I’ve spent some time thinking about how reframing arguments around climate change might make inroads with science-denying conservatives.  If facts don’t matter, maybe forcing deniers to think through the impacts of their ideas might work?  Or maybe try labeling all extreme weather as “climate change”?  Or talk about climate past and what we’ve lost?

But David Roberts over at Vox disparages the idea that better language can make a difference, citing recent research:

To sum up, the frames that reach people and actually make a difference are a) resonant with their existing dispositions and affiliations, b) delivered by a trusted source, and c) repeated often enough to penetrate the pervasive information buzz.

Ultimately, Roberts reasons, traditional arguments may still be the best ones, given the current political climate and way the human mind works:

This isn’t to say that other frames can’t work for particular audiences at particular times. Entrepreneurs could be (and have been) taken by the notion that climate is an enormous business innovation opportunity. Conservatives could be (and have been) taken by the notion that renewable energy offers energy independence. Disadvantaged or polluted communities could be (and have been) taken by the notion that climate mitigation also mitigates asthma-causing pollutants.

And so on. “Know your audience and speak to them in a way that resonates” is a fairly old bit of counsel, around long before cognitive linguistics, and it’s as true as ever.

I agree it’s not worth a huge effort to try to convince deniers on the science.  But if simple fixes to language and rhetoric might disarm a critic and get them to think differently, there’s also no harm in trying.