Atmosphere of Doubt

     Why has it become so easy to deny something so factually significant as anthropogenic climate change? Over the years, it seems as though denying climate change, and acknowledging the source, is becoming harder and harder, but millions of Americans still hold tight to denial. In order to grasp onto to this question, one must look at the science of why we don't believe the science.
    First off, Everyone posses different cultural worldviews, and therefore, fear different risks whether they be big government or too much freedom. Secondly, reasoning, like it or not, is suffused with emotion and reasoning often follows initial emotional responses to new information. Especially with climate change, many are too emotionally invested in their current beliefs, their beliefs make up much of their personal identity and way of life, that learning about global climate change often triggers a fight or flight response internally. Because of this, often times learning more about the issue does not increase empathy people have for the environment and for others, it often only further solidifies their denial. In terms of political parties and various religions, different groups will almost always interpret ambiguous information differently, they look at the same data, but formulate completely different conclusions based on their own perspectives. Also, the reality that culture absolutely matters in science does not make the situation any easier to comprehend. Overall, it seems that because of the immense gravity of the situation of the effects of human caused global warming, many have an inexhaustible list of reasons to deny it, because accepting the truth would shatter their core beliefs. This is why trying to convince a skeptic about the realities of climate change is impossible, unless the truth is conveyed with love and understanding and repetition is involved.
     It is extremely difficult to convince someone who has already made up their mind that anthropogenic climate change is happening. In order to have a fighting chance, we must be very tactful in how we go about trying to change their minds. Because emotion is so connected to human reasoning, our arguments must be lead by values in order to give the facts chance. We must also make the conversation personal to the individual so that a cultivation of empathy can take place. Above all, if skeptics don't hear what they need to hear from someone they respect, like a business, political or religious leader, then, no matter how well thought it is, the message will fall on deaf ears.


The following is a example of a tactful approach of convincing Conservative Christians the reality of global climate change:


          -Their argument- God wouldn't let something as devastating as global climate change to happen to the earth he created.
          -Response- Because of the existence of free will, God allows us to make our own decisions and live the consequences, he is not a puppet master.


          -Their argument- Human's can't stop the inevitable, like the end of days (judgment day) from occurring.
          -Response- The Bible does not approve of letting the world burn.
                            Caring for the environment goes hand in hand with caring for the poor, as Jesus commands us aging and again in the Gospels to do.


          -Their argument- As conservatives, we look to hold onto our way of life and keep the status quo.
          -Response- Conservation is conservative. What's more conservative than preserving our natural  resources to make sure we have enough for the future?