“I’m after them.” Is “Scientific Consensus” a Loser for Climate Policy Advocates?

September 26, 2014 • Lee Ahern

Former BP scientist and DOE Undersecretary Steven Koonin landed an elbow to the ribs of the “97-percenters” in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal titled “Climate Science Is Not Settled” (WSJ, Sept. 19, 2014).

Climate policy advocates quickly called foul. The result has been another sideline dust-up in the continuing climate science consensus debate. Not just the debate over whether there is for-all-intents-and-purposes scientific consensus on the big questions (there is), but also the debate over whether it’s a good idea to make “97 percent of scientists agree” a standard pro-climate-policy talking point.

Spoiler alert: It’s not.

Koonin brings strong credentials to the table, as well as some baggage. In addition to his stint as Undersecretary in the Department of Energy for President Obama, he was a theoretical physicist at Caltech and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU. (Solid). He also deposited some paychecks as chief scientist at BP. (Suspect).

In any case, Koonin is certainly the kind of person who stirs the pot when he says “there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences” when it comes to climate change. I am cherry-picking a quote and taking it out of its precise context here in order to bend its meaning to my advantage in a way that leaves adequate rhetorical space to defend myself against accusations of misrepresenting what was written. This is, after all, the nature of the game we’re on the sidelines watching.

The thrust of the article was not really that controversial when you think about it: scientists agree on the broad questions like “Are humans influencing the climate?” (Answer, yes). Things get much fuzzier, however, when you get down into the weeds with questions like “How, and how much, exactly, are humans influencing the climate?” (Answer, we don’t exactly know.) But the suggestion that climate science is not settled, however subtle the distinction as to what that means, is hostile to a central narrative of pro-policy advocates, and therefore had to be countered.

The next day, Climate Science Watch put up a post that took down Koonin’s arguments, with the equally polemical headline “WSJ Publishes Call to Wait and do Nothing.” The response argued that Koonin’s article “doesn’t hold up when confronted with all the evidence.” Issue is taken with Koonin’s emphasis and implications. Detailed responses from prominent climate scientists were added for intellectual weight.

The View From The Sideline

It is highly unlikely that this brief exchange, which will soon be relegated to the dust-bin of past news cycles, changed the minds of anyone who actually took the time to read both articles. Deniers would applaud Koonin for pointing out what they have been saying all along. Climate policy activists would be outraged but not really surprised that the Journal would publish such blatant un-truths, and take solace in the fact things were set straight be by the real experts. So no one convinced anyone of anything. Return to your corners and we’ll call that round a draw, right? Not exactly.

Like a boxing match, this debate, and many others like it, took place in the media, in the public sphere. The “expert” judges, the passionate advocates on both sides, may have marked their cards a draw, but the audience witnessed something, and they took something away from it. Even if people only gave the bout scant attention, or if they didn’t have the background to really understand what was going on, the exchange created meaning in the minds of the audience. We know from psychology and communication science that almost all of highly involved, engaged and motivated audience members already have a strong opinion one way or another. It is safe to say that none of these folks were “convinced” by the other side. If you’re reading this, you’re one of these. But what of everyone else?

This question takes us into the domain of public communication. Dare I say public relations? When it comes to mass mediated messages, semantics, arguments, evidence and facts are only part of the equation. Audiences take in information with varying degrees of attention (usual low) and with diverse and dynamic sets of pre-existing worldviews related to the issue at hand.

This indirect, incomplete, second-hand knowledge that people gain about scientific issues through the news and other types of mass communication constitutes what Dietram A. Scheufele calls “mediated realities” (PNAS, September 2014). Mediated realities, Scheufele argues, exert far more influence on people’s understandings of scientific issues than scientific facts and realities themselves.

People then make quick judgments about new information based on the limited knowledge of their mediated realities so that the information environment can be reconciled with their existing models of how the world works. Those message elements that are most easily and quickly “fit” with existing schema are internalized; other information is ignored or quickly forgotten. This has interesting and important implications for those engaged in public debate about policy, especially big questions with big consequences like climate change.

The Ice Cream Argument

One very important and relevant dynamic of public communication was dramatized brilliantly by Christopher Buckley in a scene from Thank You For Smoking, his humorous and incisive novel about PR and big tobacco that was made into an equally entertaining movie.

In this scene, in the food court of a bustling amusement park on a summer night, Nick Naylor (the “Sultan of Spin”) is explaining to his son Joey how “if you argue correctly you are never wrong.” Joey is skeptical, as he clings to the idea that there are objective truths that can’t be avoided or argued away. Sound familiar? To prove his point, Nick proposes a hypothetical argument where he takes the side of vanilla and Joey takes the side of chocolate. Before long, Nick has Joey defending chocolate as the only flavor anyone needs, while he is promoting freedom of choice and liberty.

“But that’s not what we’re talking about.”

“Ah,” says Nick. “But that’s what I’m talking about.”

“But you didn’t prove that vanilla is the best.”

“I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong, I’m right.”

“But you still didn’t convince me.”

“But I’m not after you,” Nick says, pointing around to the crowd. “I’m after them.”

The Take-Away

So what did “they”—the people in the crowd, on the sideline, in the audience—hear in the latest installment of the “settled science” debate? Exactly. Scientists arguing about whether the facts are settled=the science is not settled.

Expert public communicators—PR professionals—understand this about message strategy: the objective is not necessarily to convince people you are right and they are wrong, it is to frame the debate in a way that indirectly conveys to the audience watching at home (not necessarily to your opponent) preferred assumptions about “reality,” about the way the world “is.” To frame information in a way that favors certain mental models over others.

You don’t want to do this directly (The science is not settled!) because people will quickly recognize it as a persuasive attempt and discount its credibility. You do it by subordinating the point you want to make in the context of another discussion (thank you Nick Naylor). People who witness the conversation, and accept it as a true happening (not a staged stunt of some kind), will also accept and internalize the subordinated assumptions (usually non-consciously). In this case: If it is true that scientists are arguing over whether climate science facts are settled, then it must also be true that the science is not settled. This favors a mental model where climate science remains an area of uncertainty and disfavors a mental model where uncertainty has been reduced to the point where action is necessary.

“But they’re wrong about the nature of the scientific consensus,” many will say. “They did not convince me!” Well, Joey Naylor, that is not what they’re talking about. The point is not to convince you, it is to create and support specific meanings—specific mediated realities—in the minds of “them.”

Making near scientific consensus—97 percent of scientists—a central element in the pro-policy debate opens up a rhetorical hole that policy opponents can drive a rhetorical truck through. “Very well then,” they say. “Let’s debate the precise nature of that ‘consensus.’ Because if we’re debating the idea of consensus, all ‘they’ are hearing is that the science is not settled. And if the science is not settled, there is no reason to move on to large and costly public policy proposals.” Our job here is done.

Pivoting the Conversation

So what are climate-policy advocates to do? In the words of “Mad Men’s” Don Draper, “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.”

The first step in a pivot toward conversations that favor mental models supporting action is to reflect on what those conversations should be about. Ask the simple question “Does this conversation or debate include the subordinate assumption that climate change is happening and the responsibility of the current generation of humans to respond to it?” Note that a conversation about whether climate change is happening and the responsibility of the current generation does not meet this standard. Even if you feel like you have all the facts and figures and the “truth” is on your side and you can’t lose, it is a loser!

Just say to yourself, “That conversation is over and we didn’t convince everyone but we don’t have to and we’re moving on.” Then pivot to a conversation with a preferred set of subordinate assumptions. When it comes to climate consensus, for example, one could pivot with “The history of science has shown that there is always some level of disagreement and uncertainty. But history has also shown us that pursuing policies supported by the majority scientific opinion and predominance of scientific evidence is the best way to go. So what we should really be talking about is…”

No doubt climate policy opponents will continue to want to change the conversation back and mire the public debate in the degree of scientific consensus, the degree of human causation, the relative impact of natural climate cycles, etc. These rhetorical forays need to be blunted and re-directed, not engaged, but also not ignored (remember John Kerry and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth). Pivot.

It should also be noted that “changing the conversation” will not always be easy. This kind of message consistency takes discipline, which is extremely difficult in the context of a far-flung and diverse social movement. But it is possible, with the right leadership and focus, to achieve agreement and coherent action on what the conversation should be about, if not on all the policy solution details.