Matthew Jenkins' BlogA blog about Worcester, politics and the environment

Ben Goldacre, on his Bad Science blog, discusses some research into the effect of corrections on formerly held beliefs. The worrying outcome of this research is that for some people a correction, rather than changing their mind, actually makes them firmer in their belief. For instance:

conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people who were given no correction at all. Where you might have expected people simply to dismiss a correction that was incongruous with their pre-existing view, or regard it as having no credibility, it seems that in fact, such information actively reinforced their false beliefs.

As Ben sums it up:

All the studies found exactly the same thing: if the original dodgy fact fits with your prejudices, a correction only reinforces these even more. If your goal is to move opinion, then this depressing finding suggests that smears work, and what’s more, corrections don’t challenge them much: because for people who already agree with you, it only make them agree even more.

This research has great relevance to the ongoing argument between anthropogenic climate change (ACC) sceptics and those, like me, who believe that climate change is happening, is a serious concern and is partly caused by us.

Many ACC sceptics have reasons other than science for their views, often seeing it as just another way to tax us. If their scepticism is tied to their political world view, then presenting evidence in support of ACC will, as the research above asserts, have little or no effect.

So how should environmentalists respond to this research? Should we forget about trying to convince the hardened sceptics? Yes. The best way forward is to focus on the those who are undecided, or unaware of the seriousness of climate change. The hardcore sceptics need lampooning rather than convincing.