(1) The document discusses strategies for addressing climate change denialism when engaging with deniers. It analyzes common denialist techniques like the Gish gallop, conspiracy theories, and internal inconsistency.
(2) It recommends not directly engaging with techniques like the Gish gallop and instead pinpointing inconsistent arguments. The document also suggests making deniers explicitly state conspiracy theories to reveal flaws.
(3) Additional tips include knowing the science, using simple language, being likable, and finding common ground with deniers to change identities and views gradually rather than through direct confrontation. The overall approach is to avoid getting mired in scientific details and instead focus on logical inconsistencies and behaviors.
2. When Victory is Doubt
Doubt is our product since it is the best means
of competing with the “body of fact” that exists
in the mind of the general public.
Internal memo from tobacco company Brown
and Williamson.
3. Who is doing the denying?
• Save your energy. Pick your fights. Fight them right
• You are never talking to the denier, you are always talking to those who
are listening
Professionals.
Architects Will never change
Highly committed, but
Acolytes may drift down
Concerned, Your constant and only
target market
curious, uncertain
Annoying people
Blowhards who take your
energy, but may
drift up
4. It’s not a fight about science...
• They know that. It’s a street fight. That’s why they attack the man
If engaging and Architect or an Acolyte
• Don’t sink to that. But pinpoint and attack and the behaviour and the techniques
• Actively resist explaining the science until you know you actually have the
audience’s attention
• Keep it big until the audience is ready to go small
Do not anticipate an
honest exploration
of knowledge
5. Specific Issues and Techniques
1. Internal inconsistency
2. Gish Gallop
3. Conspiracy theory
4. Know your stuff
5. Simple language
6. Be likeable, and be like them (this matters more than you may realise
right now)
6. 1. Internal inconsistency. What is being denied? Pinpoint the
argument and seek consistency
Established high certainty science Denial position
That the earth is warming (unequivocal) No it isn’t. The instrumental readings show it is cooling/ that the warming is
statistically insignificant
No it isn’t. The instrumental readings show strong warming, but it’s the urban heat
island affecting the weather stations
That the warming from the mid 20th Century Ok, it is warming but the warming is natural (changes in solar irradiance, orbits).
cannot be from natural forcings (>90%
confidence)
That the warming is the result of increased Ok it is warming, the other natural forcings can’t be it, but CO2 is too diluted in the
greenhouse gas concentrations especially CO2 atmosphere to matter
That the increased concentration is principally Ok, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing concentration has an impact, but the
anthropogenic natural sources outweights he manmade sources.
Ok, the anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, but then the planet adjusts and rids itself of
the warming
That the warming that is occurring is rapid and is Ok, it is warming, anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, but the impact will be benign or
highly likely to cause great harm in the coming beneficial
century if not mitigated
That the warming can be mitigated at far less Ok, it is warming, anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, the warming will do us harm, but
cost than the cost of climate change not as much harm as ditching fossil fuels
7. 2. Dealing Gish-Gallop- don’t
(directly...)
• Buy in, they win.
• You have started wasting time that could be better spent.
• So don’t. Cut it short.
“Hi Ben, was going to look at the background to some of the “facts” purported in the attached
document. Perhaps you have the facts at your fingertips.”
“Hi Jeremy,
This is using a technique known as “gish-gallop”. Almost always it involves a list of some kind. It
works because it looks and sounds convincing, and every one of these lies/distortions/ half truths
takes someone like me an awfully long time to convincingly put to rest. The great adage “It takes
20 seconds to lie, and 20 minutes to prove it wrong”.
That being the case, I prefer to keep these things simple. I have been sent this before, with the
point of origin apparently being the risk manager of a major consulting firm. My communication
with him is shown below.
8. 2. Dealing with Gish-Gallop- don’t
(directly...)
“Dear X,
I note that you are a Director- Risk Services. Does this questionnaire reflect
the approach of Y with regard to managing risk for its clients, specifically
regulatory, financial, infrastructure and ecological risks associated with
climate change?
Is it customary for Y’s Directors of Risk Services to propagate scientific
positions that are contrary to those held by organisations such as the CSIRO,
The Bureau of Meteorology, The World Meteorological Organisation, The
National Academy of Science (USA), and the Royal Society (UK)?
9. 2. Dealing with Gish-Gallop- don’t
(directly...)
“Dear X,
The author of the questionnaire is listed as one Gregg D Thompson. I
cannot locate any climate research undertaken by Mr Thompson, nor
any formal scientific qualifications whatsoever. It would appear that he
is an amateur astronomer, with a keen interest in stargazing and the
creation of special effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Thompson_(astronomer)
In undertaking risk management work for Y, is Mr Thompson typical of
the quality of source that you would rely upon when advising your
clients?
I look forward to your prompt response.”
10. 2. Dealing with Gish-Gallop- don’t
(directly...)
• In person, keep your cool... Answer 20 questions with one... Keep
rephrasing and press the issue....
“If your work and ideas contradicts the IPCC, what has prevented
you from publishing these findings in peer reviewed scientific
literature? This is incredible, it will win you a Nobel Prize.”
“How is it that you know all this, but the IPCC, CSIRO, NAS, Royal
Society and every other major scientific institution in the world
thinks differently?”
Press hard enough and there is only one answer...
11. 3. The Conspiracy Theory
• The scientific consensus is so great, none of their stuff works without a
conspiracy theory. They are all sitting on one. Make them say it. Make
them explain it. Ask for details.
“When did this begin?”
“Who started it?”
“When were the scientists coopted?”
“How did has it spread through every scientific institution in the world?”
“How did they get the walruses, glaciers, polar ice cap, migratory birds and
wood mites on side?”
12. 4. Know your stuff... Every now and then it
makes the difference
• Sometimes, you will have the opportunity to hit the sweet spot... Person
or people genuinely trying to learn... Knowing your stuff is critical at this
point
“Ben... I always wanted to know the answer to this question ... If they're
finding ocean creature fossils in the middle of the Australian outback the
assumption is there was once ocean... there right? Why is it all gone surely
not global warming due to the population of earth and the dinosaurs died
during an ice age in theory.
The other question if earth moved 5m closer to the sun would Anyone be
able to measure it and would this affect our temperature?
BINGO!!!
13. 5. Simple language and examples
where appropriate
• Dumbing down a necessarily complex subject is a slippery slope
• But when you can do it safely, it can be powerful
• Find some safe statements that communicate powerfully
“The temperature record in Victoria was beaten by about 0.8 degrees - that's a century-long
record, beaten by 0.8 degrees. That's like Bradman's batting average being beaten by 50.”
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2486751.htm
Professor Andy Pittman commenting on the new temperature record for Melbourne of 46.4 degrees, up from a
previous record of 45.6 degrees
Titration is a nice example for explaining:
•Why small quantities can matter
•Tipping points
14. 6. Be likeable, and be like them
That's not to suggest that we aren't also motivated to perceive the world
accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do. It's just
that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity
affirmation and protecting one's sense of self—and often those make us
highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
It helps a lot if deniers can look to the people
occupying the other space and like what they
see, and sense other shared values
It helps to work from common ground where
you can find it: dislike of other pollution,
preference for nuclear power... and go from
there
15. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
1. Conspiracy theory: “the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs,
industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world
government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than
admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate
scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that
carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant”.
Lead conspirator Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927),
“if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression,
the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
arithmetic progression.”
16. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
2. Carbon dioxide does warm the planet... but the planet adjusts: “Let’s be
perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things
being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet.
Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet.”
“There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the
earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by
dampening the warming.”
Your Nobel Prize, Dr Evans
17. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
3. But they are measuring it wrong. Let the Gish Gallop begin: “The official
thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning
outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from
jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from
decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings...”
...like those hot cities in Siberia,
the Bering Strait, and the North
Pole
18. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
4. But the satellites are right, and it’s actually getting cooler: “Global
temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the
whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year
was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off”
Ah, 1998... The only
one of 160 years that
lets you draw a down
arrow to 2010
19. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
5. But actually, the warming has been natural all along: “The earth has been in a
warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680... We have just
finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two
decades”.
Expect mild global
cooling for the next two
decades, with a
possibility of bullsh!t
later in this speech
20. Case Study
Dr David Evans: Address to the anti-carbon tax rally, 23 March 2011
6. Did I mention conspiracy?: “Governments gleefully accept their advice, because
the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government
control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even
lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!”
...and the new head
of the IPCC is...
22. Conclusion
• Remember your audience
• Attack the techniques. Only go to the science when they are dying to
hear it
• Keep your powder dry. Wasting your time is a victory for denialism
• Learn your stuff
• Learn some simple and effective communication
• Remember you are asking someone to change identity. Give them a good
reason