30 November 2019 | New Scientist | 41ideologically motivated misinformation. What
you have to do is to expose their motivation,
and then you can say, “Look, I get it. I care about
freedom too. So let’s talk about solutions to
this problem that we could achieve without
taking away your freedom.” Then you have
shifted the terms of debate.You and others have been banging this drum
for years. Do you feel like you have failed?
I don’t think so. We have made people aware
that this is not simply a problem of scientific
literacy. However, we’re up against really,
really big forces.
There is an incredibly powerful and well-
funded network, organised and financed
by some of the most powerful corporations
that have ever existed.Denial makes me angry, but I don’t know if
that is an appropriate response. Does it make
you angry?
Oh, absolutely. I think we need to be angry. We
need to be outraged. I always say it’s rational to
be outraged about things that are outrageous.
But then we have to channel that anger and
outrage into productive political action.One of your previous books, The Collapse
of Western Civilization, painted a deeply
pessimistic picture of the future. Do you
still feel that way?
Every single day you can find grounds for
optimism. Greta Thunberg is amazing, the
Gandhi of climate change. She is clearly
motivating lots of people. So is Extinction
Rebellion. There is rising anger, people are
saying, “This is ridiculous.” I think that’s
all good.
But every day, you can also find grounds
for pessimism. Are we going to figure out how
to dislodge these incredibly powerful forces
that we’re up against? I think the jury’s still out
on that.You have yourself been targeted by denialists
and misinformation campaigns.
Of course, but I try not to dwell on it. I know
it’s toxic. I get much more support than I get
pushback. Most people are with us. Most
people understand the threat. They know it
is real and want to do something about it.
I try to stay focused on that. ❚“ Once you
undermine
beliefs in facts
then you can
say almost
anything”
RIC
H^ P
ED
RO
NC
EL
LI/
AP
/SH
UT
TE
RS
TO
CK
Protests against tighter rules
on vaccination exemptions in
Sacramento in Augustwell known who are actually quite famous
now because of their climate denialism.
I also think some of them are lonely. Once,
this guy gave me a really hard time at a book
reading. Then afterwards, he asked me out.
And I think they’re scared. Climate change
is scary. And when people are frightened,
they lash out in all sorts of directions and
they often shoot the messenger. When
someone comes along and says, “Don’t listen
to those geeks, they’re just a bunch of elite,
arrogant eggheads” – which, honestly, some
of them are – some people find that an
attractive message.You think scientists are partly to blame?
I don’t want to use the word blame. But some
way in which we’ve structured science and
our understanding of what it is to be a scientist
has contributed.
A lot of scientists are really full of
themselves, right? There is a certain way in
which scientists – not all, but some – can be
dismissive of ordinary folks. Scientists have
to stop being so arrogant.
The problem is in the way we’re trained and
what we’re taught to value. There’s a cultural
obsession with the idea that to be a great
scientist, you have to be absolutely single-
minded. You get no training whatsoever in
communication. But there’s plenty of evidencethat to communicate is to connect with a
fellow human being, and you cannot do that
without some degree of emotional investment.
So when scientists expunge their emotions,
it doesn’t work.What can scientists do to counter public doubt?
When the doubt thing first happened, most
scientists misdiagnosed it. They saw it as a
problem of scientific literacy and thought that
the response was to explain it more clearly.
More facts, more evidence.
That doesn’t work because these people
are not lacking information. This is not a
knowledge deficit problem, it is a problem ofGraham Lawton is a staff writer at
New Scientist. Follow him on Twitter
@GrahamLawton