Discussion board

Student 1 Intial Ppast Post

Student think that people are skeptical about global climate change for a couple of reasons. I think the first is that it has become highly politicized. I'm not exactly sure how it became politicized but some of the skepticism seems to stem from this. I also think that some people don't believe it's a problem because they are not experiencing the consequences. In the module, it was mentioned that the country's most responsible for climate change have the resources to mitigate the consequences, so the countries that contribute the least suffer the most. For example, those living in coastal cities abroad are suffering the consequences of rising sea levels. While people here in the US might be able to relocate, others are not as fortunate. Another reason is that some people believe that it is out of their control- either meaning that they don't think that they contribute to climate change, or they don't believe that they can help slow/stop it. This is sad because it is certainly something that we as a population can make a change in order to see a difference. I think lately some people are reluctant to listen to public health because there isn't always a united voice when it comes to public health issues. With the COVID-19 pandemic, especially early on, the public received mixed messages which have contributed to vaccine hesitancy and lack of face mask usage. I also think that public health has become politicized during the COVID-19 pandemic which is frustrating because so many people died or have lasting consequences from covid. In order to get people to change their behavior or support laws that protect public health, public health professionals must be creative. There isn't a 'one size fits all'. I think a key component would be to make the message personal. If people have a personal tug to the issue, it may make them more inclined to change or support a law. Another method would be to cater to the populations most at risk. There are populations more/less vulnerable to certain illnesses/outcomes and connecting with them is especially important. For example, I did research on firearm suicide and the vulnerable population in question was firearm owners. So, in order to gain helpful information, we had to connect with this private community, and to do so we utilized prominent members of the firearm community because we knew that they wouldn't want to talk with researchers. We also have to utilize different methods of communication so that we reach as many people as possible. This means utilizing oral and written communication in addition to using social media to spread the message.

Student 2 Initial Post

People are skeptical about global climate change for many reasons. Some individuals lack sufficient awareness and education on the science of global warming. Others continue to be skeptics because of the difficulty deciphering between contradictory evidence. Many people likely disengage from the conversation altogether because the problem seems too big to fix, or, because they have more pressing concerns like providing shelter or food for themselves and their families. Another challenge is that global warming happens slowly over time and it can be difficult to register the effects of it without having a visual time lapse comparisons. One article in the Washington Post (link below), blamed corporate funding campaigns for casting doubt on global warming, given that people do not know who to trust. A study cited showed a correlation between donations received and the promotion of contradictory themes, thus contributing to the skepticism we still see in science. Another article published by the NIH blamed politics for a healthy portion of the skepticism, indicating that most skeptics were conservatives, that liberals liked to accuse conservatives of being "industry funded hacks", and that many scientists have become hesitant to publish their opinions for fear of reprisal within the press. It was interesting to read about the controversy that lead to the embarrassment and loss of credibility for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) when 2350 was transposed to 2035. It is amazing how easy the conversation shifted from the environmental concern to scientific credibility because of a typo error that should be very easy to understand and correct. Another interesting concept in the NIH article was that the costs associated to reducing greenhouse (GH) emissions by 80% by 2050 (targets set by the Obama administration) would impose far greater consequences than the climate change would (green technology not yet being cost effective). So, the million dollar question, how do we get information to people to change behaviors and support laws that protect public health? I do not know what the solution is, but feel that it is important to educate people using simple terms, easy to understand visuals, and scientific demonstrations, while addressing social determinants of health so that people do not have to worry about food, shelter, and other insecurities which should enable them to focus more on issues like global warming.

Additional Reading:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/23/why-are-so-many-americans-skeptical-about-climate-change-a-study-offers-a-surprising-answer/Links to an external site.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/