I am really still working on a post, but am very busy at work with a new project that is taking up a lot of mental energy. I generally have an excess of mental energy (need to get more exercise) but this is more than usual. In the meantime, how about a round of the new game I’ve invented (well, robbed from various folks who have gone before me) “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”.
Judith Curry seems to think that you throw chum out and let them churn in the blood-and-gut surf. That showing you listen and act polite when they
spout drivel talk about why there is no consensus, the data is corrupt, the scientists are cads, and it’s all a big left-wing godless liberal socialist plot to turn everyone into Marx-spouting zombies…
That showing you listen and are polite will do more to bridge some divide between those who accept the scientific consensus and those who reject it than calling them deniers and pointing out their idiocy.
Spending time at CA or Climate etc. or worse, WTFIUWT, tends to diminish my faith in human reason and logic. It makes me feel like girding my loins and fighting all the harder — or else gouging my eyes out with a rusty spork.
I’ve had a crisis of confidence lately in my role in the climate debates. I want to write seriously about them, because I feel as if this is the biggest challenge we have faced as a civilization, but I get so disillusioned when I see the same old same old from the usual suspects.
What is the best tactic for talking to honest skeptics? Should we assume all self-proclaimed skeptics are truly skeptical and play nice? Do I, with my snarkiness, drive a deeper wedge in between the truly skeptical and science? That would not be my goal at all. I tend to assume that those who read here accept the consensus and need a bit of comic/snarky relief from the horrors at places like CA and WUWT.
So, what do you think?