It's easy to convince an alarmist – ad hominen attacks!

Following the results of the survey I concluded that it was easy to convince a sceptic – just show them the data. But the data and analysis does not lie. And the inevitable conclusion from my detailed analysis is that climate alarmism stems from the combination these factors:

• Ignorance & inability to analyse the data
• Susceptibility to social pressure
• Reliance on views of authority

So, we sceptics may as well be talking Klingon to most alarmists when we present another detailed analysis of the data packed full of graphs, particularly when these don’t mention any supposed “authority”, even if that authority is a geneticist or a would-be monarch both of whom are clueless.

How to convince an alarmist

The conclusion of my research is very clear. If you want to convince an alarmist you have to do it socially and not present detailed data analysis which most don’t understand.
Instead, because alarmism is largely a socially driven phenomenon the only way to convince alarmism is through the PEOPLE or SOCIAL GROUP they see as authority figures on the subject.
One way to do this is create an alternative source of social authority on the subject. This is precisely what Lord Lawson has done with the academic advisory body to the GWPF and the Heartland did with the alternative IPCC. Likewise the petition of 30,000 scientists questioning global warming propaganda.
But none of these will be effective so long as alarmists believe the present authority figures have credibility. So, perhaps the only way to win this debate will be when those people or social groups who are seen as authority figures are undermined in the eyes of global warming alarmists.

The Ad Hominen attack

Some time ago, when I tried to find evidence showing ad hominen attacks by “both sides”, I mistakenly did research into the level of ad hominen attacks by alarmists and sceptics and found that by a very large majority, overwhelmingly the ad hominen attacks were carried out by high profile alarmists on sceptics. (Climate scientists are Nazi Paedophiles?)
At the time, I took it as evidence of the nastiness of alarmists. But now after considering the results of the survey, I see it is part of the way that alarmists function. They do not value data or argument. Instead they value authority figures. So the intention of their arguments is often merely to undermine the social credibility of the person and therefore their social authority to speak on global warming.
This, they believe, means they win the argument. This is the intention of attacks such as Lewandowsky’s “NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”.
For most sceptics, what is so appalling about Lewandowsky’s work is that it was simply false and this is the main attack on him by for example Steve McIntyre. However, the real intention of Lewandowsky is revealed in the word “motivated” and “science”. It is clear from what I’ve seen of Lewandowsky’s work that he has no real interest in why sceptics do anything. So what I believe he is really trying to do is undermine the credibility of sceptics rejection of “science”. And here “science” does not mean the facts and evidence from the scientific method. Instead it refers to “science” as a social body – the social group of people, mainly from public sector academia and not their work or theories.
So, he is trying to say sceptics reject the social authority of academics because they are (falsely) motivated by conspiracy theories. It is entirely an ad hominen attack. An attack on the credibility of a group and not their arguments or the facts they use.
Undoubtedly this is an alien concept to many sceptics. Sceptics argue the facts and almost ignore social kudos and arguments from authority.
So, to help explain why these ad hominen attacks are so effective, I would like to give a few good examples of how sceptics have sometimes come up with ideas that focus on the social kudos and credibility of participants. If my research findings are accurate these have very likely changed the minds of many former alarmists. However, my research also suggests that most sceptics will at best find these irrelevant at worst positively dislike many of these images because they do not focus on what sceptics consider important.

By showing a link between Michael Mann and Sandusky, what most alarmists take from this is that Michael Mann is not a credible person because of his perceived association with a paedophile. In contrast sceptics will tend to ignore the social stigma portrayed in this picture and instead see this picture as comparing the investigation of Mann and Sendusky by Penn State University. (Most sceptics feel that Mann’s investigation by Penn state did not uncover the truth. I understand there was a similar failure to uncover the truth by Penn state in the case of Sendusky)	As UN head “climate scientist” any suggestion of criminality by Pachauri will immediately undermine the credibility of all climate scientists, which as the assumed authority cited by alarmists will by inference undermine global warming. In contrast sceptics tend to view the criminal investigation into sexual harassment as separate from his work on the climate. So, even if all charges are proved unless they include dishonesty, whilst that would substantially reduce support for global warming by alarmists, most sceptics will see this as a titillating sideline of almost no irrelevance to global warming.
Here we have a typical missed opportunity by sceptics. There was a clear case of criminality by Peter Gleick. But even though this criminality undermines the credibility and authority of Gleick to any alarmists who know Peter Gleick, note the failure to connect the criminality to the social group of “scientists” or alarmists whose credibility would need to be undermined. Also note the actions are described as “criminal” but it does not highlight the social harm of his actions which is essential to reducing the social kudos of his actions.	As the chief “scientist” compiling the global warming statistic, the mere image of Hansen being arrested is likely to be enough for many alarmists to question the credibility of the global warming temperature which he compiled. As this arrest did not itself involve dishonesty most sceptics saw this as titillation at best. However for alarmists the mere image of him being arrested would be such a loss of social status that his authority would no longer be credible. And because alarmists base their views on the preceived authority of individuals, if Hansen is not credible then neither would the temperature he was producing.
Here we have perhaps the best example of an effective advert that is likely to change the minds of alarmists, but one which was overwhelmingly disliked by sceptics.The reason it is so effective with alarmist is that it undermines the social kudos of “believing” in global warming which is the main reason many people are believers. In effect it is attacking the “brand image” of alarmism. It has the same effect as someone wearing perfume discovering that the perfume brand is fake. The perfume smell has not changed, the chemical composition does not change. Butt the perception of the brand on the wearer changes from that of “luxury elegance” to “cheap and fake”.Alarmists tend to be alarmists because concern for global warming is branded as a social “good”. In contrast, sceptics focus on the data and analysis and so tend to ignore the social drivers leading alarmists to become believers in global warming. As such many sceptics can’t see any relevance in the advert. Instead it looks like an irrelevant attack. Indeed, the very act of implying mere social kudos is important to the debate on climate science is something that almost all sceptics dislike. This is because scepticism is the belief that the data matters and that the argument should focus on the data and data analysis and not social kudos.