The Tao of Climate Communication

Collide-a-Scape
By Keith Kloor
Aug 29, 2011 10:17 PMNov 20, 2019 3:12 AM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news
 

I'm not sure there is such a thing, but it's probably good to know what your objective is. In this contentious thread, perspectives ran the gamut. One commenter observed:

As difficult it is in this era of "Tea Baggers vs Marxists", "Denialists vs. Warmistas", "Conservatards vs. Mann-Made Glo-bull Warmists" or whatever other dumbass portmanteaus each side uses, I -perhaps naively- believe in good faith that at their core each side has the same motive: to promulgate policy and philosophy that best promotes human flourishing in the coming decades. Yes there is a chasm between the two, a fundamental cultural dissonance, but I believe the core intent is the same. No matter how stupid you think -or know- the other side is, the fact of the matter is we live in a democracy and by definition that means accepting a plurality of viewpoints and working within that cacophony to persuade and build consensus.

Then again, others seem to think that opponents can be worn down:

Blood and vitriol is the only way to burn out the fools.

Might this one be the most realistic, at least from the pro-AGW perspective?

An achievable objective is to stop the contagion from spreading, not to convert the deluded and/or dishonest.

If so, how would that be done? And who is your target audience if they do not include the "deluded" and/or "dishonest"?

1 free article left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

1 free articleSubscribe
Discover Magazine Logo
Want more?

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Subscribe

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

More From Discover
Stay Curious
Join
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

 
Subscribe
To The Magazine

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2025 LabX Media Group