What is the role of psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology in the climate discussion?

Have you ever worked diligently on a task for a year and then met with initial failure? It took a good year to pour through a pile of climate change books, science articles, and reputable science web-sites. 

The project started years ago and continues today. At that time, when I first completed my initial research, my goal was to either disprove the advance of climate threatening global warming or become active in trying to convince people to do something to save our kid’s future. Coming from a military and aviation background, a background that does not tolerate lying, I thought my diligent work and honesty would sway people’s minds.

I was a naïve man. After a few minutes of talking to, of all people, my brother and his wife about climate science, their eyes glazed over. This, “deer in the headlights” reaction to climate talk is a widely reported reaction to people who bring up the topic. It seemed to me, that people who have a pre-conceived opinion, retain their opinion. And, it seemed, those who had been swayed to deny climate science were more “confident” * than me even though they had no professional references. This was an ominous early warning.

My mistake is a common mistake made by scientists and climate activists. We were naïve.  We assumed that if we had just one more line of evidence we could sway opinion. I would like to note that at the time Katherine Hayhoe, a well-spoken evangelical Christian and climate scientist, had identified 26,500 lines of evidence. Yeah, we thought if we could run it up to 26,501, we would get our point across.  

Universities and science organizations around the globe have discovered that the long journey to the mountain of knowledge is almost as challenging as the steep climb that follows, the task of  communicating the knowledge to us. Many universities are incorporating liberal arts skills like writing, speaking, and communicating in with their heavy science curriculum. The light has come on in the science community. The people who pay the bill, the public, deserve to know what they have discovered in words we can understand. In a democracy, the voter needs to know the science.  

I remember when the light came on for me a couple years ago. I was at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland. Our climate group was introduced to one more line of evidence confirming human caused climate change. At the end of the presentation, I stood up and said, “Hey, we have 97+% of all active climate scientists telling us we have to do something to stop the emission of carbon dioxide. If the science community moves to 98% unanimity, will it make a difference? We must learn how to communicate with people we do not understand”.

There are more than a few books that struggle with this and many more articles that address this in professional and general interest magazines.  The books go by the titles, “the Knowledge Illusion”, “Denying to the Grave”, and “Don’t even think about it”. My favorite book on our psychological idiosyncrasies has nothing to do with climate change at all. It is “The Confidence Game” by psychologist Maria Konnikova. Her book tells the story of improbable cons inflicted on thousands of the unsuspecting folks like you and me. It is a great read with lots of information. At the end, you realize anyone can be, and likely will be, the victim of a conman.

Today we are exploited by marketeers. In a way they are con artists. Marketeers are professionals at communication. They use psychology, sociology, and the roots of our biologic mind to, “mine” our minds for opportunities. Most often it is simply to get us to buy something. Dangerously, we are prone to even worse manipulation by those who use tribalism, demonization, and even magical thinking to accept, quite frankly, lies.  Or, worse yet, they inject doubt in well proven science.  Reference the documentary and book called, “Merchants of Doubt”.

Should you trust me? That is a logical question.  How does one become a, “trusted messenger”? And are trusted messengers trustworthy? When forming an opinion, how do we do it? What is the primary factor that makes us believe climate change is real or a hoax? Are homo sapiens, logical? One day I will talk about climate science, but it hardly makes any sense unless we understand just a little more about how we think. At least that is what the scientists are saying.

*There are two types of confidence that I know of. One is when you or I say, “I am confident.” This is emotional confidence. Scientists gives us percentage confidence and then give us margins of error based on statistical analysis. We often mistake one for the other.

Tip: Recycle as best you can. Recycling is just society trying to be efficient.  Gardeners can reduce their fertilization costs by recycling food waste and they may like your vegetable scraps too. We just mix in lawn clippings and leaves, a little  water to dampen the mixture, and mix. The more you mix, the more air the critters that do the work for us can breathe so the faster you turn your waste into first rate fertilizer. Just a note, pace yourself when mixing. Whatever the tool you use don’t hurry. It will get those arms in shape but you want to be sure you are getting the heart in shape too…slowly.

Maybe a book? Your library may have one of the books mentioned above.