BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Strange Emails Climate Scientists Receive And Why People Write Them

Following
This article is more than 4 years old.

As a climate scientist, I receive my share of opinions on climate change. I welcome respectful discourse and am willing to engage for the sake of increasing science literacy. However, there are some narratives that leave you speechless or confused. I received such an email this week. This sprawling email included statements like:

I've discovered extensive evidence that the theory of evolution is a blatant lie and that the "big bang", "space", spinning "globe" theory is a fallacy....Firstly here is "flat" earth evidence I've discovered.... beaches where water recedes for no known reason....The equator could not be the warmest part of the earth on a "tilted globe". Tides are not uniform and do not affect lakes. Tides and the seasons are central to feeding and reproduction.

I receive messages like this often but this one was a "doozy." It meandered through theology, biology, climate change, and "end of times" language. It was such a "tour de force" that I was compelled to ask other colleagues if they had an email or message that stuck out to them. Herein, I share a few of their responses. However, the goal of this essay was to explore the psychology behind these "conspiracy theory"-laden ideologies and what motivates someone to express them.

Getty

Kate Marvel is a climate scientist at Columbia University and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. She is a masterful science communicator. Based on my experiences, I have observed a direct relationship between how effective one is at science communication and the volume of trolling or ideological rambling encountered. Marvel told me in an email:

I got one (an email) once claiming that coal isn’t a fossil fuel. Not denying that fossil fuels emit GHGs and change the climate, but that coal is formed by fusion (?) in the Earth’s core (?) and is a clean, renewable fuel. That was a new one.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines coal as "a sedimentary rock made predominantly of carbon that can be burned for fuel. Coal is readily combustible, black or brownish-black, and has a composition that, including inherent moisture, consists of more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of carbonaceous material...It is formed from plant remains that have been compacted, hardened, chemically altered, and metamorphosed by heat and pressure over geologic time."  The email received by Dr. Marvel is clearly a case of lack of science literacy and perhaps even more. However, I am fascinated by what would make someone take the time to write a scientist and make such claim. There has to be something at play beyond arrogance, science illiteracy, confirmation bias (consuming information consistent with beliefs or desires) or the Dunning-Kruger effect (overestimation of one's knowledge on a topic). Joshua Hart, a psychologist at Union College wrote an interesting piece at Livescience.com entitled "Profiling a Conspiracy Theorist: Why Some People Believe." Hart notes:

By and large, people gravitate toward conspiracy theories that seem to affirm or validate their political views....But some people are habitual conspiracists who entertain a variety of generic conspiracy theories.For example, they believe that world politics are controlled by a cabal instead of governments, or that scientists systematically deceive the public. This indicates that personality or other individual differences might be at play.

Climate scientist Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute shared a profanity-laced tirade that he received. I will not reproduce it, but I did wonder why the writer was so angry. Are there clues within the scientific literature? A 2017 study entitled "The psychology of conspiracy theories" was published in Current Directions in Psychological Science. Scholars at the University of Kent noted that belief in conspiracy theories was related to a person's environment (epistemic), feeling safe and in control of that environment (existential), and positive self and social group images (social).  Andrew Dessler is a professor at Texas A&M University and author of the books The science and politics of global climate change: A guide to the debate and Introduction to modern climate change.  He shared the following note that he received:

We Deniers are in the same position as Galileo was against the Catholic Church. I speak as a former altar boy. They didn't tell me about that in Catechism class. Here is a quote that you should take to heart. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."-Galileo Galilei.

Dessler says "This is the Galileo syllogism: they laughed at Galileo; they're laughing at me; therefore, I am Galileo. But, of course, they also laughed at Bozo the clown."

I will leave it to psychologists to determine whether this is epistemic, existential, or social. It's definitely a head scratcher though, and an email that Dessler says that he will never forget.

Getty

Katharine Hayhoe is a well-known climate scientist at Texas Tech University. She is not afraid to share her evangelical faith and demonstrate how it is not inconsistent with science. She received a long essay from someone about Gem rocks, climate, Jesus Christ, the discovery of Nephritic jade, and some rambling about a blue gem. She went on to say that "I get religious-y sounding arguments like this one below easily once a week if not more frequently:

Man will destroy this earth b/c the lord has plans and purposes which are declared in the Scripture. As a result, all the doom and gloom that you and Al Gore proclaim is false-not only scientifically, but biblically and theologically. Christ will rule.

The mention of Al Gore within the Tweetssmells of Professor Hart's original point about political ideology but with a touch of  the existential (feeling safe) narrative from the 2017 study aforementioned.

Stephan Lewandowsky is the Chair of Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol. His writing in The Conversation provides some interesting context on this discussion. He writes:

Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth. A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel than to quit smoking. Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of research into basic physics.

I actually observed this very point recently. Many people participated in the "Face App" viral challenge in social media. It was amusing to see people rationalize their decision when confronted with the realization that their privacy may have been compromised. Many dismissed the privacy claims or said "they already have it anyhow." Belief systems, ideological marinades and tribal thinking can be powerful blinders. I suppose they can also be strong motivators for a person to write a lengthy, inaccurate email to a science expert.

 

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website