I have written before about how climate change deniers never retract an argument, no matter how thoroughly debunked and discredited it has become. By contrast, climate scientists admit their mistakes, which can make them seem less credible than the hyper-confident advocates of inaction.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway bring up a related issue:

Doubt-mongering also works because we think science is about facts – cold, hard, definite facts. If someone tells us that things are uncertain, we think that means that the science is muddled. This is a mistake. There are always uncertainties in any live science, because science is a process of discovery. Scientists do not sit still once a question is answered; they immediately formulate the next one. If you ask them what they are doing, they won’t tell you about the work they finished last week or last year, and certainly not what they did last decade. They will tell you about the new and uncertain things they are working on now. Yes, we know that smoking causes cancer, but we still don’t fully understand the mechanism by which that happens. Yes, we know that smokers die early, but if a particular smoker dies early, we may not be able to say with certainty how much smoking contributed to that early death. And so on.

There is much that is laudable about the way scientists communicate their ideas – cautiously, with reference to evidence, and so on – but it is also easy to see how public relations people looking to discredit scientific conclusions can use quirks in scientific communication to their advantage.

Thankfully, it does seem that climate scientists are becoming more savvy about media relations, and are increasingly making the point that choosing to do nothing while even more evidence is accumulated is a reckless strategy. We cannot wait for all aspects of the science to be settled; rather, we need to start taking precautionary action now, before the worst impacts of climate change become measurable.

A case in point is Canadian climatologist Andrew Weaver’s libel suit against The National Post, which alleges that they misrepresented his views, in the wake of the University of East Anglia email scandal. The paper misinterpreted his criticisms of elements of the IPCC process as evidence that he had rejected the key elements of climate science. It is good to see him being active in pointing out that miscategorization.

Years ago I worked for the School of Nursing at the University of British Columbia. BC was in the process of registering midwives and one of the School’s professors, a midwife herself, was among three experts interviewed by a talk radio show. The two other experts were male doctors who vehemently opposed the idea. The professor later told me that she felt the doctors were being testerical.

I had never heard of the word ‘testerical’ before and it intrigued me. I knew that hysteria was coined in the 19th century to describe a condition experienced by women, primarily those well-to-do confined to a life of boredom. Some WWI soldiers, who couldn’t handle being stuck in trenches, were also diagnosed with what doctors could only describe as hysteria at the time. If hysteria is a condition experienced by those who feel trapped and not in control of their situation, testeria, I believe, is the condition where one feels in control and is terrified of losing it.

Much ado has been made of climate science of late. People who call themselves deniers or sceptics of climate change claim that the recent hacking of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and minor errors found in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, are proof positive that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a clique of scientists, the purpose of which is unclear.

Rather than provide advice on improving the process, climate change deniers are, for the most part, suggesting that we ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’.

Any opportunity to improve the IPCC Reports is always welcome. Any opportunity to review the data, improve the research, limit mistakes and inaccuracies is encouraged. The IPCC has expressed a strong willingness to improve transparency, demonstrated in inviting an independent panel to review the recent mistakes and accusations. Rather than support and applaud this action, many who disagree with the IPCC findings dismiss this attempt as disingenuous.

Science is rational, curious and cautious. The response from those who deny climate change, certainly anthropogenic climate change, is neither rational, curious nor cautious. Scientists speak in terms of probability, based on findings collected to date. Climate change deniers speak in absolutes. They believe in something and cherry pick data to support their belief.

I respond to deniers. They contribute to our public discourse, including newspaper op-ed pieces, podcasts, radio programs and online media comment sections. I’ve been advised to ignore them and I would if those who respect the IPCC reports dominated the public conversation on this issue.

Unfortunately, deniers and sceptics quite often take over the conversation, which is affecting how the broader community regards climate change. Will more rational voices prevail? Over time, I believe they will. The problem of course is that we don’t have much time. We need governments to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and governments are less inclined to do so if the voting majority loses its appetite for climate action.

Climate change denial is not surprising. Whenever the status quo is challenged, some will go to whatever lengths to keep things the way they are. Many American civil rights activists in the 1950s and 60s were spat at, cursed, beaten and some were even killed, simply for calling for the end of racial segregation. Members of Tommy Douglas’ government had their lives threatened when attempting to legislate universal health care for Saskatchewan residents in the 1960s. Opponents warned of big brother watching patients through hidden cameras in examination rooms. It was predicted that marriage would fall apart once gays and lesbians were allowed to marry. These claims, of course, were ludicrous but they are typical whenever anyone calls for change.

The more that concerned citizens lend their rational voices to the climate action debate and call for positive change, the more the broader public will do the same or at least accept action on the issue. Then people can see deniers for who they really are – a tiny minority of people scared of change, desperate not to let go. In a word – testerical.

An article written by George Monbiot in The Guardian does a good job of explaining why we should not celebrate new fossil fuel discoveries, why peak oil is a climate danger if it encourages the use of unconventional fuels, and why governments serious about climate change need to be leaving fossil fuels underground:

But whether we burn filthy unconventional fuels or slightly less filthy oil and gas, beyond a certain point they will tip us beyond a critical level of global warming. Most governments identify this as 2C. Several game-changing papers published in Nature last year suggest that even if we were to burn no unconventional fossil fuels, we can afford to use only 60% of current reserves of oil, gas and coal if we’re to prevent the global average temperature from rising by more than 2C.

In other words, if governments are serious about climate change, then far from encouraging the expansion of supplies, they should be deciding which 40% or more of current reserves they are going to leave in the ground. Current policy suggests that they are not serious about climate change.

Monbiot has long been ahead of the curve, as a journalist reporting on climate change. Hopefully, the logic of leaving fossil fuels unburned will spread into the wider societal discourse, eventually becoming the subject of public demands for action.