How to Talk to the Willfully Ignorant

Talking to people who ignore science and use flawed logic to justify their positions is always fun.  A lot of them are fanatics, and they can't engage in civil debate because, well, most of the time there is no debate to be had.

So when I posted a comment on this well-known "skeptic's" blog post, I wasn't surprised to get some nasty responses. Here was my initial comment:

This is ridiculous. Obama is open to domestic oil production, but it hardly makes him a bad person or an irresponsible leader because he wants to reduce our dependency on oil and produce less GHGs. Quite the contrary, actually. 

Reducing oil use, by definition, reduces the demand for Middle Eastern oil, so it’s hypocritical to argue AGAINST green investment while simultaneously arguing FOR reduced demand for ME oil. It’s always so interesting to hear a righty pick and choose the numbers that support their case.

A high school student who’s sat through just a few hours of introductory economics can tell you that pollution – which relatively simple science has shown, with very high levels of confidence, leads to climate change – is an externality, and that products and processes that are energy/pollution intensive should be taxed or regulated to reflect their true social costs. Any serious economist will agree with this. 

And in response to some of these “corrupt Democrats” comments, please, please don’t get me started. That’s an argument the right will ALWAYS lose. 

Of course you say a word about greenhouse gas emissions to these people, and they go nuts. People on this thread were vicious, which they have to be since their arguments go against an almost universal consensus. They immediately started picking at the science of climate change.  Then they descended to arguing things like (paraphrased) "CO2 isn't a pollutant because we breathe it out and it's made naturally, plus it helps plants grow".  One guy even argued for incandescent bulbs (against their less wasteful alternatives), saying:

The much-derided ‘wasted’ heat thrown off by incandescent lights is often NOT wasted at all! There are many situations when the efficiency of an incandescent bulb approaches 100%, for example in lights that are at lower height levels like lamps where the heat warms the air and rises. 

Arguing that incandescent bulbs are efficient because they can be used as heaters is absurd, but it's obvious that for Tea Party members, that's not really what it's about at all.  Instead, "Blade" asserts that my support for cleaner alternatives - and government regulations to enforce them - shows that "freedom and the Constitution is (sic) [my] enemy." Not exaggerating.

So the arguments continued to devolve, as I presented pretty sound scientific evidence supporting my case, and other commenters ignored it.  To the kind of silly suggestion that CO2 isn't bad because it's produced naturally, I asked about methane and sulfates, which are also found in nature.  That was question was ignored, and I was instead labeled a "carbon demonizer", or something to that effect.

The forum reached its nadir when a moderator used my private information to reveal some personal details about me, including where I go to school (which one commenter has subsequently attacked). I would be pretty upset if I weren't also a very amateur blogger, but when you cross that line of decency, it's hard to take you seriously anymore.  Anthony Watts, a retired TV and radio weatherman, asked if my "supervisor at LSEPS would approve of the use of [my] time to hurl insults." He's obviously not very familiar with the reputation of the School; otherwise he'd be well aware that we rarely even entertain skeptic drivel like his. By the way, friend, we call it the LSE. 

People who enjoy being underdogs, even when it flies in the face of reason, will always be the loudest, and that's a shame.  You show them a report compiled by leading researchers, and they scream that it's liberal, politicized propaganda.  You say something that's actually quite moderate, and they label you an oppenent of American ideals. Their only arguments are buzzwords like "green liberal agenda" and "anti-Constitutionalism" and "liberty," things that rarely have a place in serious dialogue. A sane person argues for a tax on carbon, referencing pretty straightforward science that shows, yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Deniers respond by screaming "there's no proof!" (there is) or "you're a liberal, elitist mouthpiece for the Obamunists!" (I'm not.) As we discussed in class today, misinformation is just another form of market failure, and it's ironic that the people who worship the free market are the same people rendering it ineffective.

It's sad that rational scientific and economic debates like climate sensitivity, emissions trading and green technology are so easily undermined by these cranks.  Instead of focusing on the real issues, scientists have to waste time defending what we already know - time that should be spent figuring out what we don't. 

For the record, here are some of my views:

• Green technology should compliment existing infrastructure, but as we continue to develop, we should focus on exploring alternative forms of energy instead of relying on outdated technology that science has shown has and will continue to have negative effects on our well-being.
• Obama should stand up and say "We are going to do this because it's the responsible thing to do." Climate change is real, and even if you haven't been personally convinced of its existence, you should respect the vast amount of scientific research that supports it.  Personal decisions should reflect the fact that the best available science makes a clear case for anthropogenic climate change.
• The economics of climate change is complicated, but certain ideas are not. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from private interests, whether that's air and water pollution or energy security, and pollution taxes are, as the Economist put it, an "elegant solution to a complicated problem."  Polluters should pay more for the right to pollute, as those who are adversely affected by their harmful emissions usually go uncompensated.  Only then will the price of pollution reflect its true social costs.

So how do you talk to the willfully ignorant? The answer is simple. 

You don't, because they don't want to learn.