But isn't the appeal to emotion the tactic that has been used this whole time (at least in regards to climate change)? It does not seem to be working. When I think about the major documentaries discussing climate change, they mostly appeal to fear. Yes, they do give you some data, but mostly it is fear. This makes sense, if you think that something catastrophic is about to happen, so I don't blame them for the approach, but the issue with this approach is with people like me.

A few months ago, I heard a talk from a "climate change" denier, and he was all about the data. That caught my attention, and I started to watch as many debates on the topic as I could find. In most, if not all, of them, the "climate change" denier's side always seemed better informed, more rational, and scientific. This very scientific approach to denial is not unique to climate change. If you watch any talks from the "intelligent design" (evolution denial) crowd, you will find that they seem very well informed. The difference is that in the realm of "intelligent design" you will find plenty of smart people offering counter arguments. This is not the case with climate change.

So, I would say that we should drop the emotional appeal, and encourage all of the many, very smart, climate scientist, and other well informed individuals to start fighting misinformation, so others like me that are interested in the truth can find better tools to make sound and rational decisions.