-2

Many organized groups assert that anthropogenic climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing the USA. Others deny it exists. Have any responses to their denial of this issue proven to be effective in changing people's minds?

Improve this question
19
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this as too broad. "Best ways" is way too open-ended. It's also opinion-based and possibly off-topic. If you'd like to ask how politicians can do so, or ask how the public can influence their politicians, or what specific policies could help, or so on, that'd be a reasonable question.
    – Bobson
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 0:02
  • 2
    @user1873 This edit seems to be huge change in intent. The question is better now (though "alarmism" might be unecessarily connotation laden), but it wasn't what was asked.
    – Publius
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 9:12
  • 1
    @user1873, Regardless of whether alarm and denial are equally undesirable, they are different conditions and the original question only addressed denial. Currently denial is not part of the question, and this changes it substantially.
    – Grant
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 15:08
  • 2
    It looks like the fundamental question that you're tying to ask is an opinion based question. We generally don't accept those kinds of questions at Stack Exchange sites.
    – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 15:20
  • 2
    @user438 high water is definitely coming. :)
    – user1530
    Commented Feb 18, 2015 at 22:40

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
2

Not very effective. A gallup poll in 2014 listed it second from the bottom only ahead of race relations when ranking a list of 15 problems facing the USA.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Twenty-eight U.S. senators held an all-night "talkathon" Monday to call attention to climate change, an issue that only 24% of Americans say they worry about a great deal. This puts climate change, along with the quality of the environment, near the bottom of a list of 15 issues Americans rated in Gallup's March 6-9 survey. The economy, federal spending, and healthcare dominate Americans' worries.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I don't see how this answers the question.
    – user1530
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 20:51
1

What are effective responses to denial of this issue?

As the US still leads the world in global warming denial, I think the answer to this question is simply "no one has figured out what an effective response to climate denial is as of yet".

Improve this answer
0

It seems pretty clear the reason for maintaining the position of denial is to avoid the anticipated costs that will come with universal acceptance. Denial is being used as a wallet shield. Nobody wants to fund the war on climate change when still paying for all the other unwinable wars. So stop focusing the evidence supporting climate change and begin working on the economic reasons denial is an attractive position to hold. The science debate has been taken about as far as it will go for the moment. Focus discussions on economically attractive solutions.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    I don't see how this answers the question.
    – user1530
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 20:52
-2

By using the correct terminology, first of all. No one denies "climate change"; the climate is of course always changing. The question is whether it is being changed primarily by human agency or by natural causes.

Furthermore, calling it "denial" is also simply an attempt to poison the well. Those who argue against it aren't in "denial" but are skeptical about it and are demanding a certain standard of evidence.

Improve this answer
16
  • 2
    Given the recently edited question, this answer is now irrelevant.
    – Bobson
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 15:28
  • 2
    @user438 you are proving the point. Claiming that science is 'merely appealing to authority' sums it up well.
    – user1530
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 22:05
  • 2
    @user438 - I don't ask my doctor to provide evidence of whatever he's diagnosing or a detailed explanation of how the body systems interact to produce the symptoms I'm seeing - I just confirm that his diagnosis does describe what I see. Likewise, I don't ask the mechanic to give me a guided tour to the car repairs he's making, or my manager to give me a blow-by-blow description of all the priorities he's juggling, or a biochemist to describe drug interactions. I take their words that they've evaluated the evidence and reached an informed conclusion. Why should climate science be different?
    – Bobson
    Commented Feb 18, 2015 at 3:40
  • 2
    @user438 - I try to stay apolitical on this stack, and approach things neutrally even when I disagree. But that only holds while other people remain rational. I can't abide irrationality. Would you consider this map evidence? Recorded temperatures? Melting polar ice? Are you qualified to tell me whether any of those actually prove anything? I'm certainly not, but the scientists who are say they do.
    – Bobson
    Commented Feb 18, 2015 at 3:49
  • 2
    @Grant: when you have a field - and quite a few practitioners thereof - rife with fraud and overblown claims, "tricks" to "hide the decline," and a complete unwillingness to even acknowledge criticism, instead damning it as "denialism" and so forth - why, then, it is indeed correct to be skeptical of such claims. It is simply an abuse of language to describe that as being "anti-science."
    – user438
    Commented Feb 19, 2015 at 21:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .