Academics discover civlity –
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study into why skeptics are not persuaded by the apocalyptic predictions of broken climate models has concluded that the solution is better communication.
According to the Toronto Star;
““When talking to skeptics it is probably important to focus on aspects that both skeptics and believers have in common rather than the differences between them,” said Ana-Maria Bliuc, a behavioural social scientist at Australia’s Monash University and one of the authors of the study.
As an example, the focus could be on “things like cleaner air, low power consumption, improved public transport, better waste management, efficient agriculture, reforestation … (they) are all in public interest, regardless of position on climate change,” she said.
Improving communication between the two sides of this big divide could be an effective pathway to reaching consensus, said Bliuc.
According to the study abstract;
“Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans, but less than half of the US population shares this belief. This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change ‘believers’ (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and ‘sceptics’ (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions.
The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate2507.pdf
This isn’t the first time researchers have blamed “communication” for climate skepticism.
Given that the abstract bases its rather imprecisely defined assumption of climate consensus on the heavily discredited Cook study http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/ , I suspect there may be problems other than communication which need to be addressed, before a common understanding can be achieved.
She starts out with a lie (97%…) and immediately destroys her credibility. Next article!
Thanks to Eric Worrall for posting this.
I think the main strategy of climate change cause supporters from now until the conclusion of UNFCCC’s COP 21 in Paris this December will be consistent with what the study by Bliuc claims to show. The main strategy of climate change cause supporters for the rest of this year will be something like this (the following are my words-JW): ‘Climate change may have broadly assessed scientific faults in public discourse, but it doesn’t matter if climate change is not really much concern because we should go ahead to accept policies based on it anyway as an important precedent necessary to limit man’s increasing dominance of nature here on earth.’
The answer to that kind of strategy by climate change cause supporters is that kind of fundamental anti-wealth politico-economic theory is not based on correct applied reasoning.
John
“Academics discover civility”
JK! (Just kidding)
Every used car salesman worth his road salt knows about the ‘assumptive close.’ That is, if a prospect so much as looks at a particular jalopy, assume the close — assume that the prospect wants that POS, and move on to the next step. “Can I help you arrange financing, or do you prefer to pay in cash?”
That’s what infuriates me about being called a denier; it assumes that the concept of AGW even exists. To buy into it is to give the cretins a major victory.
They can keep their jalopy.
We skeptics need a guide as well, so….
When talking to Warmists it is probably important to focus on aspects that both skeptics and believers have in common rather than the differences between them.
As an example, the focus could be on things like an improved economy, which always leads to a higher ability to focus on environmental issues, improved transportation infrastructure, reforestation, which are all in public interest, regardless of position on climate change. No one wants to be like North Korea, or China.
Also, it is best not to give them too many facts or too much science, as this will only confuse and anger them. Remember, they are like children, and depend on mommy and daddy figures, whom they dub “the experts” to do their thinking for them.
Bruce, funny you mention that. I had a long-time good friend who devolved into a rabid Warmist. Hanging out with him became a nightmare because Mr. Doom and Gloom brought it up ALL THE TIME. One day I suggested that maybe we should discuss ways to improve the economy, for the reasons you mention, and he become WORSE! Then I was not only a denier, I was a money-grubbing denier.
Warmists like him are anti-people; they want the earth’s population reduced to some imagined carrying capacity of 500 million. (That is, they want 13 out of 14 people to die.)
Warmists are socialists; they want all commerce to cease, to aid in getting rid of the 13 out of 14 souls.
Trying to talk to them about the economy is a waste of one’s precious seconds.
I sent this note to the Toronto Sun; raulakh@thestar.ca
Dear Raveena,
Regarding your article “Different tack needed for climate change skeptics, study says”.
I think that first sentence should read “Simply explaining the science behind man-made climate change will probably not help convert true believers”.
Essentially this Australian study say’s when talking to a cAGW skeptic don’t call them foul names then switch the subject, wow just wow.
Also, That big 97% science consensus porky again, how about improving communications by not using outright lies in the warmist (cAGW) narrative.
That should be the Toronto Star
Thanks, Anthony.
“I suspect there may be problems other than communication which need to be addressed”. Yes,there are the problems of trying to deceive us, wasting our money in low-density expensive energy sources, and more.
…..and mainly pissed off because science and science process is being victimized again and again.
“As an example, the focus could be on “things like cleaner air, low power consumption, improved public transport, better waste management, efficient agriculture, reforestation”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613905/Lunacy-town-turned-green-A-ban-bacon-butties-Traffic-calming-sheep-Transgender-toilets-Sounds-like-send-In-fact-real-story-Britains-loopiest-party-took-Brighton.html
Just don’t ask the Greens to do it.
Great link mwhite to the green lunacy. Had not seen this news report before. Brilliant.
(I take it you’ve also read Green Party 2010 election manifesto for it’s entertainment value – especially their environment policies starting on page 33.)
As a test, here’s a graphic example of the small amount of man-made CO2 in contrast to the rest of the atmosphere.
This picture downloadloading thing is new to me, so the image may not show.
This is further evidence that social scientists have lost all connection to hard science concepts like model forecast error evaluation. It has become a fire-and-forget press release and tenure advancement world, also called tabloid science. You’re either in on the game or a bystander. It could well be called the Great Non Validation Era. Or like any speculative bubble, it looked unstoppable until it burst from general erosion of confidence in the scam.
Someone starts on me,
A. I’m still more worried global cooling for the next few decades, then we can discuss Ice millenia,
B. You’re a Piltdown lover
C. What was your most advanced science class in HS ?
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
I don’t why it should, just because CBS’ Scott Pelley used the term in a deliberate comparison to Holocaust deniers. How sensitive does one have to be to be upset by that? /sarc
““As an example, the focus could be on “things like cleaner air, low power consumption, improved public transport, better waste management, efficient agriculture, reforestation … (they) are all in public interest, regardless of position on climate change,” she said.”
NOT unless you define what you mean!
**Cleaner Air: If you’re going to say that CO2 is a polutant, then no that’s not in the pblic interest.
**Low Power Consumption: If you mean that Americans should consume less energy that the 1990 level (or some lower number), then I’d suggest that, since energy consumption correlates with standard of living, this is not in the public interest.
**Improved Public Transport: If you mean more government sponsored mass transit, then no, that’s not in the public interest.
**Better Waste Management: If you mean Carbon Capture and Storage, then no that’s not in the public interest.
**Efficient Agriculture: If you mean eliminating beef and other animal food because they are “inefficient” sources of calories for people, then no it’s not in the public interest.
**Reforestation: If you mean stop harvesting trees for human use (or just about any other meaning I can think of), then no it’s not in the public interest.
It’s NOT OK to come up with vague terms which might sound inoffensive, trying to get people to go along with unspoken assumptions. Be specific on what you mean by your terms, or stop wasting my time!
Simply put, the disconnect is between those who are persuaded by Logic (the ‘deniers’) and those who are persuaded by Rhetoric (the ‘warmists’).
Unfortunately, Logic and Rhetoric appear to be fundamentally imcompatible.
Like the Aristotelian versus the Copernican universe models, their respective adherents are unlikely to be persuaded of their opponents’ merits.
We may have to wait for the gullible side to die off and be replaced with people who were exposed to the facts from an early age, who then may decide for themselves.
Well, if they are looking to see what I want to see, I want them to give historical perspective. For example, if a hurricane hits and they blame it on Global Warming, I want them to say why when many more hurricanes hit the same area in the 1600s ,1700, 1800s, 1900s, etc. why those occurrences were not global warming hurricanes.
It doesn’t piss me off. It just lets me know that the only science the speaker/writer could handle, was science of the political variety.
After I got done reading this I couldn’t help but think that the same logic can go both ways. If the person writing the article had been more educated about how discredited the 97% consensus is then perhaps they would begin to understand why skeptics don’t have faith in this magical “scientific community”.
I am all for bettering society. I don’t mind projects that improve public transit or reduce pollution or so on. I just fundamentally disagree that CO2 is a pollutant in the first place and I staunchly disagree with ruining our economy to implement any of these ideas. Especially when the reasoning behind doing so has been proven time and again to be wrong.
Just one educated American’s position.
Fatuous?
Well, considering the word ‘denier’ was specifically used to draw a parallel between Holocaust deniers and skeptic/realists, it DOES piss me off. Now pretending like they want to be ‘civil’ pisses me off all over again. And through it all, never does it occur to them once – after parroting every AGW company line – the slightest possibility that they might be wrong.
My reading of the entire issue is simply this – they have been pushing this BS for over a quarter of a century – all based on some kind of ‘Butterfly Effect Apocalypse’ – spent billions upon billions over it – sold some VERY powerful and important interests on it – staked the credibility of the US Government, Academia, almost the entire News and Entertainment media, the entire Democratic Party – AND the reputation of science itself. They all put their weight behind it and got a complete donut.
And so now, they’re changing their story. What they claimed would happen has not happened, and now their changing their story.
That by itself should be enough.
There is no communication problem on climate focused topics.
The communications from the climate change cause supporters are accurate statements of the cause’s ‘science’, message and position. Those independently participating in the open marketplace of ideas (outside of the cause’s supporters) have understood clearly the cause’s communications of its ‘science’, message and position. That is why the cause has been assessed as untrustworthy by those participating in the independent marketplace of ideas.
John
I’ve been living in the same place (Pacific northwest) for most of my 64 years, and if global warming has occurred (oops…the climate has changed), I couldn’t prove it. The high tide marks haven’t moved. I think public disconcern is related to this fact: that most of us have lived long enough to see if it is occurring and haven’t noticed any differences beyond weather. I mean, all you have to do is go outside your door and look around…
One thing I like to do is to broaden my understanding of things by taking free on-line courses. An organization called EdX is teaching a free course on Climate Denialism. The course description is priceless.
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VNFF1v54r6o
Should I take it?
Take it! Report back, and tell us if it’s worthwhile. Maybe you can point out plenty of their misinformation, since you’re a WUWT reader. You will certainly have more real facts.
Cook is one of the course staff. Hence, no doubt, the familiar “97%” assertion. Other suspects on the staff are Cowtan. Way, Mandia, Nuttycelli… basically a real rogues’ gallery of True Believers (TM). I wouldn’t bother with it myself as I wouldn’t be able to keep my lunch down.
I live in a village on the shore of Lake Chapala in central Mexico. There is a large expat community, that swells in winter, made up of Canadian and Americans. The latter seems to me to be Democrats heavily oriented towards alarmism. As a skeptic, I have learn to avoid a discussion of the new religion. The largest segment of the population is Mexican. Climate change is not in their vocabulary. Feeding their families is a day to day concern. They are the have-nots that the Davos crowd want to reduce their expectations.
Closer to Mexico City there is a wonderful city called Guanajuato. There they have a museum exhibiting the instruments of torture used during the Inquisition…about 100. From the hate mail and threats any journalist who dares to question, including we WUWT devotees, receive. I suspect they would rub their hands with glee at the prospect of convincing us how wrong we are.
Thanks, Anthony and all of you for keeping the discussion going. DavidAjijic
Today there was an interview about this paper in the German pro-alarmist radio channel DLF. Here you find a German translation of it (the English original version is not available unluckily). But maybe some wuwt readers will understand it nevertheless or may use an internet-translator-program:
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/klimawandel-und-gruppendynamik-es-ist-ein-konflikt-in-den.676.de.html?dram:article_id=310585
Though this interview is not without some alarmist bias, it sounds more or less agreeable since it shows a clear call for a more respectful and constructive sort of discussion between both sides.
So let’s hope the sick eco-taliban who would like to butcher climate-realists in ISIS-style (see e.g. that disgusting GUARDIAN text by Dana Nuccitelli and its ugly comments of last week) get the message and chill down their primitive bloodlust…
Sceptics ask questions. Communication breaks down immediately because the scientists making assertions that the sceptics want answers to don’t provide answers. It’s pretty simple. And introducing things like lower power consumption and cleaner air are red herrings that divert attention away from the unanswered questions which makes me all the more suspicious.