A Climate Change Advocate’s Guide to Communicating With Skeptics

A Climate Change Advocate’s Guide to Communicating With Skeptics

or How to Approach Climate Skeptics Without Losing Your Argument

I’m not really sure when or where it happened, but at some point, we lost civil discourse in our country.  President Obama said that, and I agree.  But it seems like although we have acknowledged a lack of civility, we’ve done nothing about it.  This is no more evident that in discussions about climate change.  I will admit that I’m a skeptic for a number of reasons.  First and foremost, I find it hard to believe that man, created by God, would have the power to destroy what God created on such a large scale.

A conservative talk show host I used to listen to, Steve Deace (www.stevedeace.com), once said that to be truly able to successfully convince others to your side, you must engage in three-dimensional thinking: 1) Know why you believe what you believe, 3) Know why others believe what they believe, and 3) Know why others believe what they believe about what you believe.  I won’t try to explain it, you can read this article: https://www.christianpost.com/voice/7-deadly-worldviews-that-threaten-christianity.html

Rather than just talk, I thought I’d provide some advice to those who support climate change to help improve the quality of our interactions.  I think these points can be used in any argument, they’re mine, so feel free to experiment.  (I reserve the right to absolve myself of any predicament you might find yourself in as a result of using these.)

1.  First and foremost, approach skeptics with calm and respect.  There are many reasons why people may not believe in man-made climate change, so approaching in a respectful manner and asking questions (instead of yelling and calling someone names) might get you insight into why someone is a skeptic.  These steps pretty much explain how I feel, so I won’t get too personal here.  We spend too much time yelling at each other and calling each other names.  Doing this will never result in mutual understanding.

2.  Come with data.  Drop the whole “97% of scientists agree …” argument.  There are two reasons: 1) science isn’t about consensus, it’s about truth.  Scientists used to “agree” that the earth was flat, and we all know how that turned out.  (Well, most of us anyway.)  2) Has anyone ever read that study or are they just using talking points?  I searched and was only able to come up with one actual study.  And to be honest, there are many articles that support this argument.  But read this from the NASA website:

“Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

“As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.”  (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*)

Do your research and read the studies people cite.  Explore them and their sources.  It’s hard work, but you’ll need to do this to build a reasonable, believable argument.  Doing so will also help you understand your position better.  Don’t rely on someone else’s research or talking points.  Be a free thinker.

3.  Be willing to be an active listener.  Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher, once said “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”  (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/epictetus_106298).  Sage advice.  This is hard work for most people, including me.  But listening, rather than talking, is important to understand another perspective.

4.  Don’t be afraid to be wrong.  One of the most wonderful things about a good conversation is that you just might find out you’re wrong.  Would you really want to go around yelling and screaming at someone who believed the earth was round (or flat, depending on your perspective)?  Take the time to review opposing data and opinions.

5.  Never say the science is settled.  Science is rarely “settled.”  Case in point: is Pluto a planet or not?  Science strives for a continual refinement of truth and seeks to further our knowledge of the world and universe as we know it.  It is never content to rest on its laurels.  If this weren’t true, we’d all still be living in caves.  Would a status quo science have gotten us to the moon and back safely?  Gotten us HD TV?  The medical advances we’ve made?  No.

6.  If you want skeptics to take your cause seriously, be serious about your cause.  If you’re going around warning people that the sea levels will rise, don’t buy oceanfront property as Al Gore did (yes, the Al Gore).  (http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples-nicolas-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php)  The article is an interesting read.  Or, another thing that makes advocates look hypocritical is flying to a climate change meeting in a bunch of private jets. (https://www.mrc.org/articles/media-hype-davos-climate-change-focus-1700-private-jets-fly)  If you consider these thoughtfully, couldn’t you see why people would be skeptic? 

7.  Skip all the apocalyptic arguments.  Here are some examples of predictions made in the 70s:

·       “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.

·       “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.

·       “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.

·       “Between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the ‘Great Die-Off.’” (http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/)

This article is a good read as well.  (There are other sites with opposing views available for reading, you can look for those.)  You can find more easily in a simple Google search.  As a kid, I was alarmed by predictions that the world would experience a global ice age within 10 years.  It never happened.  So, yeah, I’m a skeptic, especially when I hear the dire predictions offered by climate change advocates.  Also, changing the name to suit the current argument doesn’t help either.  In the 70s it was global cooling.  Changing the name makes it sound like the science isn’t settled.

8.  Don’t yell and scream or call someone names.  This may duplicate #1 a bit, but I think it bears special attention.  If you’ve done your job and done everything in #1-#7 and end up yelling, screaming, and name calling, you’ll lose the chance to win someone to your side.  The process of influencing others isn’t something that can be done in 20 minutes.  Sometimes it takes a while.  By sticking to #1, you may get the other person coming back to ask more questions.  They’ll remember you as a reasonable person, open to questions and questioning, and patient.  Now contrast that to someone that resorts to yelling, screaming, and name calling.  Not a very complementary impression is it?  Besides, many people feel that if you have to resort to hysterics, you probably don’t have much of an argument.

9.  Hold your advocates’ feet to the fire.  1,700 private jets to a climate change meeting?  Buying ocean front property?  You need to police your own and hold them accountable to the same standards they want to put on everyone else.  (In reading through some article for this blog, I did see where Al Gore put solar panels up on his 10,000 sq. ft. Tennessee home, but only after receiving a lot of criticism for the carbon footprint of his mansion.  (http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples-nicolas-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php)  This is an example for forcing the standards on advocates.  Lead by example anyone?)

10.  Ditch the histrionics and hyperbole (See #1).  Don’t start arguing that just because I’m a skeptic that I want to destroy the earth, pollute the air to the point people choke to death, and pollute the water so no one has clean water to drink.  Only a fool would be willing to intentionally cause harm to the environment (See Love Canal story as an example of poor environmental stewardship: https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy.html.)  Many of us are very passionate about protecting the environment.  Many of us have spent (or continue to spend) many hours outdoors.  None of us want to destroy that.  Disagreement with your position doesn’t mean we want to blow up the world, so just stop.

11.  Don’t use actors as your spokespeople.  People that make a living playing parts convincingly don’t instill a lot of confidence in their positions for me.  They are attractive and generate much more media attention to be sure and ordinary people wouldn’t get the same press coverage.  But I have to wonder if they really believe what they’re saying (see #6 and #9 below) or are they just playing a part.  They’re good actors, so it’s hard to tell the difference.

I think these 11 points will help us achieve three-dimensional thinking.  And perhaps, if everyone used it, we could improve the climate in our country, which, in my opinion, has never been more divided.  Whether you blame Donald Trump or Barak Obama is irrelevant.  The fact is, politicians shouldn’t be given the power to frame our national conversation.  That’s not their job.  It’s ours.  But what do I know, I’m not climate skeptic (oh wait, I am) … this is just my two cents worth.