Psychology of Climate Change Denial

[Tor Bejnar]

http://climatedenial.org/

I regularly visit this blog that "explores the topic of the psychology of climate change denial - with observations and anecdotes about our weird and disturbed response to the problem."

I invite folks to react to Dr. Marshall's perspectives and to include references and discussion of this topic from other sources.  (I know I've read relevant things on Skeptical Science, such as http://skepticalscience.com/recursive-fury.html.)

Latest entry on Dr. Marshall's blog:

BALD BLOKES TALK ABOUT EXTREME WEATHER
George Marshall @ 12:57 pm

I was recently privileged to speak on a panel at the British Library about the peculiar lack of public discussion about climate change in areas damaged by extreme weather and the tendency for people to interpret these impacts in terms of their own politics and worldview.
...

[bosbas]

An other blog which I find very useful on this topic is http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com which is moderated by Tenney Naumer . Almost daily, articles about this topic are posted on this blog.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

The nutshell is, 'humans are wired to respond strongest to threats that are visible, immediate, have historical precedent, have direct personal impact, and are caused by an “enemy.” Climate change is none of these; it's invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, impacts us indirectly, and is caused by us.'

Now that's we've pretty much reached the tipping point, I believe people will go deeper than ever into denial. Lars von Trier's film Melancholia is an allegory of our situation.

Even worse than the truth of the psychology is the fact that people don't read, they don't watch anything scientific unless it's about wild animals, and they live by oft-repeated TV news talking points.

I'm an apocaloptimist, but the thing I hold the least hope out for is a large enough number of people getting smart.

[Tor Bejnar]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057
Climate Science Communication and the Measurement Problem
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
June 25, 2014

Abstract:     
This paper examines the science-of-science-communication measurement problem. In its simplest form, the problem reflects the use of externally invalid measures of the dynamics that generate cultural conflict over risk and other policy-relevant facts. But at a more fundamental level, the science-of-science-communication measurement problem inheres in the phenomena being measured themselves. The “beliefs” individuals form about a societal risk such as climate change are not of a piece; rather they reflect the distinct clusters of inferences that individuals draw as they engage information for two distinct ends: to gain access to the collective knowledge furnished by science, and to enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments. The paper shows how appropriately designed “science comprehension” tests — one general, and one specific to climate change — can be used to measure individuals’ reasoning proficiency as collective-knowledge acquirers independently of their reasoning proficiency as cultural-identity protectors. Doing so reveals that there is in fact little disagreement among culturally diverse citizens on what science knows about climate change. The source of the climate-change controversy and like disputes is the contamination of education and politics with forms of cultural status competition that make it impossible for diverse citizens to express their reason as collective-knowledge acquirers and cultural-identity protectors at the same time.

NYT article on this:  When Beliefs and Facts Collide http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

… the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people is wider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

^{(Bolding added for emphases.)}

This suggests to me that to enhance the possibility of effective climate policy in certain Western countries (e.g., USA, Canada, Australia), we need to support those among the conservative Christian community who understand the climate crisis and our responsibility towards it, and listen to how they attempt to communicate with their co-religious.  Our 'preaching to non-choir members (e.g. conservative Christians) what is effective preaching to our own choir (e.g. those who post on ASIF)' needs to change.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
   -   Albert Einstein

[Xulonn]

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is a breath of fresh air among evangelical Christians, and I hope that she can be effective in convincing some of her fellow conservative Christians that AGW/CC is not a "liberal conspiracy" and a hoax.

From http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5: 

I am an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, part of the Department of Interior’s South-Central Climate Science Center. My research focuses on establishing a scientific basis for assessing the regional to local-scale impacts of climate change on human systems and the natural environment. To this end, I analyze observations, compare future scenarios, evaluate global and regional climate models, build and assess statistical downscaling models, and constantly strive to develop better ways of translating climate projections into information relevant to agriculture, ecosystems, energy, infrastructure, public health, and water resources.

I am also the founder and CEO of ATMOS Research, where we bridge the gap between scientists and stakeholders to provide relevant, state-of-the-art information on how climate change will affect our lives to a broad range of non-profit, industry and government clients. We are currently working with the state of Delaware, the cities of Cambridge and Austin, and Boston Logan Airport to assess the potential impacts of climate change on their infrastructure and future planning.

My work has resulted in over 100 peer-reviewed papers, abstracts, and other publications and many key reports including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Second National Climate Assessment; the U.S. National Academy of Science report, Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia; and the upcoming 2014 Third National Climate Assessment. In addition to these reports, I have led climate impact assessments for a broad cross-section of cities and regions, from Chicago to California and the U.S. Northeast. The findings of these studies have been presented before Congress, highlighted in briefings to state and federal agencies, and used as input to future planning by communities, states, and regions across the country.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

Episode 4 of Years of Living Dangerously, "Ice and Brimstone" covers Katherine Hayhoe speaking to a major commercial evangelist whose daughter hopes to use her to help convince him so he can set his congregation straight on climate change. He would be a major brick in the wall. At the end of the episode he remains stubbornly unconverted.

[Tor Bejnar]

George Marshall (of http://climatedenial.org/) sent 'me' an e-mail saying, among other things, that his book Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change will be released in about six weeks (outside the USA in October).  "It has already had strong advance praise from Jim Hansen, Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein."

Facebook :
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dont-Even-Think-About-It-How-Our-Brains-Ignore-Climate-Change/457763901035475
Or visit the book website www.climateconviction.org

Finally, in September I will tour the US and Canada, visiting Ottawa, Vancouver,
Victoria, Seattle, LA, Sacramento, San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Chicago, Yale
and Columbia, and Washington DC. I am posting details and dates on the website:
http://www.climateconviction.org/events.html.  Please do come along and tell
others.

-----

Thanks, Lynn [edit: and Xulonn], for naming Katharine Hayhoe.  She's remarkable. Visit http://katharinehayhoe.com/.

[Tor Bejnar]

http://climatedenial.org/
George Marshall wrote recently [with my comments in italicized brackets]:

… Firstly ... Environmentalists and scientists alike continue to assume that climate change denial can be overcome with more reports and data. [I don't think everyone here assumes this.] They are wrong: this has to be understood as an appeal to values and identities.
...
Thirdly – we must, as a matter of ever greater urgency, develop a right wing discourse on climate change [but read below!]. Political orientation has become the single most reliable predictor of people’s positions on climate change. The centre right political worldview is very poorly served by environmentalists, most of whom have progressive left politics. Our failure to address this audiences has left this critical social space wide open for aggressive deniers ...

... We need to step back and encourage and enable conservative communicators to come to the fore, shaping language around their own values. And this, I have to warn my colleagues in the Green movement, will involve allowing some new ways of talking that make us decidedly uncomfortable [and practice makes us better!]…

By focusing primarily on 'the interesting things happening to Arctic ice', this forum creates space for a variety of politics and world views and cultures without it being an 'anything goes' sort of place.  Are folks from "center right" communities here?

[Tor Bejnar]

Facts can convince conservatives about global warming – sometimes
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/07/facts-can-convince-some-conservatives-about-global-warming
The article ends

There are two pieces of good news in this new study indicating that information does make a difference and climate education isn’t a lost cause. Across the participants as a whole,

People who were knowledgeable about climate change believed more strongly that it is happening, that it is being caused by human activities, and that it has negative consequences than those with less knowledge.

Second, conservatives of a libertarian flavor were more likely to accept that global warming is happening when they had a better understanding of the climate. This indicates that some conservatives are persuadable; that information, evidence, and facts can potentially break through their ideological filter.

On the other hand, the results of this study also suggest that conservatives of a more hierarchist flavor [previously identified with "(those who favor distinct socioeconomic classes – closely related to the ‘religious right’ in the USA)"] may not be persuadable by climate information and evidence. As their perceived understanding of climate change grows, their acceptance of human-caused global warming falls.

There’s no question that ideological biases play a big role in rejection of global warming. However, the results of this study indicate that for a majority of the public, including some conservatives, information that increases understanding about the climate can also increase public acceptance of global warming.

^{(This article can be reached through Skeptical Science.)}

[Tor Bejnar]

Announcing the release of Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change by George Marshall of COIN, an English charitable company:  visit http://climateconviction.org/

A book for all audiences: activists, policy specialists,  scientists, sceptics and general public alike.  This book has received glowing reviews from Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, James Hansen and Bill Nye.  See Washington Post review at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/uncertain-forecast-for-the-planet/2014/08/21/da465b9e-0eb4-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html

George’s goal is to change the way we talk and think about climate change.  Learn more about the book at http://climateconviction.org/ and stay up to date by following it on Twitter and liking it on Facebook (so says his PR piece).

My reading the Washington Post review suggests much of the content of George Marshall's book is based on his blog entries at http://climatedenial.org/

Finally, he is getting ready to go on tour shortly, starting with Boston on September 3 and with public events and presentations in Kelowna, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, New York, Rutgers, Yale and Washington DC.  Check the website (http://climateconviction.org/events.html) for details. Please do tell people about it and come if you can.

[Tor Bejnar]

Why climate change is perfectly designed to be ignored and what we can do about it
Another review of George Marshall's book at http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/09/10/why-climate-change-is-perfectly-designed-to-be-ignored-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/ from the Vancouver Sun.

Distant threat doesn’t concern us ...
No clearly defined enemy ...
The consequences are weakly defined ...
Most of us aren’t talking about it ...
Science has morphed into politics ...

(remaining) Book tour schedule:
Friday 12th             SACRAMENTO
Saturday 13th         SAN FRANCISCO
Monday 15th           LOS ANGELES
Tuesday 16th          LOS ANGELES
Wednesday 17-19    CHICAGO
Later in September:  NYC, NJ, CT, MD
October:                 Europe
Details at http://climateconviction.org/events.html

[Tor Bejnar]

Trust Me, You'll Want to Hear George Marshall Talk About "Multivalent" Climate Change

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/09/youll-want-hear-george-marshall-talk-about-multivalent-climate-change

[Marshall] laughed, “What did Oscar Wilde say? We all kill the thing we love.”

[Laurent]

Climate Change - Through the Looking Glass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-saddington/climate-change-through-th_b_5935350.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

New research suggests climate ‘skeptics’ and believers really, really don’t like each other
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/02/new-research-suggests-climate-skeptics-and-believers-really-really-dont-like-each-other/

In other words, there are many roads towards reducing our carbon emissions — but there is only one way of interpreting mainstream climate science. The new Nature Climate Change papers describe two groups in conflict, but what really matters is the way out.

[Jim Hunt]

Draft of Larry Hamilton's latest paper on the politics of denial:

https://www.academia.edu/10366212/What_people_know

What does the public know, and how much do they care, about Arctic environmental change? What do their patterns of awareness and concern imply for science communication?

The effects of education and knowledge vary with political beliefs. Among liberal and moderate respondents, for example, expressed concern about polar change increases with education. Among the most conservative respondents, however, concern decreases with education.

[Laurent]

Why Communicating About Climate Change Is so Difficult: It's 'The Elephant We're All Inside of'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-pierobon/why-communicating-about-c_b_6626692.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Tor Bejnar]

Thanks, Jim and Laurent for your 'recent' posts.  I just got around to reading the links. 

I'm more convinced that I need to practice Dr. Katharine Hayhoe's '1st: connect with the other person.'  And to stop rationalizing my own (small by American standards) carbon footprint.

A challenge to 'connect with' skeptical people (both the scientifically ignorant or mis-informed and the politically else-wise-certain) on an internet forum such as this, as I see it, is one of not knowing how to figure out what my shared experience is with the 'other'.  Of course, any getting to know each other on a public forum can be a challenge.

[wili]

"A challenge to 'connect with' skeptical people (both the scientifically ignorant or mis-informed and the politically else-wise-certain) on an internet forum such as this, as I see it, is one of not knowing how to figure out what my shared experience is with the 'other'.  Of course, any getting to know each other on a public forum can be a challenge."

Kids.

Most people either have them and cherish them, or if they don't, the profess generally profess some care for the coming generation.

[Tor Bejnar]

Thanks.   Yes, "Kids" are often a shared 'experience'. 

Then there is my former, now retired, colleague (college educated, biology major) who didn't believe in "Darwin's The Origins of Life" (his misstatement) and who had no kids and didn't like paying taxes to pay for other people's kid's education. ...  Even with the disconnects, we did have shared experiences and got along fine when work-focused.

[Jim Hunt]

Thanks, Jim and Laurent for your 'recent' posts.  I just got around to reading the links. 

My pleasure Tor. You may also be interested in the forthcoming "Climate Denial 101" MOOC:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1240.0.html

Larry Hamilton and Katharine Hayhoe both appear in the introductory "Psychology of Denial" video, along with some other names I'm sure you must have heard of.

[foolhardycougar]

Climate will continue to change as it always been since the ice age to now, the scientific community is working, storm hunters are running behind the storm to find the climate change and continuous monitoring via satellite this all is just a way to know what are the changes happening, no human tech is still 100% accurate to predict any calamity but when there is a ray there is a way. May be some day we’ll succeed to create a 100% accurate machine. For more on the topic visit
http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

[Tor Bejnar]

George Marshall has a new post up: GET RADICAL- ENGAGING CONSERVATIVES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE: 1
He ends:

So  my challenge to all people concerned about climate change is this: when are we going to accept the challenge of reaching across partisan boundaries and building a broad social consensus for action? We do not even have to agree about the details of the solutions- indeed I hope we maintain a strong debate. But surely we can come together in the recognition that dealing with climate change is the greatest calling of our age?

Excerpts from couple of comments to his post:

To begin our training in civility and effectiveness, I suggest we start a Face Book page tentatively called, “PROGRESSIVES TALK TO AMERICA, WITH TRUTH AND KINDNESS. Climate change is not the only topic about which we need to learn to be civil and effective. And until we do, the left will always be a minority.

I would recommend Flight Behaviour by Barbara Kingsolver. It is really powerful story based around climate change and for me that power came from having main characters who were right wing, conservative Christians. Seeing things from this different perspective really helped me in making sense of some of this.

[Tor Bejnar]

Today's Skeptical Science - Ask Me Anything about Climate Science Denial leads off with Questions and Answers about the psychology of climate science denial with links to relevant Making Sense of Climate Science Denial course lectures.  (Sections on Scientific Consensus and How to respond to science denial follow.)

What all three types of climate science denial [denial of the existence of global warming, denial of the causation of global warming and denial of the research into climate impacts] have in common is they all lead to the same conclusion - arguing against climate action. This is why those in denial about climate impacts rarely criticise those who deny global warming - they both have the same end goal in mind.

[anthropocene]

Just finished reading; "Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change" by George Marshall of COIN, an English charitable company:  visit http://climateconviction.org/

Superb book. If you've ever been involved in a discussion/argument about climate change face-to-face or online and not got anywhere then it's strongly recommended to read this book. I won't give a detailed description of the book here but in small digestible chapters it coherently explains why past attempts to create a movement to reduce climate change have failed.  This is done by explaining the different ways which people construct to deal with an issue like climate change and why many of the methods attempted to change minds (and more importantly hearts) were doomed to failure. I have to say a classic example is being played out in the comments at: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/05/bill-mckibben-nails-it.html  After reading the book, you view exchanges like this one in a completely different way.

[Jim Hunt]

I assumed Tor's George Marshall link would include this COIN video, but it seems not:

What if there were ways to talk about climate change with centre-right voters in ways that resonate with their values? The accompanying guide to this video can be downloaded here: http://www.climateoutreach.org.uk/portfolio-item/election-guide/

Whatever you do, don't mention polar bears!

[Tor Bejnar]

Thanks, Jim for the video - I hadn't seen it before.  Yup, discover shared values, and talk about how they are being and will further be affected by climate change.  How will 'this' potential solution or 'that' potential solution affect these values.

[Jim Hunt]

This is from Brigitte Nerlich, who is Professor of Science, Language and Society at the Institute for Science and Society, The University of Nottingham.

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/14/lukewarmers/

As I am interested in the emergence and spread of various labels used in the climate change debate, such as for example ‘greenhouse sceptic’, I wanted to know more about the label ‘lukewarmer’ and while I can’t write its history in this post, I can show how it was used in the news.

[Tor Bejnar]

10 things you want to know about human nature if you’re fighting climate change

1. We are overly optimistic about the future — our future, that is.
2. We can be blasé about the most important issues in the world because the global perspective is way beyond ordinary human scale.
3. We are wired to refute imperatives.
4. We are vulnerable to peer pressure, especially about things that confuse us.
5. We shy away from topics that remind us of our mortality but can be motivated to take action on behalf of beings more vulnerable than us.
6. We perceive and respond to risks only when we feel them.
7. We are motivated more by hope than fear, at least in matters of social change.
8. We are more likely to take action when we know precisely what we can influence.
9. We need to believe our actions will make a difference.
10. We will continue to behave the same way we always have — even after we know it is problematic — until there is a realistic alternative.
—–
Lisa Bennett, coauthor of Ecoliterate, is a writer and communications strategist focused on climate change and what helps people rise to challenges great and small. She blogs at lisabennett.org/blog, and is on Twitter at @LisaPBennett.

[Tor Bejnar]

Behind The Weather Channel’s Inventive Climate Change Campaign Aimed At Conservatives

“We are not policy experts; we are scientists.” Weather Channel president David Clark told Slate. “We felt that we needed to give a stage to some of the more courageous voices on the right.”

[Tor Bejnar]

Sigmetnow referenced this interview with Per Espen Stoknes  on another thread:

A Psychologist Explains Why People Don't Give a Shit About Climate Change

An excerpt:

How is dissonance explained psychologically, and how can climate change action be organized to cut through it?

Say you were influenced by peers to bully someone, verbally or physically. After doing so—to keep our positive self-image—you'll tend to reduce the dissonance ("I'm bullying someone, but I'm a nice person") by making up self-justifications such as "he's bad/nuts/stupid" or "he really deserved it." Or the opposite: Let's say you're kind to someone, or give money to the homeless, or donate blood. If you think that these causes are pointless, then dissonance hits: "I'm a caring person, but I'm wasting my resources." Therefore, we tend to avoid this by propping up the belief that these causes that [we] act for are great. "I'm doing this; therefore the cause must be important."

[Tor Bejnar]

Skeptical Science regularly has discussions of climate science denial.  Today they have one on Climate Denial Linked to Conspiratorial Thinking that leads one to NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles E. Gignac (U of W.Aust. and U of Zurich).

Within the abstract was this (emphasis added):

We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings.

[Tor Bejnar]

Another Skeptical Science discussion on conspiracy theories has been posted.  Featured is a paper by Nicholas Smith and Anthony Leiserowitz:  The Rise of Global Warming Skepticism: Exploring Affective Image Associations in the United States Over Time
Abstract:

This article explores how affective image associations to global warming have changed over time. Four nationally representative surveys of the American public were conducted between 2002 and 2010 to assess public global warming risk perceptions, policy preferences, and behavior. Affective images (positive or negative feelings and cognitive representations) were collected and content analyzed. The results demonstrate a large increase in “naysayer” associations, indicating extreme skepticism about the issue of climate change. Multiple regression analyses found that holistic affect and “naysayer” associations were more significant predictors of global warming risk perceptions than cultural worldviews or sociodemographic variables, including political party and ideology. The results demonstrate the important role affective imagery plays in judgment and decision-making processes, how these variables change over time, and how global warming is currently perceived by the American public.

[Tor Bejnar]

Australian Psychological Society "Disturbed" By Climate Denialist Group's "Misleading" Newspaper Advert

Australia’s peak body representing psychologists has attacked a climate science denial group for a prominent advert taken out in a major national newspaper.

The Australian Psychological Society (APS) says the advert from a little-known group “misuses psychology-based arguments” to “mislead the public” on the science of climate change.
...
Those conclusions run counter to all the major scientific institutions and academies around the world, including the UK’s Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union and the US National Academy of Sciences. Littlefield’s letter said:


The advert… misuses psychology-based arguments to add credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias) they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.
…
There is a growing body of empirical research into the psychology of climate science denial and a number of these characteristics are on display in the Climate Study Group’s advertisement.

...

[Tor Bejnar]

Online course on climate science denial starts Aug 9
Posted on 2 August 2016 by John Cook

The next run of our free online course, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, launches next Tuesday, August 9. The MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) is a collaboration between Skeptical Science and The University of Queensland, that takes a interdisciplinary look at climate science denial. We explain the psychological drivers of denial, debunk many of the most common myths about climate change and explore the scientific research into how to respond to climate misinformation.

[budmantis]

Michael Shermer's book; "The Believing Brain" offers a great deal of insight into why people believe what they believe. I read the book to obtain a better understanding of religious fundamentalism, but it also applies to climate change denial.

[Aporia_filia]

Long time lurker here, into climate change since the nineties, did the edx course with Rob, sailor (offshore sea master), psychologist, bee-keeper, energy self-sufficient, bio-farmer, know Crandles from climateprediction.net 15 years ago (with another nickname)... one of those 'jack of all trades'.

I was not sure about where to post this opinion, but here it is.

Recently I read next paper which gave me the basis for something I have long been thinking about.
In terms of evolution we are a coincidence, like others "environmental engineers" who were able to change the Earth atmosphere and biosphere. That did happen thanks to an exponential growth, that can not be maintained indefinitely in a finite world.
Religious education and culture (don't confuse with knowledge) imposes very strong limits to our thoughts. The other limits are genetics. All of them are telling us not to believe that our spices did cross the tipping point of population long ago.
But read the link and think about it.   


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160802104526.htm

[Neven]

Welcome to the forum, AF. You're member 999.

[Aporia_filia]

Thanks a lot to you Neven. I really admire your work, your honesty and your open mind. I also have to show my respect and admiration to all the others members of the community who are here to share and gain knowledge.   

[Aporia_filia]

Looking for a clear brain difference between conservative people and the rest, the only thing found, as far as I know is that conservatives are afraid of changes, afraid of new things.

[iamlsd]

Apologies if this has already been posted but I'm half way through reading this (it is longish but a good read so far) and it seems very relevant to this topic.  I find the similarities to Australian politics and society quite profound with our Liberal party a carbon (pun intended) copy of the Republicans and Labour with the Democrats. I vote Greens myself and keep on hoping that more of us will do the same but as usual was disappointed at the last election. Just about everyone I spoke were sick of both the major parties but still voted for them.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/december/1448888400/robert-manne/diabolical

[Aporia_filia]

Interesting article. I have to say in advance that I'm an Ockham's razor lover.
When I mentioned the fear of conservatives brains to changes it was from a scanning study looking at what parts of the brain were activated when seeing different images, words, or texts (sorry don't have the source). In them it was the amygdala who 'jumped' to that kind of stimulus.
When most of you read my appreciation message to Neven and others, a warning signal light in your brains. As has been posted before our brains react before we are conscious. I wrote the message too effusive just to point this out to you. There, what is important is the meaning, but the way it was written was more important to your brains.
The same thing applies to conservatives. If they are afraid of changes and climate change is such a big issue and so doom, the natural reaction is to reject the idea. And all the tests and surveys show that. Is also natural, for them, to try to 'kill the messenger'.
So, any approach in that direction will fail.
Our brains first feel the emotion as a reflex action and later try to justify that emotion with conscious thoughts.

I try to go to the basis, we can always complicate our thoughts arguing about angels' sex.
So, when talking about climate change, I think, we should do it trying to avoid the doom side of it and focusing in how much better our life will be without fossil fuels. (cheaper, more independent, less rubbish and dirt, ...) The science, of course, should mainly talk about facts.

Something else that shows up in iamlsd posted article is another interesting characteristic of our brain which is "cognitive dissonance" Basically our brains can't cope with contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.
If you can not live the way you think you end up thinking the way you live.
To feel comfortable within a group of people anybody end up assuming their believes as personal. More clear in religious or politic groups.

Whenever a believe is questioned an attack is received. If you question their believes you become an enemy. Also clearly shown in the surveys.
 
Never forget that thinking is a very high energy consuming performance, and Nature tells us to save energy as a basic strategy for surviving. That's why brain short cuts as stereotypes work so well.