I have spent two years researching the motivations behind "climate skepticism", and it's a very interesting topic. The following two articles cover a few points that I bump into over and over again. The first is about how the media and politics easily manipulate data interpretation and change public perception, and second is around communication and psychology. Both are interesting reads.
This article from The Economist is an excellent tool for understanding some common arguments from "climate skeptics", and addresses why we should not be thrown off course by media and political arguments on whether or not climate change is happening.
The Economist: "Spin, science and climate change"
This next article from The National Times (Australia) explores some of the above topics as well, but goes deeper into the subject of how climate change data is communicated and how "apocalyptic" messaging can induce feelings of "powerlessness" rather that inspire change, and how activists on the issue could benefit from "self-critical examination" of their communication. Quotes philosopher (and activist), Sarah Bachelard, "There can be a tone of self-righteousness, a kind of shrill moral indignation, in the speech of those of us who protest and campaign … We know that we are on the side of the angels, and in our own way we can fail to do justice to the complex reality of most human action and motivation. We get something out of 'being right' … (and) satisfaction from making those who do not agree with us wrong."
National Times: "What we have is the failure to communicate"
Food for thought...
Lauren
