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
They remind me of colonialists trying to figure out what the natives want. Do we want baubles, steel knives, whisky, or Christian schools? In their minds, we certainly don’t want our buffalos back; because that’s just not on the agenda.
I, in contrast, know exactly what they want: their next research grant.
Millenarianism is a Christian concoction, AGW zealots may preach heathenish views but they are part of a subcultural wave.
Exhibit A: Revelations
Put on your sack cloth and repent, for the end is nigh.
Switch ‘Climate Change’ with ‘Jesus’ and ‘Science’ with ‘The Bible’.
OK, now use the same tactics that have been in use for millennia.
One thing the alarmists hate being pulled up on is when the warming started, according to them it started around 1900 and accelerated from 1980. They conveniently ignore the cooling period from the 1940’s through 1970’s and totally reject the solid “scientific evidence” that this warming phase started 330 years ago at the end of the little ice age, before the industrial age even began.
“They conveniently ignore the cooling period from the 1940’s through 1970’s”
Yes, they conveniently ignore the time period when all these climate genuises thought the Earth was going back into another ice age. A human-caused ice age at that. Then it starts warming up and off they go on another tangent ignoring and even covering up (in the case of the bogus modern-era Hockey Stick charts) the fact that it cooled off substantially over this time period.
Hansen 1999 puts the 1940 to 1980 period in the proper perspective:
It’s easy to convince a sceptic – just show them the facts.
What people actually mean by this hand wringing “how do we communicate with sceptics” – is how do we convince sceptics when they either don’t have the facts or as in climate, the facts are contrary to what they are saying.
What they really mean is: “why are sceptics so resistant to our brainwashing”?
The only way to start a proper communication with the other side on any issue is to admit that they might have a point, and that a communication could change your mind as well as as theirs.
But the sheer arrogance of most Alarmists precludes that. All they talk about is changing sceptics’ minds, not their own. They start from the position that they are absolutely right and cannot possibly be wrong about any aspect of their beliefs. It is debating with the Inquisition, pointless and worthless.
+100
The real question is: is man’s activity significantly affecting the climate?
Well I thought it set out the hubris of the climate changers pretty well but unfortunately I’m just not on that level powers wise. Perhaps some red undies and cape would help?
Both economics forecasting and climate modeling rely on computer simulations of systems of coupled differential equations that are inherently unstable and chaotic in nature. This is well understood and appreciated in economics, where no sane person will accept a forecast for the year 2100 based on mathematical modeling. It is somewhat ironic that leftist who regularly deny that economics models have any forecasting power are the first to believe in climate models forecasting the climate in the year 2100.
Next time you debate warming alarmists about climate models you should try to ask them why they don’t put the same faith into economics models although they share many similarities with climate models.
When you push a system of coupled differential systems into the distant future then only the most prevalent features survive and this may effectively linearize the model, and we all know about the fallacy of linear models.
If Ms. Bloomfield wishes to communicate with so called Sceptics she should fist learn how to speak the language of ethical and rigorous science. Otherwise her words will come over as incoherent babbling.
We sceptics find it all very frustrating indeed; as she appears unable to comprehend what we say.
After a few years of relative inactivity trying to fight for truth I felt it was my moral imperative to become active again. Especially when so much that is being done to reduce carbon footprints actually causes harm to the environment. I wrote an article and sent tweets but have recieved nearly no reaction. The belief is so embedded that convincing, even those who are uniterested, that it is wrong is imporssible.
I don’t question other people’s religous beliefs and, let’s face it, this is a very deeply held religious belief. I thought twice because other religions are not taking a €12 donation from me each month in my electric bill to pay for their shrines as the warmists are. They are not taking a €2 religious donation every time I buy a bag of coal or fill my fuel tank (carbon tax). They are not indoctrinating my kids in school as the warmists are.
But I have a life and a career to concentrate on. Quoting Reinhold Niebuhr I should be wise enough to accept what I can’t change – the belief of warmists and the faith politicians and business leaders have in them, and stop wasting my time and mental energy on this issue.
well if she stated the co2 was above safe levels for plants already to me…I;d be lauging so hard AT her,she may well feel a tad uncomfortable and go away…I hope
and thats on a good day
one a bad day..she’d be copping an earful on her utter imbicility to make a statement like that, in my hearing.
How to respond to a CAGWer/Warmunist/Greenbean about climate change:’
1 – Have a bar chart on hand that goes back at least 600,000 years and shows the constant changes in climate from cold periods to warm periods.
2 – Point out that the WARM periods are consistently shorter than the cold periods.
3 – Have a map on hand that can show how far south the northern snow line is creeping on a yearly basis.
4 – When the CAGWer/True Believer brings up the subject of carbon, as if s/he is even vaguely aware that s/he emits a volume of CO2 every time s/he speaks and breathes, and has s/he measured her/his own personal daily volume of CO2 emissions, and the total volume to date since birth.
5 – Ask why s/he is wearing clothing/shoes made of carbon-based synthetic materials, and using carbon-based fueled transportation instead of walking.
6 – Finally, and first off, nod and smile, and say “Yes, the climate changes on a constant basis. It’s been doing so long before humans arrived. Look at this chart. 600,000 years of climate change, and the warm periods are always shorter than the cold periods. More coffee? Waitress, could I have some ice cream?”
7 – Smile politely and go back to reading your book or writing romantic poetry.
Look at articles on religious evangelists work to convert non-believers. Extremely similar.
The list of assumptions- false assumptions- this climate evangelist makes in order to manipulate skeptics is breath taking.
How deceitful, evil and dark this climate true believer is.
“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.”
Apparently, Christianity is the only religion worth noting in the world. Good to know. No biases or agenda in this article, please do move along.
Catastrophic Anthrogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a religion. It has its own orthodoxy. Therefore it has its deniers, blasphemers, heretics, apostates and true believers.
The opposing religion is the religion of Nature’s God. Nature itself as the only oracle of truth. Like all oracles, nature always gives true, yet sometimes misleading, answers. It has one ritual, the Scientific Method, which is used to filter out the misleading answers.
The CAGW religion, like all religions but one, begins with its conclusion and looks for data to support it.
Nature’s religion is the only one in which all conclusions are “This is what we know so far; new data may change our minds.” Many the beautiful scientific theory (hypothesis) has been dismissed by just one ugly, inconvenient truth.
Mother Nature, Nature’s God, nurtures her children, giving them life, and kills them each and every one. Heartless, she has but one commandment: My way (no highway). She neither gives a damn nor blessing, but deny her at your peril. The least consequence in denying her is time and resources wasted; the worst consequence is untimely death.
How to respond to a CAGWer/Warmunist about climate change:
1) No real science is ever settled. Scientific reality is decided by experiment not opinion. 97% can be wrong.
2) Perhaps humanity has had a degree (pun intentional) of contribution to climate; climate has changed cyclically since before there were any humans at all and Mother Nature will proceed in her slow and stately pace to change. It is overweening hubris to even suppose that we can control the climate.
3) The Axiom of Experience — The future will be like the past because, in the past, the future has been like the past — applies. No catastrophes that have been predicted by CAGW, and previous generations of climate ‘scientists’ have come to pass. We still have Arctic ocean ice this summer. Our glaciers have stopped shrinking and are growing recently. Previous ice ages have begun during grand solar minimums; we are in the first decade of a grand solar minimum.
4) Whether climate gets warmer or cooler there is a means to survive either in relative comfort: modern, safe nuclear power. Let us both promote nuclear power.
“You are either a scientist or you are religious”
She and others who think like her have the least scientific minds. They think that identifying with scientists makes them scientific.
I studied science until a war in Asia put me on a new career path. I studied electronics after that war. Throughout that time I was, and still am, a Christian.
Nothing she said fit me, especially “You are either a scientist or you are religious”.
She understands neither science nor Christianity. I doubt she understands “climate science” either.
SR
Slightly warming (but not unusually so) oceans. Some dwindling (but not unusually so) ice sheets, others growing. Some rainfall events a bit outside the norm, but nothing that hasn’t happened before. Slowly rising sea levels, at about the same rate as they have been since the LIA. In short, nothing beyond what would be normal and expected during a warm phase of an interglacial. These indicators, along with many others provide compelling scientific evidence that climate change is continuing along normal parameters with no cause for alarm. But for some, alarmism and indeed hysterical fear has crept in, and actual science, and reality don’t persuade those operating on an emotional rather than a rational basis.
There are several categories of climate Belief, and many stripes and flavors within each category. Sorting out each category and sub-category of climate Belief is a difficult task, but one that is essential to communicating with those who are essentially scared children, with very little knowledge of climate or science. First of all, even though they are essentially frightened little children, don’t let on that you are patronizing them and talking down to them, as this will only make them even more frightened, angry and defensive. Let them speak, so that you can termine where their own individual fears lie. Then, speak to those particular fears so as to calm them. Let them gradually come around to the idea that climate is nothing to be afraid of.
/sarc.
The bit about “altered charts” is particularly annoying.
The climate extremists, like flat earthers, creationists and UFO believers, depend explicitly on altered evidence. Their entire program, as these communications non-scientists demonstrate, relies on altering evidence and scaring people.
Altering, choosing, clipping, remodelling, scaling, imaging, coloring, smoothing, grouping, assuming, projecting, and using recentism, to begin with.
“Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication studies…”
It’s a real mystery who more don’t get their science info from Communication Studies majors.
Communication Studies is an euphemism for communist propaganda. They have no idea about STEM stuff nor any knowledge on economy.
But for some, skepticism has crept in, and science doesn’t hold the same authority as it once did. Obviously clueless about what science is.
There are a lot of confused people, @SarahEMyhre for instance, who think that scientific authority is conferred upon receiving a PhD. In other words, they think that scientific authority is embodied in persons rather than that in methodology/ideology.
“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.”
This is a flat-out mistake about the science, and effectively negates the rest of this nonsense. CO2 levels in actual greenhouses can be two to three times the current ‘natural’ levels, and the OSHA standards for safety are even higher. And at present we are only about twice the level where all plant life would die. This person needs to learn the science first, before having any credibility with skeptics. If this is typical of her counter-arguments, no wonder skepticism is on the rise.
“This person needs to learn the science first, before having any credibility with skeptics”
She’s in sales marketing for a reason. Kind of like football players on scholarship used to major in Home Economics.
So telling how they focus on skeptics, in order to divert attention away from themselves and how they use fossil fuels every day just like the skeptics, often more!
“‘I sort of deny it,’ to ‘I really, adamantly deny it.’” I have yet to meet a “denier” who uses the word “deny”.
BallBounces
She has written a dissertation based on an unfounded belief in the behavior of a group she thinks she disagrees with. That is, she is clueless, and she was awarded a PhD for writing fantasy with big words. Definitely a black eye for higher education.
CAGW? Its the rebirth of Original Sin- Any Seminarian should recognise the form