Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Katharine Hayhoe seems to think it is pointless to argue the science, because scientifically literate skeptics “can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”.
Katharine Hayhoe Reveals Surprising Ways to Talk About Climate Change
By Katie O’Reilly
…
When it comes to climate change denialism, Hayhoe tends to defer to social scientists. “They’ve found that more education doesn’t change people’s perceptions—that in fact, the people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned, but rather, the most polarized. Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”
Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the “smokescreens” skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change. “There’ll be no progress that way,” she insists. “It’s a lot easier for people to say, ‘I have a problem with the science’ than it is to talk about what the real problem is.”
…
But of course, some of America’s most enduring values are prosperity and security—and climate action fits squarely into both of those. I think one of the greatest disservices ever done was framing climate change as an environmental issue. Because it’s an economic issue, a public health issue, a national security issue, a humanitarian issue. It’s an issue of whatever it is that any given person already cares about. So rather than feeling like we have to instill new values into people—and if you come at it that way, people sense subliminal judgment, that you’re saying they don’t have the right values and you do—you need to enter the conversation as if the person you’re speaking with has exactly the right values they need to care about climate change; that in fact, they’re the perfect person to care and act.
…
What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?
Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.” But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject. Try, “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world? I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind; aren’t you worried, too?” At this point you’ve moved the conversation beyond what they don’t agree on. Because whether it’s a natural cycle or not, a lot of people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field. You want to acknowledge what people have to say but not to engage.
…
Read more: https://www.ecowatch.com/katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2550366098.html
I personally found Katharine’s interview interesting, because it shed light on a reason why leftists and climate advocates seem to hate President Trump with such venom.
Katharine’s persuasion technique in my opinion seems to rely on making people feel bad about themselves, by playing on their personal insecurities.
President Trump doesn’t play on people’s fear, he engages people’s hope. People who believe in themselves, who believe they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have the confidence to make up their own minds, rather than simply accepting what they are told. They are harder to manipulate.
After reading this post and the referenced ecowatch URL, my advice to Dr. Hayhoe is simple: “Eschew obfuscation.”
Dr. Hayhoe is worried about the bugaboo of “climate change.” She’ll have to worry until her dying day because if she thinks she or anyone can stop “climate change,” she’s delusional. In the ecowatch article the phrase “climate change” appears 18 times, but the association of “climate change” with “global warming” appears three times. Thank heavens she remembered to equate “climate change” with “global warming;” otherwise I might be confused and think “global cooling” was the worrisome “climate change” issue.
The most worrisome element of climate change is global governance. Nothing to do with temperature.
Liberalism is in general spread and enforced by social pressure, not reason. It’s high school, endlessly repeated. Which is why it remains more popular at colleges and in entertainment than elsewhere. It’s familiar territory to those people.
Re Katharine Hayhoe, 3/21/2018:
The problem is not with the scientifically literate who might make a case against AGW. The problem is with the scientifically illiterate who claim to be practicing science. Those are the ones who operate models that have been invalidated (the predicted [“projected”] Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is not at 80%+ confidence, but below 3% [0,7 vs 3ºC/2xCO2 mean] using IPCC’s own scale). These are led by the academics, Post Modern Scientists, who rely on Popper’s triad of “intersubjective” criteria (peer review, publication, and consensuses, each “within a limited circle of specialists”) with which he replaced Bacon’s scientific objectivity of Modern Science. Scientific models are supposed to work, and to foist off models that don’t work on the public, e.g., IPCC’s “policymakers”, is unethical. But, bottom line, Katharine Hayhoe is correct in a way: it’s pointless to argue science with the illiterate.
Imagine how easier it would be if there was a “science board” like the “medical board” who could exclude dissenters. Medical practice was made so safe by the medical boards.
(Imagine that even so called “libertarians” (codename for pro big corps party) don’t even ask for the dissolution of the medical boards as an absolute urgency.)