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.
Debt spending is behind public apathy.
The public is collectively smarter than these “scientists “. That’s why people think as they do. These “scientists “ are “science-y” … but can not be bothered with the scientific method as it might create a conflict with their worldview. The scientific method was designed in the pursuit of Truth & avoid the pitfalls of humanity. The public has no respect for scientists because they (collectively)have sold out their former respect for their own world view, collectively rendering science as we used know it … Dead.
I hope they read this & think long & hard about it.
Oh dear. The Climate Liars’ lies aren’t working, and they can’t figure out why. Sucks to be them. Winning.
It’s Johnny Cook again. I had been wondering for some time what had happened to him. Now I know. He was studying. The question now is: has it helped?
More importantly, does he still have his climate nazi outfit? If so, he should get it out and dust it off.
Speaking as a chemist in good standing, I am ever so offended that the “No, it’s the public who’s wrong” lady on the right is depicted in a chemistry lab.
All chemists everywhere, except those officiating the American Chemical Society, have been slandered.
The gentlemen on the left seems to represent geologists – inverting the attitude of a relatively skeptical crew.
And both wear the badge of a scientist – a white lab coat – when the bulk of those posing AGW hysteria aren’t scientists at all.
Temperature record compilers who appear to have never measured anything, and climate modelers who appear to have never taken a physics lab. People, in other words, who display none of the attributes expected of a scientist.
I’m not satisfied with the cartoon either.
If it is so -called “climate scientists” being depicted, the conversation should be more like “Why don’t they believe our claims?” And the other should respond with “They have too much factual information at their disposal. We have to find a way to conceal reality from the public for the sake of ‘The Cause’.”
Just passing by. I am 83 university graduate in science and medicine in 1968 and have worked on 3 continents and several Southeast Asian islands
My home town is Sydney, Australia which has a deep water port harbour with a wide connection to the Pacific Ocean.
A ferry service crosses this waterway from Manly to the wharf just under the famous Sydney Harbour Bridge and on the way passes an island called Pinchgut close enough to see the tide marks at the base of the fortress built thereupon.
From my pre-school days to now, the water level has never risen above the tide line clearly visible from the ferry.
There is no perceptible rise in the sea level in my lifetime.
There have been several hotter summers during my growing years than any summer recently. Our city is supplied by a large dam which is currently overflowing.
These observations reassure me that my refusal to be deceived by the false alarm of a present climate boiling crisis (AGW) is completely sane, mature and reasonable.
Mind you, I also know about variation of insolation resulting from the various solar and solar system cycles, from the cycles in the moons orbit, the earth tilt and precession and even the transit of our system through the arms of the galaxy.
I knew and trusted the historic data of Maunder like minimums and warming periods when Greenland was farmed and the well established truth that the global mean temperature of the oceans rose and fell some time before the fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose and fell.
That climate changes is a proven datum, that humans control it by carbon dioxide is a delusion or a deliberate deception. Either way, it is wrong.
Since climatards have never presented a fact in their entire lives perhaps THAT is their problem.