Progress depends on being able to disagree in ways that do not turn every aspect of climate politics into an identity-driven tribal war between good and evil.
The dehumanization of opponents is such a big problem that goes beyond climate science. It’s so tempting and so easy to exercise continuously in our modern media environment. I am not sure what the antidote to this is but I wish things were less rather than more politicized. Universities can play a big role. We need to teach students to disagree constructively and to see disagreement as an opportunity for growth rather than as a fight to win or a fight to avoid. I discovered the Nonviolent Communication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication?wprov=sfti1) approach from Dr. Rosenberg many years ago and I always thought that it is a fantastic template. I wish it was more known and taught more broadly. Are you familiar with it Matt?
Hi Enrico -- another area we have common interest. Will email you now about connecting over coffee. I haven't read Rosenberg's work but I have read deeply and teach about Gandhi, MLK jr as examples of non-violent movements and organizing in both my ENVCOMM and POLCOMM courses; along with principles and ideals about institutional thinking, civility, moderation, civic commitment and purpose. See also this Twitter thread about the dehumanizing language and metaphors used by climate scientist Michael Mann [among a few I had directly in mind when I wrote this essay/gave the related speech.] https://twitter.com/mcnisbet/status/1751824287860736453
I just saw that you chose to follow me on Substack. I think that you probably are mistaking me for someone else. Because I'm still learning to navigate Substack, can you let me know if there was a comment I made that caused you to follow me or just a case of mistaken identity? Thanks!
Hi Tina -- you came up as "suggested" to follow -- so as a way to try to engage more deeply and take advantage of what I see Substack as providing a richer opportunity to do so than Twitter and other platforms — I took the suggestion and followed you!
The algorithms are so interesting! I'm not connected in with social media much, and I generally ignore "likes" and "follows". For me, Substack is a fertile field to find good writers. If you do have time to engage, what do you think are some of the biggest obstacles to science communication?
All very nice, but money's money, and that's at the heart of it. Americans are not Swedes and we are the #1 fossil fuel nation in the world. Who's going to leave money in the ground to protect their grandchildren? Precious few--who count.
Steve, it seems as if you leave no room for the possibility that the entire climate change movement is fueled by misinformation about the nature and extent of the impact of climate change. Have you not read or listened to those highly regarded scientists (whose voices have been squashed and whose lives have been made hell) who have pointed out the fallacies and the missing information in reporting and studies that make the curious and intellectually honest question climate activism and the progressive approach, stance and policy prescriptions of those promoting Green New Deal-like solutions? Have you not considered following the money in a way that uncovers all the unsavory current and future financial gain enjoyed or to be enjoyed by the top climate alarmists and investors? Does all of this not make you question the moral and ethical compass let alone question the positions of the loudest and most aggressive climate activists as being motivated by something other than greed for money, power and respect? We should all seek to do more homework so that we are more informed. Because listening to (and buying in to and supporting) only one side does not make us right or morally just.
Hi Nick, I appreciate you weighing in, but the evidence on behalf of the fundamentals of climate change — that warming is human caused and disrupting various earth systems is overwhelming. In the future, please leave comments that are specific to the post rather than cutting and pasting stock replies.
The dehumanization of opponents is such a big problem that goes beyond climate science. It’s so tempting and so easy to exercise continuously in our modern media environment. I am not sure what the antidote to this is but I wish things were less rather than more politicized. Universities can play a big role. We need to teach students to disagree constructively and to see disagreement as an opportunity for growth rather than as a fight to win or a fight to avoid. I discovered the Nonviolent Communication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication?wprov=sfti1) approach from Dr. Rosenberg many years ago and I always thought that it is a fantastic template. I wish it was more known and taught more broadly. Are you familiar with it Matt?
Hi Enrico -- another area we have common interest. Will email you now about connecting over coffee. I haven't read Rosenberg's work but I have read deeply and teach about Gandhi, MLK jr as examples of non-violent movements and organizing in both my ENVCOMM and POLCOMM courses; along with principles and ideals about institutional thinking, civility, moderation, civic commitment and purpose. See also this Twitter thread about the dehumanizing language and metaphors used by climate scientist Michael Mann [among a few I had directly in mind when I wrote this essay/gave the related speech.] https://twitter.com/mcnisbet/status/1751824287860736453
Hi! Matt,
I just saw that you chose to follow me on Substack. I think that you probably are mistaking me for someone else. Because I'm still learning to navigate Substack, can you let me know if there was a comment I made that caused you to follow me or just a case of mistaken identity? Thanks!
Hi Tina -- you came up as "suggested" to follow -- so as a way to try to engage more deeply and take advantage of what I see Substack as providing a richer opportunity to do so than Twitter and other platforms — I took the suggestion and followed you!
this is so true. What has to work is bioregional coordinate climate change response. Dehumanizing your opponents keeps that from happening widely.
The algorithms are so interesting! I'm not connected in with social media much, and I generally ignore "likes" and "follows". For me, Substack is a fertile field to find good writers. If you do have time to engage, what do you think are some of the biggest obstacles to science communication?
All very nice, but money's money, and that's at the heart of it. Americans are not Swedes and we are the #1 fossil fuel nation in the world. Who's going to leave money in the ground to protect their grandchildren? Precious few--who count.
Steve, it seems as if you leave no room for the possibility that the entire climate change movement is fueled by misinformation about the nature and extent of the impact of climate change. Have you not read or listened to those highly regarded scientists (whose voices have been squashed and whose lives have been made hell) who have pointed out the fallacies and the missing information in reporting and studies that make the curious and intellectually honest question climate activism and the progressive approach, stance and policy prescriptions of those promoting Green New Deal-like solutions? Have you not considered following the money in a way that uncovers all the unsavory current and future financial gain enjoyed or to be enjoyed by the top climate alarmists and investors? Does all of this not make you question the moral and ethical compass let alone question the positions of the loudest and most aggressive climate activists as being motivated by something other than greed for money, power and respect? We should all seek to do more homework so that we are more informed. Because listening to (and buying in to and supporting) only one side does not make us right or morally just.
Hi Nick, I appreciate you weighing in, but the evidence on behalf of the fundamentals of climate change — that warming is human caused and disrupting various earth systems is overwhelming. In the future, please leave comments that are specific to the post rather than cutting and pasting stock replies.