Comments on: Crucial Conversations about Climate Change

By: Crucial Conversations amidst Controversy | Crucial Skills

Crucial Conversations amidst Controversy | Crucial Skills — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:21:38 +0000

[…] Previous PostCrucial Conversations about Climate ChangeNext PostChanging Behavior After Training […]

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 19 May 2010 11:41:25 +0000

I could not agree more with Ed Cotter’s assessment of your article. My chosen profession requires me to read documents and data with an eye for understanding what it is the author is stating. Many of those that replied to your article obviously did not take the time to analyze the points you were trying to make. I took away that you were merely using a current example (and I might add – a great example) to illustrate to us, the readers, that the use of Crucial Conversations is severly lacking in today’s politics.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:01:58 +0000

@David Osborne As opposed to the people who benefit financially from denying the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate?

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

Even in a forum about dealing with differences of opinion in dialogue, there ought to be a way to deal with the need for scientific consensus to actually be acknowledged. It is true that not everyone is convinced that humans are contributing to global warming. It is true that no one can force anyone else to change his or her thoughts. It is not true that anthropogenic climate change is a matter of opinion. It is not true that the conclusions “Humans are causing climate change” and “Humans are not causing climate change” are equal. The first is supported by strong agreement among respected international scientific bodies. How can we acknowledge the validity of the scientific process that has already taken place without squashing other people’s right to free speech?

By: Raymond Lines

Raymond Lines — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:57:08 +0000

I am concerned that your suggestions on how to influence the climate debate did not include any serious thought about who should make the decisions, and what data should be used.
There are many, many good players in the climate debate. I have worked with climate researchers for two decades. Each looks at part of the data. The overall science community is responsible for synthesizing the disparate inputs into a cohesive whole that can be understood. We have seen by why of the “climate gate” problem that the free flow of ideas has not been allowed at the science level in this debate. To a scientist, this is the ultimate fraud, to subvert the falsification process by silencing other scientist’s voices. I was very disappointed that you seem to have missed this important point in the climate debate—forced silence. Can anything be more opposed to the VitleSmarts view point?
But I also want to challenge the idea that the “decision makers” you identified are “the right people” to make this decision. So often in my industrial career I have found that the words “decision makers” mean a set of people who don’t have the training or expertise to understand a problem, and actually feel this qualifies them to make decisions because they are not biased by the details. They skim (I have found they very seldom read) extractions of reports which are in turn reductions of reports where actual facts lie. The reductions are so far from the facts, that good decisions are impossible even if the “decision maker” has the expertise to understand what they are skimming. Edward Tuft, in his classic series of books on the display of quantitative data, gives a compelling argument that just such “decision making” lead to the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and all her crew. Our world politicians, with their individual agendas on their national and personal levels, and their lack of understanding of the underlying science, are hardly in a position to make good choices in solving a world crisis, even if the organizations who wrote the reports had been honest. The idea you present that “facts” can be “agreed upon” by these “decision makers” is frightening. If the science community can only agree by silencing dissent, how reliable is an “agreement” on “facts” arrived at by non-scientist politicians? Is it likely that such a body can plot a successful path to maintaining a health climate?
I want to stress I am not talking about climate change content (I believe the world’s climate is changing), but about how this important issue is debated and how the decision on action will be made—both crucial conversation skills. Whether operating a business, a shuttle, or a planet, if we divorce the decisions from people who can understand the topic, and we subvert dissention, we cannot expect to be successful. With the world’s climate and its people’s lives at stake, we cannot afford such decision making.

By: Toni Graybill

Toni Graybill — Wed, 12 May 2010 14:12:43 +0000

Hi David,
Your response to this article, and this article, bring up a great question I have. I just read Crucial Conversations, learned some great principals, and immediately put them to use with a very difficult person I work with. But one thing you don’t address, and one of my greatest challenges, is how do you handle a conversation when you know the other side is just flat wrong and you know their goal is to win at any cost, even if it means the destruction of other’s freedom to add meaning to the conversation pool and ultimately destroy their freedom to choose their direction in life? In other words, there are people for whom facts are “inconvenient truths” and who use pseudo facts as bludgeons.

For example, in your article you ask how we will manage the refugee crisis? In free societies, in wealthy and generous societies, there are many ways that misfortunes are overcome by private organizations. Decade after decade the private citizens in the US have intervened in tsunamis, earthquakes, famines and floods in other nations. Government response is much slower. If you destroy the engine of freedom with artificial controls like carbon credits, and trust only to the governments to solve problems, you will find much greater suffering among mankind. Governments are not driven by love and a sense of charity but rather by the need to control.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Wed, 12 May 2010 14:12:02 +0000

It seems to me that people are forgetting that the process of conversation must take place with for some unpalatable ideas. It is disappointing to see that some who comment feel that all the ‘facts’ are on the other side. That approach will not move the crucial conversation forward in what is evident in loss of forests, changing of water tables and other natural occurrences that will force us to change. I believe that the idea of change is the fear behind the vigorous commenting that has occurred. We must continue to be open enough to listen to others and not blast others’ statements in order to close off important crucial conversations.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:30:33 +0000

@David Osborne Follow the money is right. Wal-Mart's green initiative is all about amassing carbon and other green credits in an assumption they will be able to resell them at a premium at auction, possibly a world market, according to some plans. I do not oppose green, but the way some of the solutions are structured are definitely schemes to benefit some at the expense of others. A good example is that California would get carbon credits for some of its hydropower. What? And why should they be auctioned, which drives up the price? Why should speculators be allowed to bid? The answer to the last two is that it would raise money to pay off the national debt (health care), but that got leaked out and caused a firestorm. So, they backtracked and said the money would be used to offset the energy bills of the less fortunate. See how it works? The environmental game is about much more than cleaning up the planet.

By: Ed Cotter

Ed Cotter — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:17:58 +0000

I’ll make an observation that seems to be the unpopular one from what I’ve read. David used the context of the summit to demonstrate what Crucial Conversation skills need to be employed by World Leaders. He did use figures and examples of where leaders where showing signs of growth and where improvement was needed. I took what he was disgusted about was the fact that World Leaders are very good at blaming other World Leaders and not sitting at the table to deal with growing issues objectively, hence using Crucial Conversation skills. Maybe I’m too liberal, but I didn’t take this as a political statement, just use of a political situation to demonstrate how Crucial Conversation skills should be used. Everyone of you saw a political hot potato used as an example and immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a politically slanted rant with a dash of Crucial Conversations, based on my interpretation of your comments.

David, maybe you need to write a book about Crucial Reading. The English language allows for many interpretations of word usage and meaning. I feel this was taken way out of context. Just my opinion, just as you were able to express yours.

By: Ed Cotter

Ed Cotter — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:16:04 +0000

I’ll make an observation that seems to be the unpopular one from what I’ve read. David used the context of the summit to demonstrate what Crucial Conversation need to be employed by World Leaders. He did use figures and examples of where leaders where showing signs of growth and where improvement was needed. I took what he was disgusted about was the fact that World Leaders are very good at blaming other World Leaders and not sitting at the table to deal with growing issues objectively, hence using Crucial Conversation skills. Maybe I’m too liberal, but I didn’t take this as a political statement, just use of a political situation to demonstrate how Crucial Conversation skills should be used. Everyone of you saw a political hot potato used as an example and immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a politically slanted rant with a dash of Crucial Conversations, based on my interpretation of your comments.