 |
| Paul Souders - Corbis |
Time writer Bryan Walsh reported yesterday that:
"According to forthcoming research by the Berkeley psychologists Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg, when people are shown scientific evidence or news stories on climate change that emphasize the most negative aspects of warming — extinguished species, melting ice caps, serial natural disasters — they are actually more likely to dismiss or deny what they're seeing. Far from scaring people into taking action on climate change, such messages seem to scare them straight into denial."
Walsh remembers working on scary, global-warming stories that reach a peak in 2006 when Time titled its cover story on climate change, crowned with a photo of a lonely polar bear on an ice floe, Be Worried. Be Very Worried.
"I know why we used the language we did," Walsh recalls. "Scientists were telling us that global warming really had the potential to wreck the future of the planet, and we wanted to get that message across to readers — even if it meant scaring the hell out of them."
But all those scare tactics--based on the truth or not--may have had the opposite effect. In his piece,Climate-Change Strategy: Be Afraid — but Only a Little, Walsh reports on how Willer and Feinberg conducted their research and he speculates on how it might effect the future debate over climate change.
Environmental organizations whose stock in trade has been the Chicken Little Sky is Falling Approach might do well to give this story and the research it reports on some long, hard thought.
What do you think? Let us know in the comment box below.
Related:
New date, location for NJ climate forum, but no governor
Our most recent posts:
Environmental legislation up for votes today in Trenton
Follow NPR down New Jersey's tragic Passaic River
Enviro-Events Calendar for NJ, PA, DE & NY
What is an LSRP? Fox, watchdog, rat or scapegoat?
New date, location for NJ climate forum, but no governor
Our most recent posts:
Environmental legislation up for votes today in Trenton
Follow NPR down New Jersey's tragic Passaic River
Enviro-Events Calendar for NJ, PA, DE & NY
What is an LSRP? Fox, watchdog, rat or scapegoat?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You'll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics
Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like this? You'll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics
Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is really pathetic. "Scientists" at Berkeley are now psychologically individuals, based on their responses to a survey? I suppose next they'll be appearing on
ReplyDeleteYet -- as you have dutifully recorded --scientists here in New Jersey are now acting in a decidedly unscientific manner by publicly demanding that the Governor "stay after school" so they can lecture him on the "truth" of IPCC climate change predictions!
I wonder if those New Jersey scientists feel the same way about a significant number of highly reputable scientists who do not buy into their conclusions, including some highly reputable New Jersey-based scientists? Apparently not enough to have considered inviting any of them to a climate change forum they were apparently organizing for the primary purpose of so "lecturing" the Governor!
Take, just as an example, the case of Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced studies, the eminent theoretical physicist and mathematician, who is perhaps most famous for his work in quantum field theory. In a fairly recent profile published about him in the New York Times and focusing primarily on wondering out loud about his climate change skepticism, the author of the article, Nicholas Dawidoff, conceded:
"Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics."
http://nyti.ms/ejBJBs
Gee, that doesn't sound like "denial" to me! How about you?
Had the NJ climate change forum you keep pushing here -- e.g., http://enviropoliticsblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-date-location-for-nj-climate-forum.html -- been organized in a manner that would have considered all informed views on the subject, perhaps there would have been a more positive response, maybe even including from the Governor.
Why, for example would they not have invited someone like the noted American atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? He frequently testifies regarding his views before Congress.
Or, why would they not invite someone like S. Fred Singer, a long respected and accomplished scientist, with a lifetime of notable accomplishments?
Why? Perhaps it could be because they would not parrot the dogma? It seems pretty certain to me that it would not have been because they are psychologically in denial!
I suppose anyone can misuse a little knowledge of a psychological profile and claim that anyone who does not believe as they do is in denial . . . including scientists who are convinced that the worst of the climate change predictions are the God's truth.
And some of them, like the CRU insider, the late Stephen H. Schneider, might even be willing to publically overstate the case a bit, including by suppressing of any doubts they might personally have, in order to advance the agenda!
Remember? "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Of course, that is not psychological denial . . . that would be classified as something more . . . uhhhh . . . basic!
Incidentally, readers will note that there is another Princeton scientist who is well-known for his climate change skepticism, Will Happer, yet another New Jersey scientist who the group of would be Governor-lecturers also did not include in their forum.
ReplyDeleteHis is an interesting story, as he was politically forced out of the DOE by then-Vice President Al Gore back during the Clinton Administration because he would not bend to the global warming and climate change dogma being pushed.
http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/25/will-happer-we-need-more-co2/
Oooops . . . my error!
ReplyDelete"I suppose next they'll be appearing on" was intended to be:
I suppose next they'll be appearing on The Factor analyzing body language!
I think the focus needs to shift to air-quality. The effects of poor air-quality on human health have been studied for years and are well understood. Of course global warming is attributed to greenhouse gases from poor air-quality, but global warming is a complex subject. Smog, acid rain, diesel particulates are issues that we all have more experience with and should be central to the discussion, I think melting polar ice caps are a big problem of course, but don’t really affect a person’s perspective on quality of life issues on daily basis. However asthma, lung cancer, polluted drinking water, etc..typically get people’s attention more easily. I think we need to get the message right because we can waste a lot of time talking about the psychology of global warming and miss the issue that dirty air is a very bad thing and we need to act on it. I think that NJBPU, NYSERDA, DOE all have it right, I just worry that their efforts could be hindered by getting caught up in the bipartisan politics of global warming.
ReplyDelete