I share your commitment to supporting citizens’ engagement with climate issues. The problem is that I don’t have any special mastery of the science. If I answered the comments you point to, (a) nobody should believe what I say; and (b) I’d risk losing the debate, thus causing more damage to the cause you support. Not good!

There are lots of blogs with opinions about climate science, including a few that are worth following–like Climate Etc., which may be how you got here. My contribution to public engagement with science (or science literacy) is to deal with how science can be communicated appropriately and effectively, especially in the course of civic controversies. That’s only a tiny piece of the big puzzle, but it is a piece–I hope.

Finally, when people post comments that are completely irrelevant to the topic of the blog entry they are supposedly responding to–don’t you think they sort of disqualify themselves?

The Climate deniers come out to play on your blog. That is not by chance.
You have created an environment where they feel at home.
I understand that you have a particular focus on communication techniques and you don’t want to go off-topic but you could at least make some token effort to provide rebuttals to denialist talking points as opposed to letting them pass unchallenged.

A scientific consensus is not created by magic. It’s not a secret handshake in some old boy’s club. The scientific consensus on Climate Change is created the same way as the the scientific consensus on the Theory of Evolution or the scientific consensus on the efficacy of vaccines etc. No short-cuts. No hanky-panky.

The disinformation campaign the sells doubt and smears the reputation of scientists is no different from the Intelligent Design disinformation campaign or the tobacco lobby campaign to convince the public that there was no link between cancer and smoking. It’s the same playbook and, in multiple examples, it’s the same money and fake experts.

You can both explore what happens when scientists “enter the barnyard” and, in the same breath, clearly and strongly support good science literacy amongst the public. I urge you to do more on taking to task denialist talking points and help promote the scientific position of the global science community.

Thanks, I agree. My biggest fear though is that because the IPCC was initially set up by political figures for political purposes, skeptics may win the science battle (argument that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming), but lose the political war. In the US it looks like we are about to implement some sort of carbon cap and trade system, potentially by executive order, DESPITE increasing doubts about the science. Once the Investment Banks, NGOs and UN Have the framework established for a global system to regulate carbon, it could be almost impossible to undo. And once the structure is in place it can relatively easily be adapted to other purposes. I wonder how many of the climate scientists realize they have been playing the role of useful idiots to achieve political goals that they probably aren’t even fully aware of. I tend to agree with James Lovelock. Man is too stupid to save the planet, but too arrogant to avoid killing a lot of people in the developing world while trying. I often tell people that in my business, my clients (Fortune 500 Telecommunications companies) wouldn’t even invest $10M dollars based on the amount of evidence supporting AGW theory. The IPCC and UN are asking us to sign up for trillions!!!

Well said. The self-examination that is going on in a small part of the AGW clique demonstrates what you are saying, to wit: the recent comments of Nordhaus, Shellenberger, Lovelock et al. The constant refrain of “consensus” was always a falsehood to dominate the argument by an appeal to an non-existant authority. And the debate, in fact, had not been engaged in for 20 years but rather an increasingly shrill scientific complex feeding at government troughs left the rails of science and expected everyone to bow. Science is advanced by skepticism, and skeptics, not consensus. The Jones, Briffa, and Manns of this world do not need to sharpen their rhetorical skills, but remedial science.

Another thing I’ve been thinking is that although it’s relatively easy to see other people’s biases from the outside, it’s very difficult to actually persuade them of this and get them to correct themselves. At least one purpose of debate is just that: to get other people to see their own views more clearly. Still, even sharp debate is unlikely to have many positive effects in the short term. So an additional solution may be for each of us to spend some time examining our own passions, and seeing what we ourselves are not noticing. This is sort of the “log in our own eyes” advice.

Thanks for the kind words–always appreciated by a blogger!

Thanks, I think this whole series is great from a teaching perspective about the art of rhetoric. I just think that the statement I highlighted points out how deeply held beliefs tend to make people gloss over or explain away major logical faults with their position. The hardest thing for anyone to do is have an open mind about something in which they are emotionally invested. Given that so many people have spent almost their entire academic careers supported by government grants, not to understand how the climate works, but to prove that man is affecting it, shows how bias was built in from the very structure of the incentive system of the IPCC. That’s why I think the skeptic side has so many retired scientists. They have nothing to lose now by speaking out about the significant logical holes in AGW theory. Younger scientists have a SIGNIFICANT amount to lose by doing so.

1. Weighing all the evidence oneself (in this case, all the scientific studies), and reaching an overall conclusion.

2. Figuring out whether you should trust the person who’s telling you something, and believing what they tell you.

In these posts, I’m focusing only on method #2.