At the American Museum of Natural History in New York, an exhibition on Climate Change: The Threat to Life and A New Energy Future. Will it change the mind of any skeptic of global warming?
(NEWSCOM)Photos (1 of 1)
Will talking change anyone’s mind about climate change?
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | 11.06.09
On Wednesday, Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions released a guide titled “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.”
Freely available online [pdf], the manual endeavors to describe the various biases and barriers that lurk in the minds of the general public, and that, as the authors see it, confound an accurate comprehension of climate science and its ramifications.
In concept, at least, the manual’s arrival is timely.
In case you missed it, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press last month found that the number of people who think there’s solid evidence of human-induced climate change has declined dramatically in the past few years.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents now believe it’s happening, down from 77 percent in 2006.
The guide has eight chapters:
1. Know Your Audience.
2. Get your Audience’s Reaction.
3. Translate Scientific Data Into Concrete Experience.
4. Beware the Overuse of Emotional Appeals.
5. Address Scientific and Climate Uncertainties.
6. Tap Into Social Identities and Affiliations.
7. Encourage Group Participation.
8. Make Behavior Changes Easier.
Following are a few tidbits that caught this reporter’s eye.
Chapter 1
The authors explain “mental models” — “a person’s thought process for how something works.” Understanding the audience’s mental model and its inherent biases is key to successfully imparting information.
There’s an interesting example from Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale’s Project on Climate Change. He has observed that mental models of the ozone layer hole and climate change are often conflated, and that this conflation leads to inaccuracies.
Paradoxically, this conflation is due in part to scientists’ and the media’s success in communicating the gravity of the ozone problem in past decades. Legislation followed and CFCs are (almost) phased out. But now, as the public grapples with a different issue — climate change from “greenhouse gases” — some wonder why we can’t just bring back CFCs to reopen the ozone hole and release the trapped heat.
The problem is with the “greenhouse” metaphor. The two descriptors — “ozone hole” and “greenhouse gases” — have together fostered a misconception of how the science behind human-induced climate change works.
Presumably, if a communicator knows about this faulty mental model in advance, he can account for it in his explanations and, it’s to be hoped, even correct it.
Chapter 4
People don’t have an infinite capacity to worry, note the authors. Researchers call that limited fretting capacity “a finite pool of worry.” And there’s competition for space in this pool. If a person begins worrying about one risk, he or she will likely begin worrying less about another. In this constant competition, short-term threats beat out long-term ones.
That partly explains the apparent decline in belief about global warming, as measured by the Pew poll: Since the economic implosion of 2008, the economy has taken center stage, leaving little room for other concerns.
So how to get climate back into the spotlight? The manual doesn’t say exactly, advising, only that would-be communicators should be aware of what else is floating around the worry pool.
But it does mention another risk – piling on too much anxiety-inducing information at once: “emotional numbing.” That’s when an exposure to a multitude of problems overwhelms, and makes one less likely to care about much about any of them.
Chapter 5
People don’t like uncertainties. Unfortunately, climate science — and science in general — tries to be upfront about uncertainties. That’s why scientists use language riddled with caveats, and why they often seem to speak in the conditional tense.
The authors argue that, although people prefer certainty, it’s important to communicate uncertainties when they exist.
Indeed, that was the thinking behind sentences like “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations,” which appears in the Summary for Policymakers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The problem, say the authors, is that an honest attempt to express real uncertainties may come across as vagueness to laypeople, who then conclude that the scientists aren’t really certain about much, so it’s best to ignore them entirely.
To avoid this, the authors recommend nipping far-out interpretations in the bud by including absolute numbers next to probabilistic verbiage. “Very likely” in the sentence above, for example, could have a “90 percent or greater likelihood” parenthetical next to it, which is what the IPCC scientists mean.
Of course, the authors offer no advice on how to better explain the statistical analyses that produced the 90 percent figure, which surely lies at the root of much doubt.
Chapter 8
This chapter details “default effects” — “the human tendency to stick with the option that is selected automatically instead of choosing an alternate option” — and suggests that people seeking to make human behavior more enviro-friendly take advantage of it.
A case study: Rutgers University saved many trees simply by changing the default setting on printers in school computer labs from “single-sided” to “double-sided.” After the switch, students had to manually select “single-sided” if they wanted it. Most didn’t care and, ultimately, this small alteration saves nearly 7.4 million sheets of paper, or 1,280 trees, during the academic year.
The manual concludes on a hopeful note:
“Social science research provides compelling evidence for an optimist’s view that climate change communicators can reach both policymakers and the public, informing and inspiring them to address climate change.”
Editor’s note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor’s main environment page, which offers information on many environment topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.
<< Four good green reads, from edible fashion to your pet’s eco-pawprint | MainComments
2. Woody Porter | 11.06.09
The problem, it seems to me, is that “denialism” is a political and ideological stance, not en empirical or scientific one. “Deniers” simply want to DENY it’s happening — to them, it’s “just not happening,” that’s that and that’s flat.
Being an ideology, reasons “why” or “how” it’s not happening are all over the map. To some, there’s no warming trend at all — measurements can’t be trusted, thousands of scientists are lying, etc. To others, it’s been a cool summer where they live, so there’s no problem. Others admit there’s a warming trend, but deny that mankind has anything to do with it — it’s sunspots, or some other cyclic phenomenon. Still others don’t believe the physics and chemistry involved in the greenhouse effect, insisting that CO2 is a harmless gas. Rationalizations and “reasons-why-not” proliferate like mushrooms after a rain — and at the end of the rainbow, paranoid fantasies about Al Gore.
“Will talking change anyone’s mind?” Sadly, no. The deniers want to believe what they want to believe. They may try to find a way — any kind of way, selected from a smorgasbord of notions — to justify their belief. But the belief comes first. That’s the only thing that matters…that’s that and that’s flat.
3. faktchekr | 11.06.09
Unfortunately, environmental science has been taken over by extreemists that act more like the spanish inquisition seeking to punish or silence so called “deniers.” Any truly unbiased environmental scientists are drowned in the sea of screaming, chicken little type alarmists…making any real facts difficult or impossible to determine in the mass of false information, and outright lies.
4. Anti-Social | 11.07.09
Does it really matter what the cause is? No. For all we know the tipping point was reached three hundreds ago. Trouble is that Gore and company want to argue about the past and not deal realistically with the future. None of the ideologues or members of the choir have the foggiest notion on how to get 6 billion plus people in line to regulate their uses of resources to maintain an even global temperature or reverse the ongoing change. So, we’d better get used to the idea of a warming earth because it’s happening. Right now. Instead of worrying about the current BS line global temperature change **** the passes as science we should start thinking and planning about the masses that will be migrating and how we’ll deal with those impacts. Those are real problems without any easy solutions.
On the other hand, we should be glad that there’s climate change. Proves that the system still works.
5. Perry | 11.07.09
I think the financial corruption of the government and shamefully biased movie by Al Gore has driven the two sided farther apart. I try to keep an open mind but I know cap and trade is a huge money maker, and those that are positioning themselves to make huge money on this fund studies like this. When the government forces certification of ones hone to meet their environmental standard, of course paid for by the taxpayer - and all repairs required to bring the house up to their environmental code, will cripple home sales and the American economy more than the banks debacle ever did. Unfortunately, the cynicism created by the liar politicians, the media and lack of credibility by most of the folks touting global warming makes this, and all other propaganda, untrustworthy. Then, I heard that we are not supposed to look at our local climates because they aren’t really reflective of global changes. So we are to trust the “experts and politicians”. Then, we are to pay more for products when the government taxes them to pay for addressing global warming.
My question here - who paid for this study done by Columbia University and what do they have to gain? They are the the ones looking to monetarily gain from this on the back of American workers. You can’t believe anyone anymore. That is a shame for if it is true it will be fought and our kids will pay for the corruption. Politicians and the media are to blame.
6. DavidC | 11.07.09
I find it curious that so many sites are pushing this one poll over all the others that paint a different picture.
Just a few days ago this site reported that ‘Global warming is real, so do something, US voters say’ - http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/02/poll-global-warming-is-real-so-do-something-us-voters-say/
Or how about: Global survey has found that people from diverse backgrounds in the US and worldwide overwhelmingly want faster action, deeper GHG emissions cuts and stronger enforcement than either US climate legislation proposals or Copenhagen treaty conference preparations are currently contemplating - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223047+22-Oct-2009+PRN20091022
And yet you push one poll that somewhat contradicts these. Is it because it draws more visitors?
7. DavidC | 11.07.09
Woody Porter,
That’s certainly true of the hardcore Deniers. They are unreachable - see ‘doug brockman’, above.
But there are many rational people who can be reached and persuaded of the danger and urgency. I’ll look forward to reading this free book - it can’t hurt to be better informed on how to communicate the science.
8. John Beckwith | 11.08.09
What do you need talk for? Just go by the actual temperature and Co2 data and plot it on a graph. Unfortunately the Hadley data has been destroyed which leaves us only with the satellite data as being the most accurate.
When graph this, you can easily see that temperatures peaked in 1998 and have trended down for over a decade while Co2 continues trending up.
If you go by facts only, it doesn’t take a scientist to realize that there is NO corrulation between global temperature rise and Co2 levels
Wake up! You have been brainwashed and are overcomplicating things to support your delusional lunacy.
9. Nancy Mihlon | 11.08.09
I am an environmentalist and a humanist. I am well educated, for a 26 year old, and a political independent. I am still undecided on this issue. I sense that there is dangerous group thinking happening on both sides of the debate. The political(job security, tenure at university) and economic incentives to reach certain conclusions are impossible to deny. Political identity further complicates the picture. Like in education or prison reform, belief in certain verifiable, physical realities, has strong partisan connotations. (If you believe that CO2 levels correlate with rising temps, then you are probably a Democrat or at least a Liberal, ditto if you think pot is not physically dangerous or addictive, yet if you think American students need a unified core curriculum you are a conservative). Like many people my capacity to worry has been exhausted (the economy, two wars, swine flu, failing schools, partisan bickering, the incarceration rate/war on drugs, mass shootings and needless violence, etc.) Why should I worry, and put my resources and time and energy into preventing/stopping global warming that “might” exist and “might” be stoppable? Why should our country do the same? I try to live lightly on the earth out of love and respect, if we all tried to live lightly (including the earths corporate citizens) wouldn’t that be enough?
10. independentblogger | 11.08.09
Talking about the right things would change minds: ‘YOU’. The facts and numbers of climate change are notorious - even most people who deny it can explain the environmentalist position in a nutshell. The left keeps preaching as if they need to convert the choir. What they need to do is persuade enough centrists that their cure is not worse than the disease.
What needs to be talked about instead is, for each individual person: if we make changes to avert global warming and all its effects, how do we do it in a way that isn’t going to lose YOUR job, reduce YOUR standard of living, pass enormous debt onto YOUR children and impose unwanted restrictions upon YOUR lifestyle. Oh, and by the way, it actually has to be effective at stopping climate change too.
These are the things that need to be talked about. I am not sold on cap-and-trade. But I am very open minded towards other ideas that we can do in the meantime, and anything else that can be proposed to do in the future to prevent climate change in a way that is practical, affordable, effective and doesn’t impose on my individual freedom or privacy.
As a centrist, I was persuaded long ago of the existence of global warming (after all, if many credible, independent scientists came to believe in it using sound methods, then who am I to argue with that). Like I said, what remains is to persuade me that there is a cure that is not worse than the disease.
IB
11. tom | 11.09.09
Sadly, the majority of misconceptions about the truth or fiction of climate change can be laid at the feet of our educational system. The scientific illiteracy of the average american is very large. So many of the public do not understand how science works, what models can and cannot do, what statistics can and cannot do and how data is collected and analyzed and the public does not understand the differences. Scientists contribute greatly to the problem by poor communication.
12. Mark | 11.09.09
Dead Trees are to Blame and we all know it. Ronald Regan said it back in the 80’s and was right/ Why does everyone’s view on this thing sound like they all used to watch The Paper Chase. Got any patches on your sport coats fellows?
13. Paul Ahart | 11.09.09
Poster “Tom” above has it right. A good part of the problem with climate change denial IS rooted in the abyssmal state of science education in America. It is not great in the public schools, and it is nonexistent-to-terrible in the majority of home-school curricula. A good example is shown with the Pew Foundation Poll, done every couple of years, that shows nearly half of all Americans believe all life on Earth was “created” sometime in the last 10,000 years, and that nothing has really changed, that geological features like the Grand Canyon were formed by “Noah’s Flood.” As scientist and author Richard Dawkins says, such a mindset is like believing the distance from New York City to San Francisco is 10 yards, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Indeed, denial of climate change goes hand-in-hand with science denial and the poor state of science education.
14. Jeff | 11.09.09
What’s needed is more arrogance. Lately in an effort to be politically correct we’ve started to let dumb people have their say. That’s why we allow illogical people who can’t do math like Jim Carrey to sway other ignorant people to not have their children vaccinated. We should be more willing to say things like, “Your opinion is ridiculous. You obviously have only a fifth grade education. Go play in the corner and let the adults talk.”
Arrogantly yours,
Jeff - certified genius
15. btorris | 11.09.09
I have finally come a place where I don’t even talk about climate change. I have change my tactics by pointing out that global warming or no global warming, we need clean up the mess we see around us. Smog and ever growing dumps are a nuisance and an eye sore. It is amazing but no one can disagree with our need to clean up our act.
16. Bruce from Oak Harbor | 11.09.09
Those darned “other guys” and their ideology. Not you…..those other guys.
17. Sally | 11.09.09
Very interesting and useful article/report. It is worth remembering, though, that despite the, “scientists’ and the media’s success in communicating the gravity of the ozone problem in past decades,” mentioned above, the validity of the science behind the ozone hole problem was very hotly debated for a long time. The science, and the scientists behind it, were attacked in very similar ways to what is happening in the field of climate research right now.
On another note, while I find independentblogger’s comment very perceptive(and useful!), I also think a lot of people actually don’t understand the basic science at play here. As a college professor, I run across a lot of students who have the requisite scientific background to understand the issues but have never actually used that background to try to understand the climate change debate. Since this is an applied issue, it doesn’t always get included in standard college science courses, so the audience that could potentially be the most qualified to judge these arguments doesn’t always hear about them.
18. Woody Porter | 11.09.09
To Bruce from Oak Harbor –
It strikes me as fairly easy to sniff out when ideology, not empiricism, is guiding one’s line-of-thinking. It goes like this:
Ideologue (…with apologies to Maxwell Smart): “No need to do anything about global warming. Reasons? Okay — would you believe CO2 is a harmless gas and there’s no such thing as a “greenhouse effect?”…You wouldn’t? Okay, would you believe all this climate change is really caused by sunspot activity?…You wouldn’t? Okay, well — would you believe that climate change isn’t actually happening at all, and the whole world has been brainwashed by thousands of fiendishly evil scientists?…You wouldn’t? Okay, would you believe…”
Empiricist: “Here’s what’s happening; here are the laws of physics and chemistry that explain it; and here are the data points that confirm the science.”
If you believe in something, and you’ve got 30 different — and even contradictory — justifications for your belief, you’re an ideologue. If you believe in something, and you’ve one scientifically-consistent justification for your belief, you’re an empiricist.
19. Joshua Cranmer | 11.11.09
I think there is one indisputable fact, no matter which side of the discussion you are on: Earth’s climate is a very complex, highly interconnected system. Both sides seem to latch onto specific, oversimplified explanations of individual components. For example, those proposing a lack of climate change argue that the sunspot cycle explains all of the variation, while those proposing anthropogenic climate change constantly point to the greenhouse gas effect. And both sides cherry pick primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to argue their claims. To top it all off, our assessment of climate relies heavily on models since we can’t vary the parameters easily and the timescales to achieve steady-state solutions are too long to readily preform experiments. With that said, there is cross-disciplinary evidence for some points: chemistry explains very well that molecules like H₂O and CO₂ absorb well in the IR spectrum.
The primary problem, though, is really that most people discussing the issue have a specific viewpoint, especially on what action to take, and tend to blind themselves to evidence to the contrary (expectation bias).
20. John Beckwith | 11.12.09
It is unbelievable that most here are of the opinion that Co2 is causing global temperatures to rise without the slightest knowledge of how actual temperature and Co2 levels have been tracking for over a decade now! Most of what I see is psychoanalytical opinion and political agenda. This kind of talk does not make one side right or wrong. Only the facts do. Can’t you people realize that you have been brainwashed to the point that facts don’t mater anymore? Isn’t there anyone here which is the slightest bit interested in what is actually happening or are you all going to blindly swallow what the so called scientists and politicians spoon feed you. Don’t you realize that when Gore said “the debate is over” he’s trying to fool you? NONE of the “Gloom and Doom” predictions of the late 1980’s have come true. NONE of the “Gloom and Doom” predictions of the late 1990’s have come true. This is why the Global Warming Co2 theory is falling apart. If you are not sure, look at the facts! Wake up people! Don’t be a drone left behind!
21. PJames | 11.12.09
Dear Doug Brockman,
I expect that this book will not turn a profit because it’s free.
Just a thought.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. Cool Green Morning: Monday, November 9 | Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy | 11.09.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. doug brockman | 11.06.09
I doubt this book will change anyone’s minds. Those who are committed to climate change are already in the choir. Those who aren’t will recognize it as more Ministry of Truth Doublethink propaganda. However, it might make some money, much like Al Gore’s movie.