Regular readers will know that I’ve been feeding the trolls recently, partially to push back on some nonsense, partially to sharpen my arguments, partially to trigger the LinkedIn algorithm which likes a bit of a barney, and partially for fun. I suppose a fifth reason is to explore the psychology of anti-climate/Net Zero stances. Here’s a typical exchange, paraphrased for clarity:

Anti-Net Zero Bloke (ANZB): we’re all paying the price for this Net Zero nonsense

Me: we’re all already paying the price for climate impacts, [provides list including] increasing extreme weather.

ANZB: Increasing extreme weather 🤣

Me: Here’s the evidence [EM-DAT data presented by Our World in Data]

ANZB: I don’t agree with their definition of disaster. It’s all made up by lefties.

I’m sure that pattern – they make an unsubstantiated claim, I provide evidence to the contrary, they dismiss evidence out of hand – will be familiar to most readers. And it happens because none of us are rational. We decide on a position, we listen to all the evidence that backs it up and dismiss anything that conflicts with our viewpoint (aka confirmation bias). It’s incredible how many otherwise rational people will reach for mad conspiracy theories rather than admit they might be the teensiest bit wrong.

As change agents, there’s no point in trying to fight irrationality with evidence. No matter how good your evidence, it will all be casually batted away. The trick is to appeal to people’s emotional core, not through doom and gloom, but by finding that Green Jujitsu sweetspot. There is always an overlap between Sustainability and the interests of your audience.

Just one caveat, you can’t do Green Jujitsu on social media… or I haven’t worked out how to do it anyway!