3 ms·

Yet climate change scepticism is rising. Are we using the right rhetoric? What’s wrong with the current approach?

imafish 7y ago
Too old & too stupid people are selected for governing the world’s most powerful countries.
program_whiz 7y ago
The answer to this question isn't surprising -- people resist science that doesn't fit their views for a reason, it means uncomfortable changes. Let me list a few reasons some people may doubt/resist: 1. If this were true, I would be wrong, and since all my experience suggests I'm right, the evidence is probably wrong. 2. So many times people have been sure of things, especially scientists, yet they were shown to be wrong, so they are probably wrong again. 3. These studies are being picked or even conducted because there is an environmental agenda, I don't believe it because I'm sure we could conduct a "study" that would reach the opposite conclusion, but all the scientists are biased that way (just like global cooling in the 70s, or how Vioxx was deemed "safe" by FDA scientists). 4. If this is true, its proponents will cram a political agenda down my throat, since I don't agree politically, but have no counter-proposal, I must disagree with the evidence to avoid the politically losing confrontation. 5. There are no viable plans to fix the problem, accepting the evidence would put me in a psychological bind since there really isn't a way to solve it -- not recycling, driving less, nuclear, there is NO known solution right now, so we must say this is false. 6. People who say "just believe science" don't seem to believe science on other fronts (e.g. gender differences), or have beliefs I see as obviously wrong, so I can't believe they'd be right about this single item but wrong about so much else. 7. The people who are most pushing this agenda are obviously politcally, not scientifically motivated, so I question the evidence due to "motivation". 8. Overselling and shouting make me disbelieve your claims. Usually a calm and reasonable approach sells, but you're telling me "change now or die", and Al Gore said that 20 years ago and it didn't happen.
lumberjack 7y ago
> Yet climate change scepticism is rising. It absolutely isn't. The opposite is true. Climate change denial is falling very rapidly. Just check any of the multiple recent polls and surveys. You will see a big difference especially in the last decade. Multiple sources: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/
mblast311 7y ago
The current approach is perceived as an attack based upon moral superiority by those who honestly believe climate change is not manmade and/or stand to lose money from addressing it. Attacking the moral compass of those who believe they are acting morally right (or pretend to be) isn't working. We need to find common ground with these people. It may need to start with financial implications of not addressing climate change.
perfunctory 7y ago
Your data might be outdated. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever... 66% [of americans] believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high
kradeelav 7y ago
I can only speak for myself, but while I don't disagree it's an issue to fix - the combination of (a) lack of actionable, checklist-able tasks to help and (b) the ever-present shrill alarmist tone is a hell of a one-two-punch in nudging people to shrug and nihilistically say 'why should I care?'. It's tricky because those who would care about that topic are the type to be involved in the movement early on, so it creates a sharp divide of "i automatically care about this, it's self evident it's important" vs "make me care about it". Cynically, on platforms like twitter, most people are too emotionally exhausted to care about anything given it's an outrage culture in itself. (There's not a small part of me that wonders if that was half-planned, honestly. But that's the tin-foil hat side of me talking.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Yetanfou 7y ago
Like so many - probably nearly all - issues picked up by the current tide of 'progressive' political factions the issue has been turned into a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us, quasi-religious mantra. The slightest deviation from the current narrative is enough to be labelled a 'climate (change) denier'. Questioning the accuracy and efficacy of the IPCC climate model (which normally is an essential part of meteorological model development and maintenance as it leads to better predictions) is seen as blasphemy and can leads to professional banishment. This then leads those who want to voice criticism towards channels which host voices on the other side of the spectrum since those are the only channels which are willing - nay, 'eager' is a better term - to let those voices be heard. In short, the issue has been polarised in such a way that the more extreme voices on either side are more and more setting the tone for the debate. Extremism is hardly ever the best approach to reach the silent majority.

Too old & too stupid people are selected for governing the world’s most powerful countries.

The answer to this question isn't surprising -- people resist science that doesn't fit their views for a reason, it means uncomfortable changes. Let me list a few reasons some people may doubt/resist: 1. If this were true, I would be wrong, and since all my experience suggests I'm right, the evidence is probably wrong. 2. So many times people have been sure of things, especially scientists, yet they were shown to be wrong, so they are probably wrong again. 3. These studies are being picked or even conducted because there is an environmental agenda, I don't believe it because I'm sure we could conduct a "study" that would reach the opposite conclusion, but all the scientists are biased that way (just like global cooling in the 70s, or how Vioxx was deemed "safe" by FDA scientists). 4. If this is true, its proponents will cram a political agenda down my throat, since I don't agree politically, but have no counter-proposal, I must disagree with the evidence to avoid the politically losing confrontation. 5. There are no viable plans to fix the problem, accepting the evidence would put me in a psychological bind since there really isn't a way to solve it -- not recycling, driving less, nuclear, there is NO known solution right now, so we must say this is false. 6. People who say "just believe science" don't seem to believe science on other fronts (e.g. gender differences), or have beliefs I see as obviously wrong, so I can't believe they'd be right about this single item but wrong about so much else. 7. The people who are most pushing this agenda are obviously politcally, not scientifically motivated, so I question the evidence due to "motivation". 8. Overselling and shouting make me disbelieve your claims. Usually a calm and reasonable approach sells, but you're telling me "change now or die", and Al Gore said that 20 years ago and it didn't happen.

lumberjack 7y ago

> Yet climate change scepticism is rising. It absolutely isn't. The opposite is true. Climate change denial is falling very rapidly. Just check any of the multiple recent polls and surveys. You will see a big difference especially in the last decade. Multiple sources: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/

mblast311 7y ago

The current approach is perceived as an attack based upon moral superiority by those who honestly believe climate change is not manmade and/or stand to lose money from addressing it. Attacking the moral compass of those who believe they are acting morally right (or pretend to be) isn't working. We need to find common ground with these people. It may need to start with financial implications of not addressing climate change.

perfunctory 7y ago

Your data might be outdated. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever... 66% [of americans] believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high

kradeelav 7y ago

I can only speak for myself, but while I don't disagree it's an issue to fix - the combination of (a) lack of actionable, checklist-able tasks to help and (b) the ever-present shrill alarmist tone is a hell of a one-two-punch in nudging people to shrug and nihilistically say 'why should I care?'. It's tricky because those who would care about that topic are the type to be involved in the movement early on, so it creates a sharp divide of "i automatically care about this, it's self evident it's important" vs "make me care about it". Cynically, on platforms like twitter, most people are too emotionally exhausted to care about anything given it's an outrage culture in itself. (There's not a small part of me that wonders if that was half-planned, honestly. But that's the tin-foil hat side of me talking.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Yetanfou 7y ago

Like so many - probably nearly all - issues picked up by the current tide of 'progressive' political factions the issue has been turned into a black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us, quasi-religious mantra. The slightest deviation from the current narrative is enough to be labelled a 'climate (change) denier'. Questioning the accuracy and efficacy of the IPCC climate model (which normally is an essential part of meteorological model development and maintenance as it leads to better predictions) is seen as blasphemy and can leads to professional banishment. This then leads those who want to voice criticism towards channels which host voices on the other side of the spectrum since those are the only channels which are willing - nay, 'eager' is a better term - to let those voices be heard. In short, the issue has been polarised in such a way that the more extreme voices on either side are more and more setting the tone for the debate. Extremism is hardly ever the best approach to reach the silent majority.