[tyre]

I think pushing science as an ally of the left (or a proponent of the politics of the left) risks further alienating right wing voters. There is already a correlation between education and party support. The "coastal liberal elite" pejorative is, in part, a rallying cry against people who make them feel stupid. No one likes to feel stupid.

It's similar to accusing people of racism. Very very very few people who are called racists would agree with that, and the ones who would you're not going to win over anyway. People shut down when accused and get defensive. If the goal is to make progress (in the traditional sense of "liberalism", to reduce human suffering through gradual reform) rather that "to be right", then calling someone stupid or racist or saying that all of human knowledge contradicts their claims isn't really a good way to get there.

Scientists getting into politics opens them up to the attack that they are pushing an agenda out of political rather than professional beliefs or truth-seeking behaviour. See Trump's attacks on Mueller's team because many voted for democrats. His attacks are probably in bad faith but the point stands: give people something to attack other than a belief they're wrong about and they'll happily switch to that.

[neaden]

If your stance is that you can't risk alienating people who already have decided what you do is without value and based on lies then I don't know what to tell you because you have already lost.

[ksdale]

There are two ways to get people to do the right thing, however right is defined. You can convince them to do right, or you can force them. If you've decided that you don't care if you alienate them, then you've settled on forcing, and there's no reason at all to continue talking.

I totally understand that feeling I believe we all get when someone acts like a jackass and you don't mind alienating them, but every liberal democracy is built on a foundation of presuming that people can be convinced rather than having to be forced. That may not be true all the time, but it seems like we should at least act as though it is true.

If we're not going to act as though it's true, then we should call a spade a spade and say that it's ok to use authoritarian methods when they serve what we know to be right. Rule by strength of arms seems like a bad road to go down, though.

[neaden]

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Or to quote Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” If someone is against Global Warming at this point it is not because they've seen evidence that convinces them otherwise, or they are naturally skeptical. Those are just justifications for doing what they want and if you remove those justifications they will just choose new ones.

Now the fact that you immediately leap to authoritarianism is just plain stupid. No one at all is advocating for that in the linked piece or any of the comments. Passing a carbon tax for instance is not authoritarian if done through the democratic process.

[ksdale]

I agree completely with your first paragraph, but then why bother engaging? My point is that there is no reason to write articles or have conversations that risk alienating. The people who can be convinced won't be more convinced by the kind of language that alienates people, and it's not worth even talking to the people you believe can't be convinced.

The kind of language that alienates better serves the purpose of creating a group of people that is an enemy that can be fought against, which goes to my point about authoritarianism. There are lots of instances in a democracy where you put your foot down as a group and decide that certain behaviors are unacceptable. I just think it's morally important to distinguish between the times that we're using reason to drive policy and the times that we decide that we're officially so right that it's ok to use the power of the government to force people to behave in what we believe to be their own best interest.

FWIW, I absolutely believe massive change needs to happen on the climate change front. I just think that calling the other side deniers and anti-whatever is entirely counterproductive and only serves to deepen divisions. Policy can be made without creating a bogeyman, and if a policy requires a bogeyman, it's way more likely to be authoritarian, in my estimation.

[traverseda]

It would certainly alienate the hell out of me, and up here in canada I've never voted for the conservatives.

This whole "you're with us or against us" thing? It's not working for me, and if it keeps happening I'm going to have to not be with you.

[neaden]

Just to be clear here, are you saying that if you perceive people as being mean to climate change deniers that you will start to deny climate change?

[chr1]

Not by being mean, but by exaggerating the scale of expected catastrophes, by talking about imminent doomsday, by demanding "moral" change in form of "eat less meat, do not fly, have less children" instead of investments in new technologies, climate change "witnesses" do much more harm than deniers. They discredit the ecological movement and make it look like a crazy religion preaching the end of the world.

The unreasonable perseverance on CO2 levels not only distracts attention from truly severe issues, like loss of amazon rainforests, but makes them worse by introducing policies like biofuel quotas.

[traverseda]

No, I'm pretty much going to keep thinking man made climate change is a thing, given how easy it is to demonstrate the basic principle of greenhouse gasses and how easy it is to measure greenhouse gasses.

That being said If climate science becomes more about punching the other side into submission than about looking for truth I am going to take new research as to the effects and pace of climate change less seriously.

If a field was built on a less solid foundation, like say economics, started doing that? Well yeah, I'd absolutely start taking everything they say with an even bigger grain of salt.