About the Book
Since I began talking to people about climate, I have discovered a truth that will be entirely self-evident to psychologists, negotiators, and counsellors. A scientist who presents evidence and fact without advocacy is more likely to convince people than one who is steering the listener to their way of thinking as to the solutions. Credibility is eroded where scientists are too fond of their own hyperbole or are obviously selling a political solution – and when it comes to climate change, all solutions are basically political.
However, many times I have worried that this position of avoiding advocacy to maintain credibility can be argued to be at best lazy and at worst a cop-out. It is defensible but lacking in grit and many of my scientific colleagues believe so. It has certainly been a convenient position for me to hold, as it allows me to avoid making decisions about what I believe is the best route forward in dealing with all the big issues that face us. Climate change is only one of the great issues concerning economic development, geopolitical power struggles, and even human motivation. There is little point in us developing ways to deliver plentiful sustainable energy if nations use it to wage wars that turn the Earth and our lives to ash by a different means, or if we use emissions-control measures to bind generations in developing economies to living standards that we in the West have not tolerated for a century.
Remaining publicly neutral about the solutions has served me and, perhaps, my audiences well. Indeed, I hope, over the years I have been effective in persuading just a few souls that climate change is a real and present danger. However, I have often been asked after presenting my facts, what would I do about climate change? What do I do? I will answer, but always prefaced by a caveat that these are personal rather than scientific responses. There are, after all no ‘correct’ responses.
About the Book
Since I began talking to people about climate, I have discovered a truth that will be entirely self-evident to psychologists, negotiators, and counsellors. A scientist who presents evidence and fact without advocacy is more likely to convince people than one who is steering the listener to their way of thinking as to the solutions. Credibility is eroded where scientists are too fond of their own hyperbole or are obviously selling a political solution – and when it comes to climate change, all solutions are basically political.
However, many times I have worried that this position of avoiding advocacy to maintain credibility can be argued to be at best lazy and at worst a cop-out. It is defensible but lacking in grit and many of my scientific colleagues believe so. It has certainly been a convenient position for me to hold, as it allows me to avoid making decisions about what I believe is the best route forward in dealing with all the big issues that face us. Climate change is only one of the great issues concerning economic development, geopolitical power struggles, and even human motivation. There is little point in us developing ways to deliver plentiful sustainable energy if nations use it to wage wars that turn the Earth and our lives to ash by a different means, or if we use emissions-control measures to bind generations in developing economies to living standards that we in the West have not tolerated for a century.
Remaining publicly neutral about the solutions has served me and, perhaps, my audiences well. Indeed, I hope, over the years I have been effective in persuading just a few souls that climate change is a real and present danger. However, I have often been asked after presenting my facts, what would I do about climate change? What do I do? I will answer, but always prefaced by a caveat that these are personal rather than scientific responses. There are, after all no ‘correct’ responses.