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.
Golden rule of Marxism – it is never the message it is just that the people don’t understand the message.
A common understanding is not possible.
“Calling climate skeptics ‘deniers’ just pisses them off”
Who knew? Groundbreaking research dollars well spent /sarc
The paper by Bliuc et al is simply awful, so I wrote a blog post about it. What’s worst about it IMHO is that it enhances polarisation on the issue.
In summary, we have a biased paper promoting political activism, exacerbating division and with a main conclusion that has already been stated many times in the literature. How did this rubbish get published? Oh, it’s in Nature.
‘misalignment
between scientific and
public views’
read
‘misalignment
between wishfull scientific and
real scientific + public views’
Regards – Hans
Call me a “Denier”, it does not offend me. I am proud of it, and here is why:
Herman Mellville Letter to Nathaniel Hawthorne, [April 16?] 1851
the earth goes through natural cycles. there is nothing sinister like climate change – get over it!
Look at it from the bright side: even sociologists talk about “believers”. They therefore recognize it for what it is: a religion.
I can’t understand why any skeptic would be pissed off. davidrussell22 said this about me in relation to the feedback of co2 on the release of latent heat from the snow that is currently falling
“you a hopeless doofus and ignoramus,…. totally unfixable. I hope you don’t vote. I pray you don’t breed. ”
I should get on my knees and pray that the almighty church of CAGW forgives me.. I’ll do that as soon as the Great Lakes freeze over. Kind of an oxymoron, counter intuitive? Why, Great Lakes freezing over proves CAGW. (sarcasm)
dbstealey,
Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden were insiders too.
I already have several times, those who don’t hold the “consensus” view of AGW.
Still waiting for that IPCC-beating contrarian GCM with not a CO2 subroutine in sight.
Wildfires are caused by lightning all the time. By your “logic”, there’s no need to ever invoke arson as a cause.
You’re wrong. Here’s an arguably alarming brochure about ice melt: http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/-Planet%20in%20Peril_%20Atlas%20of%20Current%20Threats%20to%20People%20and%20the%20Environment-2006667.pdf
I’d say the temperature plots over the past 420 kyrs from Petit et al. (1999) on the 3rd and 4th pages of the document are anything but static-looking.
Sound more like your way of thinking in false dichotomies than anything. But I don’t speak for all warmies, so who knows. I know that I don’t think of it that way. I’m a whole system kind of thinker.
One wonders how he can be so confident if the computer projections are so highly uncertain, but then illogical nonsense is something I have difficulty understanding in general.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
Yup! They are 100% correct but I didn’t need a study to tell me that.