Skeptical_John_Cook

After our 97% consensus study was published in 2013 (http://sks.to/tcppaper), I did receive an email from somebody arguing "global warming isn't caused by human activity. It's caused by an interstellar object that I saw in my telescope." I never did follow up with that person, and I wonder if they still adhere to that hypothesis. It's pretty out there!

More generally, I think the notion that the global community of tens of thousands of scientists in countries all over the world are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the whole world is utterly ridiculous. People casually throw out the term "climate scam" or "climate hoax" but if you sit down and think about exactly what would be required to perpetrate such a conspiracy - thousands and thousands of scientists in every country in the world all fabricating data in order to reinforce the same conclusion - well, that actually makes "interstellar object in my telescope" guy look rational in comparison.

I wouldn't label this as misinformation so much as a misconception or imbalanced view. I think way too much attention is paid to individual behavior - which while important serves to distract from the much more important step required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - societal transformation from polluting energy to renewable energy. Changing lightbulbs and flying less are laudable actions - we do need to do them - but we should keep our eyes on what is really required and how to get there. And the way we achieve policy change is by building political momentum, which requires that people speak up and express their commitment to climate action. That is the purpose of the Cranky Uncle book - sparking conversations about climate change and contributing to the social momentum required for climate action.

Nothing, effective communication techniques can be used to mislead people and they are used. In fact, I believe that one of the most effective inoculation campaigns was Donald Trump's "fake news" used to inoculate one third of the U.S. public against mainstream news.

Which brings up the point that inoculation if done in a certain way can be quite destructive, breeding cynicism and suspicion not just of misinformation but of all types of information. So it's important that when we inoculate people against misinformation, we don't inadvertently make people more suspicious of accurate information. This is why inoculation needs to be "surgical" rather than "shotgun" (I'd characterize Trump's "Fake news" as a shotgun form of inoculation).

The type of inoculation I've tested in my research is logic-based inoculation - where you inoculate people against denialist techniques and logical fallacies. This is a very surgical, specific form of misinformation and it doesn't lower people's trust in scientists - as I document in my inoculation study at http://sks.to/inoculation

Hmm, personally experienced? That's like asking what's your favorite food in a huge buffet, I have so many options to choose from!

Okay, one example that immediately comes to mind - not that long ago I attended the Heartland Institute conference at the Trump hotel in Washington D.C. - attending with some journalists from the Weather Channel. We interviewed Christopher Monckton who tried to cast doubt on my 97% consensus study by saying the Queensland police had conducted a criminal investigation into my study. I could barely believe he was suggesting such a ludicrous thing, let alone say it so brazenly and confidently in my presence.

It's important to communicate the fact that global warming is happening here and now. It's not some hypothetical threat in the distant future, happening to other people elsewhere in the world. It affects all of us right now. This feeling that climate change is a distant threat is called psychological distance - and closing that distance is why I published posts such as https://crankyuncle.com/global-warming-is-happening-here-and-now/

As well as the fallacy of psychological distance, another way that people ignore the threat of climate change is through the fallacy of slothful induction - avoiding the scientific evidence documenting the many threats posed by climate change. I use a parallel argument to demonstrate this fallacy in this cartoon: https://www.instagram.com/p/BoZzW3XhkHv/