How to talk to a climate skeptic in a public meeting
Lessons from councillors and residents, alike - story 99
What would I say?
All Saints Church in East Sheen, south-west London, is not where I usually go to think about climate politics. But there I was, a dozen pews back, listening as a man called Alex question whether climate change was even happening.
This was Richmond council's latest Community Conversation. An open forum for local people to ask questions of their elected representatives. Three wards were represented: East Sheen, Barnes, and Mortlake & Barnes Common. The format was brisk: 20-minute themed discussions, beginning with a councillor’s remarks, followed by questions or comments from the public.
Transport came first. Much Lime-biking. You can pick up those exchanges starting on the video with an intriguing about personal data.
Focus on climate
I want to focus on the second topic: a greener future. Councillor Niki Crookdake, a Green Party representative for Mortlake and Barnes Common, introduced Richmond’s new Climate Strategy, then asked a good question: how should the council prioritise its limited climate funding?
And then came Alex.
He opened by speaking about personal safety — one of his family members had recently been assaulted — but quickly turned towards climate.
As his question unfolded it climate skepticism become clearer. He was grateful for abundance of C02. Cold kills so we should be grateful for hot weather is a thing. Alex’s first contribution starts here.
Who still doubts the climate crisis?
Climate change skeptism is hard to understand. At the highest level, the skeptics remind me of older neighbours and family in the 1980s who said smoking was not bad for you. We now know Big Tabacco had been lying to us for decades to maintain profits.
Yet climate change scepticism is more nuanced than that.
According to an April 2025 YouGov poll, only 4% of Britons now say ‘climate is not changing’. I think Alex is in this group.
84% say the climate is changing, though 17% believe it’s happening due to natural causes only, not human‑driven.
About 20% of Britons believe there’s no change or what change is not happening is natural. A minority but a little like the car-first community, they are vocal.
In political terms, Reform UK voters show highest levels of skepticism:
11% doubt climate change exists.
They’re split 41% vs 39% on whether it’s human-caused .
Conservative voters are more skeptical than average, but still:
55% believe in human‑caused change.
33% say concerns are exaggerated .
So yes, there is a political dimension. But don’t assume it’s just left versus right. More on Common polling at the end of June, showed this is wrong. It found support for the UK’s target to hit net zero emissions by 2050 from 62% to 46%. They suggested this was down to a widespread sense of either fatalism (‘what can we do now, its too little, too late’) or people being overwhelmed with life, today (‘There are so many other things wrong, we need to fix those first’).
Notes & thoughts
There were three different responses to Alex.
Councillor Crookdake was direct:
On climate change, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
‘Woman in black’ - she didn’t say her name - talked of scientists and our lived experience. She was sure of her ground, composed and compelling.
Paul Giles put the issue in political context. He spoke about what governments need to do, and what communities can expect if they fail.
What would I say?
Each of these responses had merit. It was not the moment for a forensic takedown. It was the moment to hold a line.
Sometimes, agreeing to disagree is not a dodge. It’s a way of marking the boundary of shared reality. Beyond that line, there’s little point debating.
But it’s also vital to defend the role of expertise. Scientists have not only measured the shifts in temperature and rainfall and biodiversity — they predicted them. And the patterns we now observe are not just ‘the weather’. They are the real-world consequences of long-term trends that science has been describing, in great detail, for a generation.
It is essential to connect science to politics and our own experience. Yes, we can make small changes in our personal lives. I’ll write more soon about how I’ve tried to do that. But the scale of change required goes beyond individual action. It demands that national governments — including ours — stick with long-term policies that help decarbonise the economy, even when the short-term political weather is rough.
Richmond’s own climate modelling shows that if we fail, even this glorious corner of the world's greatest city could become a harsher, hotter, more unpredictable place to live.
One final reflection. Maybe the main one for me.
Next time, I need to say something.