Perceived Barriers in Response to a Grass Roots Movement

We are inundated with information every day as to what the narrative for DAGW is and what it is claiming.  The barriers have to do with the mass media playing that narrative very loudly.  Spokesmen are claiming to know the science and the impacts of man, and the educational system playing all of the above at all levels of the educational system to build activists.  So all bases are covered including copious websites, videos and presenters from Hollywood and all throughout the class called elites.  Little girls are rock stars if they demonstrate against climate change.   How can anyone fight back?

However the mass of failed predictions, claims of total catastrophe loom large for the 4th or 5th time.  Al Gore pronouncing DAGW as the existential thread of our time, which is echoed in the exact words throughout the progressive class.  The chorus detracts from the credibility.  But where is the army to resist DAGW?  It took next to nothing to form the resistance against Trump, without real provocation other than he beat Hillary and threatened the elite control of Washington DC.

The biggest issue for the progressives is that the general public is not lapping up the cream and wagging their tail.  One can say that the sky is falling or overheating only so many times and not all of the public will buy it.   The activists are in the 8% at the far left as polls show.  It however has not stopped billions of dollars being spent on promoting Gore and others' vision.   As the thin veneer of disguise wears off of the alarmist mantra, there is a strong opening for a solidly rational message aimed at reasonable minds who feel respected.

There are a great many segments to how folks arrived at a view of at least sympathy for AGW and perhaps even adherence to the DAGW dogma.  Certainly not all are true believers like Al Gore.  Many believers do not understand their science statements in the least, nor the general complexity of the climate.   In that state of mind they are much like followers rather than leaders of any movement.  So how does this come about?  Perhaps a mixture of guilt that it is assumed that we are indeed screwing the planet for starters.  Next that society dictates that we have to be a part of the solution, make great sacrifices.  Add to that the claims of consensus and it all seems valid and real enough.  Key assumption is that climate and the science is too complex and therefore not comprehendible on ones own.  Add in kids demonstrating and all of the emotions are triggered.

But there is a problem as the sacrifices and reality come into focus.   They are requiring we become a third world country, among other unintended consequences and really bad parenting.

Let’s examine the thought process in more depth.  

What we intuit and come to define as our belief system is not a totally fact driven or rational process.  We have to work hard to have a consistent set of concepts to guide our lives.  Books like the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, speak to who is running the show, the mind or the emotions.  I found myself disagreeing with him throughout the book, but I could not argue with his description, just his theories of causality.

The important point for us is to consider is how to develop the crack in the conditioned response with regards to AGW?   Many will not respond well to more graphs or data, which are argued by AGW enthusiasts also to be irrelevant unless the graphs are theirs.    Some follow a set of boundary conditions that put them squarely in the AGW camp.   It is after all easy to convince many that man is polluting the world and therefore is capable of destroying it with more CO2.  How to cause a crack and some curiosity in this belief force field will rarely involve confrontation.   It would rather have a great probability of success with shaking a related assumption in the minds of those we can reach.  For example the increase of poverty on a grand scale with policies like the GND.   Poverty and compassion are compelling beliefs.  There are many other ideas, that come in from the side, so to speak.   Jonathan Haidt introduced the ideas that there is value in conservative and libertarian views by the end of his book Righteous Mind.   He even warned the reader that if he indicated what the book was about, the reader would put the book down.

So the question then can shift to some form of brainstorming as to what shakes the tree and keeps the reader asking more and more questions about climate science.  One can flow chart a number of various paths in this regard.   These paths become part of the outline of aspects of several websites.  In the website the path taken can be selected by the reader.  How much do we use surveys to direct the viewer to a path?   These are the kind of answers that would make our approach have real market value.

I came across a set of beliefs just the other day that was quite revealing.  I was with Elliott Bloom at SLAC and we were having lunch with a scientist named Wolfgang.   His silo thought process and the boundary conditions were quite apparent when I asked him how he came to form his AGW views on CO2.  His response was quite revealing, as though the silo he was in, intellectually and as well basic curiosity, was not open to examination or discussion.  He had presented quite a few facts as he saw them, even trying to promote electrical vehicles, at the meeting before lunch.   So he displayed a bias more than he knew, was not familiar with many contrary views even on energy for the future.   His shortcuts were massive in my opinion.   He simply did not fathom asking questions to verify his facts.   He was free to add weight to the narrative within his tribe, and never examine such a process in any detail.

 And this makes him, and those like him, very vulnerable to being wrong in fundamental ways. 

We can march on, learn about barriers and what evades them effectively, seeking an analytical set of questions and views that overcome many AGW enthusiasts and make them think and inquire.   For the basics of AGW are religious and not scientific, and that is our opportunity.   If the challenge is well placed and expressed, then skeptics will rally and the movement can arise. Is this overly optimistic?  Yes and the answer as to why is:  why not?