>> JOHN COOK, AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, IS A RESEARCH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT THE
CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
COMMUNICATION AT GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY RESEARCHING
COGNITIVE SCIENCE.
N 2007 HE FOUNDED SKEPTICAL
SCIENCE, A WEBSITE
WHICH WON THE 2011 AUSTRALIAN
MUSEUM EUREKA PRIZE FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
KNOWLEDGE, AND A 2016 FRIEND
OF THE PLANET AWARD FROM THE
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR SCIENCE
EDUCATION.
JOHN HAS CO-AUTHORED THE COLLEGE
TEXTBOOKS,
CLIMATE CHANGE, EXAMINING THE
FACTS, WITH WEBER STATE
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, DANIEL
BEDFORD, AND WAS A CO-AUTHOR
OF THE TEXTBOOK, CLIMATE CHANGE
SCIENCE, A MODERN
SYNTHESIS, AS WELL AS THE BOOK
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL: HEADS
IN THE SAND.
IN 2013 HE PUBLISHED A PAPER
ANALYZING THE
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE
CHANGE THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED
BY BOTH PRESIDENT OBAMA AND UK
PRIME MINISTER DAVID
CAMERON. AND IN 2015 DEVELOPED
THE MASSIVE ONLINE -- OPEN
ONLINE COURSE OR MOOC AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND ON
CLIMATE SCIENCE DENIAL WHICH HAS
RECEIVED OVER 25,000
ENROLLMENTS.
JOHN EARNED HIS PH.D. IN
COGNITIVE SCIENCE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN 2016, AND I AM BOTH
HONORED AND FEEL VERY FORTUNATE
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO WELCOME
HIM HERE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
JOHN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS
>> THANKS, BRUCE, AND THANK YOU
VERY
MUCH, YEAH, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR
THE INVITATION TO TALK. I
REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
AND SO I REALLY COME FROM A
BACKGROUND IN
COMMUNICATION AND COGNITIVE
SCIENCE. OVER THE YEARS A
I'VE BEEN ENGAGING WITH THE
PUBLIC IN CLIMATE COMMUNICATION
I'VE BEEN DRAWN MORE AND MORE TO
JUST THE POTENTIAL IN THE
POWER OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
INTO THAT AREA.
AND SO WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK
ABOUT TODAY IS
REALLY STRADDLING BOTH
DISCIPLINES: COGNITIVE
PSYCHOLOGY
AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
INTO COMMUNICATION AND
DEBUNKING AND MISINFORMATION.
BUT IT ALSO EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH INTO ADDRESSING
MISINFORMATION IN THE CLASSROOM.
AND WHAT I FOUND IS THAT THE TWO
DIFFERENT DISBUNKS COMING
OUT COMPLETELY IS MANGLED BUT
ARE CONVERGING ON VERY
SIMILAR PICTURES.
SO NOW, LET ME SEE. OKAY. SO I
WANT TO START BY
JUST TALKING A BIT ABOUT THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF DEBUNKING --
WHEN I STARTED TO LEARN ABOUT
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DEBUNKING I
GUESS THE FIRST THING I LEARNED
WAS REALLY HOW PEOPLE
THINK, WHAT'S GOING ON UNDER THE
HOOD WHEN PEOPLE BELIEVE
SOMETHING THAT IS A WRONG, SOME
MISINFORMATION, AND THEN
THEY FIND OUT THAT THAT
MISINFORMATION IS INCORRECT AND
THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS
ABOUT SOMETHING.
AND SO WHAT I LEARNED IS THAT
THE WAY PEOPLE
CONCEPTUALIZE THE WORLD IS THEY
BUILD THESE MENTAL MODELS
OF HOW THE WORLD WORKS. AND
MENTAL MODELS ARE MADE UP OF
MANY DIFFERENT PARTS AND THEY'RE
ALL INTERLOCKED: A CAUSES
B AND B CAUSES C.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF B IS WRONG,
IF IT'S A PIECE
OF MISINFORMATION? AND THEN WHEN
YOU DEBUNK B YOU'RE
TELLING PEOPLE THAT'S WRONG,
THEN THEY HAVE TO REMOVE THAT
PIECE OF MISINFORMATION FROM
THEIR MENTAL MODEL. AND THAT
CREATES A GAP. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE
GAPS IN THEIR MENTAL
MODELS. THEY ACTUALLY PREFER --
INACCURATE TO AN
INCOMPLETE MENTAL MODEL THAT IS
MORE ACCURATE.
AND SO IF YOU DON'T FILL THAT
GAP WITH SOMETHING
ELSE, THEN THE MYTH COMES BACK
AND IT CONTINUES TO
INFLUENCE PEOPLE.
AND SO PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL THIS
THE CONTINUED
INFLUENCE EFFECT. AND THEY'VE
MEASURED IT IN NUMBER OF
EXPERIMENTS WHERE THEY EACH
ADDRESS MISINFORMATION TO
PEOPLE, THEY THEN CORRECT IT.
AND THEN EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE
REMEMBER THE CORRECTION AND
ACCEPT IT, THEY STILL CONTINUE
TO BE INFLUENCED BY THAT INITIAL
MISINFORMATION, UNLESS
SOMETHING HAPPENS, UNLESS AS
WELL AS CORRECTING THE
MISINFORMATION, YOU ALSO REPLACE
IT WITH A REPLACEMENT
FACT.
SO YOU NOT ONLY TELL THEM THAT B
IS WRONG, BUT
YOU ALSO GIVE THEM SOMETHING
ELSE TO SLOT INTO THEIR MENTAL
MODEL THAT FITS ALL THE CAUSAL
EXPLANATIONS AND
RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE ORIGINAL
MYTH FITS.
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS -- PSYCHOLOGY
EXPERIMENT WHERE
THEY HAD A SUSPECT WHO WAS
ACCUSED OF A CRIME, AND THEY
WERE PRESENTED A WHOLE RANGE OF
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
PROVED THAT THE SUSPECT WAS
INNOCENT. AND YET PEOPLE STILL
THOUGHT THAT THIS PERSON MIGHT
BE GUILTY. AND THEY FOUND
THAT PEOPLE ONLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY
EXONERATED THE SUSPECT IF
THEY PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE
SUSPECT AS WELL AS THE
EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS INNOCENT.
YOU NEED TO REPLACE THE
MYTH WITH A, SOME FACTS.
AND SO IF I COULD SUM UP ALL THE
RESEARCH,
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO
DEBUNKING, I'LL SUMMARIZE IT AS
PART STICKY MYTHS WITH STICKIER
FACTS. WE HAVE TO REPLACE
THE MYTHS WITH FACTS. WE ALSO
NEED TO MAKE THE FACTS AS
COMPELLING, AS SIMPLE, AS STICKY
AS POSSIBLE. BY STICKY I
MEAN IT GRABS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION
AND IT STAYS IN THEIR
MEMORY.
HOW DO WE MAKE OUR MESSAGES, OUR
SCIENCE STICKY?
A USEFUL FRAMEWORK THAT I FOUND
COMES FROM A BOOK CALLED,
MADE TO STICK BY THE HEATH
BROTHERS. AND I'VE BEEN USING
THIS FRAMEWORK FOR YEARS NOW
WITH MY CLIMATE COMMUNICATION.
WHAT THEY FOUND IN THIS BOOK WAS
THAT STICKY
MESSAGES, MESSAGES THAT GO VIRAL
OR ACHIEVE PUBLIC
CONSCIOUSNESS SHARE SOME OF THE
SIX FOLLOWING
CHARACTERISTICS: THEY'RE ALWAYS
SIMPLE, THEY OFTEN TAKE
PEOPLE BY SURPRISE, THEY'RE
UNEXPECTED, THEY NEED TO COME
FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES, AND THEY
NEED TO BE CONCRETE RATHER
THAN ABSTRACT, EMOTIONAL
MESSAGES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE
SHARED AND REMEMBERED. AND THE
WAY THAT PEOPLE REMEMB
INFORMATION IS IN THE FORM OF
STORIES. SO IF YOU CAN
COMMUNICATE MESSAGES -- TELLING
A STORY, THEN IT'S MORE
LIKELY TO BE REMEMBERED AND TO
BE SHARED.
AND SO I'M GOING TO GIVE AN
EXAMPE OF A STICKY
FACT REPLACING A STICKY MYTH.
BUT BEFORE I DO I WAS JUST
INTERESTED IN WHAT EVERYONE
HERE, WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON
MYTHS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
ENCOUNTERED.
SO I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE
BUT, APPARENTLY,
YOU CAN -- THIS WEBINAR SYSTEM
ALLOWS YOU TO FILL OUT A
SURVEY AND YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM
-- I'VE JUST CHOSEN FIVE OF
THE MOST COMMON CLIMATE MYTHS
THAT ARE AROUND. I'LL BE
INTERESTED IN WHAT ARE THE ONES
THAT YOU'VE ENCOUNTERED THE
MOST, MOST OFTEN.
>> HI, EVERYONE THIS IS BRUCE.
SO PLEASE
CLICK ON YOUR ANSWER ON THE
SCREEN. WE'LL GIVE JUST ABOUT
A MINUTE FOR YOU TO DO SO, AND
THEN WE'LL STOP IT AND WE'LL
REVEAL WHAT EVERYONE HAS
SELECTED.
>> gREAT. WE'VE GOT ABOUT 80
PERCENT OF
OUR ATTENDEES VOTING.
>> THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.
>> YEAH. WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT UP
FOR
ANOTHER MOMENT OR SO, THEN WE'LL
CLOSE IT. SO MAKE YOUR
FINAL DECISIONS.
>> IM HANGING ON TENDER HOOKS
HERE
I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE RESULTS.
>> [LAUGHING] OKAY. THAT LOOKS
GOOD.
SO LET'S CLOSE IT UP, AND HERE
ARE THE RESULTS.
>> RIGHT. IT'S FUNNY, I WROTE A
BOOK
OR CO-AUTHORED A BOOK WITH HAYDN
WASHINGTON A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO, IT'S CALLED CLIMATE
CHANGE DENIAL -- NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT RADIO INTERVIEWS
TRAVELING AROUND IN AUSTRALIA,
SIDNEY AND CANBERRA. AND WE
WOULD OFTEN HAVE LIS NICOLE
COHENS [SIC] ASKING THE
QUESTIONS. AND EVERY TIME ONE OF
THOSE -- SOMEONE THAT WOULD CALL
IN AND ASK THAT VERY EXACT
ONE, THE CLIMATES CHANGE IN THE
PAST, THAT MUST BE NATURAL
NOW, QUESTION. AND THEN OUR VERY
LAST INTERVIEW OF OUR
TRIP WE'RE HAVING A BET ON WHAT
IT WOULD BE, AND THE FIRST
CALL WAS JUST SAID, I'M A
"DILIGIST" AND THEN STARTED
TALKING ABOUT PAST CLIMATE
CHANGE. SO, YEAH, IT'S A VERY
COMMON ONE.
AND IF WE GET TIME WE CAN ALWAYS
HAVE A LOOK AT
IT LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION.
BUT IF WE COULD JUMP BACK TO THE
SLIDE SHOW,
THERE IS ONE IN PARTICULAR WHICH
IS VERY RECENT. THIS IS
ACTUALLY FROM FRIDAY. BUT ON
THURSDAY PRESIDENT TRUMP
PULLED AMERICA OUT OF THE PARIS
AGREEMENT AND ON FRIDAY
SCOTT PRUITT WENT INTO THE WHITE
HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM,
ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
AND DURING THE QUESTION AND
ANSWER, THE Q&A, HE SAID WE'VE
ACTUALLY BEEN IN A HIATIUS
SINCE THE LATE 1990S. HE WAS
ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING
HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING.
AND THIS IS A COMMON CLAIM,
DENIALIST CLAIM,
THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR THE LAST
DECADE OR SO. AND HOW DO
YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT?
NORMALLY SCIENTISTS WILL RESPOND
BY TALKING ABOUT
STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT TRENDS
AND CONFIDENCE SYMBOLS AND
LONG TERM VERSUS SHORT TERM
TRENDS. AND THESE ARE VERY
APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC WAYS TO
ADDRESS WHETHER THERE'S A
GLOBAL WARMING TREND OR NOT.
BUT AT SKEPTICAL SCIENCE, MY
WEBSITE, WE PLAYED
AROUND WITH DIFFERENT WAYS TO
COMMUNICATE -- AND WE ENDED
UP BY COMING UP WITH AN ANALOGY
WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS QUITE
A STICKY WAY TO COMMUNICATE THE
FACT THAT GLOBAL WARMING
HAS STILL BEEN HAPPENING
UNBAITED SINCE THE LATE 1990S.
AND THAT WAS THE FACT THAT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT ALL THE HEAT
THAT'S BUILDING UP IN OUR
CLIMATE SYSTEM, THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF HEAT, WITH MOST OF IT GOING
IN THE OCEAN, IS BUILDING UP
AT A RATE OF FOUR ATOMIC BOMBS
EVERY SECOND.
SO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS
STILL BLAZING AWAY.
THE LAW OF PHYSICS CAN CHANGE IN
THE LATE 1990'S, GLOBAL
WARMING IS STILL HAPPENING. AND
WE FOUND THAT THIS ANALOGY
TICKS ALMOST ALL OF THE STICKY
BOXES WITH THE SIX -- STICKY
MESSAGES IS QUITE A POWERFUL WAY
TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE MYTH
THAT THERE'S BEEN A HIATUS IN
GLOBAL WARMING.
NOW, SO THAT'S, I GUESS, THE
FIRST SECTION OF MY
TALK, WAS JUST THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLES OF DEBUNKING
MISINFORMATION. AND BEING A
SCIENTIST IN A STICK -- IS
CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT. IT'S ONLY
HALF OF THE STORY WHEN IT
COMES TO ADDRESSING
MISINFORMATION.
AND TO ILLUSTRATE THAT I WANT TO
SHOW YOU SOME
RESULTS FROM AN EXPERIMENT THAT
WAS RUN BY SCIENTISTS HERE
AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY WHERE
I'M BASED NOW. THIS
EXPERIMENT WAS DONE LONG BEFORE
I GOT HERE.
AND WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY
PRESENTED DIFFERENT
TYPES OF INFORMATION TO THE
PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR
EXPERIMENT. THE BAR ON THE LEFT
WAS A GROUP WHERE THEY
JUST PRESENTED FACTS ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE, OR BASICALLY
COMMUNICATING THE FACT THAT
THERE'S 97 PERCENT CONSENSUS
AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT
HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL
WARMING. AND THEY FOUND THAT
WHEN YOU PRESENT THE FACTS,
IT HAS A STRONG POSITIVE EFFECT.
FACTS WORK.
THE SECOND BAR SHOWS WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU
PRESENT PEOPLE WITH JUST
MISINFORMATION. AND THEY FOUND
THAT -- PEOPLE'S ACCEPTANCE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE. SO
MISINFORMATION DOES HAVE A REAL
NEGATIVE EFFECT.
NOW, THE THIRD COLUMN IS THE
REAL IMPORTANT ONE.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE
WERE PRESENTED WITH BOTH
TYPES, WITH MATCHING FACTS AND
MISINFORMATION. AND THEY
FOUND THAT THE TWO CANCEL EACH
OTHER OUT, THAT THERE WAS NO
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECT.
AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT
FROM OUR
COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION
POINT OF VIEW. BECAUSE IT
MEANS THAT EVEN IF WE GET OUR
COMMUNICATION RIGHT, LIKE YOU
FINE TUNE IT AND PERFECTLY
EXPLAIN IT WELL, IT'S STICKY
SCIENCE. EVEN THAT STICKY
SCIENCE CAN BE WIPED OUT BY
MISINFORMATION.
SO WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT?
NOW, THERE'S A
GRANT SWEEP BY NATIONAL CHESS
MASTER, KASPAROV, THAT REALLY
SUMS UP THE REAL DILEMMA HERE,
THE KEY PROBLEM THAT WE SEE
WITH MISINFORMATION. AND THAT
MISINFORMATION -- PEOPLE --
DOESN'T HAVE THEM BELIEVING
WRONG THINGS. ONE OF THE MORE
DANGEROUS INFLUENCES OF
MISINFORMATION IS IT CAUSES
PEOPLE
TO BELIEVE FACTS AND ANNIHILATES
TRUTH. AND IT'S A BIT
LIKE IN THOSE OLD STARK TREK
EPISODES WHERE CAPTAIN KIRK IS
CLONED BY THE THE -- CAPTAIN
KIRK CLONE, AND SPOCK'S
TRYING TO FIND OUT WHICH IS THE
REAL KIRK AND WHICH IS THE
FAKE KIRK.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS
COMMUNICATORS AND EDUCATORS
IS HELP PEOPLE RESOLVE THEIR
CONFLICT, HELP THEM BE ABLE TO
TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
FACTS AND MISINFORMATION. WE
NEED TO PROVIDE A TIE-BREAKER
ESSENTIALLY. AND THE WAY TO
DO THAT IS THROUGH INOCULATION
THEORY. SO IN THIS
EXPERIMENT -- WELL, HANG ON, LET
ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN BY
INOCULATION THEORY.
SO THIS IS A BRANCH OF
PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH THAT
TAKES THE CONCEPT OF VACCINATION
AND APPLIES IT TO
KNOWLEDGE. SO WITH VACCINATION
WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GET
EXPOSED TO A WEAK FORM OF A
VIRUS THAT BUILDS UP YOUR
IMMUNITY, YOUR RESISTANCE. AND
THEN WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER THE
REAL VIRUS YOU DON'T GET
INFECTED.
NOW, IN KNOWLEDGE PSYCHOLOGY
RESEARCHERS HAVE
FOUND THAT WHEN YOU EXPOSE
PEOPLE TO A WEAK FORM OF
MISINFORMATION, THAT BUILDS UP
THEIR IMMUNITY TO
MISINFORMATION SO WHEN THEY
ENCOUNTER THE REAL
MISINFORMATION THEY'RE NO LONGER
INFLUENCED BY IT.
SO WHAT DO I MEAN BY A WEAK FORM
OF
MISINFORMATION?
BASICALLY INOCULATING TEXT HAS
TWO THINGS:
FIRSTLY IT CONTAINS A WARNING OF
THE THREAT, THAT PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO BE MISLED BY
MISINFORMATION; AND SECONDLY
IT'S
COUNTERARGUMENTS EXPLAINING HOW
THE MISINFORMATION MISLEADS
PEOPLE. -- IN THE EXPERIMENTS
THAT WERE DONE AT GEORGE
MASON UNIVERSITY THE
MISINFORMATION THEY USED WAS
VERBATIM
TEXT FROM A WEBSITE CALLED THE
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION
PROJECT. AND THIS IS A WEBSITE
THAT HAS A PETITION OF OVER
31,000 SIGNATORIES, PEOPLE WITH
A SCIENCE DEGREE. AND THEY
SIGNED A STATEMENT SAYING THAT
HUMANS AREN'T DISRUPTING
CLIMATES. AND THE PURPOSE OF
THIS WEBSITE, THE PURPOSE OF
THIS PETITION IS TO CONVINCE
PEOPLE THAT THERE'S NO
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT HUMANS
ARE CAUSING --
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ARE
FAMILIAR WITH
THE PETITION PROJECT, BUT
THERE'S A SURVEY HERE THAT LISTS
FAR -- IMPOSSIBLE THINGS THAT
BELONG -- PETITION PROJECT.
SO, BRUCE, IF YOU COULD BRING UP
THE SURVEY. WHETHER
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WITH OR NOT
OUR -- CAME OUT AND YOU
WERE HAVING A GUESS ON WHAT YOU
THINK IS THE KEY, I GUESS,
FUNDAMENTAL.
>> GREAT, WE'VE OPENED THE
POLLING.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A
MINUTE OR SO FOR EVERYONE
TO VOTE. JUST WANT TO CONFIRM,
JOHN, THAT YOU'RE STILL ON
THE LINE 'CAUSE IT SEEMS WE MAY
HAVE LOST YOU.
>> OKAY, I'M NOT HEARING YOU,
JOHN. BUT
THE POLLING IS STILL OPEN.
>> WE'VE GOT ABOUT 73 OR -4
PERCENT OF
THE PEOPLE VOTING. LET'S SEE IF
WE CAN CLOSE IT UP IN THE
NEXT 20 SECONDS OR SO.
>> AND, JOHN, WE SEEM TO HAVE
LOST YOUR
MIC.
>> OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE
THE POLL
UP NOW WITH ABOUT 85 PERCENT OF
THE FOLKS VOTING. VERY
GOOD. AND HERE ARE THE RESULTS.
HOPEFULLY -- JOHN, CAN YOU HEAR
ME NOW?
>> YES.
>> OKAY, VERY GOOD, YOU'RE BACK,
GOOD.
SO HERE ARE THE RESULTS THAT WE
HAVE.
>> OKAY. SO THAT'S REALLY
INTERESTING. AND FIRSTLY, ALL
FIVE OF THOSE POINTS ARE
TRUE, THEY ARE LIKE ALL OF THOSE
ARE ACCURATE. BUT IT'S
REALLY KIND OF A MATTER OF
DEBATE OVER WHAT IS THE KEY
THING THAT IS WRONG WITH -- LIKE
WHAT IS THE KEY FLOOR OF
THE GLOBAL WARMING PETITION
PROJECT. AND I THINK I'LL
DEMONSTRATE THAT BY SHOWING THE
INOCULATING TEXT. SO I'LL
GO BACK TO THE SLIDE SHOW.
NOW, IN THE EXPERIMENT THAT
GEORGE MASON AND THE
OTHER SCIENTISTS WERE PERFORMING
-- I SHOULD MENTION THAT
THE LEAD AUTHOR WAS -- AND LET'S
SEE IF I CAN -- SO HERE IS
AN EXCERPT FROM THE INOCULATING
TEXT THAT THEY SHOW BEFORE
THE MISINFORMATION. AND IT
INCLUDED SEVERAL THINGS THAT
WERE WRONG WITH THE PETITION OR
WAY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE THAT
INCLUDED PEOPLE LIKE THE SPICE
GIRLS, CHARACTERS FROM STAR
WARS -- THAT 31,000 NUMBER THAT
IS ONLY .3 PERCENT OF
PEOPLE WITH A U.S. SCIENCE
DEGREE. AND ONLY A FRACTION OF
THE SIGNATORIES WERE CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS, LIKE .1 PERCENT.
AND SO, YEAH, THEY WENT WITH
THREE DIFFERENT
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS IN THEIR
INOCULATION. AND WHAT THEY
FOUND WHEN THEY PRESENTED THE
MISINFORMATION AFTER AN
INOCULATION WAS THAT THE
MISINFORMATION WAS MOSTLY
NEUTRALIZED, THAT THE FACTS WERE
FINALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE A
POSITIVE EFFECT AGAIN.
AND SO -- FOR THE FACT THAT
MISINFORMATION CAN
CANCEL OUT THE EFFECTS OF
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, BUT IF
WE
INOCULATE PEOPLE THEN IT CAN
NEUTRALIZE THE MISINFORMATION.
NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THESE
U.S. SCIENTISTS
WERE DOING THEIR RESEARCH, I WAS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
QUEENSLAND IN AUSTRALIA. AND
UNBEKNOWNST TO ME NOT KNOWING
THAT ANY OF THIS RESEARCH WAS
GOING ON, I WAS CONDUCTING A
VERY SIMILAR EXPERIMENT MYSELF
INDEPENDENTLY. AND I WAS
ACTUALLY USING THE SAME
MISINFORMATION, THE GLOBAL
WARMING
PETITION PROJECT.
AND I FOUND THAT WHEN I
PRESENTED MISINFORMATION
BY ITSELF TO PEOPLE, JUST AS THE
SAME AS THE U.S.
EXPERIMENT, IT LOWERED PEOPLE'S
CLIMATE ACCEPTANCE. AND
THIS GRAPH HERE SHOWS HOW THEIR
PERCEIVED CONSENSUS WENT
DOWN, AND THE HORIZONTAL ACCESS
IN THIS GRAPH IS POLITICAL
IDEALOGY.
SO AS PEOPLE WERE -- THEY WERE
MORE INFLUENCED BY
THE MISINFORMATION THAN THE
BIGGER EFFECT IN LOWERING THEIR
ACCEPTANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
NOW, I ALSO SHOWED THE PEOPLE OR
SOME OF THE
PARTICIPANTS IN MY EXPERIMENT
SOME INOCULATION TEXT BEFORE
I SHOWED THE MISINFORMATION.
NOW, BUT MY INOCULATION WAS A
BIT DIFFERENT TO THE U.S
EXPERIMENT. WHAT I DID WAS,
FIRSTLY, I DIDN'T MENTION THE
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION
PROJECT AT ALL. WHAT I DID
INSTEAD WAS I EXPLAINED THE
TECHNIQUE OF FAKE EXPERTS AND
USED THE ANALOGY OF TOBACCO
AS A -- FOR ILLUSTRATING THIS
TECHNIQUE. FAKE EXPERT BEING
PEOPLE WHO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION
OF EXPERTISE BUT NOT
ACTUALLY POSSESSING ANY --
EXPERTISE.
AND SO WHAT I FOUND BY
EXPLAINING THE TECHNIQUE
OF FAKE EXPERTS WAS, AGAIN, THIS
COMPLETELY NEUTRALIZED THE
MISINFORMATION. THE
MISINFORMATION HAD
NO STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT
EFFECT ON PEOPLE WHO'S CLIMATE
ATTITUDES -- THAT IT'S POSSIBLE
TO INOCULATE PEOPLE AGAINST
MISINFORMATION TO REDUCE ITS
INFLUENCE.
AND SO LET'S GO BACK TO THAT
MYTH THAT I
INTRODUCED A LITTLE EARLIER,
SCOTT PRUITT ARGUING THAT
GLOBAL WARMING HAD STOPPED OVER
THE LAST FEW DECADES. AND
I'M SHOWING YOU THAT STICKY --
ACTUALLY BEEN GLOBAL WARMING
AT A RATE OF FOUR ATOMIC BOMBS
PER SECOND.
BUT THE FACT YOU HAVE THE MYTH,
YOU HAVE THESE
TWO CONFLICTING PIECES OF
INFORMATION, HOW DO YOU
RECONCILE
THE TWO, HOW DO YOU BREAK THE
TIE, HOW DO YOU HELP PEOPLE
TO DISCERN FACTS FROM
MISINFORMATION
AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS JUST
EXPLAIN THE
TECHNIQUE OF CHERRY PICKING. THE
IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE CAN
PAINT A MISLEADING PICTURE BY
JUST LOOKING AT A SMALL --
EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE LONG WARMING
TRENDS, IT'S POSSIBLE TO
TREND ANY SHORT PERIOD IN LONG
TERM WARMING TREND AND
GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SEEM TO HAVE
STOPPED. AND YOU CAN DO
THAT BECAUSE THE GLOBAL
TEMPERATURE IS JUMPING UP AND
DOWN.
SO BY CHERRY PICKING YOU CAN
PAINT --
>> FOR EVERYONE ON THE LINE,
WE'RE AWARE
THAT WE'VE LOST THE SOUND FOR
DR. COOK
jOHN, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE'VE
LOST YOU AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE CHERRY PICKING
SLIDE. IF IT'S POSSIBLE
FOR YOU TO DIAL IN ON THE PHONE
OR TO REBOOT, THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL AT THIS TIME. IF NEED
BE, I CAN FORWARD YOUR
SLIDES.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE,
EVERYONE.
WE DO HAVE THESE TECHNICAL
ERRORS FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT
THE MESSAGE THAT DR. COOK WAS
PRESENTING FROM THE SLIDE
SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR HOW FOLKS CAN
CHERRY PICK FROM THE DATA
FROM DIFFERENT SEGMENTS TO MAKE
IT APPEAR AS THOUGH CLIMATE
CHANGE IS NOT OCCURRING DURING
SPECIFIC PERIODS.
SO, JOHN, YOU'RE STILL NOT -- WE
STILL CAN'T HEAR
YOU. IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO
DIAL IN, THAT WOULD B
HELPFUL.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE,
EVERYONE.
HOPEFULLY THIS WON'T BE VERY
MUCH LONGER.
>> WELL, IN THE MEANTIME WHILE,
HOPEFULLY, WE'RE GETTING JOHN
BACK ON THE LINE -- I'LL
LEAVE THAT LINE OPEN FOR YOU --
JUST AS A NOTES TO FOLKS,
WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES FOR YOU TO CHECK OUT.
THESE ARE -- THE FIRST THREE ARE
ACTUALLY RECENT ARTICLES
THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY DR.
COOK FOR HAVING A LOOK AT
PRIOR TO COMING TO THIS WEBINAR.
IF YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY, I THINK THAT YOU'LL
FIND THAT THESE ARE REALLY
QUITE INTERESTING.
AND PARTICULARLY, THESE SHORT
INOCULATIONS HAVE
BEEN TAKEN, AS YOU CAN SEE, FROM
SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM.
AND, IN FACT, THIS DEBUNKING
HANDBOOK, A GUIDE TO DEBUNKING
MISINFORMATION, IS ONE OF AN
EARLIER PIECE OF RESEARCH THAT
DR. COOK HAD PUT TOGETHER.
ALSO, VERY RECENTLY AN ARTICLE
HAS COME OUT FROM
THE YALE UNIVERSITY CLIMATE
CHANGE COMMUNICATION GROUP
ABOUT INOCULATING PUBLIC AGAINST
MISINFORMATION AS WELL.
SO THIS HAS BECOME A VERY RECENT
AND POPULAR TREND IN
COMMUNICATING WITH FOLKS.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO DRAW PEOPLE TO
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION, AN
EXCELLENT PUBLICATION FOR
FOLKS TO CHECK OUT.
AND FURTHER, THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR SCIENCE
EDUCATION, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
ARE NOT AWARE, HAS SOME
STELLAR RESOURCES, BOTH FOR THE
TEACHING OF CLIMATE CHANGE
AS WELL AS ANY TEACHING OF
EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM.
AND LET'S SEE. I SEE, JOHN, ARE
YOU BACK ON THE
LINE NOW? I SEE LOOKS LIKE HE'S
TRYING TO LOG IN. SO
WE'LL WAIT JUST ANOTHER MOMENT
AND, HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET
HIM BACK.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, BRUCE?
>> YES, I CAN, VERY GOOD.
>> APOLOGIES FOR THAT. MY
INTERNET
JUST WENT DOWN, AND I DON'T
KNOW. IT'S CHOOSING A VERY BAD
TIME TO GET ALL PATCHY ON ME.
>> OKAY. SO YOU'LL JUST NEED TO
-- WE'LL
JUST NEED YOU TO MAKE YOURSELF
THE PRESENTER AGAIN. VERY
GOOD.
MUCH THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR
STICKING WITH US
>> YES, MY APOLOGIES FOR THE
INTERRUPTION.
>> AND ACTUALLY, JOHN, CAN YOU
BEGIN
AGAIN AT YOUR SLIDE WHICH REFERS
TO THE CHERRY PICKING OF
THE DATA AFTER YOU SHOWED YOUR
SLIDE OF SCOTT PRUITT? YES.
THANK YOU.
>> SURE.
OKAY, SO AS I EXPLAINED, JUST
EXPLAINING THE
SCIENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
BECAUSE WE NOW KNOW THAT
MISINFORMATION CAN CANCEL OUT
STICKY SCIENCE. SO YOU ALSO
NEED TO EXPLAIN THE TECHNIQUES
THAT THE MYTH USES TO
DISTORT THE SCIENCE.
AND IN THE CASE OF SCOTT
PRUITT'S HIATUS
ARGUMENTS, HE'S USING THE
TECHNIQUE OF CHERRY PICKING. AND
THIS IS -- THIS ANIMATED GRAPH
ILLUSTRATES THIS QUITE
ELEGANTLY. IT SHOWS THAT WHEN
YOU HAVE A LONG-TERM WARMING
TREND IT'S POSSIBLE TO FIND ANY
SHORT PERIOD, EVEN
LONG-TERM WARMING TREND, WHERE
THE TEMPERATURE SEEMS TO BE
FLAT FOR A DECADE OR TWO. AND
THAT'S BECAUSE TEMPERATURE
JUMPS UP AND DOWN. THERE'S A LOT
OF INTERNAL VARIABILITY.
BUT WHEN YOU CHERRY PICK AND
ONLY LOOK AT A
SHORT-TERM TREND, IT'S PAINTING
A MISLEADING PICTURE
COMPARED TO WHAT YOU GET WHEN
YOU STEP BACK AND LOOK AT ALL
THE DATA.
SO PULLING ALL THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
TOGETHER, I SUMMARIZE IT WITH
THIS ONE SLIDE, WHICH IS
REALLY THE BEST PRACTICES
STRUCTURE FOR DEBUNKIG
MISINFORMATION. AND FIRST AND
FOREMOST YOU NEED TO PUT THE
EMPHASIS ON THE FACTS AND YOU
NEED TO MAKE THE FACTS AS
STICKY AS POSSIBLE. YOU DO NEED
TO MENTION THE MYTH, BUT
BEFORE YOU MENTION IT, WARN
PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SO
THAT THEY'RE COGNITIVELY ON
GUARD AND LESS LIKELY TO BE
INFLUENCED BY THE
MISINFORMATION.
AND HAVING INTRODUCED THESE TWO
CONFLICTING
PIECES OF INFORMATION, FACTS AND
MYTH, THEN YOU NEED TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BY
EXPLAINING THE TECHNIQUE --
HERE'S
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO DO IT.
THIS IS A DEBUNKING BILLBOARD ON
A BUS STOP. AND
IT JUST HAS IN HUGE WORDS THE
MYTH THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO
DEBUNK. IF YOU WERE WALKING PAST
OR DRIVING PAST ALL
YOU'LL SEE IS THIS MYTH AND THEN
IN VERY TINY WRITING
UNDERNEATH IT EXPLAINS THE FACTS
AND HOW THAT MYTH IS
WRONG.
BUT IT PUTS THE EMPHASIS ON THE
MYTH. AND MOST
DEBUNKINGS DO THIS. THEY USE THE
MYTH AS THE HEADLINE OR
THEY LEAD WITH THE MYTH RATHER
THAN THE FACTS, AND THEN
THAT RISKS REINFORCING THE MYTH.
SO HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE
TECHNIQUES OF DENIAL,
THE TECHNIQUES THAT
MISINFORMATION USE TO DISTORT
THE
SCIENCE?
I FOUND THAT A REALLY USEFUL
FRAMEWORK FOR THIS
COMES FROM A PAPER BY DIETHELM &
MCKEE IN 2009. AND THEY
ORIGINALLY TOOK THIS IDEA -- AND
THEY LIST FIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OR TRAITS OR
TECHNIQUES THAT -- WHETHER
IT'S SOME CLIMATE CHANGE OR
TOBACCO CAUSING HEALTH PROBLEMS
OR VACCINATION OR EVOLUTION, YOU
SEE THESE FIVE TECHNIQUES
SUMMARIZED WITH THE ACRONYM
FLICC, AND THEN THERE ARE
ALSO SUB-CHARACTERISTICS AS
WELL. SO UNDER LOGICAL
FALLACIES THERE'S A RANGE OF
OTHER DIFFERENT PARTS OF
LOGICAL FALLACIES.
SO LET'S TEST THIS FRAMEWORK.
I'VE GOT A THIRD
SURVEY. THIS IS OUR LAST SURVEY.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY HARDER
THAN YOU THINK SOMETIMES TRYING
TO IDENTIFY THE FALLACY
THAT OUR MYTH USES. AND SO I
THOUGHT I WILL JUST -- ONE OF
THE MOST COMMON MYTHS ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE, BLAMING IT ON
THE SUN RATHER THAN ON HUMAN
ACTIVITIES. AND I'LL BE
INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT
FALLACY YOU THINK THAT THIS MYTH
USES, WHAT IS THE TECHNIQUE THAT
IT USES TO DISTORT THE
SCIENCE.
I WAS LISTENING TO -- VIDEO --
ALL OF OUR
REACTING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
TAKING US OUT OF THE PARIS
ACCORDS. AND ACTUALLY PART OF
THE QUOTE IS A POLITICIAN --
AND THE CONGRESSMAN ACTUALLY
USED THIS ARGUMENT ARGUING
THAT THE SUN WAS CAUSING GLOBE
WARMING. SO IT'S AN
ARGUMENT THAT STILL COMES UP TO
THIS DAY.
` SO DO WE HAVE OUR RESULTS IN,
BRUCE?
OKAY, LOGICAL FALLACIES,
INTERESTING. SO THIS IS
THE KIND OF INFLUENCE -- I WOULD
LOVE TO ACTUALLY TALK TO
THE ATTENDEES AND HEAR MORE FROM
THEM ABOUT WHAT FALLACIES
THEY THINK THERE ARE. MAYBE IF
THERE'S TIME AT THE Q&A
AGAIN WE CAN PERHAPS HAVE THEM
EXPLAIN WHAT FALLACY THEY
THOUGHT IT WAS WAS WHEN THEY
CHOSE.
AND THIS IS THE THING. LIKE WITH
MISINFORMATION,
OFTEN THERE ISN'T ONE FALLACY,
OFTEN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
THEM. AND THE GLOBAL WARMING
PETITION PROJECT USES BOTH
FAKE EXPERTS AND MAGNIFIED
MINORITY. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE
THAT THIS MYTH DOES USE MULTIPLE
TECHNIQUES.
SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT
LATER, BRUCE. BUT IF
WE COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDES,
BRUCE, 'CAUSE I THINK I'M
RUNNING OUT OF TIME, I'LL
QUICKLY GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF USING
THAT FACT, MYTH FALLACY
TEMPLATE. WHEN MY RESEARCH IN
NEWSPAPERS AND --
>> ALL RIGHT, JOHN. WE'VE LOST
YOUR
AUDIO AGAIN.
JOHN, YOUR AUDIO IS BREAKING UP
QUITE A BIT. I
DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR
YOU TO CONSIDER DIALING IN
ON THE EXTERNAL LINE AND STILL
SHOW YOUR SLIDES JUST FOR
THE AUDIO SAKE.
BUT, YEAH, YOUR AUDIO IS
BREAKING UP QUITE A BIT.
OR IF YOU PREFER, I CAN --
>> YOUR AUDIO IS BREAKING UP AS
WELL
FOR ME.
>> OKAY. WELL, IF YOU CAN GO
BACK TO
NEAR THE END OF YOUR PREVIOUS
SLIDE AND JUST MENTION THAT,
I THINK WE'LL BE OKAY. SEE HOW
IT GOES.
>> YOU BROKE UP THE ENTIRE -- I
DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER
>> SORRY, JOHN. I DON'T KNOW IF
IT'S --
YEAH, WE'RE HAVING SOME
DIFFICULTIES THIS EVENING. SO
MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW FROM YOUR
LAST SLIDE.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO --
>> IF WE CAN BEGIN FROM HERE,
THAT WILL
BE FINE.
>> DR. COOK: OKAY. LET'S HOPE
THIS WORKS.
SO THIS WAS A RIGHT OF REPLY
THAT I PUBLISHED IN
A NEWSPAPER THAT HAD ATTACKED MY
OWN RESEARCH. SO IN MY
RIGHT OF REPLY I STRUCTURED IT
USING THE FACT, MYTH,
FALLACY STRUCTURE. AND SO IN
SECTION HERE IT SHOWS ME THE
KEY FACTS THAT I WANTED TO
COMMUNICATE IN MY RESPONSE. --
ESTABLISHING THE FACTS, THEN I
ADDRESSED ONE PIECE OF
MISINFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE
THAT I WAS RESPONDING TO.
SO EVEN THOUGH I WAS RESPONDING
TO AN ARTICLE
THAT ATTACKED ME, MOST OF MY
ARTICLE WAS RESPONSE WAS
COMMUNICATING THE FACTS. AND
THEN THE BLUE SECTION HERE IS
EXPLAINING THE TECHNIQUE THAT
THE MISINFORMATION USES.
SO I WAS USING FACT MYTH FALLACY
TO NOT ONLY
COMMUNICATE SCIENCE, BUT ALSO
INOCULATE PEOPLE AGAINST THE
TECHNIQUE OF MISINFORMATION.
SO NOW I GET ON TO MY THIRD
SECTION OF MY TALK,
WHICH IS ABOUT EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH INTO HOW TO ADDRESS
MISINFORMATION IN THE CLASSROOM.
NOW, I FIRST ENCOUNTERED THIS
WHEN I DISCOVERED A
PAPER FROM 2010 WRITTEN BY
DANIEL BEDFORD. HE'S A
PROFESSOR AT WEBER STATE
UNIVERSITY IN UTAH. AND HE
TEACHES HIS CLIMATE CHANGE
CLASS, COLLEGE CLASS --
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE. AND HE FOUND THAT IT
WAS A REALLY POWERFUL WAY OF
TEACHING CLIMATE SCIENCE.
AND SO I STARTED CORRESPONDING
WITH DANIEL AND
EXPLORING THE TEACHING TECHNIQUE
HE USED. AND WE DECIDED
TO WRITE A PAPER ABOUT THIS
TEACHING TECHNIQUE. HE CALLS
IT AGNOTOLOGY-BASED LEARNING.
AND WE DISCOVERED THAT
THERE'S A RICH BODY OF RESEARCH
INTO THIS TEACHING
TECHNIQUE, AND IT'S ALSO CALLED
MISCONCEPTION-BASED
LEARNING, IT'S CALLED
REFUTATIONAL TEACHING. THERE'S A
NUMBER OF LABELS.
BUT IN ALL OF THEM WHAT IT'S
ABOUT IS TEACHING
THE SCIENCE BY ADDRESSING
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THAT
SCIENCE. AND WHAT THIS RESEARCH
HAS FOUND IS THAT WHEN YOU
ADDRESS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT
SCIENCE, YOU GET LARGER
LEARNING GAINS -- BIGGER AND
LONGER. THE LEARNING GAINS
FADE LESS OVER TIME.
THERE'S ALSO RESEARCH FROM
DERRICK MUELLER FROM
THE UNIVERSITY OF SIDNEY. AND HE
TEACHES PHYSICS. AND
WHAT HE FOUND WAS WHEN HE
ADDRESSED MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT
PHYSICS, HE ALSO GOT MUCH LARGER
LEARNING GAINS,
SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. AND WHAT'S
REALLY INTERESTING IN HIS
RESEARCH WAS HE ALSO ASKED
STUDENTS HOW CONFIDANT THEY WERE
ABOUT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PHYSICS. AND HE FOUND
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THE
MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING
ACTUALLY HAD LOWER CONFIDENCE
THAN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.
AND SO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE
TAUGHT JUST STRAIGHT
SCIENCE HAD A HIGHER CONFIDENCE
THAT THEY WERE RIGHT BUT
THEY ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD IT MUCH
LESS. SO
MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING
ACTUALLY PUSHES STUDENTS UP
THAT -- CURVE TO LEARN ENOUGH
KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING TO
REALIZE, I GUESS, HOW MUCH MORE
THEY NEED TO KNOW.
AND THERE IS A PAPER IN 2010 BY
CHRISTINE TIPPETT
THAT SUMMARIZES ALL THE RESEARCH
INTO REFUTATIONAL TEACHING
OR MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING.
AND TIPPETT LAMENTS THE
FACT THAT THERE'S SO FEW
RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS THAT USE
THIS APPROACH OF
MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING,
AND THAT
THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE MORE
RESOURCES SO THE TEACHERS CAN
TAKE THIS APPROACH INTO THE
CLASSROOM
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING,
IS DEVELOPING
RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS. WE
STARTED BY DEVELOPING A
MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSE ON
CLIMATE SCIENCE DENIAL --
AND WHOLE STORY OF CLIENT
CHANGE. ONE WEEK IS ON THE
REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NEXT
WEEK IS ON THINGS THAT ARE
CAUSING IT, NEXT WEEK LOOK AT
IMPACTS, THEN WE'RE GOING TO
CLIMATE MODELS AND PAST CLIMATE
CHANGE.
AND WITH EACH LECTURE, EACH
LECTURE IS LIKE A
SHORT SEVEN-MINUTE VIDEO, BUT WE
STRUCTURE IT USING THAT
SAME FACT, MYTH FALLACY FORMAT.
SO WE ENTER KEY FACTS
ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, THEN WE
INTRODUCE THEM TO A MYTH THAT
IS RELATED TO THAT FACT, AND
THEN WE RESOLVE THE CONFLICT
BY EXPLAINING THE FALLACY OR THE
TECHNIQUE THAT THE MYTH
USES TO DISTORT THE SCIENCE. AND
WE DO THIS AROUND 50
TIMES, WE LOOK AT 50 OF THE MOST
COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE AND IT'S LIKE 50
DIFFERENT FLU SHOTS AGAINST THE
MOST COMMON FORMS OF CLIMATE
MISINFORMATION.
NOW, ANOTHER RESOURCE THAT WE'VE
UNDERGONE IS --
I CO-AUTHORED THIS WITH DANIEL
BEDFORD -- AND BASICALLY
WRITE AND PUBLISHED A TEXTBOOK
THAT USES THE SAME APPROACH
AND STRUCTURE OF
MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING.
AND SO EACH
CHAPTER LOOKS AT A KEY FACT FOR
THAT CLIMATE CHANGE AND WE
START BY HAVING VERY SHORT
SUMMARY OF THE KEY CLIMATE FACT,
THEN WE GO INTO MORE DETAIL
ABOUT THAT CLIMATE FACT. THEN
WE INTRODUCE THEM TO A MYTH
THAT'S RELATED TO THAT FACT AND
THEN WE EXPLAIN THE TECHNIQUES
THAT THE MYTH USES TO
DISTORT THE SCIENCE.
SO IT'S THAT SAME TECHNIQUE AS
WHAT WE USE IN OUR
MASSIVE ONLINE COURSE; BUT,
YOU KNOW, MUCH MORE DETAILED
TEXTBOOK FASHION.
NOW, I'M ACTUALLY AT THE END OF
MY TALK. I'VE
GOT A COUPLE SLIDES. AND WHAT I
WANTED TO JUST TELL YOU
ABOUT WAS WE'RE NOW DEVELOPING A
THIRD RESOURCE FOR
EDUCATORS, DEVELOPING A
CURRICULUM FOR HIGH SCHOOL THAT
AGAIN USES THIS
MISCONCEPTION-BASED LEARNING
APPROACH.
AND WHAT REALLY INSPIRED US TO
DO THIS WAS A BOOK
THAT WAS SENT OUT TO EDUCATORS A
MONTH OR TWO AGO TO ABOUT
25,000 TEACHERS. AND -- AND WHAT
WE DECIDED TO DO WAS TO
USE THAT BOOK AS AN EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY, USE THE
MISINFORMATION IN THE BOOK TO
TEACH CLIMATE SCIENCE.
SO I'VE GOT A COPY OF THE BOOK
AS WELL. I'M
USING IT AS MY COFFEE MUG
COASTER ON MY DESK NEXT TO MY
LAPTOP. BUT I'M ALSO USING IT AS
AN EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY AND GOING THROUGH
THE MISINFORMATION MAPPING
THE MYTHS TO THE KEY THEMES IN
THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE
STANDARDS AND DEVELOPING A
CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS TO USE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE -- WE'RE
DEVELOPING A PILOT
STUDY AT THE MOMENT WE'RE HOPING
TO INCLEMENT PROBABLY IN
THE FIRST HALF OF NEXT YEAR. AND
IF ANY -- ANY EDUCATORS
WHO ARE INTERESTED IN TALKING TO
ME ABOUT IT, FINDING MORE
ABOUT IT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN
CONTACT ME BY THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS.
SO THAT'S ALL THAT I WANTED TO
SAY FROM MY
SLIDES. IT LOOKS LIKE THE
INTERNET BEHAVED ITSELF FOR THE
LAST HALF OF MY TALK. AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS IN THE TIME THAT WE
HAVE LEFT.