Source: U.S. Government
The Handbook’s tips are taken not from the latest climate science, as you might expect, but from psychological research. As its authors, John Cook (creator of the Skeptical Science website) and Stephan Lewandowsky (a professor of psychology at the University of Western Australia) explain, debunking a myth requires more than just “packing more information into people’s heads.” Our brains don’t work like hard drives — they’re much more complex.
Rooted in this science of how people think, the Handbook lays out the following advice for effective debunking:
- Focus on the truth, not the myth. You want to increase your audience’s familiarity with the right facts, not the misinformation. Don’t give the myth more attention than it deserves, or your efforts might “backfire.” It even helps, before you mention a myth, to add an explicit disclaimer: “The information to follow is FALSE!”
- Less can be more. Although it might be tempting to list every piece of evidence that disproves a denier’s argument, research shows this is “overkill.” It’s best to keep your argument simple. People are most likely to believe information that’s easy to understand.
- Be clever and present information in a way that is least threatening to your audience’s worldviews. If we’re not careful, our debunking efforts could further polarize the climate change “debate”. Check out this past blog post or listen to this podcast for more info.
- Finally, expose the strategy behind the myth you’re attempting to debunk. Does the myth stem from teachings of a faux-expert? Is the myth a piece of information that’s “cherry-picked” and used out of context? What motives may have been behind the spreading of the misinformation?
As we all continue to work to share the reality of climate change in our communities, let’s remember these tips. Today, they could help us “win the conversation” against climate change deniers, and tomorrow, the fight for a clean energy future.
Mort Malkin
December 5th
We must call it global overheating, not global warming.
We must call the resultant climate patterns climate chaos (or calamity, castrophe, cataclism …), not climate change.
We must call the critical point the point of no return when a chain reaction beginns, not the tipping point.
Maybe then, the people of the US will wake up to what our corporatocracy is doing to the planet.
Mort Malkin for Gadfly
David E. Lucas
December 8th
CO2 is heavier than air therefore it can’t remain in the air and that means it is not, NOT, NOT the cause.
Jared Blake DiCroce
December 10th
I like to be reasonable, and listen to the heaping pile of BS (Bunk statements — what did YOU think i meant?), people spew, before I ask one question, which follows a statement, which in conjunction usually makes them look like fools.
A) If 10 doctors told you that you had cancer, and one more said that you didn’t, who would you be likely to beleive?
Then B) Oh so you disagree with the Top Scientists around the world do ya? What part of the research — in specific — do you find to be faulty?
When they come up with nothing, you don’t need to say a word any longer. The argument is over when one party is under-prepared.
David E. Lucas
December 10th
Apologies for my prior comment. I was temporarily compelled to post zombie denier lies after being paid to do so by the fossil fuel industry, whose business model depends on tricking you into buying more dirty fossil fuels forever, regardless of the costs.
I apologize for my previous post pretending to contradict the basic laws of physics, and ignoring that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows unequivocally that the earth is warming, humans are contributing, and we must take action before it is too late.