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.
The link to the working document, incorrectly links to the drought article.
Someone is crazy here for sure …. but I think it is the publishers of this nonsense.
It is breathtaking in it’s arrogance.
But I would agree there is a psychological component to the AGW debate.
It has been my personal observation that deep greens generally have a very predictable psychology :
They are almost all far left in the political spectrum.
They generally have some deep rooted sense of guilt.
They believe government can solve any problem.
They generally think people & corporations are inherently evil.
They are generally prone to emotional responses to problems.
Think about this list & think about the AGW hypothesis. It absolutely plays into everything their psyche believes. Is it any wonder there is a nearly religious fervor in their beliefs?
So, as a scientist, I am fundamentally skeptical of AGW based on data. BUT just because the AGW believers don’t think like I do, I WOULD NOT say they are mentally defective – just wired differently. I wish they could see that just because skeptical folks don’t see the world the way they do that they are not mentally defective & that by labeling skeptics as such only further hurts their cause & makes it that much harder to achieve their goals.
To David Wells’ Comment:
David, you must realize that AGW has nothing to do with the science or saving the planet. It is a false crisis to create the case (by the IPCC) that we need worldwide emissions control. Then they can set up a carbon trading economy, a one world government, and carry out massive undeserved wealth redistribution, all under a totalitarian/socialist regime.
Crippling and de-developing the Western World and preventing the development of the undeveloped countries would serve them well, as a means of retaining power. The latter would become huge welfare states, crippled forever by government handouts from ever taking their own initiative.
By depressing the world, how could they not stay in power, particularly when they effectively disarm everybody and they have the only legitimate military (police/Gestapo/thugs) to force large scale compliance? Notice the International Small Arms Treaty (just agreed to by Clinton!) – why would the UN have any business knowing where all the guns are in the US, or any country, unless it is to eventually do something about them? They claim it is to better track illegal guns, but then why know where all the legal guns are? There is already perfectly good means of establishing the origin of a gun – starting at the manufacturer.
The psych part described here simply hallmarks the fact that the science and climate are not the issue, it’s getting the people to do what they want. They want compliance and acquiescence to their agenda – and they want it now! We are standing in their way with our delusional smugness!
I actually agree with everything in the UK report but it’s written by people who have only a basic knowledge of climate science and how much misinformation they have already absorbed. If you beleive in CAGW each section makes sense. My replies to each section would be as follows.
1) Well done in recognising that climate change can’t be ‘sold’ to the public. You could have summed it up with the famous quote ‘you can fool all of the people some of the time…’
2) Good luck with the scientific honesty thing. I’m not sure anyone knows what is truth and what is hype anymore. Climate science has experienced some humungous setbacks because it’s been far less than truthful.
3) And you’re right, some of the biggest lies have been told about the mitigation strategies. Thing is, you might be shocked at how little is left once the kernels of truth are uncovered.
4) The public have no empathy for ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Those who push climate change must lead by example. We’re waiting!
5) Only third world people are using the levels of CO2 that CAGW theory demands. Would photos of starving Africans encourage you to adopt their lifestyle? Didn’t realise you are supposed to cut your CO2 that much ? Return to number 2) and 3).
Harness the power of social networks? Sorry, sceptics got there first and apparently WE’re really good at it 🙂 And until 2) 3) and 4) are sorted, WE’re not going away.
6) Spot on. If they mean global warming they should say global warming. However they’ve already discovered that the planet isn’t playing ball.
7) They already do publicise frustration at lack of progress on CO2 mitigation. Unfortunately the numbers of people who fit that category are very small. Numbers of people protesting against CO2 mitigation are much greater. Do you see a pattern emerging?
“Yes, the UK does have a Minister for Climate Change, …”
This is Greg Barker, the sidekick of Buff Huhne, new Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change (following the guy who promoted the 2008 Climate Change Act, the most expensive and the most pointless piece of legislation in UK history, the odious Ed Milipede, who seems set to be the next elected leader of the Labour Party Opposition.)
Connoisseurs of such matters will remember Buff Huhne it was, who recently ditched wife and children for his lesbian lover.
Previously, Greg Barker had ditched wife and children for his gay lover.
Some years ago, Tim Yeo, now Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee, rather conventionally in such company, just turned out a couple of love children.
Of course, I don’t care too much about their personal preferences but it does seem a bit rich when they actively campaign on a platform of strengthening family values and personal responsibility.
With recent allegations against the Goreacle completely “disproved”, it is difficult to be sure whether all this is just ‘natural variability’ or rather yet another instance of CO2’s evil effect on society (or at least, our politicians). A hockey stick in the making?
Now, what was it that these people wanted to “communicate” to those nasty deniers??
Well, indeed. There is a reason for old in “old engineer” It was Geroge Orwell’s “1984” that I was thinking of. I told you it was a long time since I read them.
hmm, all i can say is that my local weather here in Sacramento has been much cooler than usual the past 2 years or so…i was starting to believe in global warming around 2007 or so after we had some scorching summers, like 10+ days at around 110 degrees but we’ve seen a real cooling trend here in both winter and summer….just anecdotal evidence i guess but the media in the U.S. only reports it one way…when they had a hot spell around Wash DC earlier in the year the media were falling all over themselves about “make sure you drink plenty of water”(after all OMG its going to be 100 degrees!!)..,…
would be interesting to hear from honest people from the Wash D.C. area if the media overstated that as usual, to fit their agenda…
REPLY: A valid email address is required to continue commenting here. – See the policy page – Anthony
Typical of British politicians. If the great unwashed don’t agree with them it means that they havn’t communicated the message in a way that we can understand.
“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.”
What? I’m not highly skeptical of the alleged “man caused climate change” because I buy things! Nor because I think someone else should deal with it! Nor out of any complacency or irresponsibility!
They forget the primary reason for “denying” the claims of alarmist “man caused climate change” and that is that the alarmists have NOT provided actual verifiable hard evidence that CO2 does in fact raise temperatures. If they actually provided such evidence and a means to verify it and opened all their data, raw data, methods, source codes, programs, sensor designs, notes, emails, and all other relevant materials for public auditing then maybe I could go about verifying their claims. As it sits they want me to, ahem, “trust” them on their “word”. Not going to happen as I’m a scientist who demands that those claiming science actually use the scientific method and that those claiming doomsday and taking money from the public purse actually have ALL of their alleged science and it’s claims open for public auditing.
Let’s round up the sceptics and bring them all near
To whisper corrective words in their ear
And if they persist in denying they’re ill
We’ll have to force-feed them a gullible pill
It’s not that we want to; it’s just that we must
They’re all pathologically lacking in trust
The problem is simple: the proof’s a bit thin
But only the sceptics were not taken in
We tried to appease them, we tried to persuade
We’ve tried using fear, and some of us prayed
But now there’s no doubting that doubt’s a disease
We’ll bring the refuseniks all to their knees
I knew the global warming hoax had no foundation, way before the year 2000. This makes me a bad citizen indeed since that year.
like Galileo, brought in chains under threat of death before the papacy for asserting that the earth revoled around the sun, we are not well for maitaining the scientific temper.
Tallbloke @8:00
Dennis Howell was Minister for Drought.
Selwyn-Gummer force-fed the poor child. (As Wiki shows world-wide 275 deaths due to that terrible disease BSE he can plausibly claim to be right!)
A greenpeace Australian activist was blown out of the water on BNN squeeze play recently in Canada, by the author of “Ethical Oil” Ezra Levant.
Watch here:
http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip348124
http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip348126
PiperPaul says: “Perhaps re-education camps will be next.”
No. Those might produce actual real jobs. Can’t do that. Your re-education will be outsourced to China or India.
Now, imagine this (this would be a great plot line for a new sit-com). You are in a re-education camp in India. There will be a series of tests you have to pass to finally “graduate”. You ask a question. The teacher, whom you can barely understand, has a three-ring binder that he starts looking through, to find the answer to your question. He then looks you straight in the eyes, and (barely legibly) asks, “But have you unplugged the phone cord, and then plugged it in again?”
Don’t underestimate the power of propaganda. Look at the frightening percentage of people who still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
To David Parks Comment: I jst posted a comment but it appears to have disappeared (and it was the first ime in a long time that I did not copy it first!). So here is another version. If the first is posted, Mr Moderator, please ignore this one.
David, you have to realize that the AGW movement has nothing to do with saving the planet or the climate. It is all about creating a false crisis and a case for world wide emissions control. The goal is to create a carbon economy, a one world government, and force widespread wealth redistribution. This is a political agenda and it is not for the good of the people in any way.
Crippling the world’s economies and wealth redistribution would de-develop the developed world and, through continuous welfare handouts, permanently cripple the undeveloped countries from ever developing, as they would have no initiative to develop, becoming huge nanny states. This crippled state would ensure that they would retain power.
Notice the International Small Arms Treaty (just agreed to be Clinton!). Why would the UN have any business knowing where all the guns are in the US, or in any country, unless it is something they eventually will take care of? A world government would have to have the only legitimate military/police/Gestapo and would perforce need to disarm the people.
They claim the Treaty makes it easier to trace illegal weapons, but there are already perfectly effective means of doing to – starting with the manufacturer.
The psychology initiative described above points clearly to the fact that it is all about the agenda. They want compliance and acquiescence by the people and they aren’t getting it. They want what they want now! And we are standing in their way with our delusion thoughts based, to their dismay, on reality. It that an oxymoron?
So, all year WUWT was trumpeting the for-sure rebound of arctic sea ice extent. When that didn’t happen, and instead this year’s low extent continues the trend of disapearing ice extent, WUWT is now trumpeting the for-sure cold winter we’re bound to have. Meanwhile, in a thread about the (nearly) unprecedented recorded occurrence of two Cat 4 Hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, respondents are wailing about how all the bad-ole climate change embracers will jump all over it and (incorrectly) reinforce their conclusions.
[snip] . . what is your problem deliberately riding over the conditions of your registration on this blog? . . b.mod
This is so we can be compliant jurors when the cases alleging actual damage from climate change get into litigation, which is where they are headed after the courts declined to dismiss them for non-justiceability and lack of standing. After all, the real reason people were hurt by Hurricane Katrina is because energy companies put CO2 into the air which strengthened the hurricane beyond what could possibly have happened without the CO2. Yes, it’s a real case.[ I presume you forgot to click sarc/on ] b.mod
It was so much easier in the good old days when we cavemen just sat around the fire telling each other ghost stories.
A question. If, despite all the propaganda about doomsday scenarios (which obstinatelt refuse to come to fruition), the general public continue to increasingly doubt what they’re being told, what then? Apart from pogroms, what else could be under consideration? A small, deliberate “occurence” maybe? Engineered to force people to believe? I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past them…
Facing Climate Change is the first national conference to specifically explore ‘climate change denial’.
The first, but definitely not the last. No doubt one of the top agenda items will be to establish the date and location of the next conference, preferably in a suitably exotic/sophisticated location where they will be able to stage numerous working breakfasts, working lunches and working dinners followed by catered receptions to discuss how tough it is to reeducate the little people (who pay the bills).
Nice work if you can get it.
I thought it was a joke – until I googled it.
“Ecopsychology
MA in Transpersonal Psychology
The Ecopsychology degree concentration integrates psychology and ecology in the study of human-nature relationships. At Naropa University, contemplative practice and transpersonal psychology provide a foundation for this integration.”
Now I know we live in a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Phil Silvers would have been proud.
Tallbloke,
“So they won’t be examning ‘denial’ from the perspective of it being the product of people looking at the science and discovering the theory of man made global warming is a crock then?”
The notion that the public are looking at the science and discovering that it is a crock, does not enter into their consciousness. Some say, that when Don Cortez’s ships arrived off the coast of Central America, the natives did not perceive them. Sure, the light entered their eyes, but their minds shut out the images, they say. I never believed that story – until today.
Those who attempt to shape your thoughts believe they can control you. Efforts to do this go back millennia. And, it has never worked. At least not for long, but the human cost has been very high.
spot a trend ?? this from American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/wh_science_czar_global_warming_1.html