“Nature doesn’t do bailouts.”
—Al Gore
Last week was my training as a Climate Leader for the Climate Reality Project in San Francisco. I’m one of about a thousand new leaders trained by Al Gore to provide versions of his talk all around the world. This was Mr. Gore’s 21st training program that he’s provided. Fifty eight countries were represented, and Canada had a strong showing with 125 Canucks present.
In fact, the Canadian branch of The Climate Reality Project is a strong group in its own right. Currently, more than 475,000 Canadians have heard a Climate Reality talk, which works out to be about one in sixty five. The training was amazing, and if you followed my brief blogs last week, you got a flavour of what it was all about.
The first day covered broad principles, mostly regarding ways to get the message out. We had sessions covering social media, and how to engage in discussions in both meaningful and respectful ways. Grammy award-winning country singer Kathy Mattea provided a session on how to personalize your message, and she gave a great example by telling us about her family’s own history and, of course, provided some of her message with song. After the formal part was over for the group at large, the Canadians all assembled for a separate meeting so we could learn about how the Climate Reality Canada organization works, including some of the practical aspects about how to use their website and organize the talks we’re going to be giving in the future.
The second day was all about the newest version of the talk that Mr. Gore has created. I wasn’t sure how much time we would get from him but he was there the entire day. First he gave us the entire talk the way anyone might get to hear him give it. The rest of the day he went through the talk in great detail, with opportunities to discuss it in smaller groups at our tables, as well as ask Mr. Gore and Climate Reality staff including scientist Dr. Mike MacCracken some specific details during Q&A sessions. We had Mr. Gore from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The only breaks were for coffee and lunch. It was a long and exhausting day, but everybody learned so much from these sessions. That evening we had a reception, group photos with Mr. Gore in groups of about 90, and a concert with Kathy Mattea along with her husband Jon Vezner and her guitarist Bill Cooley. Then members from both the Canadian and Australian contingents went out for some serious partying (proving once again that I’m a bit too old for such late nights!)
If the second day was all about content, the third and final day was all about process. We learned how to present better, paying particular attention to the type of personality that each of us has, because one presentation style won’t work for everyone. We also had a terrific two-hour session with Andy Goodman who taught us how to become great storytellers. Everyone loved that particular session, and we all left it with a new perspective on just about everything. The last part of the day covered some new and exciting things that Climate Reality is going to be doing in the coming months. (I won’t spoil it for you now, but promise to describe these great programs they’re getting going once they’re up and running.)
Many of you have been asking me to offer some tips about how to get this message out more effectively, now that I’ve experienced this training. Obviously I can’t provide what took me three solid days to learn and summarize it in a few short sentences. But here are some key points that I got out of this experience that I think might be helpful.
- Use all forms of communication available to get your message out. This includes daily conversations, formal talks, and all forms of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Reaching as many people as possible is key.
- Be a nice person when you communicate. That means being sincere, respectful, positive, open, and appreciative.
- Personalizing the discussion helps to get the point across better, and telling stories is better than simply telling facts. Stories have a much better and lasting impact.
As Mr. Gore pointed out, watching the nightly news nowadays is like reading chapters from the Book of Revelations. But as he also pointed out, there are a lot of deniers out there funded by fossil fuel industries, where “doubt is their product.” It’s important for people to understand the truth, and what more than 97 percent of publishing climatologists are also saying:
Global Warming is real, it is causing climate change now, and most of it is due to human activities. Once we figure that out and start doing something about it, we can truly be on the road to recovery for an entire planet.
What about dealing with skeptics? They have given the Poisoned Well strategy to Al Gore. Does he give way to their strictures on his earlier case?
I believe the best way with skeptics is to challenge them to substantiate their own case, i.e. that climate sensitivity is low. http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/global-warming-in-86-words.html
Ignore their red herrings: they can waste our time in fielding their shots. Their tactics do not work if we concentrate our fire on their hypothesis.
Thanks for your comments, Richard. I agree that skeptics and deniers are generally ideologues and not prone to changing opinions regardless of what evidence is provided for them. I never feel the need to try to convince them myself because, as you point out, it’s a waste of our time.
However, others who aren’t so skeptical but simply undecided or on the fence are still exposed to the myths and “red herrings” those skeptics spew out, so I still think there’s merit to addressing them, but I think of it more as damage control. I don’t tend to attack their hypothesis so much as try to demonstrate that they’re simply incorrect. on the facts they address. Perhaps I’m wasting my time on occasion, but it seems to have had some success based on discussions I’ve had with people on these issues.
It usually goes something like “What you say makes sense, but I’ve heard that….” and I can then address why what they heard isn’t supported by evidence. I definitely don’t want it to come across like it’s our theory vs. theirs or we’ll never win the argument. To my mind, it’s the evidence vs. their misinformation about it, or their blatant mistakes (or lies) about it.
When dealing with “skeptics” the first thing you should explain is how you’ve changed your own life to become carbon neutral, like no more fossil fueled travel, keeping the thermostat at 78 in the summer and 60 in the winter, unplugging every appliance that is not in use, replacing your toilet with a waterless or compostable one, only buying local, etc. It’ll be a short conversation, since the majority of you Warmists refuse to walk the talk.
As far as substantiating our case, hey, this is your pet Belief, and it is incumbent for you to prove using the scientific method that this is all man caused, as opposed to what has gone on for billions of years thanks to Nature. This would require that you release your raw data and methods so that people can attempt to replicate your findings. Which is something the majority of Warmist “climate scientists” refuse to do.
Thanks for your comments, William / Porter. I couldn’t agree more that everyone encouraging a reduction in emissions needs to make sure they are indeed walking the walk. For my part, my emissions have decreased substantially since I started to care about this issue. I posted a blog last year about how our family is doing what it can to minimize our carbon footprint. You can find it here:
http://bradleydibble.authorsxpress.com/2011/12/21/living-in-a-carbon-neutral-environment/)
I only wish everyone would reduce their carbon footprints because it would have substantial benefit to our planet’s future. I don’t advocate living like cavemen, but I do think a lot of emissions can be decreased, and those that can’t can be offset. In this era, it simply takes motivation, and a little extra money to do it.
The term “warmists” I take to be at least a bit pejorative, although when you advocate that the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that global warming is “man caused,” I assume you acknowledge that global warming is real, in which case everyone is a “warmist.” . Pretty heard to deny that one these days, but in case you need some help, here are five separate data sets demonstrating that it is in fact real. Both the raw and averaged data are displayed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
As for the proof that that it is “man caused,” the scientific community has overwhelmingly stated that not only is global warming real, but that we are indeed the main culprit. More than 97 percent of publishing scientists in climatology agree with that statement. Every national academy of science around the world has also agreed with that statement. How many have rejected it? Zero.
Scientific experts may not convince you, but that’s no longer my problem. If you can’t accept what they have to say on the matter, I don’t think there’s anything else that will convince you.
Excellent post, Brad, thanks! Very informative.
Thanks. I try.
To get through to skeptics you need more than facts. Actually, facts are the worst way to approach them. Please read Joe Romm’s new book, “Language Intelligence” and study the techniques that he details to communicate with folks who have a different world view. And since most people not involved and already committed to climate science have absorbed some of the denier’s arguments, it’s important to reach them effectively in the ways that Joe describes.
Thanks for your comments, Wes. And depending on your audience, I agree that facts aren’t always helpful. Facts convinced me, but not everyone comes from the same degree of scientific background. I tried to address that point somewhat in my third bullet, commenting on how telling stories can do much better than simply spewing out facts.
I’ve just recently become familiar with Romm’s book and found what I read about it fascinating, so I do intend to get a copy and read it as well. In fact, Al Gore has supported the book.