A Climate of Trust

How do we build trust?

Do you remember the mid-80s hit "A Matter of Trust" by Billy Joel ? You might have to be a Gen X'er like myself or older.

That song has been going through my mind when I think about the debate over climate change.

Why are so many people opposed to the conclusions that scientists have reached? No amount of scientific data seems to change some hearts and minds on this issue—even though it should. Sharing statistics, charts, data and reports doesn't seem to budge the opposition. Most of us do not have advanced degrees in science but usually we do not need that to take what scientists do seriously.

Without spending any time at all listening deeply to what scientists say, many people just disregard their findings and say, "Nah, that can't be possible." On top of that, they want others to respect their opinion, as if their feeling—which they arrived at with no time or study whatsoever—is somehow equal to the evidence-based conclusions of people who have dedicated their wholes lives to deep study of the topic.

Yet, people trust scientists all the time: Whenever you fly in an airplane, use a computer to surf the internet, heat a frozen burrito in a microwave, trust a surgeon to perform open-heart surgery on you or check your app for upcoming weather predictions, you are showing a great deal of confidence in the work of scientists.

When meteorologists predict a Category 5 hurricane, people pack up their belongings and get outta town. Yet, when these same scientists use the same kinds models to predict climate change, many seem to think that there is enough uncertainty that they don't have to do much of anything at all about it. Admittedly, there is a difference between forecasting next week's weather and forecasting the next century's climate, but there are also more similarities than most realize. We all know that meteorologists can be wrong. Hurricanes can change speed and direction. We saw that with Irma this past summer. That being said, anyone in a high risk area who is wise has packed their essentials and evacuated when a big storm has been predicted.

The hurricane may change direction here or there, but the overall fact that a very large storm was occurring and moving in a general direction was spot on. The same is true for climate change: A few details may change as it plays out, but the overall prediction is probably not going to change. So why aren't people reacting the same way to climate change, which is by far more dangerous?

Yet, people who deny climate change act behaving like someone lounging around on the beach with flip-flops and a swimsuit with a Category 5 hurricane headed straight for them  Complete, total denial means not taking any precautions whatsoever.  All scientists know there is a margin of error, but so far what they have discovered is that the changing climate is far more significant than most early models predicts.

It's a Matter of Trust

I have come to realize that the real issue with accepting the conclusions of scientists about climate really has nothing to do with science at all. It's a matter of trust. Many people simply don't trust scientists and therefore do not heed what they say. Scientists are just East or West Coast liberals, right? Many scientists have a reputation for being atheists (not all of them). They often have different political views. So when they come along and say that the earth is warming and that human are the primary cause, well, it's hard to take this message seriously if you don't trust the messenger. Most people do not have the time, skills or inclination to wade through a landslide of peer reviewed scientific papers to reach their own conclusions.

People do this all the time. Whenever a piece of evidence arrives that challenges a person's worldview, the most common response is to simply disregard the new evidence. You would think the best response would be to adjust their worldview in light of new evidence! But that's not what seems to happen. People ignore the new evidence or assume there must be some flaw in it.

When someone comes along who you don't trust, then you probably assume that whatever numbers or charts they bear have simply been rigged at worst or are shortsighted at best to give faulty conclusions. It is easy to believe that the data is simply skewed or botched to serve a purpose.

I think a similar issue happens when people deny the evidence for human-caused climate change. It's not as much that they don't believe the message—the bigger issue is that they don't trust the messenger. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds because the problem is not a lack of evidence—it is a lack of trust in the person sharing the evidence. Oil and gas companies have helped to take advantage of this lack of trust and intensify it with a denial campaign.

The climate change denial campaign has convinced folks to "follow the money." They seem to think that the world's scientists have some kind of financial interest in pushing for climate change. This baffles me. I'm still trying to figure out how virtually all of the world's scientists—for decades and decades—in every country on earth—with no financial relationship to each other whatsoever—are in some kind of a grand conspiracy to make up the story about climate change to somehow... get a new tax plan with energy credits? It's foolish.

It's much more obvious to conclude that the oil and gas industry is purposefully promoting doubt because it stands to make a lot of profit if it can delay the world's acceptance of climate change.  And guess what? There is actual evidence for this, as the oil and gas industry has been caught doing this very thing.

Psychologists call this projection:  Accusing the other side of doing the very thing you are doing.

You won't find evidence of the world's scientists in a massive conspiracy because it is simply not happening. But this isn't about evidence—it's a matter of trust.  So how do we build that trust? What is standing in the way? We trust scientists all the time about numerous things every minute of every day. You are using a computer or smart phone to read this because of the work of scientists in multiple fields. What makes climate change any different?

Why Do Americans Keep Saying "We Can't"?

Why do we keep telling ourselves that we can't do things?

I keep hearing it over and over again: We can't have . . . Universal health care. Public education that includes college. Higher minimum wage. Sustainable energy. Humane immigration reform. Safe harboring of refugees.

We can't. We can't. We can't.

Every doomsday scenario is predicted by these naysayers:  The economy will be ruined, taxes will go through the roof, terrorists will destroy this country and the poor will be worse off than ever before! It echoes like a chorus of lions, tigers and bears, oh my! If you believe all the hype, death panels will decide who gets to live and zombies will eat our brains out.

There are a lot of things that are difficult. There is much we haven't yet figured out how to do. But if we value something--and if we want to do it--we should set it as our goal and work towards it. We should at least try our best before coming to the conclusion that it can't be done. 

In his May 25, 1961, address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy said:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

President Kennedy gives us an example that we should model today. It is empowering to name a goal and make a commitment to it. On July 16, 1969, the first human being stepped foot onto the moon. Had JFK not made a public commitment to this goal AND then put resources behind it, it is unlikely that it ever would have been achieved. This is what leadership looks like. 

We can apply Kennedy's words to our current national debate on health care, poverty, immigration reform, environmental sustainability and any number of other issues: We should say what we want to do, set a timeline, then focus our attention and resources to achieve that goal. I'm sure many people said Kennedy was ridiculous and that travel to the moon was impossible. Those are the same kinds of folk who today say that universal health care is impossible and that environmental sustainability can never be achieved.

Some of these challenges may be difficult, but most Americans like to believe they are good at doing difficult things. We went from horse & buggies to cars, airplanes and a-man-on-the-moon in a few decades while also fighting two world wars and pulling out of a great economic depression. In light of all that history, it's more than a little embarrassing when our first response today is "we can't."

The problem standing in the way is not a lack of technology. The real crisis is a lack of vision. We can figure out the nuts & bolts of a problem. What we need first is to have the courage to name our goal and make a commitment to it with specific numbers and dates.

When I'm faced with a problem, I don't waste my time whining and moping around saying "it can't be done" without even attempting to put a plan together. Yet, that is exactly what Americans are doing. We should be embarrassed that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking we can't do so many things that are, in fact, very do-able.

We know they are very achievable because most of these have, in fact, been done before. Other nations around the world are far head of us in transitioning to renewable energy and have long ago settled the universal health care debate. We know it is possible to significantly reduce, if not downright eliminate, poverty: Over a century ago, the vast majority of our citizens wallowed in industrial revolution-era sweatshops, but their descendants enjoyed a middle class lifestyle. Dramatic change in a short span of time is very possible, even though many people said it could never be done.

There will always be naysayers. People who have power and money tend to be conservative by the simple fact that they like things the way they are now. They are hesitant--if not downright hostile-- towards change, simply because they are doing well now. Their power and money gives them a big soapbox with a huge megaphone to project their message. They want us to believe that change is impossible. It's our job not to fall for it.

Let's save "we can't" for things like time travel, light sabers and crisscrossing galaxies at the speed of light. But who knows, maybe some day in the future those will be possible, too. These other challenges are, in fact, very much achievable.