Cue Beevis and Butthead sounds~ctm
UNLV researcher develops new method for categorizing climate change beliefs and shares tactics for communicating with deniers
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Warming oceans. Shrinking ice sheets. Intense rainfall events. Rising sea levels.
These indicators provide compelling scientific evidence that climate change is happening. But for some, skepticism has crept in, and science doesn’t hold the same authority as it once did.
Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication studies at UNLV, wants to know why.
“There have been many attempts by scholars to categorize climate skeptics,” Bloomfield said. “A lot of people turn to a strength of denial scale, from ‘I sort of deny it,’ to ‘I really, adamantly deny it.’ Whether they’re very skeptical or not very skeptical, I’m more interested in why. What is driving that skepticism at whatever level it might be?”
Some agree — and are alarmed — with the studies, assessments, and reports establishing a link between human activity and climate-warming trends. Others, however, are completely dismissive.
Knowing the “why” behind the denial can help those who are concerned about climate change communicate more effectively with those who question the science behind it. More conversations can lead to more activism and a grassroots change that develops into a larger political consciousness, Bloomfield said.
“It’s not necessarily about an individual water bottle,” Bloomfield said. “It’s about developing environmental consciousness and raising awareness among individuals, friends, and families.”
Bloomfield, therefore, has established her own scale of sorts — three categories that capture a range of beliefs that people hold about climate change and the environment. Her research, which was published recently in the book, “Communication Strategies for Engaging Climate Skeptics,” focused on religious individuals, and the relationship they see with their environment.
We caught up with Bloomfield to learn about these three categories, and how her research can help people better tailor their communication strategies when engaging on issues of the environment and climate change.
What are the three categories of climate change denial that you created?
The first category we look at are the harmonizers. Harmonizers are a group that we would consider to be environmentalists. They believe that climate change is happening, they think it’s important, and they marry their environmental beliefs with their faith and their faith tenets.
The other two categories are the separators and the bargainers, and they fall into the skeptical category. They don’t believe in climate change for very different reasons, and they communicate that relationship very differently.
The separators see religion and the environment as oppositional, as enemies. To the separator, if you are an environmentalist, you can’t be a good Christian. So they create this divide, this separation, between the two ideas.
Bargainers are also very strong, adamant deniers of climate change, but they see religion and the environment as more of a negotiated relationship. They take some bits of science and marry it with their faith, but then they ignore the parts of science that don’t support their viewpoint. They would likely say that rising carbon dioxide levels are really great because that helps plant life grow. It’s true — carbon dioxide does improve plant life — but only to a certain level, which we’ve far exceeded.
What’s really undergirding the three categories is how they’re interpreting their faith differently.
What are some strategies to engage with climate change skeptics? How do the tactics differ between the groups?
My first strategy for the separators is to ask questions. Have them lead the conversation because they’ll often take you with them to the root of their skepticism. A question such as, “Where in the Bible do you turn to for guidance about the environment,” might lead to the answer, “I believe that God has complete control over the Earth.” The point is not necessarily to be overtly persuasive. But with your questions, you can bring them towards thinking about different opportunities or perspectives.
For the bargainers, my primary strategy is to isolate concrete examples of why environmentalism is good, based on what their frame of reference is. Work with what they already believe in, and try to find specific examples of where environmentalism fits in that frame. One bargainer, for example, was very concerned about cap and trade, and how environmental policies would affect his business. I offered examples of small businesses that had gone greener and shared studies showing how those businesses were more profitable in the long-term.
You can also trade resources with your communication partner. I had a conversation with one bargainer, and every time we spoke, we got into the habit of trading resources. They might send me a critique of a scientific article, and in turn, I would send them a news article. It’s very important for people to get out of echo chambers and read multiple news sources.
Don’t start the conversation from a point of contention, Bloomfield says.
You don’t want to view your dialogue partner as inferior. I think it’s a problem when environmentalists or climate scientists are dismissive, or potentially patronizing to climate skeptics. I think that kind of dialogue can lead to climate skeptics feeling isolated and silenced. You may not agree with the skeptic, but you should still respect the person who holds the beliefs. We must listen, not just for a talking point to jump in on, but to understand the perspective they’re coming from, and what values or identities they feel are threatened by environmentalism.
You’re not likely to have conversations with pure strangers about climate change, so you probably already know a lot about the person that you’re engaging with. Draw on those previous experiences — what do you already know about this person, what are their values? Go into the conversation with a knowledge-gaining mindset, rather than a persuasive goal.
It’s good to talk about climate change online and on social media — it might be even better than interpersonal communication.
If you want to engage with people through social media, it’s important to set the rules for engagement. If you are prompting the conversation, set the parameters or boundaries for how you will engage them. There are many people who try to bait others, but don’t take the bait. Withdraw yourself from the conversation instead.
Karin Kirk is a science journalist who does this really well on her blog. She opens questions to people and genuinely responds to them. If someone posts a modified chart that says global warming isn’t happening, she’ll walk them through the science behind why that chart is incorrect. Unfortunately, it can be a lot of work. But if you have these conversations on social media, instead of one-on-one, you’re not only talking to one person — you’re talking to everyone else who might be reading the conversation. In this way, you can have a much wider reach.
If you have conversations online, you also have time to craft your response with much more time to think about it and edit it; you don’t need to respond immediately.
Strident climate deniers are likely not going to change their mind, so sharing information and news articles online will just bounce off of them. But sharing information about climate change with online and social media communities is an opportunity to communicate with those who are in the middle.
Why did you focus your research on the intersection of religion and the environment?
I’ve always been interested in the relationship between religion and science, because many scholars and many people think of them as diametrically opposed: You are either a scientist or you are religious. In a majority of my research I explore that tension: how people combine them, how people separate them, how they negotiate them.
###
Reminds me of something that happened 11 years ago. ~ctm
This sums it up:
You can also trade resources with your communication partner. I had a conversation with one bargainer, and every time we spoke, we got into the habit of trading resources. They might send me a critique of a scientific article, and in turn, I would send them a news article. It’s very important for people to get out of echo chambers and read multiple news sources.
So no need to discuss real science with the ‘bargainer’, let’s turn to ‘news articles’ instead. It’s hard to believe someone could write something this silly, unless they were nothing more than a cataclysmic global warming propagandist and information operations specialist, good only at ‘manipulating’ other people. Believe Ms. Bloomfield falls squarely into that category.
I remain a skeptic thank you.
Hey , you need a picture ? Try so called scientists have abandoned objective science and think part of their job descriptions includes “outreach communication” aka political activism.
Schnieder’s famous “professional dilemma” spelt it out perfectly: a choice between being effective and being honest.
Indeed. Scientist who really believe that there is a scientific “other hand” do not know what science is. This includes UNLV researcher Emma Frances Bloomfield.
Just give us “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts”
Q: “why”
A: One word… consensus.
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it is science, it isn’t consensus.”
– Michael Crichton
shed be a natural for scientology recruiting
Garden shed or tool shed?
Lordy, he just forgot his “high comma”, cut a brother some slack. 😉
The Earth is flat and the Sun is the center of the universe consensus and if you don’t believe that truth you are in Beelzebub’s camp.
Come to think of it, you’re spot on.
The modern climate ‘science’ cult is just like the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church, shrieking for conformity while dismissing all reform attempts.
The modern climate skeptics are the Galileos of this age, questioning false authority and risking their careers in the process.
Any intelligent reader needs to stop at the first use of the term “denier”- which signals stupid propaganda is what the basis of the post is all about.
Generally a good idea: “never let your opponent define you first”.
My skepticism has nothing to do with religion, environmentalism or anything else except SCIENCE!
I even wrote a blog on it outlining my views and explaining the REAL science.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
What absolute arrogance this Emma Frances Bloomfield has! She needs to study science as well!
Emma needs to decide whether something is true because she believes it or because it is supported by repeatable physical tests/experiments. Until she makes up her mind there is no point in any further discussion.
Well said, but a lot of people for some reason believe the outputs of models. Makes me think they have never created a model. Models are wonderful if well designed and tested against reality.
I still remember watching a recent Congressional hearing where it was pointed out that the model warming error in question was a mere quarter of a degree. Insignificant. No rebuttal was allowed before the conclusion. So panelists were unable to point out that the entire heating for the same period was only an insignificant half of a degree. The model was only off by 100%… insignificant?
As a skeptic that the IPCC has the legitimacy to decide what is and what is not climate science, I require anything they claim to conform to the laws of physics, conform to the data, conform to the scientific method including being falsifiable and not falsified, must not conform to a political narrative or policy goals and it must make sense. My understanding of how the climate works conforms to all of these requirements, the alarmists pseudo science conforms to none of them. This is why I’m a skeptic.
Correlation is not causation, so all the self righteous fear mongering based on assuming that it is, only makes me more skeptical since if they had a solid scientific case, they wouldn’t need to resort to such tactics.
“Correlation is not causation”. True, of course, but the fact is that the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature stinks – both in the instrumental record and paleo reconstructions.
They could also try telling the whole truth for a start, that would open up Pandora’s box wouldn’t it.
Srom Vegas Shooting crap. This passes for scholarship. Even given that it is rubbish it is rubbish that has been previously repeated ad nauseam .Dont go to UNLV. Spend your money more profitably -at the crap tables
First the term climate denier is offensive.
So from that point on the opinion expressed is opinionated..
It is suggested that a good tactic when approached by a climate denier,
Offering scepticism concerning the climate consensus, is to change the subject.
To conflate the issue with further spurious ,new information.
None so blind as those who will not see, would seem to be the mind set.
For we are right and should not be questioned.
Oh! I do feel heart sick when closed minds rule.
It is amazing how none of her categories correspond to the reality of skepticism about human-caused climate change. In the first instance, we skeptics all affirm that climate is changing naturally, has always changed, and always will, and we question natural climate change deniers. We ask them question after question: Has it been warmer in the past 10,000 years? Sea levels higher? How much did sea level rise at the end of the last glacial maximum? Were tree lines further north and at higher altitudes? Once their basic level of ignorance of past climate change is established, then we can begin isolating their erroneous “facts” from their belief mechanisms. It’s a very simple process, but of course it never works. Belief systems are immune to facts and are only strengthened when challenged. Still it’s a fun mental game and I always feel better for the exercise.
In my experience, it’s impossible to find anyone who is willing and able to discuss this subject. As soon as I ask a Warmer any of the above questions, they look puzzled and say, oh, I know someone who could answer that…….. But that person never appears. The problem is, there is no public debate of Global warming in the UK. The tv stations say the science is settled, and don’t allow sceptics to speak. This makes the believers intellectually lazy, and they don’t prepare proper arguments. And sock puppet Greta is treated like a Climate Messiah.
I refuse to waste my time playing “mental games” with those lacking equipment. An “assistant professor of communication studies,” really? Who the hell cares what she thinks, or published in an obscure dissertation no one will read?
Good grief, let’s wait for oppos worthy of our steel, willya? Otherwise we’re just giving daylight to that which would otherwise, to coin a phrase, “die in darkness!”
It shows her own dishonesty when she must make strawman characters and label them sceptics.
In my experience, they just proclaim that since they have never heard the things you are saying before, you must be lying.
Charles, it seems to me that you missed an opportunity to remind all concerned that there must always be two separate conversations: Climate change and the cause of climate change. Having any conversation incorporating the term “climate denier” is as silly as the term itself.
You are right Jerry…as soon as I am couched as a denier before even replying then I realize it is going to be a hopeless discussion anyway. I had one of these CAGW Gallop Poll style surveys yesterday and I almost didn’t answer the toll free phone number, except I realize now if I don’t participate in these surveys then our viewpoint doesn’t even register. The 2nd question after I answered I didn’t believe that humans caused a lot of climate change in the first place was whether I thought the worst climate damage from anthropogenic carbon would be in 10 years, 20 years or 50 years. No chance to answer none of the above, or what my answer really was, although I was told that I had refused to answer that question. I should have hung up then, but I answered the rest of the questions anyway as best I could a ‘denier’.
I bet the results come out, “even the worst case ‘deniers’ say damage Will Occur in 50 years or less!”
Climate Science IS the new religion. It is belief based on a misguided understanding of what controls Earth’s climate.
It is the religion of dingbats; delusional and high on some form of drug.
The author believes skepticism is a religious belief when the truth is she and the other CAGW Believers are the ones practicing religion.
This article is just another effort to fine-tune the CAGW propaganda. They think if they just get their brainwashing technique right they can convert every skeptic.
Here is the real way to convert a skeptic: Present even one shred of evidence that CO2 is having a measureable effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. There is no such evidence. That is your problem. That is why you can’t convince skeptics with your arguments.
There’s no evidence CO2 is changing the Earth’s climate. Bogus, bastardized temperature charts and rank speculation are not evidence.
One doesn’t have to be religious to see that the proponents of CAGW cannot prove what they claim.
You are right, it looks like projection on her side.
They can fine tune it all they like, but they completely miss the real skeptic argument. So whatever they fine tune will still be grossly wrong.
Even if the temperature charts were correct and not bastardized as you say, it’s still “so what?”
Or those indoctrinated repeatedly by media and the school system.
Try breaking the ice with them by asking “what is the dominant green house gas?” (they usually don’t know about water vapor).
Ask them what is the lowest level CO2 can go? They usually don’t know 150 PPM is the place bad things happen.
“Try breaking the ice with them by asking “what is the dominant green house gas?” (they usually don’t know about water vapor).”
Indeed.
My method is to agree, totally 100%, that we should immediately (for the sake of the planet!! think of the children!!) shut down the largest emitters of the greatest greenhouse gas.
“Yes!”, they say.
“So you’re ok with damming up Niagara Falls totally and using it for clean energy?”.
“Huh?!?” they reply, and then I can start my science lesson.
The trick is to off them before they can recant their confession, thus ‘saving’ them.
And then there are those who have researched the whole science of global warming arguments and conclude the science is lacking. And when time after time, nothing comes out that clearly indicates global warming that is when the proponents start claiming all sorts of bogus events are tell-tale signs of global warming. They offer no analysis but quote experts who say it is so. No, trying to psychoanalysis why people deny climate change overlooks the fact they have valid scientific reasons to deny it.
Wow.
Seriously. This woman believes that asking for physical proof means Climate Realists are somehow RELIGIOUS?
Here is a question posted in this article;
“What are some strategies to engage with climate change skeptics?”
And here is an answer – STOP TRYING TO TALK DOWN TO THEM!
You are the ones talking about ‘religious views’.
We are the ones stating that the claims are based on flawed scientific principles, bogus claims and that the predictions have in no way matched in with the physically observed reality.
And yet you want to know how to talk to us?
Wow.
Speaking for myself I have over 25 years as an engineering professional. I am trusted in what I do. I have worked and continue to work on billion dollar plus world class projects and yet I am still, relatively speaking, a minnow among many of the other professionals who regularly visit this website. Why do I dismiss Global Warming(tm)? Because it is junk science backed by arguments that would have you laughed into professional death in any engineering office in the world. I work in engineering. We validate. If predictions do not match observations then we step back and work out why. We do not double down with claims that our predictions are morally superior or that the observations must be wrong.
Yet you want to talk about our religious faith.
Wow.
Craig from Oz: Very well said.
this gets better on every re-read…
“If someone posts a modified chart that says global warming isn’t happening, she’ll walk them through the science behind why that chart is incorrect. ”
Not the use of the word ‘modified’.
Implication here? There are only OFFICAL charts. If you are not using an OFFICIAL chart, you must have MODFIED it and therefore it is incorrect.
Wow. No questioning that Climate Faith is there.
Not a hint of Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Meteorology, mathematics in the entire thing.
EMMA FRANCES BLOOMFIELD
Department of Communication Studies* University of Nevada, Las Vegas
emma.bloomfield@unlv.edu* emma-frances-bloomfield.com
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
Assistant Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas –Department of Communication Studies
Greenspun College of Urban Affairs, August 2016 to present
EDUCATIONPh.D.,Communication,August2016, University of Southern California, LosAngeles, CADissertation Committee: Randall A. Lake(chair), G. Thomas Goodnight, Stephen O’Leary
Title: Rhetorical strategies in contemporary responses to science and modernity: Legitimizing religion in human origins and climate change controversies
M.A.,Communication, September 2014, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA Qualifying Exam Committee: Randall A. Lake (chair), G. Thomas Goodnight, Stephen O’Leary, Thomas Hollihan, and Donald Miller (religion)
B.A., Communication Studies, May2011, Northeastern University, Boston ,MA Summa cum laude Emphasis:Public Advocacy and Rhetoric, Minors:Spanish andInternational Affairs
Thesis Advisor: RichardA. Katula
Title: From hopefuls to candidates: Premises of agreement in presidential announcement address
So she is an expert in brainwashing. Those that took over the ‘education’ system to get them when they are young. Why does this always reminds me of Hitler Jugend.
Give her her due. How else, with her expertise, could she get any paper so widely discussed other than by joining the global warming consensus?
Write a paper on the rival merits of hard wood and soft wood for timber flooring and the building trade might be interested. Ad a paragraph on the advantages of one over the other for mitigating the ravages of climate change and the world’s press can be expected to pick it up and run it.
Yeah you see the same issue even with the trolls on here like Llyodo, Nick Stokes etc they want to redefine everything. You generally can’t even use science or even general norms because they or climate science ™ have butchered everything.
What really needs to happen is get a good group of physics and engineers to go thru and cull all the junk in the field and that is from both sides. The world has basically walked away from the field and just ignores it and I don’t think much short of that will fix it.
Nick Stokes
Your idea of a troll needs and update.
Sometimes (more often than not), Nick has good ideas.
Let’s all stay honest.
You clearly have not interacted with him, he lies, he redefines things, he butchers clear norms. Sorry he is polite but a contrarian troll.
LdB
I prefer the term “sophist.” Stokes is not a contrarian. He argues to win for the side of the alarmists, not to discover Truth. He is bright and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, he uses his talents in a less than objective way.
Has anyone here spent any time at Nick’s site to see what he writes about?
The good news is, that with every piece of garbage published like this, we have a new list of what Nassim Taleb would call “IYIs”, i.e., Intellectual Yet Idiots we can safely put on “ignore”.
Wow, three degrees (although one is from Northeastern, which is barely a step above a degree mill from Guam). Says more about higher education these days than it ever will about “skeptics”.
Have her “debate” Lindzen, Spencer or Moore using only her massive knowledge of “science”. It would be painful.
Karabar
She seems light on science! How then can she properly evaluate the argument and conclude that the skeptics are wrong? The hubris is strong in this one.
“carbon dioxide does improve plant life — but only to a certain level, which we’ve far exceeded.”
This failure was her only attempt at a scientific argument.
SR
In other words, she is a well qualified climate scientist.
It’s true — carbon dioxide does improve plant life — but only to a certain level, which we’ve far exceeded.
Atmospheric is about 400 ppm, greenhouse operators frequently go several TIMES that amount. Easy to produce logical sounding studies when you get to make up your own facts.
It seems to be a climate science trait just make junk up and so long as it supports CAGW it’s true.
Sorry – there is so much gold to be mined here.
“There are many people who try to bait others, but don’t take the bait. Withdraw yourself from the conversation instead.”
In other words, ‘Occasionally you will come across people who are actually very well informed. These people will try and trick you using their STEM powers. If this occurs you are clearly out of your depth. Flee.’
Must be the one thing she got right 🙂
And yes; her advise is the usual tactic along with some verbal abuse and name calling for good measure.
“Changing minds: How do you communicate with climate change skeptics?”
I would think that the first step would be to stop acting like a pretentious nitwit. But maybe that’s just me.
Good One Kurt,
Ya got right to the point, hats off to ya !!!
Makes my day , big smile on my face Thanks !!
The best communication with respect to skeptics should be to :
Tell the truth on the data manipulation, assume the climategates the frauds perpetrated since decades and act accordingly :
– Dismantle the IPCC and all the fraudulent organizations that take profit of this scam and sack, and sue all the climate fraudsters for the catastrophic actions their fraud induced on humans and nature.
Undertake an audit on the misconceptions, misleading assumptions, scientific frauds, political agenda (marxism, malthusianism, …) that caused, pushed this scam and clean out the Augean stable that most of the governments and public institutions has become :
– we need a planetary “Operazione mani pulite” against the climate mafia, a Nuremberg Trials II.
That would be a good first communication step 🙂
What has religious belief got to do with it? Atheists, agnostics, and believers can all be skeptics or alarmists. Even those who couldn’t care less about religion (like me).
We burnt all those at the stake last week.
They want to replace any religion you may ascribe to with theirs.
Er, what? What is “scientific evidence”? A special kind of evidence?
“Scientific evidence” is media talk for “the views of academics who claim to be doing science”.
In short an academic doing biology could claim the earth is shrinking and the media will print their view as “scientific evidence shows the earth is shrinking”.
Still failing to understand that people can see and smell that you are trying to sell them a bucket of s*it, no matter what you call it.
Here’s a physics question maybe someone can answer;
So, let’s say it’s all true, and that every gram of carbon humanity has put into the atmosphere has to be removed from the atmosphere in some way to make it right, OR ELSE! Now, a lot of heat and light went into getting all that carbon into the atmosphere, too. Energy.
So, is it feasible that this amount of carbon could then be removed from the atmosphere, however that is done, by any means, for LESS energy than was released by putting it there in the first place?
Oops, almost forgot! Lame reply to own post here,
Continuing, so if there were a way to take all that carbon out of the atmosphere for less energy than was expended putting it in, wouldn’t that then make a perpetual-motion-mechanism possible?
You can’t get it out for less energy, that defies the 2nd law but yes you can get it out a number of ways which are all probably more intelligent than emission control. The most obvious is use renewable energy which can not be utilized at that time because of grid conditions.
Belief in climate catastrophe is the propaganda drummed into the young in the UK. They are not skeptical but as they grow older they are sure to from their own opinions, maybe after a conversation with an older skeptic.
The older alarmists are a lost cause since the narrative is all consuming. They are to be pitied. We have to wait 12 years to debunk the climate emergency. I am counting the days.
But this is the fourth time we were given 10-12 years to save the planet. We were told this in 1988, then 1998, then 2008. Each time the deadline passed and we just got new deadlines. Waiting 12 years will do nothing.
Exceeded the CO2 for maximum plant growth? Nowhere near. She appears to forget that when she lies everything she says becomes suspect. Foolish.
Make the warmists cough up. Man impacted warming and modelling has been around for 30+ years. The question to ask is “Of the current global temperature how much is the current man made component?”
If they can answer this then how much was the man impacted temperature 10 and 20 years ago.
The warmists are happy to project 30 to 100 years in the future, and display a warming historical trend. But the do NOT present the historical man induced temperature component in the historical display.
The only man made warming we had is the urban heat island warming. which makes night temperature warmer.
“Warming oceans. Shrinking ice sheets. Intense rainfall events. Rising sea levels.
These indicators provide compelling scientific evidence that climate change is happening. ”
So what ? show me a skeptic (denier ?) who doesn’t accept this evidence. However they do query the interpretation & magnitude of such changes and more importantly what are the causes.
Perhaps the Earth has been invaded by aliens from a hotter planet and they are deliberately warming the Earth to match their normal environment. The opening line is clearly proof that this is happening – (sarc. off)
Dr Roy Spencer has even produced correlated data of alien sighting vs temperatures. He was of course simply emphasizing that data correlation is not proof of causality.
Prof. Snow was right about the two world’s problem in academia where 9 out of 10 of what would by any standard be considered well educated have less knowledge of physics than their neolithic ancestors.
“How do you communicate with climate change skeptics?”
Just babble away. He’s not really listening.
But who is really denying climate can change ? When has climate been stable ? And if you want a correlation than CO2 made us live longer and healthier in increasing numbers. Would a higher CO2 level make us immortal?