In an essay on CarbonBrief, which bills itself as “Clear on Climate”, a PhD student and two professors scratch their heads over the baffling phenomenon that not everyone everywhere agrees with them as soon as they state their views. The conclude that there’s a giant well-funded misinformation machine out there and outline options including jailing climate deniers which, they generously conceded, “Can be a blunt and risky instrument”. Gosh. Ya think? Criminalizing dissent might backfire? No wonder you have PhDs.

The essay is an interesting entry in an increasingly dull genre in which climate alarmists wonder why, having captured the commanding heights of politics, politicized academia and the popular press (hence for instance the Globe & Mail’s triumphant news-like story about how environmental groups are chuffed that Canada’s Minister of Culture is wading into the climate file), they haven’t steamrolled everyone in their way.

As we have pointed out, there are actually many reasons, from the unworkability of their solutions to the weaknesses in their premises to their condescending and intolerant manner of argument. And it’s instructive to watch these three authors try to avoid all three and fail, producing instead the usual “I am principled, you are devious and they are sheep” explanation.

To begin with, they have lots of flowcharts. Someone got carried away with the SmartArt. And the first does indeed draw a helpful distinction between disinformation, which is false on purpose, and misinformation, which is false but may be either sincere or deliberate. Then it stumbles incomprehensibly, adding a chart of “Information” which they say may be sincere and true, sincere and false or insincere and false; it seems to us that (a) something can also be insincere and true because sometimes liars mess up; and (b) it is weird to label as “information” something that is wrong on purpose. But it’s a cool graphic in a nice colour.

Then they make another valiant effort. They say “misinformation may be seen in the types of behaviour and information which cast doubt on well-supported theories, or in those which attempt to discredit climate science… more commonly described as climate ‘scepticism’, ‘contrarianism’ or ‘denialism’” and we appreciate them leaving open the possibility that we are fools rather than rogues. It makes the discussion ever so much more pleasant. But what’s with the claim that letting people know about underreported findings in climate science is a ruse to “discredit climate science”? It’s an attempt to explain and teach the science, including the stuff that doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative.

Then they open the window a bit further, adding: “In a similar way, climate alarmism may also be construed as misinformation, as recent online debates have discussed. This includes making exaggerated claims about climate change that are not supported by the scientific literature.” Regrettably they immediately slam it with “There is a negligible amount of literature about climate alarmism compared to climate scepticism, suggesting it is significantly less prevalent. As such, the focus for this article is on climate scepticism.”

Or, to paraphrase, because academics like us haven’t bothered to study climate alarmism, therefore it doesn’t exist. Well all right then.

After that false dawn they’re back to the SmartArt, suggesting that money from “Conservative Foundations” and “Industry & corporates, esp. fossil fuels” goes to “Producers of climate change misinformation” including “Political & religious organizations (Conservative Think Tanks & Front Groups)” and, they conceded, “Contrarian scientists”, who then dump it into “The influencers echo chambers” creating “The public echo chamber”.

Oh my. Once again they thank God that they are not like others, because apparently one problem here is “homophily” which is “the tendency for people to form social connections with those who are similar to themselves, as captured by the common saying ‘birds of a feather flock together’”. And thus especially online you get “polarization”.

Right. But surely alarmists are also prone to associate with and chirp along with other alarmists in their own echo chambers, aren’t they? Heck no. Because they have information not misinformation, open not closed minds and pure not sordid motives. Everybody says so. At least, again, everybody they know.

Actually they do concede that there are social media users on both sides with a tendency to create echo chambers. Then they shout misinformation… misinformation… misinformation…. Or, to quote precisely “Scientific literature has put forward a range of ways to counteract misinformation. Summarised in the graphic below, these broadly fall into the categories of education (purple boxes), inoculation (blue), technological solutions (green), response (orange) and regulation (red).”

Under education we get “Critical Thinking Techniques (e.g. flowcharts, PARCS Technique, games)/ Better education about climate change/ Agnotology as a teaching tool”. Oh please. When you’re down to homophily and agnotology instead of normal words for things that actually happen, you’re not just in an echo chamber, you’re in one full of noise. Turns out “agnotology” is the neologistic “study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.”

Not, of course, anything in Al Gore’s movies, or the speeches of Green Party politicians, or the infamous “97%” factoid. Oh no no no no no no. It’s the stuff deniers say. And the paper drones patronizingly (“an appropriate level of climate literacy in educators”; “Pre-emptively provide correct information”; “Explicitly warn people they may be misinformed” because they’re too dumb to realize it without you) on to the point of weighing the pros and cons of “putting in place punishments, such as fines or imprisonment” for those who will not toe the party line.

And they wonder why people don’t immediately agree with their opinion once they’ve shouted it.