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.
It sounds like something from Mao’s cultural revolution; especially when you consider
“greater public engagement with the policy process “
I expect they don’t mean that I should get up and start lobbying AGAINST global warming measures; I’m sure they mean “toeing and regurdgitating the party line”
Many thanks Anthony for drawing attention,
This is excellent news. It is so much over the top that the only predictable result must be public derision. The spectacle of those who know, scientifically speaking, nothing about the subject they propose to arrange “communications” for is quite laughable. Let us make sure all of this nonsense is exposed as much and as publicly as possible, and that the incompetents involved are given as much chance as possible to put their foot in it……..
The harder they shout, the clearer it is that its no longer about science (or maybe never was).
————————————————————————————-
Lance Wallace says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:57 am
Just to show that climate craziness is not limited to the other side of the pond, this morning I received the following announcement from AAAS announcing a panel (to include our friend Gavin from NASA/GISS) on “Overcoming Skepticism after Climategate”:
————————————————————————————-
We should encourage as many as possible of such occasions, because they will flush out the (not so hidden) agendas behind the “science”, and indicate out who is serious about enquiring into nature, and who is more concerned about self justification or, worse, interfering with other peoples lives.
DFM (scientist)
LOL, Gavin is going to “…share their best practices for public and media engagement…”
So they intend to go from alarmist to hostile, rude and alarmist?
hunter says:
September 16, 2010 at 9:15 am
…..before it deteriorates from merely silly to actually dangerous.
Do you mean a WWIII ?, it is possible, as judged for the unquenchable and pasionate interests behind, don’t show not a bit of discouragement up to now.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:50 am
“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.”
Dennis,
Had your library contained any books on the religion, philosophy, or teaching of the “Roman Church” you would not have suggested that Machiavelli “could just as easily addressed it to the Prince (Pope) of the Roman Church”, as it would have fallen on deaf ears since the “Roman Church” teaching has always been that “no evil may be done so that good may come of it.” To imply that the “Roman Church” uses the same techniques as communists is misleading at best.
If you can find any official “Roman Church” teaching, or, any “Prince of the Roman Church” making a statement approaching the Marxist teaching of the end justifying the means, I will eat my words.
Chris
I feel the mainstream lifting my boat. Welcome, critical thinkers. I feel guilty for not whacking enough hippies with my Orwell and Rand collections in the sixties.
…” the credibility of the IPCC”?
Congress pulled the plug on funding, the debate is over.
tallbloke
“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.”
Wrong. Minister for Drought was Dennis Howells – follow the link in the article. Mr Howells was our MP and took us on a tour of Parliament when on a school trip. A very decent man.
I also had the misfortune to meet Selwyn Gummer and can say without doubt that he is the most odious [snip] I’ve ever met. I wonder if his daughter ever recovered from mad cow disease?
Hunter, maybe you are on to something! Rising CO2 has lowered our intelligence! Have Hansen, Mann, and Jones been seen wearing oxygen masks?
So McCright says that more women believe, and if more man would get in touch with their “feminine” side, then more men would believe…..
…and now this
They admit that the “science” has not convinced anyone,
so they have to
“the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”
And they don’t think for one minute that what they are doing is collusion.
They think we really are mindless sheep………..
Only goes to show that there is no folly in the world unfit to be breast-fed with quango money, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Painfully reminiscent of Labour insanity. If my memory saves me r., though — weren’t these loony-bin inmates voted out of office a few months ago?
Unbelievable that their madness should be carried on by the new folks in charge of good old Albion.
Didn’t that used to be called propaganda?
Oh, it still is.
“My words mean what I want them to mean. Nothing MORE, nothing LESS!” So said the Red Queen to Alice.
I wonder, what did Lewis Carol know that WE don’t know?
“eco-psychologists”
???
There are actually eco-psychologists??
That’s the current administration’s current excuse for low approval.
A failure to communicate.
It’s laughable.
Ministry of Silly Walks was based on these elitist twits and their stupid handshakes
John McKay says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:53 am
> O/T but Just been sent this link
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html
It’s been posted to Tips & Note four times. The URL for the paper has been posted there twice.
Hunter, it is already dangerous. So many $billions wasted on nonsensical research; so much food diverted to making biofuel where fossil fuels are the better choice; so much misdirected capital going into “green” technologies that are premature or subsidized because they’re not currently competitive; and so much human capital constrained by marxist/fascist policies (like the approach exposed from the CCDAG). This is indeed the crime of the modern industrial age; climategate merely hastened its exposure. The criminality includes foisting a pseudo-science-based Cap and Trade bill on the US, while Europe is being crushed by a similar policy. The EPA is the worst offender with their stance on CO2.
theduke said:
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.
Futerra’s Rules of the Game? (pdf)
Followed with New Rules: New Game (pdf)
Yes they really think we are all mindless sheep.
And if they get what they want it would be a very ugly thing indeed.
And might not be what they are aiming for .
Because, as the Eco-Psychologist said to the lightbulb,
“You have to want to change”.
For a while I was labouring under the impression that, having read their research, digested their arguments, visited their blogs, the alarmists simply hadn’t proved their hypothesis. Now it turns out I was wrong all along, apparently I’m just plain nuts!!
who’d have thought it.
“Professor Paul Hoggett . . . 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.”
Notice that they patently accept the junk science of manmade global warming themselves and then assume everybody else is delusional. There is no mention that we may have a better grip on reality than they. THEY have been told the game rules and then they have to pretend that there is a valid game afoot.
The descriptions of our “problems” above are downright insulting and denigrating. They are obviously arrogant and condescending, assuming, like all good liberals, that they they know better than we do.
Notice that the goal is to create behavioral changes (do what we say, is their mantra) and create compliance for their money and power grab based on a false crisis. Hmmm, I haven’t seen “Gaslight” in a long time.
The head of psychology at BU years ago was a winner. He did not believe that laughing is mature – definitely not a party animal! His wife, who was not allowed to emote for over 10 years, finally divorced him and has been laughing ever since. As far as I can tell, most psychologists are nut cases themselves – been there, are that.
How much longer before they start bringing out the rat cages for the leaders of the skeptical movement ?
A perversion of the public health nurse. It worked back then to make conditions less conducive to wide spread disease. The public health nurse was all about cleanliness, quarantine, and immunization (which isn’t a bad thing in my opinion). Some of the last century’s public health nurse advisories are now mandated or at least made to make a person uncomfortable if choosing not to follow these advisories.
So I guess this means that we will be funding another government agency likely housed in our still present public health offices in most towns and cities. Is this why we keep hearing that the best bet on a future stable job is in the health industry?
I will have to give them kudos for coming up with this idea. Most of our elderly folks remember the days of polio and give full credit to public heath nurses for its near eradication.
I know readers of WUWT like to keep their facts straight. George Orwell’s most famous book was Animal Farm, a parody of the rise of communism in Russia. What is being decribed in this post is more like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. With Big Brother watching everyone. It has been a long, long, time since I read Brave New World, but as I recall the protaganist was in charge of shoe production statistics. His job was to show that shoe production always increased. But, as he admitted to himself, he had no idea whether shoe production was rising, or indeed, if any shoes were produced. At least that’s the way I remember it.
The book was supposed to take place in the 25th century C.E. Looks like we are getting there a lot quicker