How do people become climate change skeptics? Was it through manipulation by the Forces of Evil and/or Stupidity (e.g., Corporations, Republicans, Religion)? Did exposure to skeptical messages by these Forces lead them down the path of Doubt and Ignorance? Or was it simple group identification – my friends are skeptics, ergo…? As it turns out, a lot of skeptics say they used to be more concerned about climate change but exposure to the climate change activists and their dire messages convinced them that the threat of climate change was overstated. For instance, in one study, several skeptics indicated the film “An Inconvenient Truth, “instigated or enhanced their skepticism”. Other skeptics were “inspired” by reading reports put out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which they saw as long on questionable computer models and short on actual evidence.
A common theme among skeptics is an initial aversion to climate change activists, followed by exploration of evidence and views at odds with the “consensus”, followed by increased skepticism. In other words, first they were turned off by the message of activists. Then they were turned on by the arguments of skeptics.
So why are climate change activists so repugnant to some people? I’m thinking it’s mostly their perceived: 1) moral self-righteousness that imputes the character of those who disagree; 2) tone of certainty that exceeds the science; and, 3) exclusive focus on worst-case scenarios. Take “An Inconvenient truth” for instance. Its title alone invites resistance from anyone on the fence. The film basically trivializes skepticism as a matter of not wanting to be inconvenienced. Talk about character assassination! Anyone who disagrees with Al Gore is willing to destroy the planet to avoid walking to the grocery store or just putting on a sweater when the house is cold. Impugning the character of non-believers is rarely a winning strategy for gaining converts.
Dire messaging about climate change, especially when delivered with a tone of certainty that exceeds the science, can backfire. Subjecting skeptics to vividly catastrophic climate scenarios won’t work – and might even increase their skepticism. When there’s already a degree of mistrust, arguing on the basis of authority (the “consensus”) or relying on fear tactics increases distrust.
But that doesn’t mean that most skeptics are irrational or unconcerned. I predict if the evidence of global climate change gets stronger, many skeptics will change their tune. That doesn’t mean they’ll believe that catastrophe awaits unless drastic measures are taken – it just means more will accept there’s a problem.
Then, hopefully, we can move on and have vigorous arguments about what to do when, without character assassination or name calling.