For a week I participated in University of Exeter's Challenges Online programme, tasked with created a resource that would combat climate myths rampant in the mainstream. During this I was lucky enough to interview with climate scientist, Professor Richard Betts MBE. Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources. Richard was a lead author on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Working Group 1 and the IPCC 5th Assessment Report in Working Group 2. Basically, he knows what he's talking about!
Abi: What is the biggest misconception that you come across the most often when it comes to climate change?
Richard: The biggest being the most serious misconception I suppose, is that the greenhouse effect isn't real, which a surprising number of people still think or say, not so much in this country, but a lot of people in the US and Australia sometimes talk about this as if you can't possibly affect the climate and other greenhouse gases can’t affect the climate, and this kind of fake science about how they don't. So that's probably the biggest in terms of the most serious I would say.
Abi: Interesting, that was actually going to be my second question, which myth you thought poses the greatest threat to climate science but you've kind of answered that.
Additionally, it's interesting you mentioned Australia. I actually grew up there and my family came up with sort of this theory regarding their climate deniers. Coal is such an important industry in our economy and so there are so many political reasons why climate deniers are so rampant in Australia.
Why is it, do you think, that climate change versus most other science developments is so politicised? Do you think that's partially why there are so many misconceptions when it comes to climate?
Richard: That is definitely part of it because there's high stakes on all sides with this obviously. It has massive implications whichever way you look at it, so it raises passions and defensiveness. It also raises fears, some of which is quite understandable because it's a massively serious issue and there's great risks.
But sometimes people get very panicky about near-term stuff as well which is the opposite to climate change denial. It's kind of worrying that things are going to run out of control literally within a few years, in terms of the climate system. But both ends of the spectrum can get very kind of emotional and that makes it very challenging to operate as a scientist, to communicate as a scientist and be based in evidence.
One of the other angles on this, in terms of why it's happened, I think it's partly because it's complicated. Also because you can't do a lot of the traditional science in terms of controlled experiments and so on. Another frustrating issue is the phrase "there is no proof" about the greenhouse effect or that greenhouse gases warm the earth. What they mean is "there's not been a controlled experiment" and of course you can't do that because we only have one Earth. We do it within climate models in our virtual laboratory if you like. But that's not good enough for some people even though it's well-founded in theory. But it's sort of a bit of a strawman to say that there's no proof because you simply can't offer laboratory-style experiments; to have one Earth the same and the other one altered in the same way that you'd do in a laboratory experiment. So that's another angle on it.
Another frustrating thing and difficulty is this kind of inconsistency sometimes with what's called "luke warmism" where people are very confident that climate change will be small or even beneficial. They say they accept the basic science, they accept that the greenhouse effect is real and that increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases will warm the earth, but they seem very confident about predictions of small change and dismiss the predictions of a larger change. This sometimes get said by the same kind of people that talk about how the models are very uncertain, which is inconsistent and you can't have it both ways so that’s a frustrating thing as well.
Abi: Yeah absolutely. I feel like because it's become so politicised there is so many political agents who have an agenda promote within that, and so when it comes to misconceptions, both on an individual level we have to combat it, but also on a societal level. What is the best method we can go around trying to fight these misconceptions at the base root?
Richard: One of the most important things is just to make sure that the right information and understanding is out there because it’s a battle for information and a battle for – its cheesy to say – hearts and minds. When there's misinformation flooding the internet and flooding the media, you have to fill the space with the right, accurate information and good understanding, which is hard work because people are just turning at the same to old lies or same old misunderstandings, time after time, and that fills the space. So, just make sure the right information and understanding is out there and make clear that the basis in evidence and sound analysis is there.
Abi: Definitely. An interesting question that was brought up in a masterclass we did yesterday with Leo Hickman and Oliver Morton was, when you've got a demographic or individuals who have been presented the science and refused to listen and they seemed completely unreachable, they were asked “how would you try and educate them further?” and Oliver Morton was quite controversial in his insistence saying "don't bother, you don't need to convince everyone". So we were interested to hear your thoughts on that. Is it a case of you need to convince the small important few, or actually is it worth trying to get those other people on board?
Richard: It's a case-by-case judgement. It is possible to waste an enormous amount of time on trolls and people that don't want to have a good faith conversation. So, in many cases, it is that someone is literally a lost cause; you don't want to waste time on them. Sometimes, I view it as a bit of a long game. Years ago there was a communication strategy which the MET office had, which viewed its audiences as being on a ladder. The bottom was the people who didn't engage and opponents, and at the top was champions. The general aim was to try to move people up a step each time. Moving from being an opponent to at least accepting that you have a place in the conversation is one step towards that. Even if you're not going to make them a champion, you could at least stop them from being an enemy. In some cases, it’s possible to do it that way. One way is to try to build respect in general and try to show people that you are genuine and perhaps have things in common with people you're arguing with, which works sometimes. Sometimes, on social media, I find that there are some people who I’ve been talking to for years, who think that they're never going to be climate activists, but they stopped trying to convince me that climate change is not a problem and we've actually had some good discussions about other things, like sharing the same taste of music or films and that kind of thing. If they see an infinity there, that could help. I think that they think "ok, this guy probably knows what he's doing" but they're never going to be convinced entirely but at least they have enough grudging respect in a way.
But that’s not going to work with everyone and Oliver is probably right; some people you'll never talk around. It’s a case-by-case basis and you should certainly not waste lots of time trying to talk individuals around. Sometimes, you think whether these people have influence beyond their own circle? If somebody who has got a big audience, even if you can’t convince them, if you can be seen to challenge them, their audience will see them being challenged. And again, you have to avoid being drawn into an ongoing debate that goes on forever, but at least, you make sure that something's not gone unchallenged that can be helpful and then just decide, ok this is the point to stop or something.
Abi : So you've just spoken on the influence of social media and I'm assuming that a lot of what you're talking about occurs on your very popular Twitter page, so do you think therefore that because social media is able to access so many people of such different diverse backgrounds, that social media does hold the key in being able to turn the tide of you know mainstream media? You know how BBC news has to give the same platform to a climate denier as does a climate scientist. Do you think that our Instagram page has the potential to give out that information then?
Richard: Yeah I think so, I find it really useful to be able to have a voice myself while always having to go through the mainstream media, because generally speaking, even when trying to be objective, they still have a way of working. They've still got to attract their audience, they’ll often spin things a certain way, they've got to attract advertisers or whatever. That's always risk-taking things a bit so having your own voice is really important and if done well, it can reach different people as well because again, with mainstream media certain people read certain newspaper or watch certain TV channels. Probably true for social media as well but I think it has more flexibility.