The Middle Way

Why Won't They Listen?

Why don't people believe climate scientists that anthropomorphic global warming is real and a growing threat?

This question puzzling scientists comes as no surprise to social scientists. NPR's All Things Considered ran a recent story highlighting research that shows a belief in climate change hinges on a person's world view. From NPR's story:

"To social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, it's not surprising that two people can disagree so strongly over science. Braman is on the faculty at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.

" 'People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view,' Braman says."

The Cultural Cognition group ran a series of experiments among people whose cultural beliefs were labeled individualistic -- those who embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise -- and communitarian -- those who are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. In a series of experiments, both groups formed vastly different opinions when presented with the same scientific facts.

"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.

It turns out that the messenger is also important. You don't send Al Gore to talk to climate skeptics; they won't be able to hear him with any sense of objectivity. To persuade the climate change discussion, scientists need to focus more on influencing the influencers in the skeptics' camp.

The broader implications go beyond climate science. Anyone watching the Health Care summit (as I did for 6 hours) could plainly see that the people sitting around the table were not convincing anyone to change their beliefs. Implacable, strained expressions -- all.

No one is immune to this. We all shape the world we live in by our particular belief systems. We are all resistant to changing our beliefs, even when confronted with evidence that's in direct conflict with them. Some of the most painful moments I've lived through came when I could no longer block a particular truth from penetrating my protective shield.

My own spiritual belief system involves constantly checking in to see whether what I am doing, saying or thinking is real or an illusion. It means I'm always striving to be open to change a long-held belief by paying careful attention to where I'm getting my information.

And it's likely to keep me busy for the rest of my life.

A Conversation on Climate Change

It started off simply. An email from my conservative brother, distraught about cap and trade legislation that had passed the U.S. House. Just another in a long-running policy debate between him and his liberal older sister.

I admitted the legislation was flawed but not final: the Senate had yet to weigh in. And I asked him this question: “Given that this is an even more dire issue for the future of our children and grandchildren than any other, what ideas do you support for curbing greenhouse gases and creating a more sustainable society?”

That’s when for me, the conversation became surreal. Because it turns out my brother – like many other US citizens, mostly of a conservative bent -- doesn’t believe in global warming.

And so began a conversation that ultimately included my friend, Bob Grumbine – a real, live climate scientist I dragged in to counter what I believed to be bad science. I could turn this post into a play-by-play description of that conversation, but that’s not fair to my brother or my friend. Especially when my biggest insight was about my own ignorance.

So I write this as a thank you to my brother, who started the conversation. And to Bob, for clearly explaining the science behind the issues my brother raised, then pointing me to other knowledgeable resources.

Did the data sway my brother? I don’t know. One of Bob’s comments haunts me: “If you can't examine the science without letting fears about your wallet dictate whether you accept the science, you're really not going to understand the science.”  We seem incapable of moving beyond ideology when it comes to the science of climate change.  And general ignorance of science is a big part of the issue.

That would be me. I tuned out all things science long ago, certainly by the time I took high school chemistry. “We’re words people,” my father used to say. As if the ability to communicate effectively doesn’t apply to science or math. But I absorbed this because truthfully, science and math didn’t come as naturally – or interest me – the way language and history did.

So it’s hypocritical of me to point to the ignorance of the doubters when I’m just as ignorant about the science supporting climate change. It doesn’t help that the scientists who know the most write about it in ways that make it inaccessible to the average non-scientist.

There’s increasing discussion among scientists, themselves, about the need for communicating effectively with the general public. Michael Tobis, who blogs at Only In It For The Gold, says, “ I believe that increased alienation between experts and the public during the past generation, notably in America but also elsewhere, is the single greatest threat humanity faces.”  And Randy Olson, scientist, filmmaker and author of Don’t Be Such a Scientist, asks, “How bad is the situation with scientists and their communication skills? Well, I think it’s at a crisis stage.”

I began reading Tobis’s blog at Bob’s suggestion. While I admit I’m completely lost reading some of his posts on climate change science, I appreciate his passion, which often comes across in humorous and irreverent ways. And I felt like he was talking directly to me when he said:

“I believe that the present topic is the keystone issue of the survival of civilization. I believe that the increased alienation between experts and the public during the past generation, notably in America but also elsewhere, is the single greatest threat humanity faces. It subsumes not just climate, but also food security, energy security, health, war and peace, and ultimately the preservation of any human accomplishment worth preserving. If we accept that humanity freely chooses its destiny, we had damned well better improve our competence. “[Italics mine.]

Tobis also pointed me to science teacher Greg Craven, whose YouTube videos led him to write a book, What’s the Worst That Could Happen?  Although Craven clearly comes out in support of the science behind global warming, his book doesn’t try to talk nonbelievers to his side. Instead, he provides a way to do your own risk analysis, offering the supporting arguments for both sides.

I’m still not as knowledgeable as I’d like about the science of climate change. Thanks to Bob and others, though, I can at least explain why we should be concerned by a CO2 level of 385 parts per million (ppm), rising about 2 ppm/year, and why these increases cannot be attributed to normal warming trends.

It’s a start.