June 17, 2025 • 14 mins
Are you tired of arguing about climate change with your uncle, or your co-worker, or that weird person online?
Welcome to the club. Now, if you really want to keep banging your head on that wall, I'm not here to stop you, but I am here to try and give you some facts that might help - because even though you are almost certainly not going to convince those people, it is often worth trying to combat some of that misinformation.
You are probably not going to convince the guy who thinks that all scientists are evil and funded by, like, solar - but that's not really why we do it. Misinformation is fricking annoying, and it spreads four times faster than facts. But most importantly, it also stops us doing what we need to do to stop the planet heating up and boiling the oceans. Every fraction of a degree makes a difference.
So today, for this episode of Microgreens, I thought I would talk about some of the myths I see quite often in my comment section, parroted by climate change deniers - but also how you can talk about things like climate change a little bit more effectively.
Let's talk about:
- The term 'climate change denier'
- How the scientific process works and how to know who to trust
- How and why climate change became so politicised
- How fossil fuel companies hid the evidence of climate change
- The various myths and why they are false
Find our full podcast via the website here: https://www.nowthatswhaticall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nowthatswhaticallgreen/
You can follow me on socials on the below accounts.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/briannemwest/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@briannemwest
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/briannemwest/
For our latest big project, find out more about Incrediballs here: https://incrediballs.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Kyodo Kaitiaki and welcome to Now That's what I Call Green.
I'm your host, Brianne W, an environmentalist and
entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I
am. I'm all about creating a
scientific approach to making the world a better place without
the judgement and making it fun.And of course, we will be
chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our
planet with. So if you are looking to
(00:26):
navigate through everything, green or not so green, you have
come to the right place. Are you tired of arguing about
climate change with your uncle, your Co worker or that weird
person online? Welcome to the club.
Now if you really want to keep banging your head on that wall,
I'm not here to stop you, am here to try and give you some
facts that might help. Because even though you were
(00:47):
almost certainly not going to convince those people, it is
often worth trying to combat some of that misinformation for
the people that are listening inor lurking in the comments.
We're probably not going to convince the guy who thinks that
all scientists are evil and funded by like solar, but that's
not really why we do it. Misinformation is freaking
annoying and it spreads 4 times faster than facts.
But most importantly, it also stops us doing what we need to
(01:07):
do to stop the planet heating upand boiling the oceans.
So today for this episode of Microgreens, I thought I would
talk about some of the myths I see quite often in my comment
section parroted by climate change deniers, but also how you
can talk about things like climate change that a little bit
more effectively if you're a masochist.
Kyoto. I'm Brianne West, and this is
now that's what I call green, where I talk about all things
science, sustainability and nature.
(01:28):
Now, before we begin, a note on the term climate change denier.
It's a terrible term. Denial implies some kind of
belief in something unproven. Climate change isn't a belief
system like religion or ghosts. There is terabytes of evidence
and data that has been collectedby 10s of thousands of
scientists for decades. And actually, many of those
scientists started out as skeptics themselves, but they
(01:50):
changed their mind with the evidence.
And that's a key point, right? Climate change deniers often
call themselves climate skeptics.
But to be a skeptic, you actually have to follow the
evidence and change your mind accordingly.
And yeah, most people who don't like climate change don't do
that. We should all be skeptics,
right? That is the keystone of science,
by and large. Nellius in verba is the Latin
(02:12):
motto for probably the oldest science institute on earth, the
Royal Society. And it just means take nobody's
word for it. And that's exactly how science
works. People don't just believe things
blindly. They look at the evidence for
and against a hypothesis, and then they make their minds up
accordingly. You can't just trust some guy
with a podcast microphone. Practically speaking, of course,
we can't become experts on everything.
So how do you know who to trust?Well, there's a couple of things
(02:33):
to look for. Look for people who openly share
their work, how they got their, their methodology, their
calculations. If they don't want to show it,
maybe it's a bit dodgy. Look for people whose findings
withstand scrutiny from other experts in the field.
That's what peer reviewing is. Look for people who admit that
there are still grey areas or things they don't understand,
because we don't know everythingabout almost anything.
And most importantly, look for people who change their mind
(02:55):
when the evidence changes. So from now, I'm going to call
climate deniers the climate confused because I think that's
suitably patronizing. But to be perfectly honest, the
good news is that it doesn't really matter what we call them,
and we don't actually need to change the minds of this tiny
group of people. They're actually way smaller
than you think. They're just loud. 85% of people
around the world are concerned about climate change and want
governments to do more about it.So that 15%?
(03:18):
Meh. But if you ever wondered why
climate change is so politicizedand why people have such
aggressive opinions about it, well, you can thank oil
companies as always. Back in the 1970s, fossil fuel
companies started to realize that if people really knew about
climate change, it probably wouldn't be good for business.
There is evidence that from the 1800s scientists knew about the
(03:38):
idea of the greenhouse gas effect and that if we poured
loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there would be
consequences. Fossil fuel companies had solid
evidence since the 40s and 50s and just hit it just like they
did with tobacco. So they knew that this probably
wasn't going to be good for business.
So they started pouring 10s of millions of dollars into
propaganda campaigns. Exxon alone, I think, in one
(03:59):
year spent $30 million funding athink tank that simply existed
to muddy the waters and confuse people, which is exactly what
tobacco companies did because the science that smoking tobacco
lead to lung and other cancers was well known well before
cigarettes were ever restricted.And this worked so well because
of us. We are not very good at dealing
with threats that aren't immediate.
Our brains like clear, obvious threats like being chased by a
(04:21):
lion. Not sea level rise in a couple
of decades. The other thing, of course, is
denial is a powerful coping mechanism.
So many people feel that the solutions to resolving climate
change are massive things. They don't want to give up, so
they're just shut down, head in the sand.
It is, but that isn't going to help.
But then, of course, for the true deniers or the extra
confused, it's not about scienceor evidence, it's about ego.
(04:43):
It's about identity. It's about belonging.
Often these guys start out because of repeated exposure to
misinformation, their peer influence, or alignment with
say, political groups that ignore science and dismiss
climate action as unnecessary. Yes, often funded prior
companies and over time this becomes part of their ego and
their identity. Admitting climate change is real
(05:05):
and and saying they were wrong is something they fundamentally
cannot do. At that point, it's more about
loyalty and ego than it is aboutevidence or saving the planet.
And that is exactly why arguing is largely pointless.
It isn't anything to do with evidence.
You could throw all the facts that you have at them, and it
will make not one iota of difference.
But if you want to subject yourself to the frustration,
here are the myths #1 climate has always changed.
(05:28):
It's just a cycle, and it's got nothing to do with us.
Yeah, the Earth's climate has always changed.
It is a cycle. We have gone from Ice Age to
temperate periods right now, butnever at the speed and never at
the scale. So for context, atmospheric CO2
stayed between 180 and 280 partsper million for the past 800,000
years. Today, due almost exclusively to
(05:51):
fossil fuel use, we're staying at 420 parts per million.
And that level has not been seenin the Earth's atmosphere for
millions of years. And it might sound tiny, right?
Parts per million. But when you consider that the
difference in Earth's history between ice ages and warmer
periods is as little as 100 parts per million, you start to
understand. And actually, maybe that's quite
a lot. Human activity accounts for 90%
(06:14):
of current global warming, and natural factors like volcanoes
or solar flares cannot explain the spike.
It's basic physics. If you pump billions of tons of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it's obviously going
to treat more heat #2 is the idea that more CO2 means more
plant growth? And I guess I can understand
this one a little bit more. It sort of makes some sense to a
certain level. A greater concentration of CO2
(06:35):
in the ear does make plants growfaster.
But it's to a certain point, right?
More is not always more. Consider it like oxygen.
We need oxygen. The air you're breathing right
now is about 20.8% oxygen. At about 50%, you would start to
have seizures. You start to have brain and lung
damage. It would be very unpleasant.
Carbon dioxide works exactly thesame way.
Increased CO2 means warmer temperatures, intensified
(06:55):
droughts, unpredictable weather,nutrient poor soils.
And studies show that crops thatare grown in those higher CO2
environments often lose vital nutrients like zinc and iron
even further jeopardizing food security.
Number 3 is the idea that a couple of degrees doesn't
matter. And again, I get this one too
because it sounds realistic. We're talking about a very small
amount of change. Theoretically, we are currently
(07:16):
at about 1.21 point 3° of change, and we're saying that we
want to hold it at 1.5, which wehave almost no chance of doing
now. It is too late.
But we definitely want to hold it under 2 because every single
fraction of a degree makes a difference.
I talked about this extensively in the main episode this week.
It's a bit grim and a bit of a harsh listen because it's what
we will face if we hit 2°. But the too long didn't read
(07:36):
version is even a small temperature increase makes an
enormous difference. It dramatically increases the
heat energy and the water vapourin the air, which leads to much
stronger storms, much more frequent storms.
It dries out the soil, causes droughts.
I could go on. Of course, by two degrees most
of the coral reefs will be gone,and 25% of marine species rely
on coral reefs. But of course, almost all of the
(07:57):
remaining species rely on some of those species that have
something to do with coral, so our already struggling oceans
won't have a great time. Every fraction of a degree
matters, even if it seems small #4 is that it's too late and
it's just too expensive to do anything about climate change.
And both are emphatically wrong.This one very specifically comes
from the oil companies. Because if you can't win with a
misinformation campaign, you candefinitely make people feel it's
(08:18):
not worth trying, because apathyis a very easy thing to elicit
in people. Economically, at the end of the
day, renewable energy is now about 80% cheaper than fossil
fuels. It does not make economic sense
to be funding more coal mines almost anywhere in 2023 / 80% of
the renewable energy projects that were funded were infinitely
cheaper than the cheapest fossilfuel alternatives.
(08:38):
So basically, building a wind farm is infinitely cheaper than
building a coal plant. And timing wise, it's absolutely
not too late. Yes, it's too late for 1.5°, but
we want to do everything we can to prevent further warming.
I have now said it three times. It really bears repeating.
Every fraction of a degree makesa difference.
And then finally #5 is that there is no scientific
consensus. And this one also comes from oil
(09:00):
propaganda. About 97% of climate specialists
agree that climate change is urgent, is worsening, and is
anthropogenic. So we did it.
And it doesn't really matter what other scientists and other
fields argue because they're notthe experts.
So a dermatologist telling you that they don't believe in
climate change because they don't think the science is there
yet is kind of irrelevant. They may be a skin expert, but
(09:21):
they know nothing about the climate.
And this is where it's really important to consider someone's
expertise in the relevant area. 77% is about as solid as
consensus will get in science. It's about the same level of
consensus we had when scientistsare telling us that tobacco
caused cancer. And yet we don't have great
swathes of people out there in the wilderness arguing that
tobacco causing cancer is just ascheme cooked up by big lung.
(09:43):
Fossil fuel companies bankrolledthis as well because creating
this illusion of disagreement made it seem like maybe it
wasn't real after all. If you want any resources or
proof of what I am saying, they are all in the show nuts.
But now you have the knowledge to combat some of these myths.
How do you do it in an effectiveway?
Because the number one thing we can actually do to combat
climate change is talk about it.And yet so many people don't
(10:03):
want to because so many of us feel like we're the only one
that cares about it, and we feelsilly. 85% of people care, don't
forget that. But the first thing to consider
when you're entering into a debate with someone is to
realize that most people aren't actually evil.
Some people are, but most peopleall want the same thing, right?
Happy, healthy families, friends, environments.
So start with figuring out what it is they do care about.
(10:24):
People weren't going to change their minds because you've given
them some data. But they might change their mind
when they see how that issue will affect their world and what
they care about. So don't throw out abstract
statistics about sea level rise.Talk about how the flood last
year down the road was caused byclimate change, or how insurance
rates keep going up, or how somehomes soon won't be insurable to
link climate impacts to things that affect them and their
(10:45):
family because they will alreadybe experiencing these impacts,
they just necessarily haven't linked it to.
Climate scientist Catherine Hayhoe talks about this all the
time as the single most impactful way to talk about it.
Start with shared values. Don't make it a fight.
No one has ever lost an argumentand gone.
You know what, you were right. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
That's not how it works, so you have to keep your cool.
(11:06):
The moment you get emotional in an argument you lose it, which I
know is way easier said than done.
But the second you get angry or combative, they get defensive
and you've lost. It's no longer about logic, it's
just about both of you defendingyour position.
So know when to step back and walk away.
This is a favorite of mine in most conversations actually, is
to ask the questions. People will say some of the most
insane things and they love asking them about why.
(11:30):
Where did they get that from? Why did they believe it?
What evidence have they seen So often they can't answer them, or
they answer them in a very peculiar way, or they get
defensive and that's annoying. But those are little like
nibbles, if you like, into theirarmor.
That will start to make them think later on.
Why do they believe that thing? They believe we should all be
self aware enough to think aboutwhat we think, but most people
(11:53):
don't. Two of the most impactful
questions in my experience are what evidence would actually
change your mind and where did you hear that from?
Have you heard the phrase they say or they told me about this.
If you asked them who they is, it's usually fascinating.
It's quite often a guy with a podcast, but again, it makes
them think, where did I hear that from?
Was it a good source? Can I trust that person or am I
(12:14):
just parenting something? And by asking the questions,
you're not only finding out someinformation that maybe you could
have refute in a kind way, but you're also making them think
about it. And instead of being defensive,
hopefully they'll remain thoughtful.
This only works for people who are open minded or self aware or
even just curious, not for everybody.
And then of course you need to know when to leave it.
There is a point when this conversation stops being
productive. If you are talking to someone
(12:36):
who says that climate change is a plot by the UN to ban meat and
internal combustion cars and install the world government and
they're actual secretly lizards,you're done.
That's not a debate. That person is a conspiracy
theorist, and it doesn't matter what you say, you're not going
to change anything and it's justgoing to cost you energy, make
you frustrated. It can make you sort of lose a
little bit of faith in humans. Your energy is better spent
(12:58):
elsewhere, ideally with people who are curious, not confused.
Now, you're probably not going to change someone's mind with
one conversation, but you might open a door.
You might start thinking about why they think something.
And even if you don't, there's always other people listening or
watching or reading their comments who might be quietly
thinking that actually makes sense and that is worth it.
(13:21):
Knowledge is power and I hope that was helpful.
But if you like this episode, you will love this weeks main
episode. It's got a whole lot more
information, although content warning it's a bit dark, but it
ends on a cheerful note. I'll see you next week for a
chat with another scientist talking about science
communication, Kyoda. And there you go.
I hope you learned something andrealise that being green isn't
(13:42):
about everything in your pantry matching with those silly glass
jars or living in a commune. If that's your jam, Fabulous.
But sustainability at its part is just using what you need.
If you enjoyed this episode, please don't keep it to yourself
and feel free to drop me a rating and hit the subscribe
button Kyoda and I'll see you next week.
Kyodo Kaitiaki and welcome to Now That's what I Call Green.
I'm your host, Brianne W, an environmentalist and
entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I
am. I'm all about creating a
scientific approach to making the world a better place without
the judgement and making it fun.And of course, we will be
chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our
planet with. So if you are looking to
(00:26):
navigate through everything, green or not so green, you have
come to the right place. Are you tired of arguing about
climate change with your uncle, your Co worker or that weird
person online? Welcome to the club.
Now if you really want to keep banging your head on that wall,
I'm not here to stop you, am here to try and give you some
facts that might help. Because even though you were
(00:47):
almost certainly not going to convince those people, it is
often worth trying to combat some of that misinformation for
the people that are listening inor lurking in the comments.
We're probably not going to convince the guy who thinks that
all scientists are evil and funded by like solar, but that's
not really why we do it. Misinformation is freaking
annoying and it spreads 4 times faster than facts.
But most importantly, it also stops us doing what we need to
(01:07):
do to stop the planet heating upand boiling the oceans.
So today for this episode of Microgreens, I thought I would
talk about some of the myths I see quite often in my comment
section parroted by climate change deniers, but also how you
can talk about things like climate change that a little bit
more effectively if you're a masochist.
Kyoto. I'm Brianne West, and this is
now that's what I call green, where I talk about all things
science, sustainability and nature.
(01:28):
Now, before we begin, a note on the term climate change denier.
It's a terrible term. Denial implies some kind of
belief in something unproven. Climate change isn't a belief
system like religion or ghosts. There is terabytes of evidence
and data that has been collectedby 10s of thousands of
scientists for decades. And actually, many of those
scientists started out as skeptics themselves, but they
(01:50):
changed their mind with the evidence.
And that's a key point, right? Climate change deniers often
call themselves climate skeptics.
But to be a skeptic, you actually have to follow the
evidence and change your mind accordingly.
And yeah, most people who don't like climate change don't do
that. We should all be skeptics,
right? That is the keystone of science,
by and large. Nellius in verba is the Latin
(02:12):
motto for probably the oldest science institute on earth, the
Royal Society. And it just means take nobody's
word for it. And that's exactly how science
works. People don't just believe things
blindly. They look at the evidence for
and against a hypothesis, and then they make their minds up
accordingly. You can't just trust some guy
with a podcast microphone. Practically speaking, of course,
we can't become experts on everything.
So how do you know who to trust?Well, there's a couple of things
(02:33):
to look for. Look for people who openly share
their work, how they got their, their methodology, their
calculations. If they don't want to show it,
maybe it's a bit dodgy. Look for people whose findings
withstand scrutiny from other experts in the field.
That's what peer reviewing is. Look for people who admit that
there are still grey areas or things they don't understand,
because we don't know everythingabout almost anything.
And most importantly, look for people who change their mind
(02:55):
when the evidence changes. So from now, I'm going to call
climate deniers the climate confused because I think that's
suitably patronizing. But to be perfectly honest, the
good news is that it doesn't really matter what we call them,
and we don't actually need to change the minds of this tiny
group of people. They're actually way smaller
than you think. They're just loud. 85% of people
around the world are concerned about climate change and want
governments to do more about it.So that 15%?
(03:18):
Meh. But if you ever wondered why
climate change is so politicizedand why people have such
aggressive opinions about it, well, you can thank oil
companies as always. Back in the 1970s, fossil fuel
companies started to realize that if people really knew about
climate change, it probably wouldn't be good for business.
There is evidence that from the 1800s scientists knew about the
(03:38):
idea of the greenhouse gas effect and that if we poured
loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there would be
consequences. Fossil fuel companies had solid
evidence since the 40s and 50s and just hit it just like they
did with tobacco. So they knew that this probably
wasn't going to be good for business.
So they started pouring 10s of millions of dollars into
propaganda campaigns. Exxon alone, I think, in one
(03:59):
year spent $30 million funding athink tank that simply existed
to muddy the waters and confuse people, which is exactly what
tobacco companies did because the science that smoking tobacco
lead to lung and other cancers was well known well before
cigarettes were ever restricted.And this worked so well because
of us. We are not very good at dealing
with threats that aren't immediate.
Our brains like clear, obvious threats like being chased by a
(04:21):
lion. Not sea level rise in a couple
of decades. The other thing, of course, is
denial is a powerful coping mechanism.
So many people feel that the solutions to resolving climate
change are massive things. They don't want to give up, so
they're just shut down, head in the sand.
It is, but that isn't going to help.
But then, of course, for the true deniers or the extra
confused, it's not about scienceor evidence, it's about ego.
(04:43):
It's about identity. It's about belonging.
Often these guys start out because of repeated exposure to
misinformation, their peer influence, or alignment with
say, political groups that ignore science and dismiss
climate action as unnecessary. Yes, often funded prior
companies and over time this becomes part of their ego and
their identity. Admitting climate change is real
(05:05):
and and saying they were wrong is something they fundamentally
cannot do. At that point, it's more about
loyalty and ego than it is aboutevidence or saving the planet.
And that is exactly why arguing is largely pointless.
It isn't anything to do with evidence.
You could throw all the facts that you have at them, and it
will make not one iota of difference.
But if you want to subject yourself to the frustration,
here are the myths #1 climate has always changed.
(05:28):
It's just a cycle, and it's got nothing to do with us.
Yeah, the Earth's climate has always changed.
It is a cycle. We have gone from Ice Age to
temperate periods right now, butnever at the speed and never at
the scale. So for context, atmospheric CO2
stayed between 180 and 280 partsper million for the past 800,000
years. Today, due almost exclusively to
(05:51):
fossil fuel use, we're staying at 420 parts per million.
And that level has not been seenin the Earth's atmosphere for
millions of years. And it might sound tiny, right?
Parts per million. But when you consider that the
difference in Earth's history between ice ages and warmer
periods is as little as 100 parts per million, you start to
understand. And actually, maybe that's quite
a lot. Human activity accounts for 90%
(06:14):
of current global warming, and natural factors like volcanoes
or solar flares cannot explain the spike.
It's basic physics. If you pump billions of tons of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it's obviously going
to treat more heat #2 is the idea that more CO2 means more
plant growth? And I guess I can understand
this one a little bit more. It sort of makes some sense to a
certain level. A greater concentration of CO2
(06:35):
in the ear does make plants growfaster.
But it's to a certain point, right?
More is not always more. Consider it like oxygen.
We need oxygen. The air you're breathing right
now is about 20.8% oxygen. At about 50%, you would start to
have seizures. You start to have brain and lung
damage. It would be very unpleasant.
Carbon dioxide works exactly thesame way.
Increased CO2 means warmer temperatures, intensified
(06:55):
droughts, unpredictable weather,nutrient poor soils.
And studies show that crops thatare grown in those higher CO2
environments often lose vital nutrients like zinc and iron
even further jeopardizing food security.
Number 3 is the idea that a couple of degrees doesn't
matter. And again, I get this one too
because it sounds realistic. We're talking about a very small
amount of change. Theoretically, we are currently
(07:16):
at about 1.21 point 3° of change, and we're saying that we
want to hold it at 1.5, which wehave almost no chance of doing
now. It is too late.
But we definitely want to hold it under 2 because every single
fraction of a degree makes a difference.
I talked about this extensively in the main episode this week.
It's a bit grim and a bit of a harsh listen because it's what
we will face if we hit 2°. But the too long didn't read
(07:36):
version is even a small temperature increase makes an
enormous difference. It dramatically increases the
heat energy and the water vapourin the air, which leads to much
stronger storms, much more frequent storms.
It dries out the soil, causes droughts.
I could go on. Of course, by two degrees most
of the coral reefs will be gone,and 25% of marine species rely
on coral reefs. But of course, almost all of the
(07:57):
remaining species rely on some of those species that have
something to do with coral, so our already struggling oceans
won't have a great time. Every fraction of a degree
matters, even if it seems small #4 is that it's too late and
it's just too expensive to do anything about climate change.
And both are emphatically wrong.This one very specifically comes
from the oil companies. Because if you can't win with a
misinformation campaign, you candefinitely make people feel it's
(08:18):
not worth trying, because apathyis a very easy thing to elicit
in people. Economically, at the end of the
day, renewable energy is now about 80% cheaper than fossil
fuels. It does not make economic sense
to be funding more coal mines almost anywhere in 2023 / 80% of
the renewable energy projects that were funded were infinitely
cheaper than the cheapest fossilfuel alternatives.
(08:38):
So basically, building a wind farm is infinitely cheaper than
building a coal plant. And timing wise, it's absolutely
not too late. Yes, it's too late for 1.5°, but
we want to do everything we can to prevent further warming.
I have now said it three times. It really bears repeating.
Every fraction of a degree makesa difference.
And then finally #5 is that there is no scientific
consensus. And this one also comes from oil
(09:00):
propaganda. About 97% of climate specialists
agree that climate change is urgent, is worsening, and is
anthropogenic. So we did it.
And it doesn't really matter what other scientists and other
fields argue because they're notthe experts.
So a dermatologist telling you that they don't believe in
climate change because they don't think the science is there
yet is kind of irrelevant. They may be a skin expert, but
(09:21):
they know nothing about the climate.
And this is where it's really important to consider someone's
expertise in the relevant area. 77% is about as solid as
consensus will get in science. It's about the same level of
consensus we had when scientistsare telling us that tobacco
caused cancer. And yet we don't have great
swathes of people out there in the wilderness arguing that
tobacco causing cancer is just ascheme cooked up by big lung.
(09:43):
Fossil fuel companies bankrolledthis as well because creating
this illusion of disagreement made it seem like maybe it
wasn't real after all. If you want any resources or
proof of what I am saying, they are all in the show nuts.
But now you have the knowledge to combat some of these myths.
How do you do it in an effectiveway?
Because the number one thing we can actually do to combat
climate change is talk about it.And yet so many people don't
(10:03):
want to because so many of us feel like we're the only one
that cares about it, and we feelsilly. 85% of people care, don't
forget that. But the first thing to consider
when you're entering into a debate with someone is to
realize that most people aren't actually evil.
Some people are, but most peopleall want the same thing, right?
Happy, healthy families, friends, environments.
So start with figuring out what it is they do care about.
(10:24):
People weren't going to change their minds because you've given
them some data. But they might change their mind
when they see how that issue will affect their world and what
they care about. So don't throw out abstract
statistics about sea level rise.Talk about how the flood last
year down the road was caused byclimate change, or how insurance
rates keep going up, or how somehomes soon won't be insurable to
link climate impacts to things that affect them and their
(10:45):
family because they will alreadybe experiencing these impacts,
they just necessarily haven't linked it to.
Climate scientist Catherine Hayhoe talks about this all the
time as the single most impactful way to talk about it.
Start with shared values. Don't make it a fight.
No one has ever lost an argumentand gone.
You know what, you were right. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
That's not how it works, so you have to keep your cool.
(11:06):
The moment you get emotional in an argument you lose it, which I
know is way easier said than done.
But the second you get angry or combative, they get defensive
and you've lost. It's no longer about logic, it's
just about both of you defendingyour position.
So know when to step back and walk away.
This is a favorite of mine in most conversations actually, is
to ask the questions. People will say some of the most
insane things and they love asking them about why.
(11:30):
Where did they get that from? Why did they believe it?
What evidence have they seen So often they can't answer them, or
they answer them in a very peculiar way, or they get
defensive and that's annoying. But those are little like
nibbles, if you like, into theirarmor.
That will start to make them think later on.
Why do they believe that thing? They believe we should all be
self aware enough to think aboutwhat we think, but most people
(11:53):
don't. Two of the most impactful
questions in my experience are what evidence would actually
change your mind and where did you hear that from?
Have you heard the phrase they say or they told me about this.
If you asked them who they is, it's usually fascinating.
It's quite often a guy with a podcast, but again, it makes
them think, where did I hear that from?
Was it a good source? Can I trust that person or am I
(12:14):
just parenting something? And by asking the questions,
you're not only finding out someinformation that maybe you could
have refute in a kind way, but you're also making them think
about it. And instead of being defensive,
hopefully they'll remain thoughtful.
This only works for people who are open minded or self aware or
even just curious, not for everybody.
And then of course you need to know when to leave it.
There is a point when this conversation stops being
productive. If you are talking to someone
(12:36):
who says that climate change is a plot by the UN to ban meat and
internal combustion cars and install the world government and
they're actual secretly lizards,you're done.
That's not a debate. That person is a conspiracy
theorist, and it doesn't matter what you say, you're not going
to change anything and it's justgoing to cost you energy, make
you frustrated. It can make you sort of lose a
little bit of faith in humans. Your energy is better spent
(12:58):
elsewhere, ideally with people who are curious, not confused.
Now, you're probably not going to change someone's mind with
one conversation, but you might open a door.
You might start thinking about why they think something.
And even if you don't, there's always other people listening or
watching or reading their comments who might be quietly
thinking that actually makes sense and that is worth it.
(13:21):
Knowledge is power and I hope that was helpful.
But if you like this episode, you will love this weeks main
episode. It's got a whole lot more
information, although content warning it's a bit dark, but it
ends on a cheerful note. I'll see you next week for a
chat with another scientist talking about science
communication, Kyoda. And there you go.
I hope you learned something andrealise that being green isn't
(13:42):
about everything in your pantry matching with those silly glass
jars or living in a commune. If that's your jam, Fabulous.
But sustainability at its part is just using what you need.
If you enjoyed this episode, please don't keep it to yourself
and feel free to drop me a rating and hit the subscribe
button Kyoda and I'll see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com