How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem


I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.

That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can’t make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix. Please avoid the following persuasion mistakes.

1. Stop telling me the “models” (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively “settled,” wouldn’t we all use the same models and assumptions?

And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can’t tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?

2. Stop telling me the climate models are excellent at hindcasting, meaning they work when you look at history. That is also true of financial models, and we know financial models can NOT predict the future. We also know that investment advisors like to show you their pure-luck past performance to scam you into thinking they can do it in the future. To put it bluntly, climate science is using the most well-known scam method (predicting the past) to gain credibility. That doesn’t mean climate models are scams. It only means scientists picked the least credible way to claim credibility. Were there no options for presenting their case in a credible way?

Just to be clear, hindcasting is a necessary check-off for knowing your models are rational and worthy of testing in the future. But it tells you nothing of their ability to predict the future. If scientists were honest about that point, they would be more credible.

3. Tell me what percentage of warming is caused by humans versus natural causes. If humans are 10% of the cause, I am not so worried. If we are 90%, you have my attention. And if you leave out the percentage caused by humans, I have to assume the omission is intentional. And why would you leave out the most important number if you were being straight with people? Sounds fishy.

There might be a good reason why science doesn’t know the percentage of human-made warming and still has a good reason for being alarmed. I just haven’t seen it, and I’ve been looking for it. Why would climate science ignore the only important fact for persuasion?

Today I saw an article saying humans are responsible for MORE than 100% of warming because the earth would otherwise be in a cooling state. No links provided. Credibility = zero.

4. Stop attacking some of the messengers for believing that our reality holds evidence of Intelligent Design. Climate science alarmists need to update their thinking to the “simulated universe” idea that makes a convincing case that we are a trillion times more likely to be a simulation than we are likely to be the first creatures who can create one. No God is required in that theory, and it is entirely compatible with accepted science. (Even if it is wrong.)

5. Skeptics produce charts of the earth’s temperature going up and down for ages before humans were industrialized. If you can’t explain-away that chart, I can’t hear anything else you say. I believe the climate alarmists are talking about the rate of increase, not the actual temperatures. But why do I never see their chart overlayed on the skeptics’ chart so we can see the difference? That seems like the obvious thing to do. In fact, climate alarmists should throw out everything but that one chart.

6. Stop telling me the arctic ice on one pole is decreasing if you are ignoring the increase on the other pole. Or tell me why the experts observing the ice increase are wrong. When you ignore the claim, it feels fishy.

7. When skeptics point out that the Earth has not warmed as predicted, don’t change the subject to sea levels. That sounds fishy.

8. Don’t let the skeptics talk last. The typical arc I see online is that Climate Scientists point out that temperatures are rising, then skeptics produce a chart saying the temperatures are always fluctuating, and have for as far as we can measure. If the real argument is about rate of change, stop telling me about record high temperatures as if they are proof of something.

9. Stop pointing to record warmth in one place when we’re also having record cold in others. How is one relevant and the other is not?

10. Don’t tell me how well your models predict the past. Tell me how many climate models have ever been created, since we started doing this sort of thing, and tell me how many have now been discarded because they didn’t predict correctly. If the answer is “All of the old ones failed and we were totally surprised because they were good at hindcasting,” then why would I trust the new ones?

11. When you claim the oceans have risen dramatically, you need to explain why insurance companies are ignoring this risk and why my local beaches look exactly the same to me. Also, when I Google this question, why are half of the top search results debunking the rise? How can I tell who is right? They all sound credible to me.

12. If you want me to believe warmer temperatures are bad, you need to produce a chart telling me how humankind thrived during various warmer and colder eras. Was warming usually good or usually bad?

You also need to convince me that economic models are accurate. Sure, we might have warming, but you have to run economic models to figure out how that affects things. And economic models are, as you know, usually worthless.

13. Stop conflating the basic science and the measurements with the models. Each has its own credibility. The basic science and even the measurements are credible. The models are less so. If you don’t make that distinction, I see the message as manipulation, not an honest transfer of knowledge.

14. If skeptics make you retreat to Pascal’s Wager as your main argument for aggressively responding the climate change, please understand that you lost the debate. The world is full of risks that might happen. We don’t treat all of them as real. And we can’t rank any of these risks to know how to allocate our capital to the best path. Should we put a trillion dollars into climate remediation or use that money for a missile defense system to better protect us from North Korea?

Anyway, to me it seems brutally wrong to call skeptics on climate science “anti-science” when all they want is for science to make its case in a way that doesn’t look exactly like a financial scam.* Is that asking a lot?

People ask me why I keep writing on this topic. My interest is the psychology around it, and the persuasion game on both sides. And it seems to me that climate scientists are the Hillary Clinton of scientists. They think facts and reason will persuade the public. Even though science knows that doesn’t generally work.

* Or a Chinese hoax. They look similar.

If it looks like a hoax, walks like a hoax, and quacks like a hoax, it’s a hoax. 

— The Liberator

Liberals Lie as a Strategy

MSM Always Knew Trump Camp Was Wiretapped — They Just Lied About it

John Nolte


President Trump’s total vindication over his wiretap claim reminds me of one of the most important things I have discovered over the past couple of years: If the national media loses its ever-loving mind and launches a campaign to brand Trump a liar, that can mean only one thing — that Trump is not only telling the truth, he is telling a Big Truth, an inconvenient truth, a truth the MSM does not want the American people to hear.

Almost exactly two years ago this sick pattern developed over then-candidate Trump’s assertion that he had seen “thousands” of American Muslims celebrate the September 11 terror attacks. For weeks after, every media outlet in America trashed Trump as a racist and liar. What we eventually learned, though, is that Trump was 100% correct; that at the time, local media reported on “swarms” of American Muslims celebrating 9/11, and that for more than a decade our media had bent over backwards to cover this disturbing truth up.

Click here for the multiple lies…

Liberals lie with an unrestrained absence of conscience because they “know” they are right. Always. – The Liberator

Liberalism is a Death Cult

“Liberalism is a death cult: abortion, euthanasia, drug addiction as a virtue, alcoholism as a disease rather than the addiction it is, peace through surrender, give up your guns, and the BIG ONE: communism…the political philosophy which has killed hundreds of millions of innocent people throughout history.”

– The Liberator

NFL Backlash: ‘Sunday Night Football’ Ratings Tank … Again

John Nolte


Another Sunday delivers more bad ratings news for a National Football League already imploding under the weight of its own strident and proven anti-Americanism. Last week, Sunday Night Football hit a new season low, and compared to last year, sunk a full 10 percent.  This week, viewership for Sunday Night Football collapsed even further, down another five percent. Compared to this same week last year, viewership fell two percent.


Via Deadline:

With a 11.0/19 in metered market results, last night’s SNF was down 5% from last week when the Washington Redskins beat the Oakland Raiders 27-10. As the league took another week-by-week ratings hit just a month into the 2017-2018 season, year-to-year, Sunday’s game was also down a bit from last year. Compared to the then season low of the Pittsburgh Steelers’ 43-14 smackdown of the Kansas City Chiefs in primetime on October 2, 2016, last night’s SNF dipped 2% in the early numbers.

In the wake of the horror story coming out of Las Vegas, where early reports tell us a number of police officer have been killed or wounded while trying to save others, these ongoing NFL protests, which are in part targeted against police officers, might take on an entirely new dimension of outrage among a vast majority of Americans already disgusted with these millionaire crybabies and their petulant activism.

These NFL protests were not only invented by a former-player who wears “cop pig” socks, just last week Colin Kaepernick’s  foundation donated $25,000 to an organization named after convicted cop killer Assata Shakur.

I’m reminded of the old quote, “You can’t fix stupid.” Who in their right mind would support a hateful bastard (that’s right, a bastard) who wears “cop pig” socks? Have any of these Rhodes Scholars thought about the fact that most blacks killed by cops are known criminals or blacks in the act of committing a crime? Does that ever cross their nimble, thimble-size minds?  – The Liberator

The Truth About Black Athletes…and Black Crime

“There are more black players because of genetic characteristics of their race as a group. Okay. But if you reject that argument, then we have discrimination in the league and we need to bring the relative white league population up to 70%, and weed out a lot of blacks. Silly, right? About as silly as these protesters trying to make a point that they are treated badly by white society.”  – Anonymous

The Incompetence of the Left

“Why the profusion of manifestly incompetent people? Here’s a theory — the philosophy underlying the cultural Marxism that controls these institutions is hostile to excellence. The Left doesn’t believe in universal truth, after all; those kinds of standards are oppressive. And when you lose respect for objective quality, it isn’t hard to progress from Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo to Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock, and on to Marina Abramovic, the performance artist whose absurdist “Spirit Cooking” exhibits touched off a rather wild conspiracy scandal after John Podesta’s emails became public.

If you don’t believe in objective excellence, you won’t seek it and you certainly won’t find it. Little wonder, then, that we don’t see much of it in our cultural institutions.”  – Martha Plimpton