From the Australian Psychological Society.
Climate change communication
Such gems as:
Communicating effectively about a topic like climate change that is complex, confusing, uncertain, sometimes overwhelming, and often emotionally and politically loaded, is challenging.
In order for people to become motivated and empowered to adopt the needed changes to reduce environmental threats, they must be able to interpret and respond to information. The impact of communications on behaviour varies dramatically based on how the communication is developed and delivered.
Some key points
Be clear about the scientific consensus. Research shows that telling people that 97% of scientists accept the science on climate change is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.
Inspire positive visions. Let people know that we already have concrete, plausible solutions which can drastically reduce carbon emissions and counter feelings of helplessness. People listen better to optimistic messages. Doom messages can backfire because people switch off.
Use vivid, emotive and personal stories, particularly those that elicit positive emotions – these are more memorable and also a stronger motivator for action.
Make climate change here, now and for sure. Bring climate impacts close to home to show people that climate change is relevant to them, and that it threatens their health, families, communities, jobs or other things they deeply care about. People are more likely to heed risks they see as relevant, personal and salient.
The APS takes an advocacy role with Government and in the public domain by representing the needs and interests of its members. The APS also advocates on issues where psychology can make a contribution to public debate and policy in the interests of community wellbeing and social justice.
HT/Joe Cool
“Use vivid, emotive and personal stories, particularly those that elicit positive emotions – these are more memorable and also a stronger motivator for action.”
Use the AOC New Green Deal methodology. Tell people the world only has 12 years until the earth is unhibabitable and to fix the problem we will require all of your money, your lifestyle and your happiness.
Bullet points from the notebooks of Josef Goebbels?……
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”
— Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
I just watched the documentary DVD THE SYNDROME about the Shaken Baby Syndrome believers and non-believers and the parallels with the CO2/anthropologic climate change discussion is amazing.
There is a standard logical form for alarmism.
They could have summed up the strategy as lie, lie, lie.
Exactly my first impression!
Except the people who wrote that stuff really believe it. Fanatics are far more dangerous than liars.
He would be proud
Well said!!
The Australian Psychological Society, aka “The Goebbels Gang”.
If psychology were actually based on evidence-based medicine, these quacks could actually be sued for malpractise.
I’m reminded that author of “Silence Of The Lambs” Thomas Harris wrote that his main character psychiatrist Dr Hannibal Lecter at one point observed that students for psychology degrees were drawn from the ranks of amateur ham radio buffs, and the like.
I think this article supports Thomas’ perspicacity.
Call it what it is. How to use psychology to brain wash the ignorant and unthinking.
Some experts are now saying that the Green New Deal is the longest suicide note ever written! I would have to agree with those experts!
I fear for Australia. We appear to have left the real world for fantasyland. The rest of the world, India, China,and our competitors are leaving us behind.
there will be a day of reckoning and a great cleansing will occur. And then the idiocy will cease. Until then, Poor Fellow My Country.
I am not so sure. The, so called, “lucky” country is rapidly turning in to the stupid country.
It’s become the Lackey country.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country
The Lucky Country is a 1964 book by Donald Horne. Horne’s intent in writing the book was to portray Australia’s climb to power and wealth based almost entirely on luck rather than the strength of its political or economic system, which Horne believed was “second rate”. In addition to political and economic weaknesses, he also lamented on the lack of innovation and ambition, as well as a philistinism in the absence of art, among the Australian population, viewed by Horne as being complacent and indifferent to intellectual matters. He also commented on matters relating to Australian puritanism, as well as conservatism, particularly in relation to censorship and politics.
Unless the insanity is culled, its luck will surely run out.
Interesting. I have lived here for 13 years and never heard of that, but makes sense.
When your psychological society advocates the wholesale spreading of lies and deception I would think brainwashed is a more appropriate descriptor than stupid.
Gullible
Marv, that’s probably a bit unfair. Between the education system, the news networks, the comedy channels, and what passes for documentaries; the people are fed dumb 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
That plus the politicians are the dumbest on earth, right up there with Canada and Italy.
If you feed people BS all day long, can it be any wonder that they are confused.
Very true Greg. Even though I have lived here for 13 years I still feel like an outsider looking in. To me the brainwashing is obvious, at all levels. The verbal vitriol levelled at “climate deniers” is extreme.
Having done a psych degree in Australia, I can tell the uninitiated that the APS is the ONLY gateway to becoming a registered psych. You gotta get with the program or find something else to do.
Please remember that some psych does good for people, but it’s a sad state of affairs over all. The governining body is as political as they come. And then they wonder why no one treats psych as a legitimate science lol
like the vet and the medico cartels
moribund politically appointed and the average of them is pretty thick, but very good at CYA
hardly an original thought among em
Some strange stuff coming out of Oz, here is another gem from the collection.
https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/inpsych/2010/december/climate
Just some good old fashioned religious brainwashimg.
Goebbels should be proud of APS and all those snake oil salesmen who push the AGW scam all year long.
Correction:
From the Australian Psycho Society.
Looks like they’ve ripped a page from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”.
Australia leasing the world in the race to the bottom and oblivion.
No. Germany is WAY ahead…
But only by a coal fired power station. (You could say Germany is a chook that has put it’s own head on the chopping block).
” leasing the world ”
They couldn’t afford to buy it outright?
Doom messages can backfire because people switch off.
followed by….
it threatens their health, families, communities, jobs or other things they deeply care about.
Sad state of affairs when their own article contradicts itself.
“Doom messages can backfire because people switch off.” Because people know it’s BS. Changing tactics won’t help, it’s still BS.
…and all the exaggerating…..just tell people the truth
Global warming is going to make all the volcanoes erupt…. the explosions will kill all the polar bears
…and the fires will ignite all the cow farts
and then BOOM…..it’s over
Truth is so flexible…
The desperation on display from the Climate alarmists is becoming farcical. When the shrinks feel the need to advise other shrinks what is an effective way to convey lies, you just know they have lost the scientific debate.
Or formatted correctly:
And yet every news organisation since print was invented has found that “If it bleeds, it leads”. Optimistic messages have been weeded out by natural selection.
This is not just propaganda. It is propaganda that won’t work.
Some people are too stupid to be a problem.
Tips for psychos??
Don’t worry the church are going like crazy to spread their versions of doom in the UK, aided and abetted by the well known nutcases and pseudo psychos…”John Ray initiative”.
…connecting Environment, Science and Christianity (oh dear!).
“How our personal qualities make us care for the planet by Beth Warman”
Truly frightening!
Eg loony Houghton (AGAIN), claiming the moral high ground – from above, and he’s president!
https://www.jri.org.uk/brief/Briefing15-print.pdf
These people are so convinced they are right, their infallibility, their right to brain wash and pressurise, it could never occur to them their version of pseudo-psychology could ever be anything other than “pure virtue”.
The who’s-who is enough to give you a brief summary of the role of Britain’s best universities in falsifying, stonewalling, and plain b-shitting ..
https://www.jri.org.uk/introduction/people/
And guess what favourite name turns up in the show casting?
Patrons
Lord John Gummer, Baron Deben!
“The John Ray Initiative is an educational charity with a vision to bring together scientific and Christian understandings of the environment in a way that can be widely communicated and lead to effective action. JRI’s mission is to promote responsible environmental stewardship in accordance with Christian principles and the wise use of science and technology.”
Yeah right!
Research shows that telling people that 97% of scientists accept the science on climate change
Not sure starting with a lie is a good idea, for even if you accept the 97% claim, and ignore the herd of elephants in the room which are its methodological problems. They did not say 97% of scientists at all.
That they feel starting with what they know to be false suggest they have a weak argument to begin, and they hoping to win through BS rather than facts. The rest of their idea merely reinforces this impression.
So I wonder did it ever occur to them that this is why the failing , that despite what some may think most people can spot sh8T when you are trying to selll that to them ?
This is what we call a red herring.
Yes, we accept ‘the science’. We don’t think any paper is error free, so we have reviews and IPCC reports. They’re not perfect, but good enough to point out that most ‘communication’ nowadays is not grounded on solid science that scientists agree on.
Let alone if the communication is pushing a certain policy goal.
Oh, some people here do not accept all ‘the science’. That’s basically what makes science worth it. However, I’d safely dismiss people who expect RPC8.5.
the claim ‘97% of scientists is simply false, no such research has ever been that would even remotely support this idea.
And for good reason, no one even knowns how many ‘scientists’ there are, and that is partly because there is universal agreement on what make a ‘scientists ‘ in the first place.
The 97% ‘claim ‘ relates to a sub-section of a subjection of papers for a limited time period , ‘filtered ‘ in a manner to give a predetermined result. Its crap all the way through, but the authors did not claim it was ‘97% of scientists’ , although they certainly have allowed this claim loud and proud by those that should know better , without redress.
That AGW sceptics have themselves come accept the ‘97% of scientists’ claim shows that despite all the poor practice seen in this research its been very ‘effective’ even if its results are worthless. In other word climate ‘science ‘ at its best.
“‘97% of scientists is simply false”
Well, could be. The question is so badly put. But more importantly, it has no relevance as ‘the science’ is the part for which we want to define before accepting statements about it.
If we reverse engineer what is the what scientists agree on, the result is ‘not what the alarmist in question wants to claim it does’.
Its false in the sense of ‘scientists’ because this has not been done, all that was consider was ‘papers’ from a short period which were then ‘filtered ‘ to get a result they openly said they were out to find.
There is no ‘97% of scientists ‘research, and in fact no any% of scientists research , party for the reasons I have given.
That is ‘claim’ has become accepted as a fact , if a poor one, tells us great deal about the area in which ‘nine out of tens cats prefer ‘ standard of proof is consider an acceptable and even honored way of doing things.
While its probably true that 100% of scientists “accept the science on climate change” I agree with Hugs that it is the non-science that we don’t accept. And much of the Climate Change mythology is non-science. And of course Climate Change is beyond question – there used to be 2km of ice above the point where I sit and type right now.
But public perception is easily manipulated. A couple of years ago a good friend of my wife sent me a three-page “position paper” on environment signed by a bunch of scientists, and asked me if I agreed with it. Some of you may have seen it: it was very carefully worded so that what it actually SAID was true, but it was full of innuendo. Scientists (well physicists anyway) are trained to read exactly what was said, so scientists can agree with the paper. Many non-scientists just read the emotions and don’t understand the details, and interpret our signatures as an endorsement of political initiatives. I thought it was very manipulative. Sorry I can’t sign with my name – would not be fair to my employers. “Boffin”, PhD Theoretical Physics
There are several “sources” for the “97%” claim, and Oreskes and Lewandowski can both be dismissed out of hand for illogic and poor methodology.
The more popular paper, supposedly based on data, is the Doran and Zimmerman “survey” which did NOT ask if respondents (all 79) “believed in the science” of Climate Change; they merely asked if they thought it was warmer today than prior to 1850.
To imply that that question had ANYTHING to do with “science” is either ignorance or an outright lie. I do not dismiss the possibility that it is both.
We have to continue to push back on such mis-statements.
Remind them that 97% of scientists represent a carefully selected group of 75.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/10/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-about-global-warmimg/#comment-2205470
Unfortunately, the CAGW monster has reached my local council and they are using new (the sky is falling) terminology (at least, new to me):
Buggered up the blockquotes but I hope you get my point
So, justification for stupid rate rises I bet?
of course.
they were also the idiots who tied to tax water in private onfarm dams
dug maintained and saving the rivers water they love to bitch about farmers using
the idea was to tax by area/depth and allow a palty 10% of that untaxed as animal water.
they got short shrift but will try again Im sure
obviously the new flood of yuppie greentards have gotten onto council!
it was a lovely rual farm area till suburbian nouveau riche mc mansions started popping up.
But the rot in the Warmers grand scheme has already started. The State of Victoria, it has a Green Government and has just had a hot day, normal for this time of the year. So what happens, the renewables did not prevent a blackout in parts of the State.
South Australia so dar has been lucky, partly from the use of a bank of diasal generaters . Fancy that in such a Green State, having to use dirty diasal power to keep going.
MJE
Practical Instructions for dispelling the AGW myth:
Step 1. Inform people there has never been a credible, successful, empirical study undertaken that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
They will scoff and cite peer reviewed papers like the Berkeley study
Step 2. Inform them the between 50% and 70% of all peer reviewed studies cannot be replicated so are worthless according to the Lancet.
They will scoff and cite the 97% consensus.
Step 3. Inform them that the consensus was based on ~75 study abstracts carefully selected from ~1,100 studies, no attempt was made to replicate them. Refer back to Step 2.
They will scoff and announce you are talking rubbish and that you’re just a denier.
Step 4. Inform them you are anything but, and enjoy the fact that the northern and southern hemispheres will warm slightly, mostly at night releasing billions of acres of land in Canada and Russia alone from permafrost to productive agricultural land. Equatorial regions will barely notice a change.
They will scoff and announce you are talking rubbish and that extreme weather events have got worse.
Step 5. Inform them the evidence demonstrates the opposite to be true. There were zero violent tornadoes reported in the US in 2018. Until 2017, the US enjoyed 12 years without a major landfall hurricane.
They will scoff and announce you are talking rubbish and that you’re just a denier.
Step 6. Inform them the easiest way to check your claims is to search Duck Duck Go (ideally not Google) for whatever claim they hear but append ‘debunked’ to the search term, if they dare.
A few will be curious enough to try. The rest just aren’t worth bothering about.
Remind them that 75 scientists worldwide is the complete basis of the 97% claim.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/10/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-about-global-warmimg/#comment-2205470
The Australian Psychological Society just proves what I’ve always said, psychology is not a science, it’s just a poorly systemized method attempting to manipulate peoples’ emotions and perceptions.
Now tell me “how does that make you feel?”.
Correction don’t bother, I’m not that interested (so that makes me a sociopath?)
“Be clear about the scientific consensus”
Yes, remind them that a group of left wing nut jobs selected 78 scientists of which 75 (97%) they already knew believed in AGW.
“Inspire positive visions”
For example, the tree and vegetation are growing faster, world poverty is at record lows, food production is increasing and population is at a record high. All because it’s warmer and there is more CO2.
“Use vivid, emotive and personal stories”
Before the use of fossil fuels, our ancestors suffered misterable lives, barely able to reach the age of 40. Fossil fuels give us rich fertilisers for growing boundful crops, electricity and freon for keeping our produce cold to avoid spoiling. Petrolium to allow cheap and fast travel, even on a global scale. And advances in medicine and healthcare to allow us to live until a ripe old age to spend time with our grandchildren and even great grandchildren that we would have never known otherwise.
“Make climate change here, now and for sure”
Yes, the climate is always changing. From the last glacial maximum to the MWP, LIA and now in the modern climate optimum, it’s always been changing and always will.
“The APS takes an advocacy role with Government ”
But only with one side of government, which is why we voted for Trump and MUST vote for him again.
Yes…every single one of their points is devoid of any connection to reality!
When psychologists have no grasp of reality, who do they go see to get better?
When one looks closely at the results of psychologists I wonder why anyone would listen to most of them? A leading American psychologist remarked some years ago that many of his patients simply needed a caring friend who was a good listener. The troubled person was enabled to sort out his problem as he thought through it and described it to the friend. No one has more knowledge about the problem and his circumstances than the person with the problem so a stranger’s counsel may be of little value.
This is also good advice for anyone concerned about the alarming climate claims. Think deeply and reason carefully about climate. Consider the claim: Whether it is very hot or very cold, very wet or very dry, gusting with wind or a long lull in the wind – every event must be because of modern climate change. Yet our ancestors experienced these events a hundred, five hundred, a thousand and more years ago. Instead of becoming panic-stricken they adapted to the changing circumstances and survived – that is why we are all here to tell the tale. And that is why our great grandchildren and their children will probably be around in 2119 to tell the tale – they showed their human ingenuity and adapted.
In one word Gaslighting!
“The impact of communications on behaviour varies dramatically based on how the communication is developed and delivered.”
We are told that humans acts result from an instinctive need to minimize contradiction between available and incoming information.
Which is why an unprepared person can act erratically, panic, take wrong decisions, panic further, kill all souls on board.
We further learned that intelligence plays a key role in the process as those gifted with it will consent efforts to gather further information and use their abilities to act with logic rather than instinctively.
Exactly what panic driven climate scammers try to bypass by insisting on the urgency of a favorable to their pretentions decision process.
If this is their view then they are not treating their patients properly, they are unprofessional as hell and should bot be allowed anywhere near anyone who is ill. This is disgraceful and will blow up in their faces as people walk away from psychologists because they cannot be trusted to act in their patients interest,. You would actually almost be better off with an astrologist. .
“In order for people to become motivated and empowered to adopt the needed changes to reduce environmental threats”
A clear indication that climate science is really anti fossil fuel activism.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/
From the article: “Be clear about the scientific consensus. Research shows that telling people that 97% of scientists accept the science on climate change is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.”
Here’s that 97 percent lie again. A very effective piece of propaganda. A case of repeating a lie often enough turns it into the truth in unsuspecting minds.
This 97 percent claim is obviously a fraud. Anyone who understands how this figure was reached would know that.
Rather than just saying the 97 percent claim is a lie, we need a new, honest survey of scientists asking them what they really think about the CO2 situation. I’m confident the real “consensus” won’t be anywhere near 97 percent affirming CAGW.
But we won’t be able to prove it without a new survey.
The 97 percent lie is an effective propaganda tool. We need to blow it out of the water.
Agreed! One way to “blow it out of the water” is to quote exactly what those 75 carefully selected scientists agreed: Namely that it was warmer prior to 1850 than it is today.
I want to know the names of the 3 Climate Science experts who think it is warmer today than prior to 1850!
Of course alarmists like Mann or politicians like Obama disingenuously added “dangerous and catastrophic” to the result.
Oops,
….who didn’t think….
“Use vivid, emotive and personal stories, particularly those that elicit positive emotions – these are more memorable and also a stronger motivator for action.”