Thread by @ClimateOfGavin

I have thoughts about scientists ‘debating’ contrarians, conspiracists and assorted bad faith actors (or authors).

For reference, I speak w/25 years experience of being a ‘public’ climate scientist…

Over that time I’ve appeared on multiple platforms (TV in studio/remote, radio, stage, panels, etc), with almost every high profile sceptic or do-nothing-er you can name.

These interactions have ranged from the incomprehensible (literally ppl talking over you the whole time)…

…to the pointless, & from the net negative to the moderately successful.

I’ve done formal debates and informal debates. I’ve. been sandbagged by unethical hosts who lied about other guests or formats, & walked into events that were stacked against the science from the get-go.

However well it went, there was never any let up or shift in the opponents tactics or messages. And if it didn’t go well… the worst clips would be pushed out and become part of the litany of contrarianism. Mostly none of these events moved the needle at all.

Far more successful is tackling the arguments being used, outside of any particular one-on-one confrontation and then being a source for others who are happier to do battle.

Worth mentioning some highlights/lowlights of these efforts:

Most pointless: being shouted over by Chris Horner while discussing the IPCC report.😬

Happiest: walking off the set at FBN having said what I wanted. 😉

Most outclassed: failing to be competitive w/Michael Crichton in constructing attractive narratives. 😳

Most useful: watching Jeff Sachs extract information about Pat Michaels’ fossil fuel funding on live TV. 🤣

Weirdest: an evening w/Lou Dobbs. 🧐

Events with other scientists (Christy, Curry, Lindzen etc) are generally fine and potentially useful (especially on a panel). Events with grifters (Morano, Ebell, Lomborg, Horner, Koonin etc) are best left to folks who understand the grift and can focus on that.

I still get asked a lot to do ‘debate’-like events, and I now generally refuse - though I do enjoy the ego stroking the organizers employ to try and get me to agree. I mean, who doesn’t like being told how great you’d be? 🙄

Most requests for this kind of thing come from venues/groups that are predisposed to be hostile. However, I’m fine talking to such groups and I’m happy to take anything they can (metaphorically) throw at me, but mostly when I suggest such an event, they are uninterested. 🤷

In particular, I don’t think we should shy away from in studio/in person interviews with even overtly hostile hosts. These formats give a lot of leeway for explaining yourself and the science, and you can’t be cut off. 😉

So @joerogan, @lexfridman, @KonstantinKisin etc - do the world and yourselves a favor and have a real climate scientist on! For interest though, not spectacle. 🤔