The best social critiques see society from outside.

Those who are furthest from the centre of society are most able to see society from “outside” and so most able to see its failings; but being so far from the centre, they are also least able to engage with that society to warn it of the failings which are so obvious to them. (Mike Haseler)

I’ve fundamentally changed my view on scepticism. No the facts are all the same, we are still right about climate, but I could not have been more wrong about the nature of our problem. The door began to open  when I started looking into how we sceptics could “teach” others about our message; I ended up realising that the problem of communication lay not in the failure of the media or politicians to listen, but very firmly and squarely in the way we sceptics attempt to communicate, and the solution lies not in “teaching” others about our message, but teaching sceptics how to communicate.
Lessons of Press Releases
Let’s start at the beginning. A few years ago I started a village website and expecting to be deluged by local councillors & politicians trying to push their opinions onto the site I was reluctant to get them involved. During the following year I gradually started contacting them, first introducing the site, then when the expected deluge didn’t appear, dropping hints that I wouldn’t be a amiss to printing the odd story and finally making explicit requests for material. But, it was like drawing hens teeth, and it taught me that my perception of the press and politicians was totally mistaken. The media don’t have time to research their own stories, and they are desperate for anyone with half a decent story to contact them in anything near print quality.
I eventually did discover that national politicians regularly send press releases and got onto their distribution list. So, I now have several hundred press releases showing what papers receive from these politicians and I can see how these were taken up by the media. It’s not rocket science, in a real sense it is just numbers: successful politicians send out around 5 press releases a week, less successful around 1 a week!
Lack of Press Releases from Sceptics
So, a few months ago I sent a message to Anthony Watts asking/suggesting for him to ensure press releases out on all the major papers on WUWT … as always I got no response. And, I’m pretty certain no attempt is made to issue press release. Then, recently there were a couple of instances (e.g. where papers were sent to Mr Watts) and from his posts, far from actively engaging with the media, he was actively refusing to get engaged – ostensibly for good reasons, but there was a pattern that even when opportunities were presented on a plate he was not “playing” the media’s game and working with them.
Because I was in the frame of mind thinking how we might get the press interested and knowing the problems of getting media interest, this lack of engagement with the media just seemed like a slap in the face to people like me who would welcome any media interest. And the more I look, the more I see examples of sceptics actively rejecting media contact.
The more I began to work out a strategy to communicate the sceptic view to those who mattered, the more my whole perception began to change. The very idea of not engaging with the press … not sending out a press release at least on one article of the three or so that got published on WUWT seemed just a basic slip up. But Anthony Watts isn’t alone. I got the same impression from every blog and every sceptic forum I saw that sceptics were actively hostile to the “enemy” of the media.
No wonder the media never took up climategate … professional politicians send out press releases about once a day on the most trivial stuff. I doubt any sceptics even bothered to send a press release on the Scientific world’s biggest story in nearly a century.
Sceptic personality makes us bad communicators
The next big step was when I paradoxically started looking for reasons to explain the “oddity” of climate scientists view of science and instead found out far more about sceptics. I read on Judith Curry’s blog a paper analysing the personality of global warming PhDs on the assumption that their personality made it difficult for them to communicate with the public. I assumed this would show a strong “oddity” compared to most (real) scientists, and indeed there was a small anomaly which I thought I could identify as an “ideology” trait, which I thought would be missing from sceptics. So I thought a comparison between sceptics and alarmist would highlight the difference between climate “ideologs” and sceptic “pragmatists”.
So, I analysed the self-reported personality types of sceptics and was absolutely shocked at the result. Yes there were a lot of pragmatists, but there was also an extremely narrow personality profile amongst sceptics. Whereas PhD Climate scientists were as different from other scientists as other scientists and e.g. doctors were from each other. The sceptics were totally out on a limb with some 20x higher number of INTJ personalities than the general population and 3x higher than most science. Until that point I thought this personality was mostly nonsense, but might give some insight. After I saw that figure, I realised there was no way this result could be explained by pure chance. This was a real meaningful result, and even if I am still sceptical about what it actually tells me, the result is extremely highly (statistically) significant.
This result turned the whole paper on its head, because any problems which might pose difficulties in communication or empathising with “ordinary people” amongst climate PhDs would be vastly greater (around 3x higher) amongst sceptics (if those posting at Judith Curry’s blog were typical).
Unfortunately the test really needs repeating. I tried to encourage Anthony Watts, but no response, indeed, I’ve never had a response to any of my emails or posting at WUWT … which seems to be part of the same pattern! Lack of communication?
It’s not just us – doctors are also bad communicators
Then trying to analyse what these communication barriers would be and how to overcome them, I stumbled across a paper on doctor – patient communication**. This seemed particularly apt as male doctors were the group who were most like sceptics and many view the planet as “patient” with a “fever” so it seemed particularly relevant:
Patient criticisms

• ‘‘I immediately thought of my family … how it would be for them.’’
• ‘‘The blunt way he broke the news made it so much worse to bear, what helped was the kindness of the nurse.’’
• ‘‘The worst thing was hearing the news alone, I wished my partner was with me.’’
• ‘‘It really helped me to have his full concentration, not to be hurried.’’
• ‘‘I do not want to hear all sorts of irrelevant stuff, that makes me nervous … I just want to hear the facts.’’

That first one really made sense ‘‘I immediately thought of my family … how it would be for them.’’ The single most powerful message of the alarmists has been about “family”. Look at the 10:10 video, the “children won’t know what snow is”, the fears about what we are doing for “future generation … our children”. If you are the type of person who “immediately thinks of your family”, what better way to communicate than to relate it personally to “your children”.
And that last one: “I do not want to hear all sorts of irrelevant stuff, that makes me nervous … I just want to hear the facts.” In other words: “keep it simple”. And what does every sceptic post I have ever read seem to do? Glorify the complicated, in depth analysis.
Suggestions to improve doctors communication
And if we look to the suggestions on communication we see:

• Listen carefully to me, give me your time and complete attention
• Be warm and friendly
• Give me factual information honestly, but with a personal touch – for example, remember what I’ve already told you
• Provide practical information and examples about my condition
• Treat me with respect, as a whole person, not a case number
• Demonstrate your competence Listen to and value my concerns
• Answer my questions in an honest, open way do not hide anything
• Provide overall solutions, an overview without details
• Give me overall options so I can see a pattern Take time to discuss my concerns, be honest but kind

How to translate that for the sceptic
So, to try to translate this into action for us sceptics, I envisaged a hypochondriac patient whose child had a small temperature but no other symptom, and I wondered how a doctor knowledgeable friend would try to reassure this parent.
The natural “sceptic” response in me is to say: “don’t be stupid, it’s only 0.7C, it happens all the time, don’t waste my time”. But after reading the paper I realised this was the worst possible strategy. The patient knew I wasn’t a doctor, I was not speaking from authority, they wanted reassurance and from experience, blunt facts often frighten more than they reassure.
To reassure – we must listen.
How do we reassure someone? What do we tell them to reassure them? We don’t! We don’t tell them anything! We simply listen. That is what people like the Samaritans do, when people are worried it “helps to have someone who listens”.
So, the doctor’s strategy would be to sit down with that patient and listen to their concerns, let them tell them their worries and calmly and patiently reassure them, perhaps giving practical examples of similar situations … ideally using personal examples like: “yes my children have had lots of temperatures, they usually disappear in a few days and of course if they had got worse we would have taken advice but your jack looks fine”.
It is the listening that counts, it is that we have taken the time and expressed all their worries and they have had a chance to have someone listen to their fears which is what will allay those fears not some well thought out logical argument or statistic: “less than 1 in a million children die … but of course jack could be that 1 in a million wouldn’t that be odd!” Cold hard facts … the way sceptics love to talk … not only do not reassure, they actively worry people!
Use examples & be friendly
Use examples! What are all those “cherry picked” examples of climate extremes so beloved by climate “scientists” concerned and knowledgeable scientists working in climate.
To be frank, it is quite gut wrenching to have to describe people such as Hansen as “concerned and knowledgeable scientists working in climate.” but if we are to appear friendly, and respectful, then without being totally dishonest, we have to show we “care” about people like Hansen and his feelings – and (I hate even thinking this) if I were him I wouldn’t want all these people suggesting all the things we sceptics suggest and it would just make me less likely to accept what we say … and other people will sympathise with him. And to be frank, attack blogs are not the way forward!
My rules for communication for sceptics
So, I worked out a few rules:

• Respect those you talk to (no “scientists” … that hurts!)
• Listen to them. I.e. reflect back what they have said in their posts … read their posts, try to understand what it behind it not just pick on points. Be positive about their posts where ever possible.
• Be friendly in posts. Not just polite but positively nice!
• Avoid “group” stereotypes. They are not people or alarmists, they are individuals. Respond to what they said in the post, not “you alarmists say …”.
• Never say they are wrong … indeed try to say where they are right! E.g. “of course you were right to be concerned in 2001”, or “I appreciate your concern for the environment, so do I”.
• Try to relate it to family
• Try to use practical examples rather than facts and figures
• Don’t use facts and figures, use generalities (another hard one because I can’t abide gross generalisations and have to think carefully whether they are justified)

And when I tried those lessons on some blogs they really worked! E.g. I tried asking some alarmists (after responding to their concerns): “I can see your concern is genuine, and who wasn’t in 2001, but haven’t things changed? Isn’t the good news that temperature stopped increasing this century and isn’t it great that there is no evidence of increasing extreme whether? So, Fred, what can we say to the family of someone who dies because they can’t afford their heating this winter”. We can’t forget the human cost of these climate policies.
It’s all factually based: 23,000 winter deaths a year in the UK, fuel prices going up in large part due to climate legislation. Let me say no poster attempted to respond.
It is all making sense
Now the odd remarks I have heard are beginning to make sense: “no one listens”, “the media are just ignoring us”, “keep it simple”, (journalist friend)“Mike I looked at that video … but I couldn’t see the point”.
These claims of “BIG OIL” I think are sticking because we sceptics are afraid to express our feelings and as such whilst we undoubtedly care, this is not coming across and those in opposition in trying to explain our lack of “feelings” are forced to conclude we must be paid.
It is all starting to make sense. The reason we are sceptics is because we think in ways which do not rely on social “consensus”. We take facts, we use the facts and then we draw conclusions. We don’t “sit in society” acting as a conduit for other people’s views. In a real sense we are apart from “society” or at least able to think apart from society.
So, we are able to critique the “consensus” of society from a perspective that is given to few others. We are the most dispassionate, most neutral observers possible and therefore very perceptive of the “groupthinks” that others cannot see and so able to see when society has “got it wrong”.
But that whole “dispassionate” view, whilst our greatest strength and the reason why society should take our views with the utmost seriousness, is also our greatest failing, and the reasons society doesn’t understand what we (don’t) tell them. Because as a group we are the most lousy communicators possible – we even are gullible enough to think that talking to ourselves is all it takes to get the message to the media and through them the rest of society.
Because we are not part of the “social consensus”, we do not understand society and how it works, what it values, how that consensus communicates, so we are completely useless at getting our message across to those who need it most.

Addendum

It has just occurred to me why some doctors have similar personalties to the bulk of sceptics. We hardly want a surgeon who is operating, to suddenly start feeling all empathetic with the patient and burst into flood of tears in the middle of an operation. There can hardly be a situation that is more emotionally – life and death, and to be able to operate in a calm, cold way so as to take the best clinical decision requires a kind of person and training to detach themselves from the highly charged emotional situation. A degree of emotional detachment is not only useful, it is essential.
Likewise, the environmentalists can hardly look at a polar bear without getting emotionally attached and wanting to “save” them. Whereas sceptics, don’t feel the same empathy, but instead look at the “hard cold facts”. Neither sceptics nor doctors are “bad” for being emotionally detached, it does make us much better in some ways, but it also means empathising  & therefore communicating with concerned patients/politicians is all the more difficult.

‘‘The blunt way he broke the news made it so much worse to bear, what helped was the kindness of the nurse.’’

**Personality differences between doctors and their patients: implications for the teaching of  communication skills