There's a time and a place, in any discussion of politics and/or policy, for an emotional appeal. Good rhetoric should elicit an emotional response. Politicians are usually pretty good at doing just that; from Cicero to Donald Trump, politicians and practitioners of statecraft have had to know not only how to present a factual argument, but how to strike a tone with the reader or listener, to connect with them, to make them feel the argument.
But when drumming up an emotional response is all you've got, that limits the number of people you can reach, and in all candor, the people you reach with a purely emotional appeal won't always be the sharpest tools in the shed.
Which brings us to the climate scolds and their cries of impending doom. An editorial by Paul Driessen over at Watts Up With That has some great examples.
I receive barrages of shrill crisis-related material and entreaties for my retirement money.
A recent Friends of the Earth (FoE) plea revived memories of foul-mouthed Marissa Tomei berating My Cousin Vinny’s Joe Pesci for even thinking about going deer hunting.
Personally I'd go deer hunting with Joe Pesci; that would probably be a pretty entertaining outing. But here's an example of what I mean by a hyper-emotional argument:
“A mama polar bear nurses her cubs in the safety of their den,” it began. “Then – THUMP! THUMP! THUMP! The walls vibrate. Bits of ice and snow fall from the ceiling. And finally, the den COLLAPSES – crushing mama and babies before they have time to react. Friend, this is the cost of oil drilling in the Arctic. As Trump enacts plans to open up fragile polar bear habitat in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more innocent wildlife could soon face this gruesome fate.” [emphasis in originals]
“A polar bear family reaches the edge of the ice,” the next email wailed. “With no food in sight, they face a choice: swim or starve. Weak from hunger, the cubs aren’t prepared for a grueling swim. Sometimes, it takes DAYS to reach stable ice again. But mom has no choice – if they stay, they starve. She must risk losing her cubs to the current if they want a shot at survival.” Donate Now.
Polar bears are incredibly strong swimmers. Their populations have rebounded a great deal from a low just a few decades ago. They are creatures of the Arctic seas, capable of swimming at six miles per hour in icy Arctic waters for miles; even cubs are strong swimmers. The fact is, they are in little or no danger from the tiny footprint of human activity in the vast Arctic environment these animals live in.
These pleas are offensive, intellectually degrading and founded on exaggerations, fables and lies. But as 2024 Sierra Club Changemaker of the Year Bruce Hamilton has admitted, “It’s what works. It’s what builds the Sierra Club.” And keeps funds flowing to countless Climate Crisis, Inc. corporations.
Of course, it's what works. But emotional arguments should be backed up by facts. Too often, they aren't.
Read More: Scientists Stunned, Media Stammering: Pollution Cuts Now Fueling Warming
'We Need More Time' for Costly Climate Change Law That's Raising Utility Rates, Says NY Gov. Hochul
The climate scolds are losing this battle, in no small part because of this. They're losing this battle because of the facts, facts I've presented, many people have presented, and will continue to present: The earth's geological history, how over the planet's 4.6-billion-year history, it's been warmer than now throughout most of that time. We've discussed how the planet is still warming from the last major glaciation and how, eventually, another major glaciation is likely.
We've discussed things like the urban heat island effect, how the careful (or careless) placement of temperature monitoring stations can produce deceptive results. We've talked about how it's the height of human hubris for us to assume we know what the planet's "correct" temperature is, much less whether we should be messing around with things we don't understand very well to try to tweak that thermostat.
And most of all, we have talked about how a little more CO2 is greening the earth, and how, historically, humans have done better in warm spells than in cold.
These are facts.
What's more, the scolds are adept at ignoring the consequences of the policies they wax emotional about, as Mr. Driessen points out:
These “nature lovers” would rather our forests continue to overgrow into billions of thin, dry matchstick trees on millions of acres – ready to erupt into roaring infernos ignited by lightning or arson. These conflagrations burn at 2200 degrees F (1200˚ C) – hot enough to melt aluminum (1220˚ F) and gold (1943˚ F)! They roast common and endangered wildlife, destroy forage and habitats, incinerate soil organisms and organic matter, ensure extensive erosion during future downpours and spring melts – and kill human fathers, mothers and children.
But eco-fanatics scapegoat manmade climate change, instead of criminal forest mismanagement.
Don’t be another PT Barnum “sucker born every minute.” Keep your hard-earned money. Fight for Truth and Open Debate on energy, climate and environmental issues.
These "nature lovers" all too often have very little experience with nature, as opposed to those of us who live out in "the environment," or as we call it, the country.
Emotional appeals are a useful tool in the debate toolkit. They aren't always invalid, either; on topics like illegal immigration, it's almost impossible not to begin an emotional argument when discussing the human cost of bad policy on the victims of that policy, people like Rachel Morin and Laken Riley. But in all things, not the least of which is climate science, those arguments, to be valid, should be backed up with facts.
The claims of the climate scolds are not. That's why they're losing.
