While weather disasters have always plagued humanity, there has been a clear recent uptick in such events. The increased severity of these disasters is due partially to the human population being larger than ever and occupying more land, especially in areas prone to such events. That said, events such as the floods in Texas and the steady inundation of the sea in many places (such as Miami) are indications of a real change.
Nearly every climate scientist accepts that climate change is occurring, and human activity has been a factor. Given the historic record, it would be irrational to deny that climate changes and few make this claim. The battle is over the cause of climate change. Unfortunately for addressing the impact of climate change, it was changed from a scientific issue into a political one. Making it into a partisan issue had the usual impact on group psychology: it became a matter of political identity, with people developing a profound emotional commitment to climate change denial. When denying climate change became a matter of group identity, it became almost impossible for reason to change minds. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people double down, deny evidence, and craft narratives about how scientists are biased and environmentalists hate capitalism.
To be fair, some of those who accept climate change are not moved by the science, but by their group identity. They just happen to be right, albeit for the wrong reason.
Not being an expert on climate change, I follow the rational approach to any issue that requires expertise I lack: I go with the majority view of the qualified experts. As such, I accept that climate change is real, and humans play a role. If the majority shifted, I would accept that view. After all, the history of science includes numerous shifts.
If this matter were a purely abstract debate like those about metaphysical universals, then there would be no reason to be worried However, the impact of the changing climate is doing considerable harm, and it will continue to get worse unless steps are taken to address it. Unfortunately, as noted above, climate is a political issue with deeply entrenched interest groups and strong emotional commitments. In some places, such as Florida, there is political pressure to not even use the words “climate change.” The problem is, of course, that not using the words does not make the problems go away. Miami will slowly vanish into the ocean, even if people refuse to say that its destruction is being caused by “climate change.”
As a philosopher, I do believe in reason. However, I know that reason is the weakest form of persuasion. Because of the entrenchment over climate change, trying to use reason and evidence to change minds would be a fool’s errand. As such, I suggest a purely pragmatic solution: stop using the C words (“climate change”) when trying to influence public policy, at least in cases in which there is strong ideological resistance. Using those words will simply evoke an emotional response and create strong resistance to whatever might be proposed, however reasonable.
As an alternative, the approach should be to focus on the specific threats and these should be cast in terms of risks to the economy and, perhaps, the lives and well-being of voters and consumers. There should be no mention of man-made climate change and no proposals to change behavior to counter man-made climate change. In short, the proposals must focus solely on mitigating the damage of weather events, with due care taken to present the notion that these events “just happen” and are “natural” with no connection to human activity.
It might be objected that this would be analogous to trying to combat the Zika virus by dealing only with the effects while refusing to say “virus” and not proposing any efforts to address the cause. This is a reasonable point. However, if there was a powerful political movement that refused to accept the existence of viruses and citizens emotionally devoted to virus denial, then trying to persuade them to deal with the virus would be a daunting task. If they did accept the existence of the effects, then they could be enlisted to assist in addressing them. While this approach would hardly be optimal, it would be better to have their cooperation in mitigating the consequences rather than facing their opposition.
It might also be objected that I am deluded by my own ideological views and have been misled by the conspiracy of scientists and liberals who are in the pocket of Big Environment and eager to destroy capitalism. Since I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, I admit that it could be the case that the noble fossil fuel companies and their minions are right about climate change and the scientists are either villains or dupes. If so, then not talking about climate change would be the correct approach, just as not talking about climate demons is the correct approach (because there are no such things). But since the weather events are really occurring, then addressing them would still be reasonable. So, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, my approach seems to be a sound one: avoid the resistance of climate change deniers by not using the C words; but enlist them into addressing those “perfectly natural “severe weather events that will just happen to be occurring with increasing regularity.