The Making of Many Books

 

Anyone who is anyone has written a book on climate change. There are a dozen in my library. On the subject of climate change and books, there seem to be three groups:

(1) I have not personally read anything, but I know what the Science says" or doesn't say;

(2) I have read a book, so I know what Science says or doesn't say. You only know what you are talking about if you have read this particular book and ignore anything else you may have read.

(3) I have read x books (lots), so I know what Science says or doesn't say. Even if you have read an equal number of books, they are all biased (if you disagree) or totally right (if you agree);

The point is nobody's mind will be changed by piling up books or saying, "read this book." We are all preaching to the choir.

Since it's actually quite important to "change minds" (maybe even your own), and since throwing books at each other is futile, what's the alternative?

First, we must build respect for each other and encourage the "other" to respect their ability to judge the matter. In many cases, an individual will frankly opt out of the discussion, saying the issue is too "polarized," there are "arguments on both sides," etc. This is effectively a neutral position and, in some cases, the best you can do.  But many climate activists have this attitude, supporting political agendas that make radical assumptions on climate. This is true on both "sides," with the "left" inheriting climate panic and the "right" claiming climate change is a socialist hoax. Understanding this is an improvement over the idea that the "polarization" is over the facts of the issue rather than the proposed actions (or inaction). It is possible to come to a position on climate that is independent of your political views*. It is very common for people on the "left" side of the political spectrum to dismiss skeptical evidence as suspect simply because it is coming from the political right.

If we can show the individual respect for his/her judgment, we can encourage curiosity, not to read another book "on our side," but to read a neutral assessment that's independent of the IPCC talking points. "What We Know About Climate Change" is a good choice since it is firmly in the IPCC orbit and written by an actual scientist. But the strategy is not to read another book. It's to read the book yourself and encourage people to take an interest in the core issues.

The more you listen to others, the more they gain confidence in their ability to understand things. Based on that, the next step is to investigate whatever issues come up between you. Form a little study group. Recognize that forming your own ideas (rather than cloning others) takes work. New ideas need to be grasped. Even the most cursory investigation into the issue will be rewarded by a substantial ability to understand statistical concepts (climate change itself is a statistical concept). Sadly, lack of statistical education, let alone the ability to spot lies told with statistics, is the rule rather than the exception. For such individuals, it may be useful to dig down into the political influences brought to bear on the IPCC "summary for policymakers." The top-level claims of the IPCC and the press vastly overstate the importance of "peer-reviewed" articles and the mythical "97% of Scientists" that agree with something to do with climate change. Very few people know the "sausage making" that goes into the policy summaries.

Examine the political agenda that attaches itself to both "sides." On the far left, the urgency of the climate crisis is borrowed to create urgency for a swath of far-left social programs. On the far right, doubt is sewn over the entire discipline of climate science by those paid specifically to defend industries that are under threat from any climate action. Those who grasp the concept of "Big Green" along with "Big Oil" come a long way to seeing the dispute in a new light. Everyone is cashing in on this.

That may be the best you can do. Promote an ongoing discussion of all related issues, from basic science to politics. For better or worse, in a democracy, our personal opinion counts. Without room for respectful disagreement, we lose our ability to support specific actions we all support (perhaps for different reasons.) That is the magic of democracy.

---------------------

* I vote "left," but I'm a climate emergency skeptic. To me, the proposed action on the climate "emergency" will disproportionately hurt the poor by pulling funds away from actual social issues to the "Big Green" agenda. To me, poverty, not climate, is the emergency. Since the climate issue is already a bit of a "side issue," I am free to examine the issue without the political baggage that is carried by many of the people I contact. I still could not do that if I didn't feel that left-wing activists were not outright lying to the public about the "emergency." I recognize Science Fiction when I see it.

THIS POST MAY BE A GOOD PLACE TO LIST THE BOOKS I HAVE ACTUALLY READ ON THE SUBJECT, NOT PARTICULARLY IN ORDER NOR NECESSARILY COMPLETE:

Unsettled

Inconvenient Truth

Inconvenient Facts

What We Know about Climate Change

The Physics of Climate Change

Delinquent Teenager

Taken By StormB

This Changes Everything

Climate Crisis and the Green New Deal 

The Great Climate Debate 

The False Promise of Green Energy

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Demystifying Climate Models

Is it Getting Hotter In Fresno or Not?

Hot Talk, Cold Science

How to Spend $75 Million To Make the World a Better Place

False Alarm

Numbers Don't Lie

Blowout