25 Aug 2011

How to Find Common Ground In the Bitter Climate Debate

Even as the impacts of climate change intensify, many Americans remain confused by the issue. In an interview Yale Environment 360, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe discusses what rising temperatures will mean for the U.S., how to talk with climate skeptics, and what she would say to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to prod him into action on global warming.

Katharine Hayhoe is an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, where temperatures during this summer of record-breaking heat have surpassed 100 degrees on 43 days. While Hayhoe would certainly not argue that this scorching heat is unequivocal evidence of global warming, she is sure of one thing: It’s a sign of things to come.

Katharine Hayhoe
Katharine Hayhoe
Hayhoe is well known not only for her scientific work on the regional impacts of global warming in the U.S., but also for her efforts to reach out to conservative communities — particularly evangelical Christians — to speak with them about the realities of climate change. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she said she has found much common ground with people by patiently answering their questions, stressing the impact that global warming will likely have on the individuals and places that people love, and discussing actions to blunt climate change that nearly all sides can agree on.

“Who doesn’t want renewable sources of energy?” Hayhoe told Yale e360 senior editor Fen Montaigne. “Who doesn’t want cleaner air and a thriving economy? Who doesn’t agree that we should be conservative with what we have? I think this is the way to move forward on this issue.”

Yale Environment 360: Obviously it’s been a really hot summer in many parts of the U.S. On the one hand you’ve got people saying this is unequivocally a sign of global warming, and then you’ve got Rush Limbaugh saying, “What heat wave?” What do you tell people who are confused by all of this back and forth?

Katharine Hayhoe: I get asked that a lot and I think there are three really important things to communicate about that question. The first one is that one day, one month, even a whole season’s worth of weather doesn’t really tell us anything in the bigger picture. It’s just weather, it’s natural variability, it’s the chaos of the atmosphere. So that’s kind of the standard answer to the question — that climate is defined as the average of weather over 30 years or more.

Right now, though, we’ve actually gotten to the point where we have already altered the background conditions over which the weather occurs, so we have increased average temperatures, we are changing the distribution of those temperatures, making certain types of extremes more frequent and others less so, the circulation patterns are shifting, our precipitation is becoming more extreme. So in that sense we already have these altered background conditions, so whatever type of event happens now has a little bit of climate change in it.

The third thing I like to tell people is that we do have projections about what the average conditions will be in the future, and so what we can say is that this summer is a picture of what it would be like every summer if we made certain choices regarding our energy sources, and if we reach certain
What people are seeing and instinctively recognizing is a change in the average conditions.”
levels of climate change. So for example this summer we’ve already had 43 days over 100 degrees in Lubbock, which is higher than normal. And if you look in the future this summer is what we’d expect the average summer to be like by the end of the century under lower emissions or by the middle of the century under higher emissions. So we’re complaining about this summer, but this could be the average summer within our lifetimes if we continue to depend on fossil fuels.

e360: In the southern plains, where recent summers have been so scorching, have you seen sizeable increases in average temperatures that could be defined as climate change?

Hayhoe: What we’ve actually seen, at least in West Texas, is an increase primarily in winter temperatures. Our very cold days are getting less frequent and our winter temperatures are increasing in nearly every station we look at across Texas and Oklahoma. We haven’t seen a significant trend yet in our summers. So in that sense science is so conservative because we’re looking for trends that have to have been happening over at least 30 years.

What people are seeing and instinctively recognizing is a change in the average conditions. They are seeing very unusual things happen — birds here that you didn’t used to see, red fire ants here that we didn’t used to have, trees and plants are flowering earlier in the year, our weather is becoming much more extreme, where it’s either feast or famine. I’ve been here for five years and in five years we’ve had the longest dry period on record, we’ve had the record drought that we’re in right now, and we’ve had two 100-year rain events.

e360: One of your areas of research is regional U.S. climate change under conditions of rising temperatures. A growing strategy among groups concerned about climate change is to bring the impact of climate change away from polar bears and penguins and down to the local level. Can you give a brief overview of the regions of the U.S. and what kinds of changes do you think could be in store?

Hayhoe: The best references for anyone looking for that information are the reports we wrote for the U.S. Global Change Research Program back in 2009. The reason we care about climate change is because it affects the people and places that we care about. Climate change often affects us through issues that already exist. It’s rare that climate change presents an entirely new issue that we had never heard of before. Usually what happens is we already have a vulnerability that we ourselves have established. For example, we have built in a floodplain, we knew it was a floodplain, so we were already vulnerable to floods. But then climate change comes in and alters the frequency and severity of floods, so we now become more vulnerable. And that’s the case pretty much everywhere we look; the reason we care about climate change is because we have created vulnerabilities which climate change is then exacerbating.

Each region will experience warming temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels. But the impacts are going to be very different based on the specific vulnerabilities of each region. So starting in my own region, in the southern Great Plains, we are a semiarid environment and we are very water-short already. West Texas is a huge agricultural area and it lies over the Ogallala Aquifer. Since irrigation began in the 1960s, the Ogallala Aquifer has shrunk by over 150 feet in many locations.
We have a very narrow window of time to do something meaningful about this issue, and that window is closing.”
Estimates of how many years of water we have left in the aquifer, which has been there since the last ice age, say that as much as two-thirds of the aquifer could be unusable within 30 years. So then you overlay climate change on that existing problem, and you find that with higher temperatures you obviously need more water to provide plants with the same amount of irrigation because evaporation is a factor. We also find that precipitation patterns are becoming more unpredictable, we’re getting more heavy downpours and more dry periods in between, which reduces aquifer recharge, because when you get heavy downpours it runs off into the surface water and then obviously you’re not getting any recharge. So climate change is exacerbating the problem we have, and it’s the same across most of the Southwest, which is very water-short.

If you look at the Southeast, they are very vulnerable along the coastline to hurricanes and storms and also to sea level loss. And the reason why they’re vulnerable is they’ve built enormous cities along the coastline and very expensive vacation homes. But we have not maintained in many cases the natural buffer system that would have protected the coastline from those storms. So the latest projections are not for any more frequent hurricanes but for stronger hurricanes and more rain associated with them. So again climate change is increasing the seriousness of a risk that already existed.

The Northeast is particularly vulnerable to heavy precipitation events, not just rainstorms, but snowstorms. We’ve already seen a 50-percent increase in [heavy] precipitation in the Northeast. It’s very vulnerable to flooding; there have been an enormous amount of flooding events in the Midwest and Northeast. And then of course the Northeast is again vulnerable to coastal issues: sea level rise, infrastructure issues.

e360: You see the unequivocal changes in the climate, and yet public opinion polls show we are at a low point of public concern about climate change. What do you think scientists and people in the conservation community can do differently to try to mobilize public opinion?

Hayhoe: I’d really like to know the answer to that question myself. The reason I do climate science is because it has a very practical application: We have a very narrow window of time to do something meaningful about this issue, and that window is closing. Every year we go without a binding climate policy to reduce our emissions shrinks the chance we have of hitting lower emissions targets. So we’re taking away our choices. By not making a choice, we’re forcing ourselves into the higher scenarios.

I do a lot of outreach and speaking to audiences that are skeptical about climate change, and I’m trying to understand, what are the barriers? There are barriers at many different levels. I would say first of all that climate science is very complicated — that what is happening here in a place I live is being affected by something half a world away, such as how changes in Arctic sea ice affect what we’re experiencing in Texas. These things are not easy to understand.

In the U.S., we look out our windows and usually the grass is green and the sky is blue and the air is fairly clean and we can turn on our tap and get nice clean water. So the urgency of the issue is not in front of our eyes. Whereas if you go to people in Kenya, who are facing unprecedented
It’s a natural response when we’re faced with a huge, overwhelming issue that we feel there’s not much we can do about it.”
drought and crop failure because the patterns they depended on have changed over the past 30 years; if you go up to Alaska, where villages are crumbling and falling into the ocean and have to evacuate because of this, you don’t find the same level of skepticism regarding the reality of the issue — and also whether we should do something about it — because they see it with their own eyes. Whereas here in the continental U.S. we are not seeing things with our own eyes that we can directly connect to climate change. So it lacks that personal motivation because we have many other immediate concerns.

Another issue is that climate change is a vast and daunting issue. It is easier to deny the reality — and that’s actually the first stage in coping with such an overwhelming issue, to deny it. If you’re given a diagnosis of a horrifying and terrible disease, the first thing you would say is, ‘Is it really true? Let’s get a second opinion, a third opinion.’ So it’s a very natural response when we’re faced with a huge, overwhelming issue that we personally feel there’s not much we can do about, often it’s easier psychologically to deny it than to acknowledge our own culpability in contributing to the problem, as well as our own sense of helplessness in solving it.

We also have to recognize that there is a very intelligent, well-planned effort to deliberately try to muddy the waters on this issue. And I think this effort has been very successful in part because of the two other reasons I just gave.

e360: Given those tremendous barriers, what are some strategies that might be a bit more effective in mobilizing opinion and action?

Hayhoe: I think that as a scientist my personal mission is to dispel some of the myths that we’ve been fed, and by ‘we’ I mean the community at large and especially the more conservative community. So what I’ve found is that when I take the time to really talk with people, they do have really good questions: How do we really know that climate change is happening? How do we know it’s not the sun or a natural cycle? How on Earth do we think humans can change something as big as our planet? And if we can answer those questions respectfully, with good, solid answers, that’s where you start talking about the issues we just discussed: Issues with water, flooding, coastal storms. Climate change is already exacerbating issues people are familiar with, so then they can understand why it’s important to them. From a grassroots perspective I think it’s very important to recognize that people still need more information, they need correct information, and then often when people are given correct information they can be counted on to recognize that this is an issue we need to take into consideration.

This issue, though, has become increasingly polarized and the politicization of science and facts is horrifying. Facts are not political. Facts cannot be changed to suit your opinion. Facts are what the natural world is
I think that Governor Perry and I could find many more areas to agree on than you would think at first glance.”
telling us is happening, and just because you don’t like the facts, you can’t say they’re not real and certainly not malign or try to destroy the credibility of the messenger. So in that sense, as a scientist, I feel like my calling is to try to communicate the truth of this issue and the reasons why we as individual citizens should care about it, because of our own lives and the lives of the people that we know and love and the places that we know and love. I’m an optimist, so I have faith in the average person to be able to make good decisions.

We cannot afford to wait until the full effects of climate change become known and say, ‘Oh, this is not the future I really wanted, can I just kind of roll back time a few decades and knock all that carbon dioxide out of the air and make some different choices?’ It’s kind of like being on the operating table waiting to get quadruple bypass surgery and at that point saying, ‘You know what, I’ve changed my mind, I’ll exercise, I really will, I’ll cut back on those steaks and hamburgers.’ We can’t do that.

e360: It does seem, though, like the American public has kind of turned off on this issue.

Hayhoe: I’ve been investing a lot of my time trying to reach out to conservative and faith-based communities, and what I’ve found is that if we approach this issue with mutual respect, with a desire for identifying what we most have in common rather than where we differ, and if we are prepared to listen and have two-way communication, rather than just coming in there to instruct, then we can make some progress. I’ve seen some very encouraging doors opened. But at the same time I know as a scientist that these doors are not opening fast enough for us to avoid some major consequences.

e360: Can you give an example of a door that’s opened?

Hayhoe: The community I’m part of is the evangelical community, where I think over 65 percent of people would say that climate change is not real. So within this community, a year-and-a-half ago my husband and I actually wrote a book together called A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, where we try to answer a lot of questions. And so with that book I’ve been invited to speak at a number of Christian colleges, at a number of churches and faith-based organizations. Being with people like that makes me feel there’s a lot more going on at the grassroots level than we realize, with churches and congregations retrofitting their buildings to become more energy-efficient, people really taking the stewardship message to heart, that we have this planet that we need to care for. And also just identifying things we have in common. We all want a better world for our children, we all think it’s good to conserve our natural resources and not be wasteful, we all want to be able to invest in our economy and not be held hostage to foreign oil. I think that is the way to move forward on this issue.

e360: Let’s say you sat down with your governor, Rick Perry, who has pooh-poohed the idea that human activity is warming the climate. Do you think you might be able to, if not persuade him of the reality of anthropogenic climate change, at least persuade him of the necessity to take some steps that might mitigate it?


What’s With the Weather?
Is Climate Change to Blame?

Science Targets Human Role in Extreme Weather Events
Employing increasingly sophisticated methods of studying weather extremes, climate scientists say they are closer to determining whether human-induced climate change is leading to more heat waves, floods, and other extreme events.
Hayhoe: I think that we could find many more areas to agree on than you would think at first glance. Whether or not he could be convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change, I think that we would both agree on investing in renewable energy sources, which we have so much of here in Texas. There’s a new wind farm with 300 new turbines, and they’re on the land of ranchers who could give a hoot about climate change — they’re doing it because it just makes [economic] sense. Who doesn’t want economic investment? Who doesn’t want renewable sources of energy? Who doesn’t want cleaner air and water and a thriving economy? Who doesn’t agree that we should be conservative with what we have?

We are going to run out of these resources sometime in the future, and shouldn’t we be conserving them for the things that we really need them for in the future rather than running through them like there’s no tomorrow? So I think the key is to focus on the issues we already agree on, the values we already have in common, and from there to progress to saying, ‘Well, aren’t there some more reasonable things we can do that agree with those same conservative values?’


SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


Scientists are professionals and they work very hard to address the issue of climate change with the utmost honesty and diligence. To suggest that the entire science community is committing a massive hoax is ridiculous. Then again, it was science and scientists that give us the pesticides that poisoned the planet in the first place. In the early days of environmentalism the scientists were the enemy, not the saints. Now we have scientists acting like lab coat consultants as they study the effects, not causes of climate variation with every single one of them having their own unique conclusion. That is the consensus. They are literally studying the effects of a climate crisis of unstoppable warming that hasn’t happened. Climate change was assumed in the equation thus we have; “Climate change is real and is happening”. History will have fun with this; How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb? None. BUT, they DO have consensus that it WILL change.

When Obama didn’t mention the crisis in his state of the union address, what did the scientists who are warning us of the greatest emergency ever do in response? NOTHING! They should have acted like they really are genuinely concerned about this comet hit of a coming disaster and marched in their countless thousands in the streets and scrambled to get on CNN because they have children too who would suffer the unimaginable misery of a coming climate crisis. Climate change science was a tragic exploitation and exaggeration and we former believers are not the only ones calling the Justice Dept. to have charges laid for 25 years of needless panic from unconscionable scientists. All of academia watched as the UN allowed carbon trading stock markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL instead of the obviously needed POPULATION control.

Posted by Meme Mine on 25 Aug 2011

Terrific interview, and I applaud the work that Ms. Hayhoe is doing, especially within the evangelical community. We need to find different ways to talk to different people about the climate issue, and some people will respond to the idea that we have a moral obligation to protect the earth for future generations. Getting more religious leaders engaged on the climate issue could also help depoliticize it.

Posted by Marc Gunther on 25 Aug 2011

Excellent interview with Katharine Hayhoe on climate change. While global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect. The recent calamities in some countries confirms that climate change is a reality.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

Posted by Dr.A.Jagadeesh on 25 Aug 2011

'In the U.S., we look out our windows and usually the grass is green" After 42 days over 100F I very much doubt if the grass is green in Texas!

As an OZ, can I say we have had around 10 years of extremely serious drought and that in the last year we have had flooding on the East coast of Australia and good rainfall in the drought areas such that we say that the drought has broken.

Ten years, thirty years are actually no time in comparison to the four billion plus years earth has been in existence. I also suggest the drought in Africa would be no different from what we experienced and that rather politics and culture are the root cause of their serious food shortage.

Posted by richard a on 26 Aug 2011

Since most skeptical comments are regularily censored on this blog 'talking to skeptics' is clearly not the same as 'listening to skeptics'.

Posted by Mac on 26 Aug 2011

Just looking at Texas, 2010 was only there have been 60 warmer years in the last 100.

Also sea temperatures around the US this year have been cooling significantly. Katharine really ought to know that the heatwave/drought in Texas is the result of one of the most powerful La Ninas in recent years and that the current drought is far less serious than the droughts of the 1950's.

Posted by Paul Homewood on 26 Aug 2011

Katharine also says :-

" our winter temperatures are increasing in nearly every station we look at across Texas "

This simply is not true. Since 1912 the trend in Texas is a very small decline and the past winter was only the 58th warmest. Oklahoma shows a similar picture. Surely Katharine knows this?

Posted by Paul Homewood on 26 Aug 2011

Its hard to argue that the climate is not changing. Climate has been changing forever - from the formation of the earth to today. Earth has been through very long periods of extreme heat and extreme cold, with climate evolution between these periods and during them. One difference between past periods and today is the state of evolution of humanity, and the extent to which humanity is affecting the climate. How can we measure this? How can we determine the extent to which humans are causing climate change and how much is the result of natural forces that are beyond our control or, even, influence?

What we do know for sure is that we polute - and that is universally accepted as bad behavior. The practical question is what is the cost/benefit analysis of reducing polution, in terms understandable by the public.

Posted by Harold Talbot on 26 Aug 2011

Paul Homewood,

Winter temps have risen precipitously in the last 30 years, so this is what Dr. Hayhoe is talking about. Surely, you knew this?

Temps have increased globally 1 to 1.5 F over the last 100 years or so. The result of this in that graph is that very small upward slopes only slightly outnumber very small downward slopes, for the every state, every month, every season, over 1895-2011. However, the increase has accelerated over the last 30 or so years, so that rises per decade are larger for each period timeX-to-the-present as X becomes larger.

Posted by anderlan on 28 Aug 2011

We have got to stop with the 'Global Warming' scenario. It worked well in the late 90's because we were supported with some higher than aerage temps. It is too easy to discredit and ignore today. If we ever hope to take over the world economy we need to get on board as a group with 'Climate Change". It is much easier to argue and harder to discredit. The weather changes every day and every season. Please stop with the "warming' articles. They only make our side look stupid and silly.

Posted by Danny on 30 Aug 2011

As Paul Homewood both points out and cites

winter temperatures in Texas show no trend at all.

Dr. Hayhoe, on the other hand says:

"... our winter temperatures are increasing in nearly every station we look at across Texas".

So, we have three choices. Either Dr. Hayhoe is mistaken, or she is lying, or she is clueless. Your choice.

Yet most the commenters seem to believe her ... which says something very unflattering about a) Dr. Hayhoe, b) the commenters, and c) the abysmal lack of any fact checking by Yale e360.

Posted by Willis Eschenbach on 09 Sep 2011

From what I just read in the comments here, the claims of censorship at Yale e360 are much
exaggerated. The majority of the comments claim that the author is wrong and/or the science in general is wrong. I take this as further evidence that common ground is extremely hard to find.

Among the comments, I find that some folks feel Obama should have taken the political risk of backing the science - in the face of hostile public opinion, and the same folks think scientists have lots of spare time for organizing marches - maybe they could try to schedule one of their professional conferences in D.C., and present their findings to their audience while marching? No, they would be expected to chant, rather than present scientific evidence to their peers.

Other folks seem to accept the science, but are afraid to say that the Earth is, on average warming. This is still true, and the fact that many Americans have as much trouble understanding what an average is as they have understanding the difference between the terms "weather" and "climate" does not change that fact.

Still others want to take climate apart into its component pieces, and separate out human and natural causes. Would that it were so simple. What we do changes what nature does; to try to say that our impact is X-amount - when we are altering the balance of systems that have remained more-or-less in balance for far longer than we have records for - is nonsensical.

Kudos to Dr. Hayhoe for her work, her courage, her persistence and her patience. Considering some of the comments here, she should be up for sainthood eventually.

Posted by Daniel Gilsdorf on 13 Sep 2011

Excellent post on the need for consensus on climate change.

Posted by Dr.A.Jagadeesh on 25 Sep 2011

I checked the Noaa link and it appears to contradict Dr.Hathoe's statement. I think the science of global warming is sound, but what look to be erroneous statements by climatologist like Dr. Hathoe really undermine the attempts to set the record straight. She needs to at least submit a comment in her defense or apologize for her mistake.

Posted by Chris Pratt on 11 Oct 2011

Scientists have long predicted an increase in severe weather extremes due to the warming temperatures. But some folks can't seem to understand how that can cause droughts AND floods. (Simple, the warmer temps just exacerbate the existing conditions.... it doesn't make rain go to places it usually doesn't rain (read: areas like AZ, CO, OK, etc which are shielded from bodies of water by the rocky mountains and the prevailing winds) but it does make it rain more in areas ...

Posted by Nicolas on 28 Oct 2011

I am really impressed by the work of Madam Katharine Hayhoe, but it is true that many countries have suffered a lot due to dramatic climate changes. Floods, earth quakes and heavy rainfalls in the last decade have shocked the whole world. Sunami waves, earth quake in
Pakistan, China, Turkey and Japan are not small or ignoring disasters. These events have
connectivity with the concept of global warming.

Actually there are some certain factors that affect the climate system.

Posted by Faraz on 07 Dec 2011



How Warming Threatens the GeneticDiversity of Species, and Why It Matters
Research on stoneflies in Glacier National Park indicates that global warming is reducing the genetic diversity of some species, compromising their ability to evolve as conditions change. These findings have major implications for how biodiversity will be affected by climate change.

At Standing Rock, A Battle Over Fossil Fuels and Land
The Native American-led protest against the Dakota Access pipeline has gained global attention. In an e360 interview, indigenous expert Kyle Powys Whyte talks about the history of fossil fuel production on tribal lands and the role native groups are playing in fighting climate change.

African Wetlands Project: A Win For the Climate and the People?
In Senegal and other developing countries, multinational companies are investing in programs to restore mangrove forests and other wetlands that sequester carbon. But critics say these initiatives should not focus on global climate goals at the expense of the local people’s livelihoods.

How Climate Change Could Jam The World's Ocean Circulation
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

El Niño and Climate Change: Wild Weather May Get Wilder
This year’s El Niño phenomenon is spawning extreme weather around the planet. Now scientists are working to understand if global warming will lead to more powerful El Niños that will make droughts, floods, snowstorms, and hurricanes more intense.


Donate to Yale Environment 360