thedanglingmodifier.co.uk

I have been trying to get my head round the Climategate scandal – but it’s useless. I don’t understand the words.

Funnily enough, in February 1913, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch gave a lecture at Cambridge University on The Practice of Writing. He observed that “men of science” thought of good writing as:

“a study for the dilettante, but beneath the notice of their stern and masculine minds”.

He went on to say:

“But when it became an accepted custom for each nation to use its own language in scientific treatises, it certainly was not foreseen that men of science would soon be making discoveries at a rate which left their skill in words outstripped.”

And here we are 97 years later, and it appears that journalists and spin-doctors have got the upper hand.

Quiller-Couch said:

“…persuasion – the highest form of persuasion at any rate – cannot be achieved without a sense of beauty”.

If only climatologists had paid attention to that! If only they recognised that’s it’s not enough to be right about something if you want people to believe you, especially not if you’re going to be dull, dull, dull until you have something bone-chillingly frightening to say.

In a world where anyone with internet access is a journalist or a publisher, it’s no surprise surely that any old ignoramus can spout opinions about climate change and be taken seriously.

What would have happened I wonder, if the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had got some professional advice from a communications consultant? May be the CRU should hook up with ‘The Writer’?

If you have the time to look at their website – and can stand the eye strain – you’ll see that they’re a really chirpy bunch at ‘The Writer’, albeit confused about capitalisation. They start by stating the obvious:

“Hello we’re The Writer.”

And they/it/he/she isn’t/aren’t very good at setting the tone: in fact there’s a strong whiff of desperation about this copy. For example:

“We’re looking for a junior writer to join our gang.”

And this bit’s just sad:

“Give us a ring … We’ll be waiting by the phone.”

But the general message that “most business writing is so boring” is certainly on the right lines, even if the copy is badly written and the website looks cheap and uses a miniscule font.

But at least it’s possible to understand the words, which is more than I can say for the IPCC when it talks about “removals by sinks” and such things.

The question is: why don’t the IPCC communicate as clearly as the New Scientist, which beautifully explains complicated concepts in plain English and is one of the reasons that – despite the best efforts of the sceptics – I still believe the world is warming.

Subscribe: enter your email address in top right hand corner of this page.

Bad writing to share? dangleit@thedanglingmodifier.co.uk