Don't Mention The War!

In 'The Germans', an episode of 70s British sitcom 'Fawlty Towers' about a hotel with pretensions to grandeur in southwest England, Basil Fawlty, the hotel proprietor, famously advises his staff not to mention WW2 to the hotel's German guests. He then proceeds never to stops mentioning the war himself, with sometimes hilarious Freudian slips and then increasingly eccentric behaviour, until eventually Fawlty is consigned to hospital. This article, about climate scepticism, will follow the same plan, except perhaps for the hospital visit. Fortunately, Fawlty didn't mention once the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. I'll try not to mention him either.

One of the discouraging aspects of the climate science debate is the 'us and them' aspect. This manifests itself in various forms, from refusals to give information to individuals with clearly staked positions, conducting campaigns to make their point in vitriolic language. Such language makes it difficult to put across complex issues and is certainly at odds with academic practice. Those with a close knowledge of climate science may feel perturbed and angry by those who they feel misrepresent scientific knowledge, attack the institutions of science and distort and obfuscate the understanding of good policy. They feel they have an agenda, they are fighting dirty. The more angry one side is with the other, the more one side accuses the other of malpractice, the more fragmented the debate and the less easy it is to see the light for the heat. The problem is that complex matters can be easily distorted, and therefore it requires responsible authority to articulate them

We need, also to be open-minded. Humans are susceptible to confirmation biases where they see what is wanted or what supports pre-existing beliefs. The more the other appears different, the worse this bias will be.


We need in fact much better communication and understanding, rather than anything that promotes an 'us and them' attitude to the scientists and climate sceptics. We need this for multiple reasons: good manners, persuasiveness, and the genuine quest for knowledge and insight through detailed cross examination. In short scientists should 'hug a sceptic' and vice versa. The last thing we need is military analogies...

And yet exactly this situation can be illuminated by the situation America and Britain faces in Afghanistan today. America faces an asymmetric enemy in the Taleban, and, even more so, which is not the same, with Al Qaida. As is being slowly understood, to attack unjustly can often turn the population against you. The military has to deal with the difficult problem of building trust with people who are mostly friendly but could be your mortal enemies. Assuming that all are enemies leads to the whole population turning against you; assuming all are friends could be naive and potentially fatal.

People need a similar approach to climate sceptics: in attack, assume all are friendly, in defence assume all are hostile. Or, if you can work in teams let one assume the sceptic is friendly, the other he is hostile _ a 'good cop bad cop' approach. The rest of the article is devoted to those sceptics who really are an enemy.

I recently picked up 'don't think of an elephant' by George Lakatos, The point of the title and the book is by mentioning something you evoke it, whether you wish to or not, which I suppose is the point of 'don't mention the war' in the Germans episode.

Nietzsche of course was probably aware of this. He once said to engage in fighting is to stoop to the level of the person you are fighting with. The dispute between scientists and sceptic can appear like a mixed up bout of boxing-chess where one player is trying to play chess and the other is boxing.

In climate science the problem is that the two sides are playing different games. A scientist doing and communicating science is trying to play chess, whereas the sceptic in trying to influence the media debate is boxing. Not only do we not really have a good game of chess or bout of boxing, someone might get hurt. Furthermore the scientist, who may move in different circles cannot defend himself against the blows without ceasing to play chess. But he wants to play chess, because that is what he is trained to do and what he is judged on. When eventually the scientist stops playing chess and starts to fight his opponent sits down and then feigns annoyance when the scientist knocks the pieces over! The scientist has stooped to the level of his opponent, but the opponent is more nimble footed.

How does this relate to Nietzsche? Nietzsche argued that exceptional individuals are handicapped by conventional morality. The scientist, like this is unable to deploy his substantial intelligence in defence against the opponent playing by the rules of the media, where his is trying to uphold science. The scientist can get good at the media game. Alternatively, different people can play different roles. This is better because no one person can meet different audiences.

This is close to the situation with environmental organisations, often specialists in communication. The problem is, these organisations want to play a different game altogether.