Guest essay by Eric Worrall
They actually used the word “converts” to describe people who changed their mind about climate change.
How to change the minds of climate deniers
Kate Yoder for Grist
Sun 3 Feb 2019 21.00 AEDTFor some people, the awakening comes in science class.
In the Reddit thread titled “Former climate change deniers, what changed your mind?” the most popular comment comes from chucklesthe2nd (probably not his real name). Chuck, as we’ll call him, essentially inherited his dad’s views on climate change.
“I grew up actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real,” Chuck wrote last year. Then, during a high school science course, he learned about feedback loops: “It suddenly hit me. As the atmosphere heats up, more CO2 is released, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2, which heats up the atmosphere, which releases more CO2……etc.”
It looks like Chuck is at the forefront of an encouraging trend. A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.
To learn more about these converts, researchers at Yale and George Mason crunched the numbers from a blend of responses to surveys conducted between 2011 and 2015. They found that 8% of Americans said they had recently changed their opinion on the matter, according to a new analysis from Yale University and George Mason University. Nearly all of the recent converts said global warming had become a bigger concern for them.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-change-denial-changing-minds
Why is it necessary to be “converted” to climate change belief?
Am I reading too much into use of this word? I suspect not. The climate converts appear to embrace a rigid, harshly intolerant belief system which drives them to try to punish public figures whose stated position deviates even slightly from their views of what is acceptable.
Consider Bjørn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr., who were recently accused of “fact mongering“.
If you’re not sure what “fact mongering” is, the author of the accusation against Lomborg and Pielke provides the following explanation;
Consider a couple of examples, both from the realm of climate science politics where questions of rhetoric, fact, and fear are most crucial. In July 2017, David Wallace-Wells published in New York Magazine an article titled “The Uninhabitable Earth,” arguing that we are not scared enough about climate change. It prompted some denunciations, but also soul-searching among the climate science community about its rhetoric. Perhaps in their desire not to be discounted as fear-mongers, scientists had become fact-mongers. They may have assumed that they don’t really have a “fact” until it is scrubbed clean of all emotion, especially fear. This is certainly not misconduct in a narrow sense, but it may well count as a form of irresponsible research. Has the climate science community hid behind neutral facts and insufficiently scared the public? If so, theirs would be a rhetorical, not a logical, failure. …
Read more: https://issues.org/philosophers-corner-fear-mongering-fact-mongering/
Bjørn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr. are not climate skeptics. Both of them accept the IPCC position on climate sensitivity to CO2. Their transgression is they question some of the wilder predictions of climate activists, and don’t use emotive language when presenting their research.
Even the founders of the climate movement, people like James Hansen, are not immune to denunciation – Naomi Oreskes called James Hansen a “denier”, because he suggested that renewables alone might not be enough to decarbonise the global economy. James Hansen upset believers by suggesting we might also need nuclear power.
And of course we have children like Chuck, who have been “converted” into detesting the “obnoxious” climate views of their families, thanks to green indoctrination from activist teachers. Growing up is difficult enough, without our school systems deliberately driving a wedge between children and their parents.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You don’t convert on matters of scientific principle, you convince. Convert is reserved for religious inquiry—which is exactly why I firmly believe the climate change fools are all about joining a new religion now that traditional religion is being undermined and abandoned.
This movement — claiming more and more people ‘believe’ the IPCC consensus — is an intentional, active campaign to gain support for the IPCC Climate Solution based on the social science behind societal brainwashing (brainwashing an entire population).
The principle it is based on is the tribal instinct — by telling a population that their opinion — a strong opinion — minority is losing ground, that “everyone else” is on the other side of the issue, erodes the certainty of “non-believers” — when it is a “obvious” (but not necessarily true) that one’s tribe is losing the battle, the weak switch sides so as to be winning again.
Expect to see more and more of these polls asking weak, inane questions about weather and climate and then being turned to the purpose of convincing the populous that climate skepticism is the losing side.
The Monmouth Poll cited found that ONLY 29% believe “climate change caused more by human activity” — less than one third of those polled.
So, to be clear, the actual results are that less than one in three Americans believe that climate change is happening and is being caused by human activity.
What your describing, in psychology, is Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory.
Thanks Walt!
That’s “sort of” it. There are a lot of more recent social science hypotheses that rest on group identity and people’s desires to be on ‘the winning team’ even in the area of ideas. People go along to get along….Me Too!….
The propaganda technique has been around forever, used by governments to bend the minds to the people to their policies.
“All the people agree that…”
The first (and ongoing) propaganda effort was the “97% of Scientists Agree” campaign — and now they warp and twist the public polls to make them appear to say “and all right-thinking people agree…”.
The Monmouth Poll is a great example. “A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. ” and “a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers”
Yet the ACTUAL results of the survey show only 29% believe the changes in the climate are due mostly to human activities.
They haven’t exactly lied but they have distorted the findings and hidden the attribution results. Typical propaganda techniques.
“Why is it necessary to be “converted” to climate change belief?” IT’S A RELIGION.
Parents who send their kids to public indoctrination centers deserve to have the kid messed up and turned into a cult member. You KNOW what will happen, yet you send the kid to be messed up. I have to believe you AGREE with the teachings or don’t care about the kid.
Except those purported Feedback loops are just not there….. There is no “Hotspot” in the Tropical Troposphere as per the Climate models. It was supposed to be the “Fingerprint” of AGW. But there was no fingerprint found.
The “greenhouse” effect explained: People know that CO2 is causing warming, but where is the greenhouse they speak of? Everyone knows what a greenhouse is, we’ve all seen one; may even have one in the back yard. Why use that particular term? It is common knowledge the military is unable to account for twenty-one trillion dollars which just happens to be more than enough to construct a geodesic sphere to enclose the entire Earth. Major Geoengineering feat, top secret. You say you’ve never seen it? Of course not, it is high enough up the structural members are invisible. Need more proof? NASA talks repeatedly about the “window” they need to hit with each rocket launch. That window is one or the other of the few paneless openings in the sphere. And it explains how they can be so certain the climate is going to over-heat: law of uninteded consequences. Posting for a friend.
Climate – so easy, even Chuckles can do it.
You would knock me over with a feather if I found out that the message from George Mason University came from their Climate Change Communications Department, which of course assumes as a premise that harmful Global Warming is occuring.
Ask me again in 200 years if humans are having any influence on climate. By then the data might be more robust.
You will be dead, so how can I ask you?
“a simple explanation is powerful. So, anybody who has a simple explanation usually is the winner of the persuasion contest. So, if you’re certain and you’re simple and you can communicate it easily, and especially if there’s a visual element to it — that always helps — that’s going to be your most persuasive package.”
Scott Adams speaking
Cernovich, Mike. Hoaxed: Everything They Told You is a Lie (Kindle Locations 622-625). Cerno Films, LLC. Kindle Edition.
A more interesting question would be to ask if people would still read the Guardian if they went behind a paywall.
Spreading the Goop word among the multitudes-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainment/tv/gwyneth-paltrows-goop-is-heading-to-netflix/ar-BBTbfbg
‘Much like her e-newsletter and website, Gwyneth’s new docuseries is sure to spark interest (and, a little skepticism) as it dives in to the world of all things Goop. We can’t wait.’
This is funny because I was a Global Warming Believer until about 10 years ago when I had to help my daughter with a science project on the subject. After doing some research I came to the conclusion that Global Warming was a giant PR activist campaign based on crap “science.” So I guess the “conversions” go both ways?
The crazed behavior which brought on the the salem witches are believed to have been caused by the grain crop developing a fungus (or some other mold or disease) the created a chemical similar to LSD .
You people are far too complacent. School will endoctrinate your children.
You have to come up with better propaganda : a good video documentary of an hour or so. Understandable by laymen but scientifically sound.
Schools are going to start giving our children hormones?
I believe in climate change but not the cooking fire theory nor the science is settled meme-
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/science/shedding-new-light-on-the-lost-civilisations-of-the-sahara/news-story/ea5d2380d4eedeeef61dfdee1bf2325d
“Keep it simple stupid”. Of course the Climate changes, it would be a funny Earth if every day was the same as any other day. So are we to understand that the warmers lobby are against “Climate Change. ?
So who decides what day or part of a day it all stops at. For example do we have daylight in every part of the Earth. Or do we have winter all of the time. Or summer 24/7.
The more one thinks about it, the sillier it gets.
MJE
Why do I accept the science of climate change? (I don’t use the word ‘believe’, because I apply that in my religion, not in relation to science).
the evidence…
while this US focused site is trying to pretend the polar vortex isn’t about climate change (of course it is!) the evidence stacks up in the rest of the world. Australia, for example, IS seeing record temperatures. There is a truly exceptional monsoon rain event in Queensland… and then there is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/05/tasmania-is-burning-the-climate-disaster-future-has-arrived-while-those-in-power-laugh-at-us
“while this US focused site is trying to pretend the polar vortex isn’t about climate change (of course it is!) the evidence stacks up in the rest of the world.”
You’ve got the cart before the horse Griff. We measure climate change with long term studies of weather and not Google news today. The problem for measuring global climate is much like the continent of Australia whereby we only had a reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout and concomitant weather data collection by around 1910 and the aboriginal inhabitants around for some 30-40,00 years haven’t been much help before that.
Hence you only get a century or so worth of data to panic over and run around like chicken little wanting to blow up coal power stations and other irrational behaviour ignoring the bleeding obvious with extreme weather events over the pitiful period we even have data for-
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/onslow.shtml
That’s the cyclone capital of Oz Griff but not being chockers full of houses and inhabitants like Townsville on the opposite side of the continent it won’t get a lot of attention when the next TC inevitably hits. Climate is slooooooooow weather data collection Griff so call me in another hundred years and we’ll compare the centuries to see if there’s any fearful pattern emerging. Meanwhile continue to heed the weather forecast and warnings for the next day or so as there’s a fair likelihood they’re right but seek professional help should you suffer continual inexplicable anxiety over weather.
oops..30-40,000 years
Since you raised the Townsville flooding Griff I wondered how long Townsville had been around to actually record weather events and there it was-
https://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/about-townsville/history-and-heritage/townsville-history/townsville-1770-to-1900
Lo and behold they had a nasty and fatal TC in 1896-
“Cyclone Sigma struck the town on the 26th January 1896. The cyclone caused 600,000 pounds of damage to Townsville and several lives were lost.”
bearing in mind the population was only 13000 in 1891 and I wondered how much money that 600,000 British pounds represented in todays BP. Well the project cost of that 600k in 2017 GBP is around 66million or 118.5 MILLION Aussie dollars and they would have had to paddle and row around and hitch up the horse and cart to sort it all out with largely hand tools. A lot lot more than that in labour value to be sure-
https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ukcompare/relativevalue.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1896£71=600000&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=600000&year_source=1896&year_result=2018
Get the picture Griff? More development and more people means more damage and loss of life but so far only 2 looters evading police have drowned by all accounts so any concerned citizens can send flowers and condolences at the appropriate time of course.
I guess this counts as negative stacking……
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
On no we are all burning except … we are drowning in floods in Queensland, on fire in Tasmania, have a whole state drought in New South Wales, Lower Western Australia had it’s coolest summer in 18 years
http://theconversation.com/queenslands-floods-are-so-huge-the-only-way-to-track-them-is-from-space-111083
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45107504
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-28/perths-successive-cold-summers/9494264
There is probably something going in SA, Vic and NT but they can’t get airtime and besides the cricket has been on.
As always, griff is convinced that if anything changes from yesterday, that’s proof that CO2 is going to kill us.
There isn’t a shred of evidence that the drought in question is any worse than historical ones.
A 15 year old schoolgirl got it long before all those meteorologists turned climastologists collected a 100 years of weather data and fiddled with it-
http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm
Something more for you to fret about Griff-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/nasa-scientists-say-mysterious-island-in-the-pacific-ocean-is-one-of-only-three-to-spring-up-in-the-last-150-years-that-hasnt-been-destroyed-by-waves-and-it-could-be-here-to-stay/ar-BBTbude
Gaia works in mysterious ways my son. (yeah I know it’s either fake news or if it washes away it will be proof positive we’re all gunna drown with sea level rise)
No one here is saying that the climate doesn’t change. It always has and it always will. The argument is whether manmade factors are causing temperatures to rise. Or is it a cyclical phenomenon that man has zero control over. The evidence I’ve seen points to the latter.
You still paying attention Griff?
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/townsville-floods-again-1881-1892-1946-and-1953-itd-be-climate-change-if-it-stopped-flooding/#more-62504
while this US focused site is trying to pretend the polar vortex isn’t about climate change (of course it is!)
No, griff, it isn’t. It’s called weather. No one weather event (even ones with snazzy names like “polar vortex”) is climate.
Anyone who’s studied feedback loops, for example in electronics, knows that you cannot produce controlled gain where the internal (open loop) amplification is greater than unity, and the input and output are the same quantity. All you have in that case is an oscillator or latch, depending on the coupling.
Where the amplification is ever-so-slightly less than unity you can produce significant gain, but that situation calls for very careful adjustment of parameters. It is highly unlikely to come about by chance.
It’s actually worse than that you have a delay on the positive feedback, you can’t get instant on something as big as Earth. Now use your Op amp analogy what happens with a slightly less than unity with a +feedback delay?