View Single Post
  #71  
Old 10-23-2018, 02:59 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by vox.com, quoted by Budget Player Cadet

They are gaslighting, not persuading, and it will end when they are beaten and removed from office, not when climate scientists find just the right argument.
This is exactly right, and the truth of it is found in the oft-cited fact that presenting stronger arguments to those inclined to hold contrary opinions only emboldens their contrarianism. It appears to be related to the famous statement by Upton Sinclair that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

From an article datelined October 31, 2011, in the October 29 - Nov 4 issue of New Scientist, one of two cover stories on the cover theme "Unscientific America: A dangerous retreat from reason":
In January, [John Holdren, science advisor to President Obama] welcomed the prospect of climatologists being called to testify before Congress: "I think we'll probably move the opinions of some of the members of Congress who currently call themselves sceptics, because I think a lot of good scientists are going to come in and explain very clearly what we know and how we know it and what it means, and it's a very persuasive case."

Fat chance. In March, an impressive array of climate scientists did exactly what Holdren wanted, but their efforts seemed only to inflame the scepticism of Republicans opposed to regulation of emissions.

For researchers who study how people form their opinions, and how we are influenced by the messages we receive, it was all too predictable. Holdren's prescription was a classic example of the "deficit model" of science communication, which assumes that mistrust of unwelcome scientific findings stems from a lack of knowledge. Ergo, if you provide more facts, scepticism should melt away. This approach appeals to people trained to treat evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth. The problem is that in many cases, it just doesn't work. Perversely, just giving people more information can sometimes polarise views and cause sceptics to harden their line.
So we already have the answer as to how climate change denialists will be regarded in the future. It's the same way they are regarded now by scientists and people who understand science: they will be viewed with contempt, as obstructionists to vital progress.