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
We have the same rot in organizations and institutions throughout the world. Very illuminating that the APS finds the need to work closely work government to promote social justice. Meaning keep funding us and we will say whatever you would like us to say. Pathetic.
In theory these are professional organizations meant to promote their particular field. Long way from that.
From the article: “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.”
Except climate change (CAGW) is NOT here, now and for sure. There is no evidence that CAGW is taking place. If you tell people it is, then you are telling them lies.
The IPCC and other Alarmists used to say that CO2’s detrimental effects on Earth’s weather would start happening in decades ahead when temperatures were supposed to be much higher than today (2C to 4.5C). The higher temperatures were supposed to be the trigger for unusually extreme weather (CAGW).
But that’s all changed now. Now, alarmists see CAGW behind every cloud even though the temperatures have not reached the “catastrophic” levels predicted by the IPCC for the future, which would trigger CAGW.
The Alarmists are so desperate to convince the public of the existence of CAGW that they attribute it to everything they see today. Even though they could not prove their claims if their lives depended on proving them.
They don’t explain how CAGW can be happening when the temperatures are not unprecedented today and are actually falling now and have been since 2016 (down 0.6C since Feb 2016).
So now temperatures declining is a cause for CAGW, according to the alarmists’ logic. That’s what they are trying to sell the public.
The quickest way to expose these lies is to demand the evidence those making these claims used to reach their conclusion. They won’t be able to provide you any evidence because there is no evidence to provide. You will find that out pretty quick if you just ask the alarmists to prove their case. They can’t do it.
I’ll do that right now: Any and all alarmists are requested to provide the evidence they use to claim that CO2 is affecting Earth’s weather here and now. Shut me down. Make me look bad. You can do that by giving us some evidence. I am confident no evidence will be produced. You could prove me wrong. Go ahead.
I’m expecting “crickets”.
And responders to Tom should note Nancy Pelosi’s admonition:
….the plural of anecdote is not data!
As I suspected, no evidence has been provided for CAGW by the alarmists. That is because they don’t have any evidence to provide, so they just remain silent. Not even any anectdotal evidence, George! Not a peep out of those guys!
The alarmists want us to spend $100 TRILLION dollars on this CAGW fantasy! Yet, they can’t even answer a simple question.
From the article: “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.”
Trying to manipulate, in specific directions, the way people think about public policy sounds like a propaganda organ to me.
A lot of words use to say a simple message – Just lie to them.
George Orwell against precisely this. It just took a bit longer than he thought it would. One World. One Government. One Thought. Zero resistance.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
97% of the scientists agree that global warming is real.
That would make about 1,018,079 scientists that disagree with the 97%.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks
Hans
Don’t forget to bill them and tell them to come back in two weeks…..for more kool aid.
thy never cared much about reproducibilty before. why should they now?
Remember to offer free personality tests and then target them accordingly based on profiling.
In 2006, Tony Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research issued a report called “Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?”
https://www.ippr.org/publications/warm-wordshow-are-we-telling-the-climate-story-and-can-we-tell-it-better
Treating climate change as beyond argument:
“Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.
This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.
The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.”
The strategy has been a success, climate change is indeed treated as beyond argument. “Behaving as if climate change exists” epitomises the media approach, not just the BBC, but globally.
“This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
That describes the Alarmist community perfectly. They are pretending CAGW is a fact in hopes of convincing others.
The problem with this is they don’t have any evidence that shows CAGW is real or even possible.
The alarmists can pretend all they want. Wishful thinking is not science.
Avoid words like uncertainty, complex, cyclical, natural, and actual data. These are unapproved words.
actual data.
Brexit and fishing quotas:
According to a PhD on the BBC this morning, Plaice are an endangered species. When challenged by a fisherman on that, the PhD replied that we have no data.
So, having no data means whatever it is, is at risk and endangered; automatically.
Because the atmosphere and its associated albedo reflect away 30% of the incoming solar energy (like the reflective panel in a car’s windshield) the earth is cooler from the presence of the atmosphere and not warmer per greenhouse theory.
Because of the large non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules the surface of the earth cannot radiate as an ideal black body and there is no “extra” energy for the greenhouse gasses to “trap”/absorb/radiate/“warm” the earth.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change.
No problem.
Some other key points
Be clear about the scientific consensus. It means nothing.
Inspire positive visions. Let people know that we already have record yields and harvests. Let them know the positives of global greening.
Nobody else will…
Does it mean that greenhouse gas pollution is a good thing? Not really. Increased plant growth can have both positive and negative effects. The obvious effects are clear, such as potential improvements in farming or the increase in carbon sequestration by plants. However, increased growth occurs for both intended and unintended plants – including weeds. This could complicate farming, increase airborne allergens, and perhaps most importantly, change the flow of energy and water across the Earth’s surface in unintended ways.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/15/humans-are-greening-the-planet-but-the-implications-are-complicated
And yes….
the authors used computer simulations
#GreenNuclearDeal
Difficult for Australian society to recover from Climate Derangement Syndrome.
Best rescue is to convince them that the only realistic way to address CO2 is with nuclear power.
That’ll never happen in Australia. After decades of fear mongering nuclear power will never happen, even though Australia, geologically speaking, is probably the best place for it.
Having both a psych and chem. Eng. Degree the arrogance of psychology never fails to amaze me.
These guys invented the ad-hom Dunning-Kruger and when it comes to climate, technology, engineering and math there is no greater Dunning-Kruger comment than the opinion of a social scientist.
If any of you psychology majors, professors or doctorate recipients could post or send me the links to the vast body of climate science papers that show CO2 driving climate change over the history of the Earth, instead of being a weak, following factor, that’d be great.
Mosher, Nick Stokes, Gavin, Ben Santer, Griff, any of you could send them, too. I just want to be convinced of my impending doom before I agree that modern life needs to be torn down. So please, send me the links. I’m sure they will be as compelling and persuasive to me as they are to you. Okay? That’d be great.
Still waiting…
Next up from the climate psychology departments:
– Sensory deprivation confinement booths, followed by
– Electro-shock therapy.
So the group who accredited Lew and the subsequent Lew Papers, now attempt to produce their own version?
Every one of these claims of authority bring to mind that odd observation from Steve McIntyre circa 2008, where he noted the ineptitude and fragility of intellect from these “Leading Climate Scientists”.
I now believe that the bureau of public educations has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
May the mobs rising out of the fog of ignorance,eat them.
Australia is controlled totally by Globalist’s to the point there in no longer any news service we only have an opinion service. Unfortunately the population is too stupid to figure it out. I live here and have actually stopped watching the so called news, it’s pointless.
Okay, I will now use the four key points from the article to offer my helpful contribution to the dialogue:
Using key point (1):
97% of scientists accept the science on climate change, which means that 97% of scientists who specifically mentioned human-caused climate-change catastrophe in their published papers were the only scientists recognized. The other 3% of catastrophe-endorsing scientists believed that aliens caused humans to use fossil fuels, which disqualified them from being taken as seriously.
Using key point (2):
Even though catastrophic climate change is happening, we have concrete, plausible solutions such as killing off half the human population, switching the remaining humans to vegetarian diets, hooking up the sum total of all Planet-Fitness exercise machines to giant electrical generators, and painting the national highway system a blinding white color.
Using key point (3):
While enduring a relentless cascade of rain drops savaged upon me by the unconscionable addiction of old, racist, white males to ancient fossil-fuel-spewed carbon pollution that raises temperatures to the critical point of producing torrential precipitation, I happened upon a baby unicorn who revealed to me a plan to spread wind and solar power all across the land, to end such environmental scourges and to usher in a new day for all humanity’s children.
Using key point (4):
Just an hour ago, a wildfire started in my backyard, which would not have happened if climate change had not made the weather so dry that leaves burned more easily and so wet that I could not get out to rake the leaves beforehand. A week ago, a hurricane leveled my beach condo that I built in a zone with a known 100% strike rate from even modest-intensity hurricane landfalls. Clearly such recent events and others like them threaten more people than ever before, because I have witnessed my own hardships firsthand, which proves that climate-change threats to EVERYONE are real.
The APS overlooked one important point.
If your desire is to persuade then what you are saying must make sense.
A nation guided, not by reason and science, but by psychology.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/suffer-your-children/
Why would youi expect anything else?
Properganda did not start with the clever Dr. Gobbles. The Churches worked out a very long time that to tell the same story over and over again. They were helped of course by the fact that most people could not re ad or write, so the once a week attendance at Church was when they were told from the pulpet what the King or Queen was doing, and what they had to do to keep things going. Including of course the payment of the Tithe, a 10 % payment to the Church.
This worked very well for about 1600 years , then we had the Reformation””,i.e. to reform. Martin Luther , a good monk from Germany started it off by his shock during a visit to Rome, to find that the Vatican was not doing what it was soposed to be doing.
He called a meeting of fellow senior monks to discuss things, the Church back in Rome overacted and the rest is as they say, is History.
Look at the USA constitution. “These truths are self evident” Now just what does that mean, sounds a bit like “Do as you are told, we are the new government”.
We have a group who using a lot of Useful idiots, and with the Media on side, has caused a number of politicians that even if they they do not believe n Global Warming or its offshoot Climate Change, they had better join up to the new thing and it will help you the to rise up in the ranks of the political system.
I myself consider it to be just another version of Communsm, after call the word means for the greater good. It sounds wonderful, but all such attempt s have failed. The Cabutzas of Israel are a good example, its against human nature to all work for the common good.
We need someone a bi like Trump. He s a b bit crude, but says it like it is. I just hope that he is given a second term, enough time to completely change the thinking of the various agencies that the USA has, and tell people the facts.
But he has a giant sized job to beat the properganda of of the Greens, I just hope, at least in the short term that it gets colder. Failing that then it a case of waiting for the lights to go out.
MJE
“a topic like climate change that is complex, confusing, uncertain, sometimes overwhelming, and often emotionally and politically loaded”
It’s kind of hard to square that phrase with claims of a 97% consensus.
What’s needed is a manual on how to deprogram normal people infected with toxic climate alarmist propaganda. Every morning when I get up I thank god I’m a jaded, cynical, skeptical, obnoxious, miserable SOB. My philosophy comes straight from bad guy pro wrestlers and the world would be a much better place if more people could be the same.
How do we save sensitive, caring people from the climate alarmist BS, my suggestion is a beating. A cruel beating, an organic beating, an all natural holistic beating. The kind of beating that brings smiles to children’s faces everywhere. A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet, mug them. Turn them from Elves into Orcs. Pummel them with cold hard facts and ridicule, repeat as required.
Absolute Must read is “Political Ponerology”