i'll use this article as a jumping off point. it's an interesting read about why Conservatives deny Global Warming.
yesterday i posted a discussion about an article claiming that the Earth is cooling and that carbon dioxide is good for the environment. it was sent to me by my step-father, who is getting to be famous here on A/N. he is a staunch Consevative, a Birther who thinks that Obama wants Anarchy, and an evolution and climate change denier.
he genuinely believes that the Scientific community is duping the world into believing in Global Warming so they can continue to get funded and keep their jobs. i sent him articles from NASA - he rejected them, since NASA is in Obama's pocket. i sent him articles from decorated climate scientists from Berkley - he wouldn't even read them b/c Berkley is a liberal think tank. instead, he accepts the theories put forth by unknown internet bloggers or a single Physicist who happens to work with the Heartland Institute.
when i point out the fallacies of his sources, he ignores them and sends me another article by an equally insignificant source. when i debunk that i get an email that says "global warming is hooey". talk about a discussion stopper.
there really is no way to convince someone whose mind is made up. i never try to convert someone to Atheism - it's impossible, and honestly why bother? but i think it's our duty as citizens to try to educate the ignorant on important issues like Climate Change and Evolution. too bad that often the same people who are deeply Religious are the same ones who deny Science. and their minds are made up equally regarding both God and Science.
btw, it really is funny how you can tell in the comments who the deniers are by their frequent use of ALL CAPS. hehe.
Have you tried the peppered moth approach? That's a duel argument I love to use. It not only shows how the industrial revolution damaged the environment, but it also shows the awesome powers of natural selection as the peppered moth changed from white to black and back to white again in about 200 years simply because the environment changed. There's 200 years worth of data backing it up. Maybe that'll open the door a little.
i doubt that will help. at best, at least regarding my step-father, he would admit to "micro-evolution", lol. still that wouldn't help with the global warming thing. honestly, i think it's a lost cause. i'm now focused on convincing my mother. it's going better than it was with him.
I'm glad she's more receptive! Maybe she'll get to work on your step-dad once you convince her! lol Here's hoping! *fingers crossed*
i think i might have figured this all out. you see, Climate Deniers often call themselves Skeptics. problem is, they are new to being skeptics, hence, they aren't very good at it.
they don't know how to be a true skeptic. it's all confirmation bias. they find tons of articles, blogs, and data on Climate Change that supports their opinion, yet they fail to view the source. they believe that a non-credentialed blogger who sites zero references is on par with a NASA study.
a skeptic uses their critical thinking skills to sniff out bullshit, then fact checks to see what experts have to say. for example, if someone tells me that Obama wasn't born in America, i will try to find credible experts who share that view. if i can only find some batshit crazy sheriff, or some religious zealot, then i am unlikely to believe it. if the head of the CIA or FBI or ANYONE with a sniff of credibility seemed to lend credence to it, i would open my mind to the possibility.
calling yourself a skeptic is all well and good, but it means nothing if you don't know how to do it.