"Warm words"

Check out this document called "Warm Words".

A comment about that document is here:

For anyone who hasn’t come across ‘Warm Words’, its a spin doctor’s manual for convincing the public that they face a climate catastrophe, but without the inconvenience of having to use anything like robust scientific evidence. It’s truly spine-chilling in its blatant cynicism, but even worse, it was commissioned by the UK government and seems to be used by them as the template for all communications on this subject.

An excerpt from "Warm Words":

Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality. Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.

For readers familiar with the Ivory-bill fiasco--this "acting as if you've won the argument" approach may remind you of John Fitzpatrick's approach here:

By February 2005, Fitzpatrick recalls, he realized that "we need to begin to act as though the Luneau video plus sightings plus sound is going to be enough."