By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Say ‘enough’ to the United Nations/IPCC/COP process. Call off the CO2 fests. Shift from mitigation (fail) to adaptation. Demote government, promote realism and civil society. And practice social justice with the new imperative: First, do no harm. That starts and ends with energy prices–no climate premium please.”
The Climate Majority Project (CMP) is predicated on a shaky premise:
Most people sense that the planet is in deep trouble and want to do something. Welcome to the climate majority.
Climate majority? Only from polls where responders can claim to worry without having to pay for climate action–and not be told that their collective actions will not affect local or global climate for decades, if ever. The pollsters might as well ask: “Do you want more or less extreme weather?” … “Do you want more or less safety?” The fix is in.
CMP is dedicated to “effective, coordinated climate action by a broad-based coalition of citizens; from grassroots initiatives to high-level policy.”
Through grassroots and policy level organising with communities, schools [“Climate Courage Schools”] and businesses [“Regulate Us. Better.”], we are working to turn that silent majority into a self-aware one — one that is able to slow climate breakdown and prepare for the impacts that are already underway.
Freak Out?
The CMP recently stated that “Most climate scientists are quietly freaking out,”
A 2021 anonymous poll by Nature found that the vast majority of climate scientists don’t believe humanity will limit warming to 1.5°C. In fact, 60% expected temperatures to rise beyond 3.0°C — levels that mean a high risk of triggering “hothouse Earth” conditions. So it comes with no surprise that 82% of those same scientists expected to see catastrophic impacts to our civilisation in their own lifetimes. Yet almost none were saying so publicly.
Enter a new term, scientific reticence, “when being too cautious puts us at risk.”
This kind of silence has a name. James Hansen — the godfather of climate science — calls it “scientific reticence”: scientists’ tendency to hold back from stating their conclusions in full. There’s also a communication problem baked into scientific culture: researchers are trained to lead with uncertainty, even when the evidence is overwhelming. A finding with 90–95% confidence is remarkably strong but will often be communicated with ifs and buts and doubt – every caveat chips away at the message, and the public often walks away hearing cool uncertainty rather than alarm.
“Other people are waiting on scientists to take bold action on climate,” the Climate Majority Project continues.
That reticence has real consequences. Business leaders, policymakers, and civil servants often rely on scientific consensus to justify urgent action. When scientists won’t spell out how bad things truly are, it quietly removes the permission others feel they need to sound the alarm themselves.
Strange. The IPCC and mainstream media live off the “consensus” argument. And critics have responded that science is not consensus, and climate models are not science. Academic climate scientists are all-in with alarmism to demonstrate their importance as “experts” and to keep the government money flowing. Never mind Climategate or RCP 8.5. Just keep alarming and don’t dare get skeptical. The benefits of anthropogenic climate change? Don’t go there; let the skeptics do that and stick to the consensus meme.
Back to the upside down Climate Majority Project:
This matters more than it might seem. Research on climate communication consistently finds that powerful people respond strongly to direct, negative facts — more than to hopeful messaging. Frank, emotionally honest speech from scientists could itself become a tipping point, particularly when paired with visible public support for action.
Again, this seems opposite of the real world. The “negative facts” is the neo-Malthusian narrative since Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s. Doom fatigue set in a long time ago. The latest iteration–the European heat waves this summer–is not demonstrative because it is localized.
Gotta fundraise. Can’t be too negative. There is hope….
There are signs the taboo is lifting. Hansen was among the first prominent scientists to say plainly that mainstream climate action has failed. Since then, a Guardian poll of scientists, Bill McGuire’s book Hothouse Earth, and a petition signed by 1,500 climate scientists have all declared the 1.5°C target effectively dead.
Greater scientific openness could be a catalyst — for coalition-building, for mobilisation, and for giving people permission to speak honestly about what the evidence actually shows. If you are a scientist, or know a scientist, forward this message along. One of the positive things about silent majorities is that sharing messages such as this one can actually make a difference.
The Climate (non)Majority Project ends:
If you know a scientist, share this with them. One of the hopeful things about silent majorities is that the more we become aware of all the others who share our concerns, the more we can build the feeling of being part of a movement large enough to make a difference.
Or do the opposite. Say “enough” to the United Nations/IPCC/COP process. Call off the CO2 fests. Shift from mitigation (fail) to adaptation. Demote government, promote realism and civil society. And practice social justice with the new imperative: First, do no harm. That starts and ends with energy prices–no climate premium please.
