Not so very long ago when I tried to communicate some facts to a woman, she interrupted with obvious annoyance, “Save your breath. Because no matter what you say to me, I won’t believe it.”
She was saying in effect that she wouldn’t listen even if I was telling her the truth.
At least she was honest. Most people just won’t respond at all. Knowing on some level that they don’t have answers, they just shut you out. This is true even when confronting demonstrators.
Even Greta Thunberg, who claims to understand the science, seems unable or unwilling to communicate with anyone who might disagree with her. When she was politely approached by Marc Reisinger during a climate sit-in in Stockholm, she didn’t respond to him.
There is a video record of this encounter, in which he said, “I heard you’re telling students to study the climate. I’d like to interview you on this topic if you agree.” Rather than answering him, she pulled off her wool cap, which must have been a signal.
Because immediately a woman appeared and whisked Greta away, telling Marc that she had something else to do. (reported on EuropeReloaded.com, Pam Barker, April 25, 2019)
In this same way, we’ve personally witnessed members of Congress being whisked away by their handlers when we tried to ask them questions at political events.
It seems that most of those misinformed about climate are unable to argue the issue from a scientific standpoint.
But when someone attempts to tell them the facts, they simply dig in their heels, becoming even more adamant in their established beliefs.
This is a psychological phenomenon known as the “backfire effect”.
This cognitive bias causes some people who encounter facts and evidence that contradict their beliefs to reject that evidence and strengthen their original viewpoint.
So, providing evidence that proves someone wrong may not only be ineffective but may actually cause some people to support their viewpoint even more strongly!
Professional propaganda masters, being aware of this phenomenon, know that if they can just get to our young people early enough, they may just have them for life.
That’s exactly what they did in Nazi Germany. As Adolf Hitler once said, “If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it.”
Mark Twain observed that “it is easier to fool someone than to convince someone they’ve been fooled.”
The ego has a big role to play in the backfire effect – especially when a belief is related to a person’s concept of self.
Many people just can’t admit that they could ever be wrong about anything even when they are told that it isn’t their fault that they were given the wrong information. It’s as if being proven wrong is a direct threat to their ego.
But that doesn’t mean we should give up trying to communicate with people who have been taken in by the climate disinformation campaign. We just need to be careful of what we say to them, approaching them in a friendly, nonthreatening manner.
This could be done with a few well-chosen questions. Here are a few that have been recommended. You may think of even better questions.
But first, these people need to be praised for caring enough about the earth to sacrifice their valuable time and energy to participate in demonstrations.
We can only wonder how anyone could give such love, devotion, sincerity, time, money and energy to a conclusion as wrong as human-caused climate change. Yet, we can’t directly tell them how silly this is.
You could start off by saying, as one young man did, “I think it’s great that you care enough to give up your valuable time to stand up for the environment…I also care deeply about the earth and about all human beings.”
He then cited some specific environmental issues: plastic in the ocean, burning of Earth’s tropical rain forests, etc.
Then he asked, “Do you think that someone could care about the environment while still not believing that humans cause climate change?”
Here it’s important to go silent, allowing the person to talk. The person might ask why you don’t believe in AGW…or even call you a climate denier.
At this point, you could say, “I’m not denying that the climate is changing. The climate is always changing. But there are many natural causes of climate change. It’s never been scientifically proven that human-emitted carbon dioxide causes climate change.
“And just as many scientists have been saying that there is no climate emergency. Did you know that recently 500 top scientists sent a registered letter to the United Nations telling them this?”
Another question: “Do you have an open mind?” If the person hesitates or asks what you mean by this, you can explain, “A person with an open mind is willing to consider all sides of an issue.”
If she still seems hesitant to answer, you could ask, “What if you were on a jury hearing a case in which someone is accused of theft, and that person says he is innocent? If you had an open mind wouldn’t you want to hear all of the facts before making up your mind? Even if that person looks like a criminal and might seem to have a motive, wouldn’t you still want to hear all of the evidence in the case?”
At that point, the person you’re talking to will hopefully say, “Yes.”
“So then wouldn’t you be willing to listen to all sides of the climate change issue?”
The person might be surprised to hear you say “all sides” not “both sides.” You could say, “Well, there are many different viewpoints on this issue. Some people think the climate isn’t heating up that much, and others say that the earth has warmed a little but not because of carbon dioxide.”
You could mention the other factors that have caused past climate change before carbon dioxide became an issue: the changes in solar activity, the Earth’s orbit around the sun changing a bit, etc.
It’s important to listen carefully to what this person has to say and try to see things from his perspective. Simply acknowledging – and repeating back to him – his feelings and understanding will relax his guard, making him more amenable to reason.
For instance, you could say, “Yes, we’ve been hearing a lot about this on TV and the Internet…But can we believe everything we see on TV and the Internet? Some of these news outlets like CNN have been caught delivering false news stories.”
“I’m sure you know the difference between fact and opinion. So, we need to look at only the facts. And then you can draw your own conclusions. Right?”
Here we should get a “yes” from that person. But if this person doesn’t answer, it’s important to keep repeating the question in different ways until she agrees. This is sometimes called the “broken record” approach.
If at any time she appears unwilling to talk further, it’s best not to press the issue. In that case, you could say in a polite and friendly manner, “Well, maybe it’s hopeless for us to communicate about this issue,” and walk away. Sometimes if you do that, the person will have a change of heart and want to continue to talk.
If the person appears to be willing to consider the facts, it would be a very good idea to have a prepared fact sheet with four or five items, including graphs, that demonstrate the cyclical nature of climate and the way in which agencies such as NASA and NOAA have changed past records to exaggerate the real warming that has occurred.
This shortlist could also contain Internet links for those who want to do their own research.
If the person you are speaking with is unwilling to take this information, you could say, “Well, these are just the facts. You can check them out if you want to. Don’t take my word for it.
If only one person in ten is willing to consider your point of view, you’ve succeeded. Even those who don’t appear receptive to these ideas may have a spark implanted in them that would stimulate their own research and a future change of mind.
Lynne Balzer taught science at the high school and college levels for about twenty years. A project director for Faraday Science Institute, she has studied this issue for a long time. Her new book, The Green New Deal and Climate Change: What You Need to Know, is available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle format.
Randy, I appreciate your comments but remember the “drill baby drill” side won the argument. We were told years ago that we could never drill our way to energy sufficiency. Well, we are now energy sufficient. We drilled our way to energy sufficiency thanks to fracking and other innovations. The task now is to keep us that way.
Well, we are not energy independent as billed. Actually, we are in a world market & we are energy interdependent. As a long time (now retired) oil & gas professional, I can tell you that the shale boom in oil is not going to last much longer. Not sustainable for a number of reasons. Our days as a worldwide “swing producer” are limited. I’m just suggesting the discussion on energy needs to change. This needs to be an orderly TRANSITION over the next several decades to whatever is the next “Big Thing,” fusion, I’d imagine being a leading candidate. An “All of the Above” strategy will be imperative to meet the energy transition challenge. One man’s opinion…
I agree that we need to look ahead to sustainable sources of energy that will ultimately replace carbon based fuels. These are not wind turbines or solar voltaics. Our future is safe and affordable nuclear energy, as outlined in my book. The most promising answer on the horizon is the thorium molten salt reactor, which will also burn spent nuclear fuel. That would probably be a reality right now if our policymakers had invested just one-tenth of the resources they’ve put into subsidies for wind, solar and biofuels. But it would put the oil companies out of business.
Lynne, can’t fully agree with your assessment. Even IF you could build enough nuclear power plants to supply ALL the electricity for domestic use, the U.S would still need petroleum resources. Oil & gas is used in a myriad of products outside the transportation & electric generation sectors. The oil companies aren’t going ANYWHERE for a while, whether the Sierra Club, et al like it or not…
Lynne Balzer, you’re asking me to suffer ten fools in polite debate?
‘If just one in ten is willing…. ‘
They are lazy thinkers, joiners, whatever. The only reason that I can think of for making the effort is to change their vote. Enlightenment? They need constant spoon feeding.
Democracy has a weak link, the idiot.
Nobody is asking you to do anything. This article is simply for people who want to effect change in the world.
Scientists were bought and used to create the front for earth has a fever cult .
Scientists are the ones who can correct the record instead of sitting back
like they played no roll .
The UN IPCC has been allowed to get away with gross exaggeration to manipulate the public for UN political and financial objectives . It was a clever rues but a scam all the same . Buy scientists to write scary global warming fiction , have UN “volunteer ” scientists review the pre planned bought data ,
and then turn out a report that is sold as unbiased .
Some scientists have found their courage thankfully but it is much to late .
Just curious anyone . When Co2 levels were historically much higher(1000 ppm
vs 380 ppm or less) without human fossil fuel use, what was the cause of them falling so dramatically ? If natural variables were able to alter CO2 by 100’s of percent why could natural variables not do it over and over ?
I can’t recall seeing an historic explanation for dramatically falling CO2 levels
Anything that choked the carbon cycle. Asteroid collision /Ice Age for one.
Falling CO2 levels of last ~60 my hypothesised as due to reaction of weak carbonic acid (from atmospheric CO2 + water vapour) with freshly exposed rocks (raised by Alpine Orogeny) to form carbonate minerals.
Just like during the Salem Witch Trials all common sense was cast aside to blame a few good people of witchcraft now we have these Climate Change Radicals who want all skeptics silenced and nit-wits like Robert Kennedy Jr who wants so called Climate Crinimal’s treated like War Crinimal’s
Well, a LOT of the problem, unfortunately, starts with the increasingly partisan “spew” coming out in DC. As a life long independent (moderate), I AIM these comments BOTH political parties. Whether it’s climate change, energy transition, healthcare, entitlements, national debt, capitalism…no RATIONAL discourse is evident, only ideological “babble.” You can’t have well informed, thoughtful debate when any conversation is consumed by an almost religious ZEAL. Somehow, we need to get back to a point (more centrist) where we can talk sensibly about challenges we face and how, through COLLABORATION we are going to work towards constructive SOLUTIONS. I have a suggestion. The White House should promote a special advisory council on climate and actively promote a legitimate DEBATE about climate science. As long as this issue is purely POLITICAL science and not PHYSICAL science, this will only continue to unravel and THAT is not in our nation’s best interest…
“You say your house belongs to you. I say your house belongs to me. But I’m willing to compromise. I’ll take half and you take half.” Would you go along with that? I wouldn’t. My house belongs to me. I live in the USA which has worked hard to provide for people in this country. I will not allow the far left destroy the Western industrialized nations with a phony climate change scam if I have anything to say about it. Donald Trump HAS attempted to invite Democrats into discussions and he gets his hand bit.
If the left has their way AOC and the GND will destroy our way of life for a phony climate change theory. Either CO2 Forcing is correct or Solar Forcing is correct. My degree is in history (I would have majored in physics but my math ability was poor) and I accept the judgement of geologists that planetary history demonstrates that higher temperatures led to garden-like conditions in the past. And CO2 was much higher and lagged temperature rise and didn’t precede it.
I also accept the research of solar researchers that shows that shows that there is a high correlation between the sun’s solar output and climate. And now the sun is diminishing its output and it scares the hell out of me. Ask farmers in our northern states and Canada what they think about that nonsense prediction from 2000 that kids just aren’t going to know what snow is.
I am a life-long conservative and I’ve seen from my study of history the carnage of what the left has done to the world- USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela for instance.
Man-made climate change is simply a ploy for political control. Just look at their stated goals. They were the same 100 years ago-state control of EVERYTHING. My house has had clean and efficient natural gas since the 1940’s. I’m not willing to give that up for a demonstrably false CO2 forcing theory. The Earth went from the warmth of the MWP to the cold of The Little Ice Age and CO2 had nothing to do with it. Oops, I forgot, Michael Mann “disproved” the MWP with his hockey stick graph.
There are times in life when we have to get off the fence and take a stand. Being “moderate” won’t cut it. The future of our children and grandchildren is at stake. Chose this day whether the world will warm via CO2 forcing or cool via Solar Forcing. Look at the evidence and decide. I made my choice. That’s why I voted for Donald Trump the first time and will vote for him again.
As a professional who spent over 35 years negotiating in the contract/environmental arena in the oil & gas industry, I’m well aware of what it takes to get RESULTS in complicated scenarios. So, I’ll make no apologies to anyone for being a MODERATE. That gives me the ability to look dispassionately at facts and look for solutions as there rarely is an “Easy Button.” That’s not fence sitting. Donald Trump needs to put down his twitter and start acting like a real LEADER. Best way to “defrock” this ongoing climate agenda is to EXPOSE the false choices being offered on many of these critical issues. Further, I think the more important discussion (really) is about our energy TRANSITION and attendant environmental protections. This is too important to continue as an ideological “shouting match.” Without having a well informed, thoughtful & OPEN debate about climate, there is no chance of getting any needed results. Just sayin’…
“Thoughtful and open debate?” How can there be thoughtful and open debate when one side attacks speakers, storming meeting halls? How can discourse come about when loss of employment is threatened when taking contrary positions-such as Susan Crockford for disputing polar bear numbers? How can there be discourse when mobs scream “the science is settled?” Tell that to legitimate researchers who can’t get their papers published because they challenge the “consensus.” You will not find people on the right shouting down speakers. This is a characteristic of the left repeated over and over.
I believe those in the oil and gas industry appreciate Donald Trump for pulling the US out of the ruinous Paris Climate agreement and making our nation a leader in energy production. I don’t care if you don’t like his style. I like his results. He puts our country first instead of this misguided globalism.
We don’t need to go down the insane path of destroying our efficient oil and gas industry in favor of intermittent and erratic wind and solar. When I read about New York blocking the Williams pipeline in the face of natural gas shortages or Berkeley California banning natural gas connections it makes me seethe. I will give up natural gas when my cold dead fingers are pried off the gas valve of my gas heating stove.
If you want honest debate then get the left to back off their claim that “the science is settled.” History is filled with settled science such as the geocentric theory of the universe. People lost their lives for supporting a competing theory-the Heliocentric theory of the solar system. Science is NEVER settled. I saw a list recently of so-called settled science that are now in the dust bin of history. It is long.
If you have been a negotiator in the oil and gas industry, good. Then use your skills to get the left to back off their claim that the science is settled. Then get them to sit down with the skeptics and debate honestly ALL the evidence. I wish you luck. You’re gonna need it.
You know, in my former line of work I NEVER really cared what the extremists thought about anything. I could not reach a WildEarth Guardians activist anymore than I could reach a “Drill Baby Drill” type. I was always interested in the 80%-90% of the folks in an audience or at a regulatory hearing that had a relatively open mind & just were looking for someone who made SENSE. By the way. I am a firm believer in the scientific method & the null hypothesis, so you don’t have to sell me on the idea that the “climate crisis” is largely POLITICAL and not physical science. Somewhere, somehow, somebody has to step forward like an ADULT and get a sensible conversation started. Otherwise, we will just continue to push peas around on our plate…