It’s Time to Make a Strategic PR Pivot in Dealing with the Climate Change Issue thumbnail

It’s Time to Make a Strategic PR Pivot in Dealing with the Climate Change Issue

By John Droz, Jr.

Nothing short of Traditional Science is at stake here.

This is a follow-up to my post: Who is Winning the Climate Change War?

There have been numerous twists-and-turns regarding the Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) matter over the last 35± years. For those of us immersed in this fight on a daily basis, the danger is that (without periodically stepping back), we can easily lose track of the forest through the trees. Let’s pause for a minute and consider the big picture here…

There are two fundamentally different parts to the AGW fight:

  1. the scientific facts, and
  2. how these facts are communicated to the public.

The latter is Public Relations (PR). The evidence indicates that realists are doing well with #1, but not with #2. The reality is that ultimately this is a PR fight!

Most of the people leading the realists are scientists or other technical experts. Science deals with facts, so most scientists believe that the facts will win the day.

The problem is: that belief is FALSEJust having the facts will not win a PR fight.

Unless we incorporate sophisticated communication techniques and effective PR strategies, we will lose the AGW war — and that’s the direction we are heading.

Why are we losing this PR war? Because:

a) most scientists are not proficient with communication or PR,

b) the whole AGW issue crept up on us, starting 35± years ago, and from the beginning, no one formulated a communication/PR plan — it just evolved,

c) to date, no one has critically analyzed our AGW communication/PR, and

d) no one has proposed an updated, sophisticated communication/PR plan.

Clearly what’s needed are items “c” and “d”. Ideally, an updated, advanced PR plan will not only be more communicable, but will also put us on stronger, more defendable ground. If nothing else it will be a fresh tactic.

Briefly regarding “c”: to date, we have employed a shotgun strategy — i.e., we have fought the AGW hypothesis on a wide variety of fronts. There are some PR advantages to a shotgun strategy, but it can also run its course and gradually become less effective. That’s where we appear to be today.

An alternative strategy is the rifle tactic. This amounts to a unified approach where we all focus on a narrowly defined target. With everyone aiming at the same vulnerable spot, the chance for success is much better than with a scattershot strategy.

The important question is: what spot should we focus on? There are a few possibilities, but let me recommend one for serious consideration: Scientific protocol.

In other words, rather than debate AGW proponents about the dozens of technical details of the AGW hypothesis (clouds, feedback loops, solar influences, etc., etc.), that instead we zero in on their adherence to traditional scientific methodology.

AGW advocates have NOT followed traditional scientific methodology, and they have used multiple justifications to rationalize their disconnect. For example, they say: a) it’s too time-consuming to follow Science protocol, b) AGW is too complicated to be analyzed by traditional Science, c) AGW is not falsifiable, etc., etc.

All these are debatable excuses, but the REAL reason they object to following traditional scientific methodology, is that it does not support their hypothesis. We should be focused on objecting to this scientific deviance, which is an attempt to disguise the reality that their AGW arguments are scientifically weak.

The Left has become so enthused by their success at disavowing scientific methodology — particularly by the lack of a cohesive response — that they have moved onto the next step: attacking the Scientific Method! For example, the K-12 Science curriculum of 48 states now has scrapped the traditional Scientific Method.

What’s worse is that since this started 10+ years ago, almost no teachers, parents, scientists, conservative organizations, etc. have publicly objected to this. (See my Report that goes into more details about this audacious travesty.)

BTW, note that their calling the Climate matter a “theory” is another of numerous examples where the Left is superior at manipulating the words in the public conversation, but also where they have discarded scientific tradition.

The fact is the AGW matter is a scientific hypothesis, and we should strongly object to it being inappropriately elevated to the status of being a scientific theory.

  1. It’s much easier for citizens and legislators to understand the methodology issue, as compared to the numbing complexities of the AGW hypothesis.
  2. This changes the battlefield to where we have the high ground. It’s irrefutable that alarmists have short-circuited traditional scientific protocol.
  3. This position makes it clearer to our opponents what they need to do to win us over — so they may actually welcome this position.
  4. We won’t know for sure about the AGW facts for 30± years. However, we can be sure about whether AGW advocates followed scientific protocol, today.
  5. We can no longer be labeled as deniers. Our position should be: “I’m 100% open to the possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be true — but I can not accept it until it has been fully and objectively subjected to the rigors of traditional Science.”

An example of how this works is the exchange I had with a climatologist. Here is an article where he makes his Climate claims. Here is my response — which focuses on his departure from traditional science methodology. {Note: he had no rejoinder.]

A suggested soundbite is Science, not Political Science.

Another possible soundbite is: Show me the Science!

For example, what’s going on in our K-12 schools (particularly in Science) is simply atrocious. EVERY YEAR some four million propagandized, non-critical thinking students graduate from US high schools.

The really petrifying part is that these individuals will soon become voting citizens. This represents a tsunami rapidly bearing down on us.

It should be crystal clear that regarding Climate Change and K-12 education, business as usual is the height of folly, if not suicidal.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?