If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, the old saying goes. But warmers are adding a new twist. Join ‘em in order to beat ‘em.
I’ve seen the story too many times now to think it’s a fluke of bad writing, which often happens when non-scientist like most Ã¢â‚¬Å“environmental journalistsÃ¢â‚¬Â write about science. It’s clearly emerging as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“talking point.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Warmers knew they were licked. For months they’ve talked about changing their PR strategy, even looking to fund professional consultants to get the spin just right. With all the speed of a click of an energy saving switch, they’ve been transformed from lying, stealing, fist shaking frauds to the most honest and reasonable people you could ever meet. Just like us Ã¢â‚¬â€œ regular people Ã¢â‚¬â€œ they are now avowed skeptics, just the thing that real science is made of, just one of those things that was missing from their arguments, just one of those things that broadcast their lack of credibility.
An opinion piece in The Australian, titled Warming to the facts on climate, repeats what I expect will become more familiar to everyone. Start with a teaser;
BRITAIN’S science academy, the Royal Society, has acknowledged the limits of current scientific understanding of climate change, revising its outlook.
Still misrepresenting their clan as Ã¢â‚¬Å“leading Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ scientists,Ã¢â‚¬Â recast them as Ã¢â‚¬Å“honest.Ã¢â‚¬Â
A 19-page guide prepared by leading international scientists, including society fellows, is an honest account of where climate change science is clear and where it is less certain, such as the impact of energy emitted by the sun.
Condemn the old (well earned) image.
The ragged intersection between science and politics is the point at which much of the climate debate has been derailed. Politics demands certainty to make a convincing case for co-ordinated action. Science, on the other hand, is driven by scepticism. Each hypothesis formulated from empirical evidence needs to be challenged and tested to within an inch of its life before its veracity can be assumed. The 43 society members now believe the society’s previous position was too strident and implied a greater degree of certainty than was justified.
Distance yourself from the losers.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports should have been seen for what they were, political documents. … As the debate unfolded, those who exaggerated the evidence or presented only worst-case projections did much more to set back the cause of carbon restraint than the commentators they derided as deniers. Scare tactics have not worked, and will not work.
By this time, many people have stopped reading and posted a link to your article with words of glee. Finally, they got it right! But have they?
The Royal Society sets out a strong case for pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming. It is all the more convincing for its honesty and avoidance of doomsday scenarios pedalled by alarmists, whose proposals would wreak economic devastation. After a long, needlessly polarised debate, the guide is a welcome new start to help restore the credibility of climate science and civility to the discussion.
No, they haven’t. There is in fact, no credible scientific evidence at all that greenhouse gases due to human activity are even a significant (in the normal conversational sense) cause of global warming. This PR move is just as slimy as all the others.