Abuse Isn’t an Argument

Anyone who raises climate change on social media will be familiar with the endless stream of "Yeah but..." objections that are thrown down like mike drops. "Yeah but ... you're not a climate scientist ... the climate has always changed" etc. Some of these claims are based on misunderstandings. Most are based on mischief and misinformation. Some raise legitimate questions that can be answered with evidence and data.

But then there's another category altogether. The people who skip the argument entirely and go straight to abuse. One of their favourites is to call me a "climatetard" or "fucktard". They also comment about my intelligence, masculinity, testosterone levels, sexuality, gender identity, glasses, clothes - anything except the topic I've raised. They imply that caring about climate change somehow makes a person weak, stupid or less of a man.

What strikes me about these comments is not that they're offensive. After years in public life, I've got thick skin. What strikes me is that they contain no argument at all. They don't explain why climate change isn't happening. They don't explain why atmospheric physics and decades of observations are wrong. They don't provide an alternative explanation for rising temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels or more frequent and intense extreme weather events. They don't engage with the evidence in any way. They simply attack the person calling for climate action.

There's a reason for that. When people have evidence, they present it. When people have facts, they share them. When people have a coherent argument, they make it. Personal abuse is what remains when trolls can't rebut the point being made but still want to score points or signal loyalty to their tribe.

This isn't just a climate problem. We see it everywhere. Social media rewards outrage, conflict and humiliating others. The algorithms don't care whether something is true or false. They care whether it generates 'engagement'. Anger and ridicule travel faster and wider than careful reasoning.

The insults are also based on characteristics completely irrelevant to the discussion. Sexuality. Gender. Appearance. Personal attributes. These things are irrelevant to climate science. And we all know that they're not acceptable targets for ridicule. That's why the mothers of the men making the abuse would be appalled if they knew how their sons were speaking. And yes, they are almost exclusively men.

The irony is that none of this abuse changes the facts. Calling someone a "climatetard" with "low testosterone" doesn't alter the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mocking a climate advocate doesn't change the laws of physics. Questioning somebody's sexuality or masculinity doesn't stop a heatwave, drought or flood.

Because here's the thing - scientific reality doesn't care about insults.

When someone's contribution begins and ends with personal abuse, they haven't challenged the argument. They've avoided it. And that's not a sign of strength or confidence. It's a sign that they've got nothing useful to say. And also that they have very bad manners.