How To Talk To Climate Change Deniers

Effective communication strategies for engaging with climate change deniers without despair.

I know the frustration. I have dedicated my entire life to science, most of which involves climate science and working side by side with climate scientists. I don’t live in a big mansion paid for by whoever is allegedly trying to buy us into supporting an energy transition. We struggle to get the grants needed to conduct our research and pay our graduate students a living wage.

Yet, whenever I try to raise awareness by speaking about the topic, we get comments criticizing scientists or accusing us of wrongdoing. So, how do we keep our calm when confronted with climate-change deniers who provide little to no empirical evidence to back up their claims? Or whom cherry-pick from pseudoscience or conspiracy theories?

You may think: how can’t they see it? It isn’t just in the news; weather patterns are so different now from when we were children, and climate catastrophes are becoming the norm. They claim that global warming is part of the Earth’s natural cycle, the Milankovitch cycle, but fail to explain why, according to their theories, we should see global cooling and not global warming. But what does the science have to say about climate change denial itself?

While researching this story, I listened to an interview with Dr. Arunima Krishna, an Associate Professor of mass communication, advertising, and public relations at Boston University, who studies public perceptions of climate change. I learned so much from this interview.

According to Dr. Krishna’s research, climate change denial isn’t just a stance; it’s a movement that has been meticulously crafted over decades. Much like the tobacco industry’s efforts in the mid-20th century, which spread doubt about the health effects of smoking, certain factions within the fossil fuel industry have deployed similar tactics to confuse the public about climate change. Even in the 1910s, scientists were issuing warnings about the dangers posed by human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, the following decades saw a systematic campaign to undermine this scientific consensus.

Dr. Krishna provides a nuanced view of how misinformation about climate change has infiltrated public discourse and offers a very informative approach to engaging with those who deny the reality of this global crisis.

But first, let’s look at the history of this misinformation.

The origins of climate change misinformation are deeply rooted in the interests of industries that stood to lose the most from a shift away from fossil fuels (surprise!). Influential companies engaged in extensive misinformation campaigns, funding pseudo-scientific research and promoting narratives that questioned the legitimacy of climate science. This misinformation was incidental and a well-funded, strategic effort to cloud public understanding and policy-making.

Echoes of this strategy were seen in an Exxon advertisement from the 1980s (see examples below), proclaiming the benefits of new oil explorations, subtly steering the narrative away from renewable energy sources. Over the years, this approach has evolved, but the core objective remains: to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on climate change.

Climate change misinformation, however, really came of age in today’s digital era. With their algorithms prioritizing engagement over accuracy, social media platforms have become hotbeds for disseminating false information. According to research by Gizem Ceylan at Yale, “…the structure of online sharing built into social platforms is more important than individual deficits in critical reasoning… Due to the reward-based learning systems on social media, users form habits of sharing information that attracts others’ attention.” In short, we have learned to value clicks and likes more than factual accuracy.

Posts that evoke strong emotional reactions are often amplified — ie. denial — while boring old peer-reviewed science withers on the algorithm vine (or is reacted against emotionally, with the subsequent denier backlash again disproportionately rewarded by the algorithms.

This mechanism of misinformation spread is not limited to the internet, though; it is pervasive and can be seen in the advertising strategies of major fossil fuel companies that promote concepts like “clean coal” despite scientific consensus to the contrary. The lack of regulation in digital advertising further complicates efforts to curb the spread of misinformation, allowing misleading (or false altogether) claims to reach wide audiences unchecked. See how misinformation occurs in the first place in the figure below.

But back to the question of this story: how do we engage with those who deny or are skeptical of climate change? Those who have been hoodwinked by the algorithms, or the bias of Fox News disguising itself in the sheep’s clothing of objective journalism?

According to Dr. Krishna, understanding the other party’s perspective is crucial before any productive conversation can occur. She suggests assessing how strongly someone feels about their stance on climate change, their motivations, and the types and extents of misinformation they have consumed and accepted.

Understanding the distinction between disinformation amplifiers and disinformation-vulnerable or receptive ones (those who are open to listening) is key. Amplifiers are typically entrenched in their beliefs and are more interested in spreading misinformation than engaging in meaningful dialogue. You can respectfully step out of a conversation if the other party isn’t willing to listen to understand as much as you are. However, those vulnerable to misinformation might not hold strong opinions and could be more open to reconsidering their stance.

Dr. Krishna advocates for a respectful and empathetic approach, suggesting that dialogue should not aim to conquer but to understand and inform. This involves acknowledging the concerns of climate change skeptics and addressing them with factual information. Additionally, posing thought-provoking questions about the potential benefits of accepting and acting on climate science — such as improved air and water quality and the development of sustainable energy sources — can help shift the focus from debate to discussion. Maybe mention how changing our diets for more sustainable options could be healthier for us, too, not just the planet.

As the conversation about climate change evolves, so do the research and strategies to combat misinformation. Dr. Krishna’s current project aims to understand climate misinformation further and mitigate its spread across various platforms. Her work is crucial in paving the way for more informed public discourse and, ultimately, more effective climate action.

It’s essential to remember, though, that the fight against climate change misinformation is about fostering a more informed, open-minded, and engaged public, not simply changing minds. We hope to inspire meaningful change in how we discuss and tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time by approaching this issue with patience, respect… and armed with facts.