By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Humans aren’t rational…. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?” – Nate Hagens (below)
Climate messaging is in turmoil. “Maybe the problem is not climate denial,” Gilad Regev observed:
Maybe its climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We’ve spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed.
Joe Romm in a comment dismissed Regev to complain about a huge, well-funded public disinformation campaign by Big Oil. (If only some of that mega-money was really flowing to think tanks such as IER or CEI or Heartland….)
Another Take
Enter Nate Hagens, Director of The Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future (ISEOF). His article, “Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation” The Great Simplification (February 27, 2026) follows.
Humans aren’t rational. We don’t evaluate facts objectively; instead, we interpret them through our biases, experiences, and backgrounds. What’s more, we’re psychologically motivated to reject or distort information that threatens our identity or worldview – even if it’s scientifically valid. Add to that our modern media landscape where everyone has a different source of “truth” for world events, our ability to understand what is actually true is weaker than ever. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?
In this episode, Nate is joined by John Cook, a researcher who has spent nearly two decades studying science communication and the psychology of misinformation. John shares his journey from creating the education website Skeptical Science in 2007 to his shocking discovery that his well-intentioned debunking efforts might have been counterproductive. He also discusses the “FLICC” framework – a set of five techniques (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) that cut across all forms of misinformation, from the denial of global heating to vaccine hesitancy, and more. Additionally, John’s research reveals a counterintuitive truth: our tribal identities matter more than our political beliefs in determining what science we accept – yet our aversion to being tricked is bipartisan.
Continuing:
When it comes to reaching a shared understanding of the world, why does every conversation matter – regardless of whether it ends in agreement? When attacks on science have shifted from denying findings to attacking solutions and scientists themselves, are we fighting yesterday’s battle with outdated communication strategies? And while we can’t eliminate motivated reasoning (to which we’re all susceptible), how can we work around it by teaching people to recognize how they’re being misled, rather than just telling them what to believe?
Sorry, but it’s ground zero with the proven benefits of CO2 versus the speculations of untestable, causality-deficient climate models. And the fact of positive warming during certain months of the year vs. the summer peak. And so on. Let the debate and messaging continue.
