The Climate Debate

 

 

 

Environmental issues such as pollution, resources consumption, and climate change negatively affect billions of people annually (UN, 2023). Yet, much of the social debate concerning the topic remains unfruitful, even harmful, to the prospect of finding agreeable solutions. Consequently, as an example I chose a observe the Facebook “Clime Change Debate” page, which contains several concerns about online argument.

1.            The first concern is that arguments concerning environmental issues are frequently lack respect, which is a fundamental aspect of a persuasive debate (Green, 2023). While the causes are many, political affiliations often wrongfully frame the topic, and the sources of authority cited have varying degrees of credibility.
2.       Another significant concern is that the format of discussion does not allow a complete persuasive presentation, nor does it encourage insightful rebuttals. Because both the topic in question and our communication needs are nuanced and complex, the model for debate should accommodate the needs of an effective communications model. A Short statement of opinion and a meme do not effectively communicate a substantiated idea.
3.       Communications on this page do not include exchanges of disclosure, and consequently there seems to be no uncertainty-reduction. As a model of communication, we know that disclosure and uncertainty reduction are beneficial components of trust building, which influence the exchange of information. The communications on this page lack the necessary mechanisms for persuasive dialog.

 

Here are five “rules” for improving the quality of debate online, especially concerning environmental issues.

1.      Do not engage in debates that lack critical components of interpersonal communications.

2.      Respect yourself and others by setting high standards of online interpersonal communications.

3.      Take advantage of asynchronous communications, take time to consider your communications critically.

4.      Consider that your audience is oppositional, reflect on potential rebuttals.

5.      Reflect on the value of science communications and scientific standards.