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
“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.”
Darling, alarmists see AGW as their religion. So maybe they are the separators, separating themselves from science.
You could rewrite this whole article simply by replacing “deni*r” with “alarmist” and it would be MUCH more accurate.
“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.”
This blatant error in scientific knowledge leaves the rest of the article in question. This researcher is so convinced of the evil of CO2 that she has not checked the scientific works on increased concentrations. Her whole study is based on accepting the consensus as portrayed in the media which is lamentably biased.
I remain a skeptic because I can’t find any scientific work that believably answers my basic questions about the consensus’ basic assumptions: How do we know humans have caused the recent increase in atmospheric CO2? How much affect does our CO2 have? How much of the changes measured in the worlds climates is due to human activity?
I remain unconvinced when I can clearly see that the proposed policies are not about the environment but control of peoples and that they undoubtedly cause vast amounts of damage to the environment and the human population.
Fascinating how they assume that communication only occurs when the result is that you now agree with them.
If you fail to change your mind, then no communication has happened.
If someone does not accept your claim about a subject that does not mean they “deny” it. It means the claim has not met the other person’s subjective burden of proof. The onus is on the person making the assertion to convince the target – but if the target remains unconvinced, move on. It is not some social ill that needs to be solved.
… UNLESS — the real goal is demanding money from these people and people who are reluctant to give money are standing in the way. THOSE people challenge the money flow. They challenge the faithful. They make the faithful think twice. They make them question – so they need to be silenced. If they are not silenced — the money might be threatened.
THAT is the game here.
Keep the faith kids – if you don’t the world will end soon. If you keep the faith and give them money – they will promise to pretend to solve the variability of a long-running chaotic system with absolutely no obligation to do what the lunatics claim it will do.
Besides – they are not really going to stop CO2 – they just want to dismantle capitalism in the west and make a mountain of money in the process.
As an atheist with a strong sense of a Judeo-Christian heritage, I can safely say that Emma Frances Bloomfield’s ideas are utter tosh.
And to think someone is paying for that.
When you fabricate a false premise you can justify any conclusion you wish.
Apparently Ms Bloomfield does not teach, and was not taught, how to perform research (on very basic facts concerning her major.)
Taking this a step or two upstream, her whole degree is similarly based on a false premise. Many
university have programs and schools of “Climate Communications”; the assumption of which is “they are right” and the rest of us are ignorantly mistaken in our “wrong” beliefs.
No one doubts Climate Changes … It has been happening since the beginning of time and will continue to happen until the end of time.
The question is the cause of the change in climate over time. Is it Man forced or Naturally forced, and can Man do anything to accelerate/decelerate/stop it from occurring.
There is no issue between environmentalism and religion. We are meant to be stewards of what God has provided us including the planet. That said, it does not mean the fanatical/radical environmentalism as many practice replaces religion.
The first step in communication is to understand the other side’s point of view. This doesn’t even attempt to do that; it simply assumes that the person who is skeptical of human-caused climate change is irrational, illogical, uninformed and clearly lacks any knowledge of science, unless they’re a gas-company paid traitor to the human race, which means they’re simply evil.
They don’t even realize that it is they who do the greatest damage to the understanding of science and the scientific method. To establish a hypothesis requires that the proponents of the hypothesis are able to provide the data and the models to the disinterested skeptics so they can ensure the assumptions and models are based on sound science, and that they are able to successfully repeat and get the same results as claimed. For it to become a strong theory, it must be able to accurately track past data and predict future results. Even then, it is no settled science; it’s just a more accurate science than had been previously available.
But the bottom line is that, as far as I can tell, the human-caused climate change hypothesis doesn’t pass the simple and elegant Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Test.
“climate change beliefs” LMAO. Okay when I am asked “do you believe in climate change” my answer is always another question back to them: “Why would anyone believe something that is supposed to be science?”. That is not something they are ready for.
The conversation I then engage in follows these general guidelines:
1) Never call names. If they call you a denier point out that in any debate or discussion people only call names when they have nothing intelligent to say. Politely point out that they could make 10 great points but nobody will remember any of them if they call names and get called out for it.
2) Ask if they can follow the science in detail. If they don’t have a degree in math or serious statistics experience they can’t (nor can I). Mention the discussions on climateaudit.org as an example.
3) Ask them what do you do when you can’t follow a scientific discussion in technical detail? Then answer it for them.
Do we just believe one side or the other? No. Belief is for religion not science.
Do we just go with what the majority of scientists say? No. That is consensus and that is the domain of politics not science. Point out that every science has had periods where the majority of scientists held a position that was shown to be wrong.
Then give them the answer. Follow the predictions! It is simple and easy enough for anyone to do. You simply get a date range and what they think the temp will rise or fall (always include both sides). Copy and paste it into a file to see if it happens.
If they invoke the precautionary principle as an excuse to reduce CO2 point out that it cuts both ways and that during the last glaciation we were at 170-180 PPM and at 150 most plants won’t grow leading to a massive die off of land animals. Most don’t even know the lower limit much less how close we got to it.
Always be polite. It annoys the fanatics royally. Refusing to take things personally, especially when it is intended that way, just works so well.
The Sahara is already starting to green on the southern fringes. Some credit CO2 increase!
The search for an antiskeptic solution goes on …
Lewts use ptoper terminology. The book is a propaFnca manual. And those three “communivation strategus?” Methods of making ptopaganda work.
I expect that we will have definitive proof, one way or the other, about the same time nuclear fusion power plants come on line.
Gads — the worst sort of silly social science — trying to combine dubious social science with parodied “religious belief” into a whole THREE (3) categories. Most readers here know that I am a strongly religious person. In my experience, I could not categorize my close acquaintances into such a simplistic system on religion or climate.
Pure nonsense.
” science doesn’t hold the same authority as it once did.”….this is because ‘science; has become so corrupted and in the thrall of ‘Climate Change / Global Warming’ that people are beginning to notice that ‘science’ is now unloading as much bullshit as truth.
It’s really not that difficult to convince us skeptics. Present CAGW hypothesis and see if it holds up.
‘…an opportunity to communicate with those who are in the middle.’
Communicating climate change science to the uninitiated is a big ask.
Its going to take a weather shock to support the klimatariat’s hypothesis, because their time is running out and the people grow weary in expectation. Extreme weather in midlatitudes is where all the action will be.
“science doesn’t hold the same authority as it once did.”
Science holds no authority and never did. Science is a process not a person. A scientist is a person who engages in the process, not a priest or a politician. Priests and politicians have authority, scientists have evidence.
People who run around in white coats, screaming: “I am a scientist you must believe me”, aren’t scientists; they are charlatans.
Maybe she should have more correctly claimed that science doesn’t hold the evidence it used to, and is no longer reproduceable. Authority and legalism have replaced curiosity and skepticism.
Here is a simple method that will convince most skeptics:
SHOW THE EVIDENCE. Instead of attacking people, show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
thanks
JK
Just remember, ahem, the great feat of Western Science – Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation – that started with Greek Archimedes, culminated in the full theory of Einstein, and put a robots on Mars – just remember – scientists had to force everyone to believe in it … NOT. Actually, because it was real science, people were convinced by the arguments themselves.
As a professional physicist, I have to say that real science doesn’t give a **** about what people think. It’s either right or wrong. And real scientists don’t criticize those who disagree. Instead, we think seriously about objections and try to come up with better models that anyone can study and say: “Yes, I see how much detail and error analysis you put into this thing, and so I’m probably convinced”, or “I’m still not convinced, this isn’t a simple enough explanation”.
Do you think Newton went around the world running a media campaign saying, “BELIEVE MY THEROY OF GRAVITY – OR ELSE!” No! Of course not. Instead, he reluctantly published his treasured secret due to a priority dispute with Hooke and Leibnitz. But the point remains: Everyone could be convinced by the INHERENT truth of the theroy.
The thing about climate change is, it has not inherent truth, so its adherence base has to be supported using social control methods. it is all a big distraction from the real problem.
THE REAL PROBLEM IS URBANIZATION. The effects of urbanization are pollution, deforestation, temperature increases, global hydrogeological disruption, agricultural land use expansion, and loss of countless species. These can all be traced back to an increase in demand for resources.
If we had access to 100x the energy available today, we could succesfully de-urbanize a quarter of the world’s population, use half of the resources, save its habitats, and begin restoring the environment.
I have seen evidence after evidence that urbanization is the #1 global problem in the world, and I have seen evidence after evidence that increased per-capita energy consumption IS the basis of a solution.
But no, the climate ‘scientists’ want to take away your energy, and profit off of keeping everyone energy-poor. The effects will be disastrous expansion of urban land use and exploitation of natural resources.
They are not scientists at all. They are priests of a rself-serving religion, believing in a nonexistent god and using terror to control the masses.
Socialists do not care one bit about science, it is just a tool to their goal of accumulating power for the revolution. Warming, Cooling, who cares? Former New Left writer David Horowitz explains the Left, Obama, their goals, and antics in this concise pamphlet:
http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdf
Note well, they are deadly serious!
Climate Change?…. I’m not that interested in climate change, what I’m interested in is the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming and whether it has any scientific validation…. What we find is Ice cores showing CO2 responded to Temps rather than the other way. That water vapor feedbacks at the TT resulted in no “Hotspot” and a 20 year hiatus in warming in the Satellite data despite a 12 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 . These findings have all falsified the AGW hypothesis.
She needs to do some science rather than propaganda.
What happens at U. N. Las Vegas should stay in Las Vegas.
How do you communicate with “skeptics”, this one at least? Present facts based on empirical evidence and not some pseudo computer simulated modelled “evidence”, fed in to other computer models. Also, those who preach the “Gospel”, the elites, the politician, those invested in the “renewable” economy, the Gore’s, the DeCaprio’s of the work lead by example.
NGTH
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Every time some academic writes one of these “how to get skeptics to see the light” articles I’m offended by several underlying premise. In no particular order:
Skeptics must be ignorant of the facts.
Skeptics must be less intelligent.
Skeptics must be uncultured.
Skeptics must be selfish and immoral.
Skeptics just don’t want to pay their fair share.