Changing Minds on Climate and Energy: Part 1 - Introduction

How do we break out of our echo chambers and have a constructive dialogue with people who fundamentally disagree with us about climate and energy policy?

Apr 29, 2026

Introduction

The debate over climate change and renewable energy often feels like two ships passing one another in a thick fog. Unable to find a common harbour, they are in danger of colliding head-on. On one deck, advocates see renewables as the life raft for a cheap, secure future. On the other, skeptics view these technologies as an expensive, intermittent anchor dragging down the economy. Bridging this gap requires more than just shouting louder.

I spend a lot of time preaching to the converted here on SubStack and recently noticed that the level of cyclical references amongst sceptical articles is increasing. We are living in our own echo chamber and if we want to break out (and have our own views challenged at the same time), we need to find a better way of starting conversations with passengers on the other ship. In this first in a series of articles, I will make the case for how we might begin to do this.

In my experience, many advocates are not prepared to talk about or have their views challenged by sceptics. They may have a sincere conviction that there really is a climate emergency and doing nothing is not an option. In many cases they may not understand the costs involved, or if they do, any cost is acceptable to avoid their Titanic hitting the iceberg. In their minds, the precautionary principle trumps everything else.

Others are less honest, because a climate emergency gives them cover to influence and exploit government energy policies. These include renewable energy providers, carbon traders and ideologically driven advocacy groups.

The former may be open to persuasion, but the latter will never willingly give up their ability to enrich themselves or drive their agendas. Therefore, when talking to advocates we must understand where they are coming from. Assuming we are talking to someone who might be receptive, how do we start the conversation?

How not to Start the Conversation

We skeptics often attempt to break through entrenched beliefs by using facts like a sledgehammer. From long and painful experience, I have found that this never works. Here are some of the approaches I have tried:

Arguing from authority. E.g. “I am a physicist and I have been studying this subject for many years and I can tell you that you are wrong about this.” What the other party hears is “You’re an idiot for believing this!”
Fighting the media narrative. Attempting to dismantle the “mainstream media” stories that serve as a person’s primary reality is a lost cause.
Arguing with facts and data. Dropping data about geological CO₂ levels or energy density is often met with the “I don’t have the time or expertise to verify that“ shield.
Economic complexity. Discussing hidden subsidies or complex green taxes introduces a confusing maze that listeners refuse to enter.
Arguing against consensus. The “97% of scientists believe in a climate emergency” meme is now so deeply rooted in the national psyche that it requires brain surgery to remove.

What I come across time and time again, are entrenched beliefs built up over years of echo chamber commentary. Not only do many people disagree with taking a sceptical stance, they believe sceptics are genuinely misguided for doing so. We are either ignorant and/or paid stooges of the fossil fuel industry who do not care about the environment or the future of our children. Advocates see our ship to be sailing under a pirate flag.

Changing minds in this situation requires advocates to go through a painful process of cognitive dissonance. Finding out that sincere, long held beliefs are wrong is like losing faith in a religion. I know this with certainty because 20 years ago, I was an advocate myself. I made the transition when a friend challenged me to prove my fears. I’ll never forget the shock of finding the world was almost 180^o about face from the one I thought I knew. This has affected my life ever since and made me sceptical of just about everything promoted by our government and mainstream media. Meanwhile my friend just went on his way whilst I have been consumed with anger every time the BBC came on the TV and called me a denier. Therefore, I do not underestimate the challenge. Few people would want to go through this painful transition if they knew what was coming - and I do not blame them!

So what is the alternative?

A Socratic Approach

I recently came to the conclusion that our best option must be to take a Socratic approach. Rather than presenting facts and arguments, we should ask questions which encourage advocates to explore the topic from their own viewpoints. This will not be easy or quick. However, if people can come to their own conclusions, they are much less likely to put up barriers.

To begin with though, we need to find out whether they are open to this form of persuasion. We must start by showing empathy towards their position and establish some common ground. We can do this by telling them something like the following:

You are worried about man-made climate change and the possibility of there being a climate emergency. That’s understandable and I share your concerns about our environment. For example, I try to avoid using my car for short journeys, I recycle carefully and I take an organic gardening approach, converting all our food and garden waste into compost. I worry about how water companies seem to get away polluting our rivers with few penalties. I am also deeply concerned about what sort of world we are leaving for our kids.

Hopefully, this will help to lower the barriers and you can begin to test the strength of their conviction with questions like these (inspired by my article Net Zero - the Art of Believing 10 Impossible Things Before Breakfast):

Openness to evidence. “Would you be less concerned if you discovered data which indicate that the climate is changing more slowly or more benignly than you thought is the case?”
The Net Zero reality. “Are you aware how carbon accounting works and whether Net Zero policies will practically help reduce global emissions and therefore temperature?”
The true cost of energy. “How would you feel if you came across data highlighting significant downsides to renewable energy in terms of subsidy costs, environmental damage and impact on grid security?”
The engineering challenge. “Can battery storage realistically replace fossil fuels for days at a time, or are the engineering and economic hurdles too high?”
Impact on jobs. “Are you aware of how Net Zero is impacting energy intensive industries and the oil and gas sector itself?
Land use.“Is covering our agricultural land with solar panels and turbines a fair trade for loss of our food security?”

In all cases you will need to tailor your approach to your audience. Some people may be swayed more by financial considerations whilst others may be more open to discussing engineering practicalities.

You might still hit a brick wall of course but if not, you now have one or more openings for a more detailed and constructive conversation.

Coming up

In Part 2 of this series, I will expand on this approach to discuss some practical ideas for having a more productive conversation about climate science as the sea on which everything else sails.

Thanks for reading Baffled by Science! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Baffled by Science

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?