In “Confessions of a Climate Change Convert”, D. R. Tucker explained the change in consciousness that came to a conservative writer after seriously looking at the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Today, he offers another insight into the conservative’s climate quandary.
The amusement parks I visited when I was a child had signs indicating that one had to be “this tall” in order to go on a ride. Viewing the endless stream of op-eds and Fox News Channel segments ridiculing the very notion of global warming, I ask myself if we need new signs indicating that one must be “this smart” to understand climate science.
There’s an overlap between media outlets geared to the lowest common intellectual denominator and media outlets that vigorously denounce the scientific verdict on climate change. Long before recognizing the reality of global warming, I was unnerved by the dynamic of right-leaning media outlets embracing tabloid sensationalism, lurid and unsettling content, flashy headlines and graphics. Fox, the New York Post, the boy-we-miss-Bush blogs—all of these entities appealed to emotion, and all of these entities abhorred climate science.
There are only four reasons conservatives reject the scientific verdict on climate—absolute scientific ignorance, support of or support from fossil fuel interests, unrestrained contempt for Al Gore, and rigid ideological opposition to virtually any form of government regulation. Sometimes it’s hard to determine which reason is the biggest factor in climate denial. Yes, the pecuniary pleasures proffered by petroleum promoters have a lot to do with the “It’s all a hoax!” hooey from the right. Yet scientific ignorance might play a bigger role than money when it comes to conservative climate callousness.
Climate science isn’t simple to make simple. It’s hard to explain in a 30-second sound bite how global warming makes hurricanes more dangerous, the role it plays in increasing the intensity of snowstorms, the risk it poses to oceans, to wildlife, to us. It’s tough to make some folks comprehend that human beings can affect the climate by virtue of their activities. The very concept scares people. Science scares people.
I know what it’s like to have a fear of science. I loathed science classes in high school and college, and could not wait for those classes to be over. Chemistry, biology and the natural world were above my pay grade, so to speak. I felt mentally lost in those science classes, thrown for a loop, unable to relate to what was being discussed in any way. I loathed science as much as I loved literature.
It was quite easy for me to buy into Rush Limbaugh’s denigration of science; it was a contempt I already shared. Limbaugh—who often talked of how much he hated school—promoted the idea that scientists didn’t really know what they were talking about, that they were just making up mumbo-jumbo with no relevance to the real world. That’s how I felt. What did my science teachers know, anyway?
Having accepted Limbaugh’s contention that scientists generally didn’t know what they were talking about, I readily bought his argument that climate scientists in particular were clueless. It never even occurred to me that a college dropout like Limbaugh would not be wiser than those who had studied the global climate for years. They studied science; I hated science; Rush hated science too; I agreed with Rush.
One of the things about the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that caused me to reconsider my climate denialism was that it was written in clear language. I didn’t find myself getting lost in the weeds. I wasn’t confused by the terms. One didn’t need years of scientific training to understand what was being presented. The IPCC report made sense in a way that the science textbooks I read in high school and college didn’t.
Looking back, I realize that Limbaugh appealed to my scientific ignorance, my inability to understand the complexities of the natural world. One of Limbaugh’s signature lines was, “Making the complex simple!” Of course, his way of making the complex simple was to declare the complex fictional.
It’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that climate deniers in the conservative media and climate deniers who enjoy conservative media have formed the same bond I once formed with Limbaugh. The media pundits who claim global warming is a hoax don’t have a damn clue about science, and they gear their shows, op-eds and blogs to people who are just as scientifically ignorant. I was one of those people. I thank God I’m no longer one.
Climate denial is, if nothing else, a sign of the dumbing down of conservatism in the United States. Just as climate change threatens the physical environment, so too does climate denial threaten the cognitive environment. After all, what happens when one’s intellectual shoreline has been eroded?
This takes much courage and self confidence.
The depth of the hatred of Al Gore is unbelievable. I think this hatred is glue that keeps the political denialism alive. When you vote for someone, or against someone, it’s very personal. It’s like bringing your candidate into your family or something. These are very strong emotional bonds.
I live in Texas, much of my family are ranchers. These are very conservative folks. They see the changes, in their hearts they know it, but they can’t break this bond. These are folks that voted for W four times. How could they reconcile that in their mind? If they were wrong about AGW could they have been wrong about war or financial deregulation? I try to understand this pathology and not to judge them, but I’m not sure Al Gore helps us very much anymore.
Hatred, at bottom, often comes from fear.
The fear that drives hatred for Al Gore comes from so many people living their whole lives based on illusions that can barely be held together from day to day.
Al has been prescient and correct so often that he has been nicknamed “The Goracle”.
From the internet to Iraq, that he is a living, walking, repudiation of the very alternative reality that dittoheads and teabaggers so desperately want to live in.
But unfortunately for them, facts are stubborn things. Saddam did not attack us, WMD’s did not exist, Obama was not born in Kenya, and climate change is real.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
-Yoda
Unfortunately, the lack of understanding and recognition of complex subject matters has become a badge of honor within conservative circles. It’s preferable to be perceived as one of the “ignorant common folk” than an “intellectual elitist”. And this is reflected in the success of conservative politicians like George W., Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann. Everything is a study of absolute contrast, black or white, with us or against us, patriot or pinhead.
So, they attempt to cast climate change in the same light, catastrophic or complete hoax. It’s impossible to explain that climate change is system science where some aspects are “settled” (greenhouse effect, rising carbon levels, industrial contributions, etc.) while others are still under intense study (hurricane impacts, cloud influences, etc.). It just doesn’t jibe into a square peg, round hole mentality.
> It’s impossible to explain that climate change is system science …
And it’s similarly impossible to explain the solutions to those who don’t want to understand them.
To those who want simple solutions, “Drill, baby, drill!” is far more pleasing than “A system of carbon cap and trade, Feed-In Tariffs and taxation incentives to encourage investment in clean energy which will bring long-term net economic, environmental and social benefit.”
Also, only one of those fits on a bumper sticker.
Renewable Energy FTW, Suckas!
There, now we have a bumper sticker that appeals to the Youtube generation; plus it has a touch of hip-hop flair. Hah.
Solar is Sexy
GO BLOW… Towards a Wind Turbine
Geothermal Energy is HOT!
My Electric Car Ran Into Your Honor Student
Algae Biodiesel… Grossly Awesome
Oil Has Peaked… Everybody Panic!
Carbon Tax Defunds Terrorism
Shift Happens
Haha, lots of potential for clever and inappropriate bumper stickers.
lol. Very good. If you’re ever thinking of a career change, Bumper Sticker Shop owner might be a good move. :p
This is really interesting. It never occurred to me how one’s past relationship with science might define how they view the science of climate change. I used to abhor science too, when I was young and couldn’t find the relevance in it. Now that I am older I love science. I see why/how it applies to my life. This is article has explained so much.
You are right, Peter. Hate is fear. There are really only two emotions: Love and fear. Choosing to hate someone is actually giving them power over you.
Peace,
Jess
So D. R. Tucker couldn’t understand his high school or college science books, but now has a deep understanding of complex issues and people who disagree are stupid. What an amazing elitist stereotype. You couldn’t satirize him better than he did himself.
Indeed. A willingness to be open-minded and honest is ludicrous, isn’t it? That is the kind of thinking that will lead to the marginalization of the anti-science movement in the U.S.
tomgraywind,
Tucker is like a stoned college freshman who took a beginning class in Astronomy and thinks he understands the Universe. This is not some brilliant epiphany. He just thinks it is, and so do you.
This is a simplistic thinker who never studied nor understands science, has been spoon-fed a simplistic set of explanations containing just enough counter-inuitive elements to seem complex and insightful, i.e warming leads to increased snowfall, and thus feels really smart embracing the conclusion you laud him for. So he was a conservative who used to have a knee-jerk rejection of AGW. Now he has a knee-jerk and shallow opinion in the opposite direction. Big whoop.
It appears you know a thing or two about kneejerk reactions.
Sorry charles, but you likely don’t know how much time Tucker has read the IPCC report, looked over books, went to seminars, or viewed graphs. Hey, I don’t know either. From what I can tell of his writings, he has read most of the IPCC 2007 report, which is a pretty grand feat for a scientific lay person. He may have done some other research after that. Claiming that he is a simplistic thinker and that he is having a knee jerk response is a really low blow.
One thing I laud him for is reading the IPCC 2007 report. It is a document that cites hundreds of papers on the research and results from scientists the world over. He likely has an accurate view of climate science knowledge (as of 2007 anyway).
Oh, and charles… have you read the IPCC assessment report?
“Yes, the pecuniary pleasures proffered by petroleum promoters have a lot to do with the “It’s all a hoax!” hooey from the right. ”
Whoa, that is some serious alliteration right there.
You should be more careful in the way you parse your thoughts.
“There are only four reasons conservatives reject the scientific verdict on climate—absolute scientific ignorance, support of or support from fossil fuel interests, unrestrained contempt for Al Gore, and rigid ideological opposition to virtually any form of government regulation. ”
You have implied rejection is a ‘conservative’ phenomenon ( conservatives are interested in conservation : I’m sure I could be called worse )
Support from fossil fuel interests ( unproveable and unnecessary allegation which makes an unsupported accusation)
Contempt for Al Gore ( I’ve read some really interesting backgrounders on the man…well after I was impressed with his presentation )
Rigid ideological opposition to government regulation ( what regulation ? What I see in carbon trading is an opportunity for scamming by selling an intangible )
So basically you’re ‘buying into the idea’ that when Talking Points ( a Right Wing staple for propaganda ) are presented ‘debunking’ all possible ‘Denier’ arguments that disagreement is ‘unscientific.’
No. Not anywhere close. Go read up on the essentials of Scientific Method. One cannot even specify that only ‘professional scientists’ are qualified to have views : and certainly not just specialists occupied with furthering suppositions based on mathematical modeling which it is then proposed ‘foretells the future.’
There’s the fly in the ointment. No testing of changed circumstances from proposed processes which are not fully understood, measured, recorded as being a comprehensive model reflecting the real world. Worse, no known reason to think forward projection will not be useless because of either wrong model parameters or any other problems associated not just with modeling complexity…but perhaps running afoul of changed parameters or not being able to set up adequate computation.
So I threw together some Food for Thought.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate.html
> You have implied rejection is a ‘conservative’ phenomenon…
If you mean climate change denial, it largely is. It’s documented fact.
> …conservatives are interested in conservation…
I’ve no doubt that appears in a dictionary somewhere, but that definition has little to do with the modern conservative movement – particularly in USA, Canada, Australia, Britain. Modern conservatism could be more accurately defined as ‘what’s in it for me?’ – which leads to rejection of any science or reality that gets in the way of accumulating ‘wealth’.
> Support from fossil fuel interests ( unproveable and unnecessary allegation which makes an unsupported accusation)
You must be entirely new to this subject. The evidence is mountainous.
Bloviated, Dunning Kruger-fuelled rhetoric is easy, overturning ~200 years of accumulated science not so much.
“So I threw together some Food for Thought.”
Word salad is more like it.
While climate science is indeed complex, I find it is relatively simple to counter the denier arguments. This is partly because the denier arguments have to be simple enough for people like Rush Limbaugh to believe they comprehend them. They’ve got simple sound-bytes that are easy to remember and pass around. But it usually doesn’t take much more explaining to show why the over simplified denier arguments are wrong, or misleading, or meaningless.
I’ve heard it said that it can take much more time to explain what the truth is than why a denier argument is wrong. And that may be true, but we don’t have to go into all that much depth to show only why the denier argument doesn’t make sense.
That doesn’t show why the much more complex arguments of real climate scientists are right (or highly probable), but at least it neutralizes the false counter arguments, leaving a vacuum that can be filled with some of the basics of the truth, and an appreciation for the complexity of the problem.
This is one reason I have been a strong supporter of the Climate Crocks series, because there is focus on making these arguments presentable at that level. I believe that if we are going to be effective in converting deniers into supporters, we have to understand how they think and why they believe what they do. One thing that doesn’t work so well, however, is to be insulting. It tends to backfire by making the deniers feel that they must be right after all.
You know, I have been thinking about this article, and it seems to me like the information in it may be some of the most important information for neutralizing the strong opposition against climate change. Tucker’s categories do indeed seem to cover a broad spectrum of dedicated denier types. This is my take of the breakdown:
1) Scientific Ignorance
** Identifiable by their blanket statements such as “humans are too small to affect the climate”.
** Includes people of all stripes; anybody can be prone to scientific ignorance.
** Remedy? Science outreach programs, college courses, better mainstream media coverage. Change the conversation.
2) Support Of or Support For Fossil Fuel
** Self preservation of one’s own job is a major motivator for denial.
** Includes businesses like Koch or Exxon and the organizations like Heartland Institute that take donation money. Also, the average joe with a specialized job in the fossil fuel industry may be prone to climate science denial.
** Remedy? Maybe ensure that fossil fuel companies are compensated for lost sunk costs during the emissions ramp down. Outreach and training for workers stranded from the ramp down of the fossil fuel industry.
3) Unrestrained Contempt for Al Gore
** Easy to identify by their rants. Anything that Al Gore likes, they dislike.
** Includes the average conservative… Al Gore haters are widespread. I would also include in this category folks that hate environmentalists in general.
** Remedy? Focus on de-crocking the myths spread about this man. Al Gore could pair up with a conservative as his “climate solutions running mate”. Environmentalists could focus on outreach to the haters.
4) Ideological Opposition to Gov’t Regulation
** Notable for an almost religious fervor against regulations and cap n’ trade. If no global warming solution fits their ideology, they are prone to attack the science instead.
** Includes many conservatives and libertarians.
** Remedy? Engage in dialogue to understand what global warming mitigation policies would be reasonable to them. Failing that, focus on informing folks that aren’t so rigid in their ideology and leave the hardcore deniers alone.
^^ There are people that fit in multiple categories above.
I would say a three prong initiative would be effective by executing the following items in parallel.
1) Inform the uninformed middle ground with outreach programs on basics of the science. I’m not sure how to fund this or how to improve mainstream media coverage. It would be challenging to inform those that consume Fox News as their primary media.
2) Move forward with climate solutions. We can’t wait around for everybody to be on board to get started. Past attempts to pass policy measures failed, but they were at least attempts.
3) Control climate science misinformation and address the denier hangups. Discussing science with many deniers is not helpful. They need to be engaged within the context of the denial category(s) that they fall into.