Sometimes it isn’t what is said but who says it that seems to matter. To illustrate that point I offer here three quotes, listed in chronological order. The first comes from yours truly:

Risk may be reduced in a number of ways and the determination of the most cost-effective risk management strategy requires a full understanding of the factors leading to previous wildfire events and any underlying trends. Putting it all down to rising temperatures that can only be mitigated by reductions in carbon dioxide emission is both simplistic and misleading.

Following which we had this from Professor Patrick T. Brown:

And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus. So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?

And finally we have this from Professor Friederike Otto:

Describing extreme weather as a singular moment that tells us something about climate change, and nothing more, conceals the factors that have just as much (if not more) impact on the weather’s effects, and provides politicians with a handy discussion framework as they try to divert attention from poor local decision-making and planning.

All three statements are basically saying the same thing. So-called natural disasters are complex, and a thorough analysis requires examination of the full range of factors relating to threat, vulnerability and exposure. And yet all too often it is only the role played by climate change that is emphasised. And it’s not just the media who are guilty of such a misplaced focus; it is just about everyone who has played a role in advocating for a rapid transition to a carbon-free economy.

What differs, however, is the manner in which each statement has been received. The first quote is from a climate denying orc, so the world basically ignored it. If any interest were to be shown, it would be simply to categorise it as either denial, delayism or some other fiendish tactic played out by a bad actor who can’t be taken at face value. If I had made a similar remark in a different context, it would have to be accepted as the basic risk management principle that it is. But in the context of a challenge to climate change orthodoxy, it becomes the ill-conceived ramblings of a sociopathic culture warrior.

The second quote was from a climate scientist who was vilified by his colleagues and treated as a traitor to the cause. Best efforts were made to cancel him, but he seems to have ridden out the storm. Even so, nobody who criticised him at the time has since shown a scrap of forgiveness, let alone any modicum of understanding as to what he was getting at. Take, for example, Professor Ken Rice, who recently said, “To be fair, I have changed my views somewhat over time, but mostly in the direction of being even more critical than I was then”.

The third is from a scientist who is already the nearest thing to a household name amongst climatologists. She has now written a book to cash in on her notoriety, and the quote comes from an extract taken from that book (as lovingly reproduced by The Guardian). As far as I am aware it has attracted absolutely no criticism from fellow climate scientists; nor do I expect it to.

So it appears that the same statement can variously result in dismissive contempt, hysterical outrage or sycophantic hero-worship, simply depending upon who made it. We must try to explain why that should be.

The first step towards an explanation is to appreciate that the statements, though basically the same, came with differing implications. My statement appeared in an article that questioned the validity of the simplified narrative pushed for wildfires, but it could also be interpreted as an effort to introduce uncertainty as part of a classic misdirection. That would explain why nobody on the activist side would want to take it very seriously. They think they’ve heard it all before, and if they could be bothered, they would counter with the lame “uncertainty is not the denier’s friend” repost.  At least, that is what I tell myself. The reality is that I posted the article on a website that is so low in profile that it has yet to feature on anyone’s naughty list.

The Patrick Brown vilification is a lot more interesting. Professor Brown was supposed to be one of the good guys, but his statement was delivered with the suggestion of there being some impropriety within the scientific community. It came with an admission of self-censorship and an accusation of a certain amount of scheming behind the simplification of the accepted narrative. The scientific community took this as an attack on its integrity, and so responded with all guns blazing. Nothing short of excommunication would suffice to put the matter to bed. Their message was clear: Brown is not really one of us because he is clearly a man of low character and professional standards. The sense of outrage was understandable – the extraordinarily obtuse nature of the criticism aimed his way was less so. His observation that in attribution studies wildfire causations were only quantified to the extent that they were climatic was self-evidently correct, but this seemed to go completely unnoticed.

And now we have Otto’s book. Quite apart from the extract quoted above, and its reference to a “handy discussion framework”, we have this:

For example, one of our studies from 2021 showed that the food insecurity linked to the drought in southern Madagascar was caused mainly by poverty, a lack of social structures, and heavy dependence on rainfall, but not by human-induced climate change. Nevertheless, just as with the Nigerian floods, international reports talked only of the weather and climate. The international media barely mentioned that, in fact, the local infrastructure, which had remained unfinished for decades, played a decisive role in the disastrous drought.

And then this:

How extreme events are reported – where the media focus their attention – doesn’t just influence the responsive measures we think possible. It also influences who we see as responsible for implementing the next necessary steps.

That Brownian call for a more balanced approach to climate change reporting couldn’t possibly be made clearer. And yet there has been no equivalent outrage. Which is probably because there is nothing in her criticism that seems to be aimed at her fellow scientists. At least, there is no suggestion of improper conduct; there is just a frustration that too many scientists fail to see a bigger picture – a political one. And what is this bigger picture? Well, according to Otto:

The main thing I have learned from extreme weather events is that the climate crisis is shaped largely by inequality and the still-undisputed dominance of patriarchal and colonial structures, which also prevent the serious pursuit of climate protection…In short, climate change is a symptom of this global crisis of inequality and injustice, not its cause. Weather-related disasters are largely a matter of unfairness and injustice, not misfortune or fate.

She also has an explanation for why her colleagues are not sufficiently on board the climate justice express:

Climate science is a field dominated by white men, most with backgrounds in the natural sciences, who mainly conduct and lead studies focused on the physical aspects of the climate while disregarding numerous other issues.

And there is your reason why her outburst will never receive the same negative response that Brown’s did. He wanted to see an improvement in the way in which the scientific inquiry was conducted, and you’re not allowed to say that in climate science. By contrast, Otto wants to see an end to inequality caused by colonialism and the white patriarchy, and you can say that until the cows come home. No one will bat an eyelid. In fact, The Guardian will love you for it.

I think it is a shame that dummies should be spat out just because someone such as Brown points out that a thorough risk analysis requires quantification of the full range of factors relating to threat, vulnerability and exposure. But there again, it’s also a shame that some people cannot make such a statement without using it to grind an ideological axe (in Otto’s case, feminism). And I suppose it is a shame that I too have been calling for a more thorough analysis in such matters but, due to my obscure denier status, have made zero impact. However, I think the greatest shame has to be that the world’s most famous attribution scientist has now confirmed that Brown was one hundred percent correct in stating that, when it comes to natural disasters, most climate scientists and the media indulge in a simplified narrative that focusses entirely upon the climatic causation — and yet Brown’s reputation will remain for evermore sullied, whilst Otto’s goes from strength to strength. The double standards here are quite outrageous.