by Dennis Ambler
Those of who have long been in denial about the realities of global warming and the credibility of the IPCC, can now feel relieved, there may be hope for us yet. The diagnosis has been made; we have a psychological problem, which so far has failed to respond to the millions upon millions of dollars spent in “communicating” climate change to the masses.
However, the process of our redemption is already underway: A new publication called “Communicating climate change to mass public audiences” has just been presented to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, by the “Climate Change Communication Advisory Group”.
(Yes, the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, however, in 1976, there was actually a Minister for Drought, who was one of the most effective politicians in history, because within three days of his appointment, it had started raining.)
What is the Climate Change Communication Advisory Group – This UK group is a project of the Public Interest Research Centre, an “independent” group who are partially financed by the UK government’s Economic and Social Research Council. CCCAG is university based, with five psychology departments involved, including the US and also has WWF-UK as a member.
Communicating climate change to mass public audiences Working Document, September 2010
“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes.
“Its focus is not upon motivating small private-sphere behavioural changes on a piece-meal basis. Rather, it marshals evidence about how best to motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change that is necessary – including, crucially, greater public engagement with the policy process (through, for example, lobbying decision-makers and elected representatives, or participating in demonstrations), as well as major lifestyle changes.”
The first claims to exploring the psychology of “climate change denial” came from the University of the West of England last year.
Conference – Facing Climate Change, Climate Change Denial
University of the West of England, 7 March 2009
“Man-made climate change poses an unprecedented threat to the global ecosystem and yet the response, from national policy makers right through to individual consumers, remains tragically inadequate. The Centre for Psycho-Social Studies at the University of the West of England is organising a major interdisciplinary event Facing Climate Change on this topic at UWE on 7 March 2009.
Facing Climate Change is the first national conference to specifically explore ‘climate change denial’.
This conference aims to strengthen our awareness of the challenge facing us and to enhance our capacity for effective decision-making and action. It will do this by bringing together a group of people – climate change activists, eco-psychologists, psychotherapists and social researchers – who are uniquely qualified to assess the human dimensions of this human-made problem.
Professor Paul Hoggett is helping to organise the conference, he said, “We will examine denial from a variety of different perspectives – as the product of addiction to consumption, as the outcome of diffusion of responsibility and the idea that someone else will sort it out and as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”
Read the entire essay here (PDF)
Those of who have long been in denial about the realities of global warming and the credibility of the IPCC, can now feel relieved, there may be hope for us yet. The diagnosis has been made; we have a psychological problem, which so far has failed to respond to the millions upon millions of dollars spent in “communicating” climate change to the masses.
However, the process of our redemption is already underway: A new publication called “Communicating climate change to mass public audiences” has just been presented to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, by the “Climate Change Communication Advisory Group”.
(Yes, the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, however, in 1976, there was actually a Minister for Drought, who was one of the most effective politicians in history, because within three days of his appointment, it had started raining.)
What is the Climate Change Communication Advisory Group – This UK group is a project of the Public Interest Research Centre, an “independent” group who are partially financed by the UK government’s Economic and Social Research Council. CCCAG is university based, with five psychology departments involved, including the US and also has WWF-UK as a member.
Communicating climate change to mass public audiences Working Document, September 2010
“This short advisory paper collates a set of recommendations about how best to shape mass public communications aimed at increasing concern about climate change and motivating commensurate behavioural changes.
“Its focus is not upon motivating small private-sphere behavioural changes on a piece-meal basis. Rather, it marshals evidence about how best to motivate the ambitious and systemic behavioural change that is necessary – including, crucially, greater public engagement with the policy process (through, for example, lobbying decision-makers and elected representatives, or participating in demonstrations), as well as major lifestyle changes.”
The first claims to exploring the psychology of “climate change denial” came from the University of the West of England last year.
This might work if no one ever went outside to see what the weather was like. What they really need is some device to stop persistent arctic blocking patterns that leads to cold and snowy periods in the UK. But I guess if someone could control the weather, there would be no need for psychologists to control the way people think. (Not that the psychologists are any better at controlling thinking than the climatologists are at controlling weather.)
tallbloke says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:00 am
“the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, however, in 1976, there was actually a Minister for Drought, who was one of the most effective politicians in history, because within three days of his appointment, it had started raining”
Ah yes, John Selwyn Gummer. For an encore, he force fed burgers to his children on national TV to prove beef was safe to eat during the BSE scare.
Sorry Tallbloke, you are wrong, it was a labour government in 1976 and the Minister for drought was Dennis Howell.
Hi. My name is Jim, and I am a recovering denialaholic. Gaia helps me feel the global warmth when it is cold. My brain is washed clean of common sense. I am now psychologically fit to recruit others to my way of life. Amen.
This is starting to remind me of a fantastic film called Equillibrium, recommended viewing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_%28film%29
Global warming, what global warming, climate what climate change? Over the past 200 years temperature has risen by 0.6 of 1 degree C per century, over the last 10,000 years there as been no change, from 1700 to 1735 temperature rose by 2.2C and if my memory serves me correctly coal fired powerstations, hundreds of millions of cars and industry as we know it today did not exist.
James Hansen said that by 1980 the road alongside his office in Lower Manhattan would be submerged under 20 feet of water and by now New York would be 246 feet under the Atlantic.
We have ARGO buoys measuring the oceans and sea temperature is going lower ensuring that the zero level of sea rise as measured for the last 6000 years remains on a plateau.
Nancy Palosi speak for the house of representatives said “thank heaven for natural gas because if the USA didnt have so much we would need to rely on fossil fuels” if this statement is representative of the average American politicians intellect then we are in for serious trouble this side of the Atlantic because I doubt very much if Chris Huhne and his cross dressing partner are any more suited for high office.
The final nail in the coffin though for the warmist advocacy is that to get a 1 degree C reduction in temperature by a reduction in Co2 would mean the USA removing 2 trillion tons of Co2 equal to 67 years of emissions at 30 billion tons a year meaning that most everything in America would need to shut down, including – a benefit – all of the hot air given out by numerous feckless idiot politicians.
The cost of the Wax/Key leglisalation would be $250 Trillion, in the UK our climate change legislation is targeted to cost £18 billion a year over the 40 years to 2050 just to remove the 80% of the 2% we actually contribute in the UK, a total of £780 billion and saying that this is not a representative situation because we import stuff from China is irrelevant, the £780 billion is just for the 80% of 2% is some twerp suggesting we spend more and if so from where when most of the population received tax credits just so they can pay tax?
Add to this the fact that the IPCC actually predict that emissions will peak in 2075 in anycase when population peaks and energy also and will then fall back so why should we commit ourselves to spending billions that can never produce the desired result when emissions first are undershooting predictions, temperatures are undershooting predictions and climate change because of a radical rise in temperature hasnt happened because temperature has not risen to the desperate levels predicted so come we have to pay a debt to the third world for climate change that didnt happen?
Science should be about observation, experiment and measurement but with climate “science” it definitely is not its about hoax, sham and emotive rhetoric now completely shot through by the passage of time, measurement and fact.
When will those involved look at the current data instead of speculation, denigration and personal vilification of anyone who cares to disagree and the fact that a body now wishes to indoctrinate us because we refuse to take them at their word is a worrying escalation, even more worrying is why, what is the objective of this new religion is it as was included in the back pages of the UN Copenhagen treaty the first steps towards a world government? I do not believe in conspiracy theories but apparently someone in HMRC had the bizarre idea that they should collect our salaries and pensions, deduct what they felt was required and let us have the rest seems like George Orwell might have been on the right track all along so where precisely does George Monbiot fit in right along side Chairman Ed Balls I suppose, if the name fits!
There was an edition of New Scientist last year (which I just read recently) which devoted six or seven pages to discussion of various psychological ‘tricks’ (to coin a phrase) that could be used to manipulate people’s behaviour in the direction specified by the climate scientists.
I’m generally extremely pro-science, but that really gave me chills.
I found a similar study years ago that I quoted over at ClimateAudit. I think the link has disappeared, but the study had been commissioned by the UK government and was conducted by public relations people. One of their recommendations was that the government and proponents of AGW never admit doubts about the science and speak as if it was completely settled. In other words, act as if the debate was over and merely speak about solutions, whether their were valid reasons for skepticism or not.
Science? What science? If anything can make it clear to people how far from science this ‘climate change’ industry has gone, this ought to do it.
Now if we had mainstream reporters worth their salt, they’d be all over this affront to the integrity of science and the intelligence of the public. But we don’t.
How long are real scientists going to put up with this wholesale perversion of their enterprise before they speak up and confront the ideologues who have seized upon a speculation about climate and turned it into a quasi-religious crusade?
Or are they all going to hunker down in fear until free scientific inquiry is completely stifled by the Ministry of Climate Truth?
/Mr Lynn
Yes KenB, the Ministry Of Silly Walks comes to mind.
Why aren’t they examining denial from the perspective of “many people are smart enough to realize that the evidence for CAGW is crap.”
This is simple cause and effect – if you only award funding to people who have worked CAGW into there agendas, then eventually even the psycho-babble crowd will catch on.
The University of West England…. UWE Brisol
Sounds impressive. Its the old Bristol Poly.
And not to be confused with Bristol University (A Russell Group University).
Bet they have a Meeja Studies Department as well.
And probably a Chair in Vuvuzuelarology.
What corporation will provide the kilns this time? Hope these won’t run powered by wind mills, its low efficiency would be unbearable for us sceptics.
This is not crazy or even evil, it is simply the politics of: fear, power and wealth in action, as is normal in all societies. That does not mean we should not be offended or simply accept unchallenged. Perhaps it means we to must put our ethics on hold and join the conversation or perhaps not.
I have spent a goodly number of hours reviewing all the books and writings on philosophy that exist in my library. I could not find any reasonable justification for the end, however noble, justifying the means. I was reminded, this is a world view well articulated by Machiavelli in The Prince, although he never quite states it as such and it is a much older concept. His work is less philosophical then political. To paraphrase: if the Prince is to maintain his position or strengthen it then… what ever it takes to do so is justified, since the Prince’s desired outcome is defined as the greater good. While he may have addressed his work to a Prince of Florence, he could just as easily addressed it to the Prince of the Roman Church or any other leader of the day.
This kind of thinking has no place in science, regardless of the name give to the study of the political. No model can produce results so important to humanity that unscientific or immoral behavior can ever be justified. It does have a prominent place in the public discourse of the day as propaganda, ideology and sophistry have always had.
What the heck is an eco-psychologists?
Who will be in charged of reeducating us? HE?????.
Come on! are you kidding us?
That would be a mass murder: We would die by laughing!
Isn’t there some substance that they could put in the water to lower people’s facility for critical thinking? Maybe the Kool-Aide that they have been drinking?
The comment ‘who pays for this garbage’ really sums this up. This is about money and how much can be extracted from the public purse allied to politicians who just love a crisis. Our incompetent and highly paid civil servants and their friends in the Quangos just blithely carry on ripping off the taxpayer – it may be for transport aircraft that can’t do war zones (whatever else are they for?) or a revenue that can’t collect tax properly or having plush offices and rich pensions. (I often wondered why my supreme boss had such a fancy chair – I had to sit in my bog standard model all day working at the computer. Was his bum different than mine?)
Is this OT? Maybe, but I think the warmist scare is just part and parcel of a much bigger problem – the hubris of modern govt.
If only they could control the information super highway, they’d be all set. Propagandizing was so much simpler back in Goebbel’s day. If you didn’t agree, why you could just be “interrogated” until you did. Nowadays, they have to trot out all this fancy schmancy psychobabble, and just hope people won’t catch on, or read all about on the internet. Oops.
Seriously: It is evident that the manufacturers of alternative energy sources have a share in this global warming scam, but, are the technologies already available ? I think they are not, so what’s is the hurry, anything else perhaps, like avoiding an oil price decrease because of the big oil deposits recently found ?
“We will examine denial … as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”
This *is* referring to that insularl community of Climate Scientists, isn’t it? You know, the ones denying that they have to do science the right way, the way it’s been done for 400 years, open to scrutiny, debate, and so on?
Oh…. it means everybody else not getting with the Program??
Hmm. I see.
Nevermind.
Another example of how CO2 obosession lowers the intellignece and increases the gullibility of those obsessed.
It is long past time to reign in this popular mania, before it deteriorates from merely silly to actually dangerous.
Is this coincidence, or does it have anything to do with Government Chief Scientific Adviser Professor Sir Beddington’s latest propaganda machine?
See http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=415474&NewsAreaID=2&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20bis-news%20%28BIS%20News%29#
PLAN A:
To trick the populace into accepting and believing in the fabricated AGW consensus by means of a mass media barrage of scare mongering stories of imminent doom and disaster, the scarier the better in fact.
Centralise and control state funding of science where political control of resources can encourage science to pursue AGW ‘science’ while denying sceptical scientists of vital funding.
Launch a campaign of smears and abuse and hatred against sceptical scientists and encourage the tame media to engage in a concerted censoring campaign to squeeze out any opposition to the AGW consensus.
In case of the failure of PLAN A see:
PLAN B
Repeat plan A and add more tricks and more smears and more fabricated mumbo jumbo pseudo scientific jargon. The key is to understand that if the propaganda campaign has failed the AGW establishment remedy is to increase the intensity of the propaganda.
Ministry of Climate Truth indeed. Chilling. Glad I live in Canada.
Would like to hear from our resident Man Made Climate Change Believers to get their take on this bit of Orwellian news.