How can the ideas in v2 position and pinpoint the perspectives taken by climate sceptics such as Bjørn Lomborg, Judith Curry and Roger Piekle jr and how these specific standpoints be strengthened
The ideas in the V2 collection position climate skeptics not as “wrong” about data, but as participants operating from specific, bounded mental models and causation frames. By applying these frameworks, we can pinpoint where their arguments reside and suggest how their standpoints could be systemically strengthened.
1. Positioning the Skeptics via V2 Frameworks
-
Bjørn Lomborg (The Prioritization Skeptic): Lomborg focuses on “Opportunity Costs”—arguing we should spend resources on immediate issues like malaria or poverty instead of long-term climate mitigation.
- V2 Position: He is operating within a specific Appreciative System. He selects “facts” that fit his internal “appreciative setting” (economic efficiency) and ignores the coupled nature of social and ecological systems.
-
Judith Curry (The Uncertainty Skeptic): Curry emphasizes the “uncertainty” in climate models and the role of natural variability.
- V2 Position: She resides in the Complex Domain of the Cynefin framework, where causality is only visible in retrospect and “unknown unknowns” are supreme. She correctly identifies that the climate is not a “complicated machine” but an unpredictable, self-organizing system.
-
Roger Pielke Jr. (The Policy/Science Skeptic): Pielke Jr. highlights the “politicization of science” and the failure of the linear model of policy-making.
- V2 Position: He is identifying climate change as a Wicked Problem (or “mess”) rather than a technical “tame” puzzle. He highlights that defining the problem is itself the problem.
2. How These Standpoints Can Be Strengthened
Using V2 principles, these skeptics could move from “denial” of a consensus to a rigorous systemic critique that is harder for the mainstream to dismiss:
A. Employing “Boundary Critique” (Strengthening Lomborg)
Lomborg’s position is often weakened by the “environmental fallacy”—the error of solving one problem (poverty) while ignoring its impact on the support environment.
- Strengthening: He could use Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to explicitly map the boundaries of who he considers the “client” of his proposals (the global poor) and “sweep in” the missing ecological variables. By demonstrating how climate stability is a prerequisite for his own goals, his argument becomes a whole-system proposal rather than a localized economic trade-off.
B. Shifting to “Probe-Sense-Respond” (Strengthening Curry)
Curry’s focus on uncertainty is often used to justify inaction. V2 concepts suggest that uncertainty is not a reason for stasis, but for a different mode of action.
- Strengthening: Instead of using uncertainty to argue against modeling, she could advocate for Safe-to-Fail Probes. Her standpoint is strengthened by shifting the debate from “Is the model 100% accurate?” to “How do we build a resilient system that can absorb the shocks we cannot predict?“. This moves her position from a critique of science to a robust framework for adaptive management.
C. Making “Mental Models” Explicit (Strengthening Pielke Jr.)
Pielke’s critique of politicized science often feels like an attack on motives. V2 suggests a more objective path via externalization.
- Strengthening: He can use the SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis) methodology to force both sides of the debate to turn their implicit assumptions into a transitional object (a visual map). By getting opposing mental models “out where they can be shot at,” the debate moves from “who is right” to “which combined assumptions lead to the most viable path forward”.
Summary of the Systemic Strategy
To strengthen these positions, the V2 collection suggests they should stop fighting over direct causation (who is to blame?) and instead lead the discourse toward systemic causation and accommodation—finding a version of the situation that conflicting interests can “live with” to secure improvement in the human condition.