My boyfriend is skeptical about climate change effects...

November 1, 2014 11:33 AM

My boyfriend, while educated, thinks climate change effects are exaggerated. Looking for your thoughts on this topic, and if the discourse about climate change is still this conflicting in the scientific community.

I'm a university student studying psychology (the developmental side of things - I also partake in research), and have been dating my boyfriend for 7 years. He's a graduate in math and computer science. I know that he has been a climate change 'skeptic' for a few years, but we never really discussed this topic head-on. In the last few days, an argument erupted when I started talking about our current govt's total denial of and participation in the overall global climate change discourse (we're Canadian) - he very much believes that climate change is occurring, but the effects that it will rage are grossly overestimated. As an amateur researcher, I tell him that while his overall logic is sound, he really needs to have more than just an anecdote to make such a strong claim. I know science is all about skepticism... but to go by a small line in an article that you read and just relying on your own reasoning isn't the best approach. He hasn't looked at any research papers, or gone to any conferences and seen the data on this topic. I think this is why that is bothersome to me. Look into the data, and criticize it, if you like.. but at least look, and look at it properly. He then cast doubts on the "agenda" of certain scientists and how that can be used to subvert data. I've just been lying there shaking my head. I know you shouldn't get emotionally attached to any topic as a scientist, or be too invested in it being right/wrong, but I can't seem to understand his approach at all. For example, this line taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." He will latch onto the word 'likely' and uses it to say that sure, there is a probability, but they aren't sure of it at all.

Any thoughts? How do you explain "climate science" to a layperson who is standing by their anecdotal reasoning? Am I trying too hard, and should I just let it go?

posted by raintree to Science & Nature (27 answers total)

Personally, I'd let it go.

Like you said, he is a layperson, so his opinion about climate change isn't going to make much of a difference to anyone else. And I can sympathize with those who simply don't want to believe that things are as bad as they are.

It's pretty terrifying, really, and maybe he just doesn't want to acknowledge or even think about it.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:49 AM on November 1, 2014 [4 favorites]

I think you should just drop it; "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

If he brings up the subject again, just say "sorry, I don't want to discuss this until you've acquainted yourself with the evidence."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2014 [7 favorites]

"sorry, I don't want to discuss this until you've acquainted yourself with the evidence."

That's a really good way to end the relationship. How about "I don't really want to talk about it" instead?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:59 AM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]

"show your work" is something a math/compsci grad should be familiar with, is my thinking, Chocolate Pickle.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2014 [5 favorites]

You're a psychology student, so you're not an expert, either. You believe what you believe for reasons that are just "emotional" as you may think his to be. Whatever individuals believe about the reality of current announcements re: climate change is, has been noted, totally irrelevant. If shit is gonna go down, it will, regardless of whether people believe it or not.
posted by gsh at 12:07 PM on November 1, 2014 [10 favorites]

I'm not sure his methodology is sound, but the more you dig on this topic the less certain it seems (as it is with most science).

There are some huge methodological and statistical problems with the most-referenced studies. That doesn't make them wrong, but it also does cast doubt on their conclusions.

One of the most bizarre thing about climate science, to me, is the heavy reliance on computer models that have, themselves, not been validated to have any predictive ability. In fact, basically every computer model the IPCC has referenced in its reports have shown, after the fact, to not map accurately onto reality. So if your conclusions are based on those models, your conclusions are pretty suspect. This isn't really the "settled" issue that some people believe it to be -- there are still a LOT of unknowns.

There are many peer-reviewed studies out there supporting the notion that humans are the primary driver of the recent warming, but science isn't a democracy and consensus is not the same as correctness.

You and your boyfriend, both, would benefit greatly from actually digging into the studies that are out there and the criticisms of them. You're both sure that you're right and the other is wrong, but maybe you can set that aside and make really learning this topic inside and out a joint project. By the end of it, you might agree one way or the other. If not, you should at least both a) have more objective claims based on facts and reason and b) be able to recognize the strengths of the other person's position.

As gsh said: you're both laypeople with opinions here that are not based on your own individual research or your own readings of source material. So rather than assuming you're right and he's blind/stupid, you could both educate yourselves and become more knowledgeable. There are actual climate scientists on both "sides" of this issue, regardless of what you might hear.
posted by toomuchpete at 12:11 PM on November 1, 2014 [7 favorites]

To make this less of a hot-button issue, you might approach it as a project for joint self-education. Both you and your boyfriend are drawing broad conclusions without having closely reviewed the evidence; both of you seem to be arguing largely from your private assumptions about the validity of various authorities, as well as (probably) your respective visceral/emotional senses of what's likely or true in political terms. Why not make a deal with him? He gets to pick three well-regarded scientific articles whose methodological strength or weakness he feels best supports his view; you get to pick three that you feel best support yours. Then budget some time over the next few weekends to grab coffee and have a little critical-reading group.

Being able to discuss this in the context of something concrete might well move you both away from the True Believer/Clever Denier roles, and toward more similar positions of guarded skepticism or tentative trust. Even if you still didn't agree 100% ,at least you'd each have a better sense of the other person's reasons for dissenting.
posted by Bardolph at 12:34 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]

In your psych classes, did you ever discuss the Dunning-Kruger effect? Seems like it's very relevant here.
posted by alex1965 at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]

Been there; done that. No pun intended.

Look, his opinions on climate change per se, are not that important. However, if you have very different ideas about constitutes evidence, how you know if something is true or false, and what we owe each other as human beings, then those are serious compatibility. Even if not related to climate change, these differences can come up again and again.

I don't know about your bf, but I've seen this before as a weird manifestation of "I like to think for myself" wherein thinking for oneself means being contrarian. Besides being able to tell yourself that you're "thinking for yourself" this also allows the self-thinking to imagine oneself as the lone independent thinker persecuted by all those sheeple who buy into the consensus. As in "Everybody here is soo liberal, but I'm a conservative and everybody disagrees with me." "Actually, 30% of people in this city voted conservative. You're hardly the only one." "Yes, but EVERYBODY is sooo liberal..." The contrarian brand, going against what everyone else believes is a point of pride that is somehow proves you think for yourself.

The other thing I remember, triggered by your bf grabbing on to the word "likely", is that people in some kinds of work and cultures, are used to speaking definitively. Empirical science is not deterministic, however, it's probabilistic. No matter how sure you are, as a responsible scientist you never say something WILL happen.

I've just been lying there shaking my head. I know you shouldn't get emotionally attached to any topic as a scientist, or be too invested in it being right/wrong, but I can't seem to understand his approach at all. For example, this line taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

All that said, you will not change his mind on climate change. I once had this conversation when in a similar situation:
"So you think it's just cyclical change and that it happens every few hundred years and this is just part of the cycle?"
"yes."
"Ok, well what if there were 400,000 years of data showing that what we see now is unprecedented in the last 400,00 years. Would you believe it's not cyclical?"
"Yes." "Ok, here's the graph with 400,000 years of data."
"I'm very busy, I don't have time to look at this. Maybe I'll look at it some other time." Never did. Continued "thinking for himself" without examining any evidence.

In short, you will not change his mind on climate change. Figure out if this is a wider compatibility issue. If it is, then you'll have to do whatever it is you do around compatibility issues. If it's not, just avoid this topic. I'm not saying my experience is your experience, but it's one possibility you should think about.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:40 PM on November 1, 2014 [15 favorites]

Let it go. You're not going to do the earth any favours by picking arguments with your boyfriend.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:50 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]

How do you explain "climate science" to a layperson who is standing by their anecdotal reasoning?

Well you can start to make this less of a laden issue for yourself by not brushing off your boyfriend's opinion as anecdotal. Scientists do have agendas, and people are right to be sceptical of all kinds of data. Something that is likely to happen is not an irrefutable fact.

Am I trying too hard, and should I just let it go?

Does he refuse to recycle? Does he want to buy a Hummer? Because otherwise, I'd recognise that this is one of that instances where his belief one way or the other makes no difference at all.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:35 PM on November 1, 2014

He hasn't looked at any research papers, or gone to any conferences and seen the data on this topic. I think this is why that is bothersome to me. Look into the data, and criticize it, if you like.. but at least look, and look at it properly.

Have you? Look, I believe in Climate Change, too, but I haven't read everything. I'm taking a handful of this and a fistful of what I've heard from the scientific consensus. But who the hell knows? You can't draw grand conclusions with any real degree of specificity. So it's basically the two of you not really knowing completely what you're talking about and never going to convince the other.

Just let it go. Why do you need to be right? That won't save the planet. Save your relationship.
posted by inturnaround at 2:17 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]

nthing inturnaround:

"What evidence do you have of anything you think you know?"
"I rely on scientific evidence."
"How many double-blind studies have you performed?"
"Well, none, but I've read about them."
"So you rely on writers you don't know to describe research you don't fully understand, performed by people who often have financial incentives to mislead you?"

--Scott Adams, from the introduction to, Don't Stand Where the Comet is Assumed to Strike Oil: A Dilbert Book

posted by alex1965 at 2:28 PM on November 1, 2014

If he was saying "the ipcc report is wrong for xzy" that would be one thing. but he's saying "words in a technical document mean what i say they mean". i think its totally good that you're picking up on that. basically i'm with If only I had a penguin.... This is an opportunity to see if your ways of thinking and evaluating evidence are compatible. what other self-serving and damaging beliefs might he have? now's your chance to scope things out for future kids and grandkids.
posted by thug unicorn at 2:36 PM on November 1, 2014

I'm not sure his methodology is sound, but the more you dig on this topic the less certain it seems (as it is with most science).

This is unadulterated horseshit, but very useful to see as it's a big part of the mentality of deniers.

Something I personally have found successful with skeptics is discuss the actions that banks and insurance companies are taking with regard to climate change. For some reason, the opinions of bankers seems to carry more weight than that of scientists and international bodies. The other thing that can help is to selectively flip information about climate change that is currently happening from sites like Climate Reality that report on that kind of stuff. It's a lot easier to tune out vague, future discussion of climate change as it is largely shown in the media, much harder to ignore specific things like this amazing, heartbreaking piece about Kiribati that are happening right now.

The last thing to do is to demonstrate how literally every single denialist 'expert' is on the payroll of carbon polluters (mostly big coal, also big oil), and how everything they do and all the coverage they get is sponsored by these companies, using the same model, and in some cases the same people who spent decades denying that tobacco caused cancer, and that there wasn't enough certainty, etc etc.

Best of luck, it will take a while, you can get there.
posted by smoke at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2014 [15 favorites]

I'd look at this as a learning experience: sometimes people don't want to believe something, and no amount of evidence will sway them.

Next up: proof that 1.0 = 0.999...
posted by doctor tough love at 2:49 PM on November 1, 2014

It sounds like he believes not that the climate isn't changing, but that the potential effects are overstated, and that scientific measures of certainty cast the whole enterprise into doubt. If the predicted temperature rise over the next hundred years is between 2.5 and 10 degrees, and it turns out to be at the lower end of the scale, who cares, right? 2.5 degrees isn't much! And they aren't 100% certain! (As if anyone could be 100% certain of anything.)

But as far as human impacts are concerned, the climate doesn't work linearly like that. It's more about tipping points, i.e., what is the temperature at which the snow pack in the the western mountains begins to shrink, and what long-term effects does that have on summer time water flows? It's very easy to find information about how small changes in a single climate metric can signal huge changes in the environment. And all you have to do is ask a Californian about the real-world impacts of shallow trend lines on the frequency and severity of catastrophic droughts. One can say, "there is likely to be a severe drought in within X years, lasting Y months." The world "likely" isn't an expression of uncertainty, here. If the trend line is valid, it's a mathematical certainty that there will be more, and more severe, droughts. What is uncertain is exactly when, and exactly for how long. In California's case, the answer is "now."

But given how easy it is to find this information, someone would have to be really averse to knowing the facts to avoid it. I'd say that this is less about the specific issue of climate change and more about whether you want to spend your days with someone who'd rather take an essentially religious position on such an important and easy to understand subject. My partner and I tolerate a certain amount of superstition on both sides, but there are limits -- we have to be able to respect each other.
posted by klanawa at 3:00 PM on November 1, 2014 [4 favorites]

I'd let it go. It's likely a totem of identity that causes him to latch onto climate change denial, and giving that up would force him to abandon the social and identity benefits he gains from engaging in that kind of thing.
posted by deanc at 3:07 PM on November 1, 2014

Something I personally have found successful with skeptics is discuss the actions that banks and insurance companies are taking with regard to climate change.

Along these lines, the Pentagon also seems quite convinced that this particular piece of reality is indeed real, based on the various contingency plans and reports they've made.

I agree it's more helpful to encourage thinking about who is saying what, and what their motivations are. Once you go down the "doubt" rabbit hole there's probably no way to accomplish anything. Of course there are details that are debatable, but using them as an "argument" against climate change is like saying that, because we don't know the exact height of every mountain on Earth down to the millimeter, there's "debate" over whether the Earth is flat or round.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2014

Look, this isn't going to help at all with your boyfriend, but here's how I think about it. It takes decades to become a climate expert. Even if you went out and read a bunch of primary source articles on the topic, it would take years before you could legitimately evaluate them. I am a scientist in a natural resource field, but I am not a climate scientist. The best I can do is trust the consensus of existing climate scientists. Or doctors studying vaccines. Or public health researchers who think a lot about Ebola. No, it's not a democracy. But if there is a better explanation for how the earth's climate system works than the existing models, that new model would be accepted pretty quickly. Science is very quickly self-correcting these days. In the 1970s, there was some fear from climate scientists that the world was getting colder. It was rejected thanks to the recognition of anthropogenic global warming. That's not evidence against the current thinking, it's evidence that scientists can, and do, change their mind when new evidence comes to light.

We can not be experts on everything. "Climate skeptics" are not evaluating the existing evidence using any reasonable framework of scientific epistemology. I'm not even talking hypothetico-deductive method. There are lots of ways that scientists learn things. Reading a bunch of articles about why climate scientists might be biased because they are funded to do research is not one of them.

You can always ask him to take my quiz.
posted by one_bean at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2014 [4 favorites]

Good god, people are quoting Dilbert to justify skepticism about climate change?

The 'financial incentives' thing has always stood out for me. Yeah, because an NSF post-doc is soooo lucrative, right? Someone brings up the financial incentives thing, it might be worth thinking about where the real money is....

As for advice on how not to let this adversely effect your relationship... well, let it go is ok. I mean, I've dated and been in love with woman who were really in to 'woo': past-lives, crystal healing, whatever. It's all bollocks as far as I'm concerned, but there was no reason to let that make any difference at all to the relationship.

I'm sure that similar dynamics happen over disagreements on religion, or politics....
posted by bumpkin at 4:25 PM on November 1, 2014 [9 favorites]

In the 1970s, there was some fear from climate scientists that the world was getting colder.

Actually, interestingly enough, this isn't really true. There were stories carried on the cover of Time, Newsweek and the like, but if you actually search the peer reviewed literature, this pretty much was never claimed. Realclimate has a good piece doing the search and analysis, worth looking up.
posted by bumpkin at 4:27 PM on November 1, 2014 [1 favorite]

Here's the piece I think bumpkin is referring to; there wasn't consensus, but global cooling was considered a possibility at the time. New shit has come to light.
posted by one_bean at 4:32 PM on November 1, 2014

Al Gore's Climate Reality project sees convincing deniers as a key step in building the political consensus necessary for climate legislation to succeed. They actually have a training program for people who want to work with deniers, but probably also have some less time-intensive resources. I think in their training they sometimes frame it as how to have a conversation with "Uncle Bob," the climate denier.

I have to disagree with those above who say to let it go. Sure, that might be easiest, and if it was me, honestly, I'd probably see his attitude as a deal-breaker. But if we can't convince people we're sleeping with to change their mind, who can we convince? I have to believe that there is a way to do it, though I don't have more specific tips. Popular opinion is shifting on this issue, and it absolutely needs to shift more.
posted by three_red_balloons at 6:46 PM on November 1, 2014 [2 favorites]

“What you need to do is put the system first. Instead of saying, ‘Let’s deal with climate change, let’s be pro-environmental, let’s protect the oceans,’ what you need to do is come in and say, ‘If we want to preserve our system, if we want to be patriotic, if we want our children to have the life that we have, then we have to take these actions that allow us to maintain those things that we care about.’”

Or could just drop it.
posted by John Cohen at 11:08 PM on November 1, 2014

"Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."

Costs to who? People who own real estate in New York or Amsterdam?

Climate change is the norm in the world's history - not the exception. How much is man made and how much is not (sun cycles) and if climate is a bad thing or not.

People who not for sure that climate change is man made and a bad thing are the same kind that know for sure that it is not. Climate change is one of the most complex phenomenons.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 7:16 AM on November 2, 2014

I would be worried. Not so much in his not understanding climate science, or not wanting to believe it, because I, too, would like to stick my fingers in my ears and go 'la, la, la'. But I'd be concerned that his inclination is to distrust research when he hears something he doesn't understand or doesn't like. There are a lot of issues that will have more effect on your lives, particularly medical, where he might make very different decisions than you, if he automatically distrusts science, and only hears what he wants to hear.
posted by kjs4 at 7:16 PM on November 2, 2014 [2 favorites]