obvious partisans to promote it. And there is such a thing as trying too hard.
Personally, Like Tom, I think this search for a magic communications strategy is misguided. It’s not communicating the argument that is the problem, it is the failure of the argument itself. And also the fact that even the strongest advocates for it don’t actually act as if they believe it themselves. There are lots of things you could do to make it more credible, but nobody on the pro-AGW side seems interested in doing them, especially if it hurts their other interests.
The hunt for a magic communications strategy looks like nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt to manipulate people. Advertisers have been working on that for decades, and most of their techniques now, unless carried off perfectly, are liable to induce cynicism. The general public have been well innocculated against ‘communication’. That’s why I don’t mind encouraging it.
I think a short list of people who should silence themselves would raise the quality of the discussion immensely, and I’m eagerly awaiting those who nominate me to be included on that list.
From the consensus side,
Joe Romm
commenters on Real Climate
Al Gore
(Please note that many advocates do not appear on this list, specifically people like Tobis)
From the skeptic side:
Marc Morano
Monckton
I would advocate their withdrawal because they are both polarizing and repetitive in their messaging. Not because they have done something wrong–they clearly haven’t, and not because they are bad people–I doubt if any of them are.
But what they’re doing is not only not working, it is blocking the path to progress.
Does climate science need new voices, or new voicing? By which I mean, new people saying the same thing may not be as important as voices, new or old, saying something different.
Despite the gnashing and wailing on the consensus side, it still dominates the MSM. However, that may not last, and once lost, influence will be hard to regain. I have this feeling that it will go down fighting to the last, but the smart move would be to start engaging in truly open dialogue. That way, if its arguments are really correct and convincing, it could survive.
if its arguments are really correct and convincing, it could survive.
OK, but “if Rush (Limbaugh) tells them it’s crap, it probably is…” so “convincing” is rather dependent on what Rush (Limbaugh) says, isn’t it?
20. Keith.
Just stating the obvious. And retired from a long career in the ‘conservation business,’ my concerns are real. My first concern is the same kind of credibility destruction done by the Extinction Crisis gang – with the new model-based pseudoscience called Conservation Biology – but nobody seems to be paying much attention to that these days. Even though the two are intimately entwined (e.g. polar bear tales).
In any case, I would say that anyone who does not see the damage done to the credibility of all environmental science by the AGW wolf crying project just isn’t looking.
re 22
Tom Fuller writes
================
I think a short list of people who should silence themselves would raise the quality of the discussion immensely, and I’m eagerly awaiting those who nominate me to be included on that list.
================
I can remember writing a comment on this blog in which I indicated that certain climate scientists should keep their mouths shut. Several commenters pointed out my suggestion and strongly disagreed with this. Climate scientists should not refrain from making comments with the expected implications for me from that. Tom Fuller explicitly agreed with this. Plus ca change …
Maybe the AGW debate would be improved if certain climate scientists did learn to keep their mouths shut
Tom Gray
You might note that none of the people on my list are scientists. Romm might claim to be, but isn’t.
Tom,
Can we add Watts and McIntyre to list? How about yourself and Mosher? After all, isn’t your job done? Don’t we all support ‘show your code’ now?
@PDA
<i>OK, but “if Rush (Limbaugh) tells them it’s crap, it probably is”¦” so “convincing” is rather dependent on what Rush (Limbaugh) says, isn’t it?</i>
If I want to go to Sears to shop for tools I don’t waste my breath on explaining to my wife why I need to shop for tools. I lookup on the Internet what sears has ‘on sale’ that she might be interested in and then propose we go shopping for that.
My goal is to get to Sears harmoniously. To do so I find a reason why she might want to go to Sears.
I think if you listen to Rush, you would find he is a BIG supporter of nuclear power.
James Hansen and Rush Limbaugh both agree that more nuclear power is needed. They both probably also have a rather dim view of the others reasons as to why we need more nuclear power.
Who cares…it’s the same destination.
Tom Fuller’s participation actually increases the quality of discussion. Unlike yours, Marlowe.
Both Tom Fuller and Marlowe add to the discussion–when they aren’t personalizing it and baiting others.
Keith can’t I have a little fun?
well, Harry, Rush also a BIG supporter of burning coal. So it’s like trying to get to Sears but ending up at Brookstone… or the Shoe Barn.
Not the same destination at all.
That’s a severe case of false balance, Keith.
Huh? How so?
Incidentally, I think that Bubba has it right when he says that the overton window needs to move to the point that outright denial of the problem becomes socially unacceptable.
I also think that Brulle has it right when he says that the climate change debate is really about political power. Any strategy that doesn’t acknowledge this basic fact is doomed to fail.
You noted on multiple occasions yourself that Marlowe often just takes cheap shots and scores points. Tom never does that.
Sashka,
I don’t want to encourage this petty mini-debate over who gets in more cheap shots. But I have to think that even Tom Fuller would own up to launching plenty of personal broadsides in various comment threads of this blog, that have more to do with his own antagonistic history involving himself and other bloggers/commenters, than the subject of the post. When he does this, it undermines his positive contributions to the debate. Same goes for Marlowe.
That is often the ugly subtext behind some of the slings and arrows that fly in both directions in comment threads. People are responding to insults previously hurled elsewhere.