There's more pessimism on the state of public opinion over climate change, this time from George Monbiot. Monbiot rejects the view of Peter Preston that what we need is a prophet, a true believer. More pessimistic than Preston, he says this wouldn't work; and he offers an explanation why it wouldn't. His explanation casts doubt on the public's amenability to being persuaded: Monbiot cites research that shows how 'debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it', and how people 'take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd'.
Beware when someone tells you, not just that others are wrong in what they think, but that persuading them won't work because their blinkered state is somehow inescapable. Not that Monbiot takes the next step here - of recommending some method supposedly superior to persuasion. He doesn't. His argument subsides on a note of lament about the destiny of his 'life's work'.
However, even as far as he's got with this is far enough - too far. That people are sometimes resistant to being persuaded of what is true (when it is indeed true) is readily observable. But a theory purporting to explain why they must be resistant to persuasion is something else. It risks opening on to suggestions of an alternative method of 'winning' them over. There is no democratically acceptable alternative method. Sometimes you can persuade people, other times not. Welcome to the real world.