Painting opinions as facts destroys good factual points. What we want to say isn’t always what others want to hear.
Politics is not science. Decisions should be made with all interests represented for proper cost/benefit analysis.
Climate reporting has become a land of puffery. The frequency of subjective terminology has dulled the lines between fact and opinion to where science and rhetoric are hard to distinguish
The building of a moral distance between sides of a debate is an excuse to show no empathy. To empathize is a challenge to our egos.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s reference to warm Canada was a problem for numerous reasons, not the least of which is he has been corrected on it before. Get facts straight before you advocate.
Satellites and thermometers are both useful. Both have advantages and disadvantages but can be used together to paint a bigger picture. It is error to dismiss either one.
Mark Boslough has a climate wager nobody will take because it misses the point. I’ve got an idea for climate wagers which both sides can take and mutually negotiate. Negotiation of terms would be a big step towards both sides of climate debate working together.
Climate advocates assert that doubt is being manufactured by the skeptical community. This is error: skeptics are trying t confirm doubt people already have. The advocacy community must change strategy.
Climate communication is failing. The application of the PAIN principle is misguided and is alienating those whom advocates wish to engage.
COP21 in Paris is about the money. The whole gambit to shelve a climate deal was revealed. It’s simple: the US and developed countries don’t want to pay.