Merchants of Doubt
Purpose: Apply what you have learned about psychological processes that lead to denial and disengagement to the information presented about the ever evolving nature of the movement of creating climate change doubt in the United States.
Background:
The “Merchants of Doubt” illustrates a variety of psychological strategies used to undermine actions to address climate change. Initial strategies were cognitive--designed to undermine certainty in the science. Latter strategies were affective--designed to foster motivated reasoning via encouraging groups to view the science through political lens and view solutions as a threat to core individualistic values. The film illustrates how these strategies were purposefully initiated by those vested in opposing climate change action (oil companies) to confuse the public and redirect the government and the public away from solutions that threaten fossil fuel companies. When the strategies became more affective, the messages have been echoed by members of the public who may not know the origins of their doubts. Expand upon this psychological analysis of the material presented in “Merchants of Doubt” by making links between the video and material covered in class and your reading.
Assignment: Write one page for each of the following three questions (12 point font, double spaced, one inch margins)
1.
Is there a conspiracy to make the public disbelieve human cause climate change and/or not take action to address it?
a.
Describe whether the movie is arguing for a conspiracy based upon five descriptors of conspiracy beliefs (presented in class). b.
Compare the likelihood that there is a conspiracy to keep the United States burning fossil fuels versus the likelihood that there is a conspiracy by scientist and/or governing bodies to convince the public of the existence of human caused climate change. Do you think there are one, two, or no actual conspiracies. Make use of 3 subtypes of common errors made by theorist when making your comparison.
Your textbook author, Stoknes, argues that, independent of whether there is a large conspiracy, psychology can help understand both active denial and passive denial (aka disengagement). The next questions are designed to have you consider whether the movie illustrates psychological mechanism to encourage public denial of climate change.
2.
How does the movie illustrate the role of identity in climate change denial?

The movie illustrates the role of political identities in climate change denial. Your text book author argues that “Many conservatives don’t oppose climate science because they are ignorant. Rather, it is a way of expressing who they are.”
Members of groups that emphasize particular ways, of life, core beliefs, and values. a) Does the movie illustrate connections between ideology and knowledge about climate change? How so? b) Does the movie illustrate the ways that climate science and solutions violate core beliefs and values? What beliefs and values. What happens when these beliefs and values are violated? c) How might you appeal to a conservative audience? Consider the messenger and the message. Who should make the appeal and what appeal (e.g., type of policy) should be discussed? Do you think it would work with the audiences shown in the movie (e.g., oil companies, Libertarians, radio announcer)? Why or why not?.
3.
How does the movie illustrate the role of psychology processes leading to passive denial (aka disengagement). Write about at least two of the following (or another topic from the book or lecture) that you see illustrated a.
Lack of attention to climate change b.
Lack of perceived seriousness because one does not feel at risk. c.
Distancing of climate change—temporally distant (later in time), physically distant, or psychologically distant (abstract) d.
Experiencing and then resolving cognitive or social dissonance.