Guest essay by Eric Worrall
From the “if you don’t believe in climate science how can you believe in medicine?” department; According to an American Psychological Association press release, climate skeptics are more likely to believe climate claims if they are first reminded of fields of science which they trust.
Climate Change Conversations Can Be Difficult for Both Skeptics, Environmentalists
Reinforcing trust in science, focusing on perseverance may shift views, inspire action, according to studiesCHICAGO — Having productive conversations about climate change isn’t only challenging when dealing with skeptics, it can also be difficult for environmentalists, according to two studies presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association.
The first of the studies found that reinforcing belief and trust in science may be a strategy to help shift the views of climate change skeptics and make them more open to the facts being presented by the other side.
“Within the United States, bipartisan progress on climate change has essentially come to a standstill because many conservatives doubt the findings of climate science and many liberals cannot fathom that any rational human can doubt the scientific consensus on the issue,” said Carly D. Robinson, MEd, of Harvard University, who presented the research. “These opposing perspectives do not create a starting point for productive conversations to help our country address climate change. Our goal was to find an intervention that might change the current situation.”
Though previous research has shown that social pressure to disbelieve in climate change stems from the political right and that conservatives’ trust in science has eroded, Robinson and her colleagues theorized that most people would find at least some branches of science credible. Leveraging those beliefs could lead climate skeptics to shift their views, they said.
“When people are faced with two or more opposing beliefs, ideas and values, it tends to create discomfort, which can lead people to becoming more open-minded about a particular issue,” said Christine Vriesema, PhD, of the University of California, Santa Barbara and a co-author of the study.
The researchers surveyed nearly 700 participants from the U.S. Half were given surveys about their belief in science (e.g., “How credible is the medical data that germs are a primary cause of disease?” and “How certain are you that physicists’ theory of gravity accurately explains why objects fall when dropped?”) and their belief in climate science (e.g., “How credible is the climate science data that ocean temperatures are rising?” and “How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?”). The other half was only surveyed about their belief in climate science. All participants reported if they considered themselves politically liberal, moderate or conservative.
“As we predicted in our pre-registration, conservatives reported a greater belief in climate science if they were asked questions first about their belief in other areas of science,” said Robinson. “For climate skeptics, it likely became awkward to report on our survey that they believed in science while at the same time, denying the findings of climate science. That dissonance led many to adjust their beliefs to show greater support for the existence of climate change.”
The findings showed that beliefs in climate science are malleable and not fixed, said Robinson.
“We were pleasantly surprised that a brief, two-minute survey changed skeptics’ views on climate change,” said Robinson. “It is exciting to know that in real-world settings, we might be able to have more productive climate conversations by starting from a place of common belief.”
The second study showed that igniting a sense of resilience and perseverance can increase action and engagement around climate change for people who work in aquariums, national parks and zoos.“Many educators working at these institutions reported wanting to talk about climate change and visitors reported wanting to hear about it, yet many educators still felt uncomfortable bringing the topic into their conversations because they were worried about being able to communicate effectively,” said Nathaniel Geiger, PhD, of Indiana University who presented the research.
The study included 203 science educators from zoos, aquariums and national parks who were part of a yearlong communication training program from the National Network of Ocean and Climate Change Interpretation designed to build participants’ confidence in talking about climate change. The training consisted of study groups, group assignments, readings, discussions and weekend retreats. During the last six months of the program, participants worked to integrate what they had learned into their jobs.
Survey data were collected one month before and one month after the training program and again six to nine months later.
Geiger and his colleagues examined two components of hopeful thinking to see which one might lead to the success of the training program: agency (e.g., enthusiasm, a sense of determination) and pathways (e.g., resilience and perseverance strategies) and how those influenced participants’ reports of engagement about climate change.
Participants rated their “agency thinking” (e.g., “I energetically do all I can do to discuss climate change” and “I anticipate that efforts to discuss climate change will be pretty successful”) and their “pathways thinking” (e.g., “I can think of many ways to discuss climate change”) in each survey. The science educators also reported the frequency with which they discussed climate change with the general public and visitors to their institutions, ranging from never to daily.
Geiger and his team found that pathways thinking was more successful at inspiring conversations about climate change than agency.
“Our findings suggested that portions of the training that taught how to persevere and be resilient in the face of difficult climate change conversations may have been the most effective at promoting discussion,” Geiger said.
The training program also increased the frequency with which the science educators spoke about climate change with visitors, from less than once per month prior to the training to more than two or three times per month afterward, he said.
“We found it uplifting that the training program showed such a robust effect at promoting these difficult discussions,” said Geiger. “We believe that climate change advocates and educators will find this work helpful toward meeting their goal of crafting more effective training programs to boost climate change engagement.”
Session 3169: “Leveraging Cognitive Consistency to Nudge Conservative Climate Change Beliefs,” Saturday, Aug. 10, 4 p.m. CDT, Room 176c, Level One-West Building, McCormick Place Convention Center, 2301 S. King Drive, Chicago.Session 3127: “Hope-Based Interventions and Climate Change Engagement,” Saturday, Aug. 10, 11 a.m. CDT, Room W186b, Level One-West Building, McCormick Place Convention Center, 2301 S. King Drive, Chicago.
Presentations are available from the APA Public Affairs Office.
Read more: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/climate-change
Carly D. Robinson, MEd, can be contacted via email and Nathaniel Geiger, PhD, can be contacted via email.
Makes you wonder what Dr. Robinson and Dr. Geiger were doing on the day their lecturer discussed the concept of false equivalence.
Suggesting all science and scientific research is equally trustworthy is absurd. Suggesting you can blindly accept the word of climate scientists because scientists in other fields produce good work is more absurd.
Even the claims of comparatively trustworthy scientific fields like medical research and physics should not be blindly accepted without question; they both have their share of problems.
Prof Ioannidis’ paper clearly shows that MOST medical research is false. Not just some, MOST. And it’s the most cited paper on Pub. Med.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
It’s even worse than you thought. Not only is much of the “science” wrong, when really good science comes along that doesn’t fit the mainstream chronic-care-medicine narrative, it is ignored or otherwise sabotaged. Good examples are the recent studies validating the Auto-immune Paleo Protocol (Alt et al), the reversibility of dementia (Bredesen), very low carb diets for diabetes (Halberg et al) and many others. There are also a lot of studies that are designed to create a desired outcome such as the Harvard/Willet “low carb” studies that are not sufficiently low carb to create the metabolic characteristics of true low carb, to give one of many examples. Overall, the poor quality of medical “research” is actually a strong argument to be suspicious of climate “science” since the immediate stakes are so much higher in medicine. Doctoring Data is a good book for people interested in this topic.
They are pushing “conversion therapy”; I thought this was a no-no!
Absurd!
The study is so idiotic I don’t know where to begin.
1. The presentation started with the premise that “skeptics” were wrong, with an objective of teaching “educators” how to change their erroneous thinking.
2. The example comparing climate science to medical science is silly. One accepts a lot medical “science” because their cause and effect hypothesis has been proven with hard data and experience. e.g. “How credible is the medical data that germs are a primary cause of disease?”
In contrast the question “How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?” avoids the whole issue of cause and effect and even data; relying entirely on “belief”.
The weird thing is the authors of this session are not aware that they are instructing “educators” in the skill of propaganda. Edwin Bernays would be proud!
TRUST has no place in science.
BELIEF has no place in science.
CONSENSUS has no place in science.
NULLIUS IN VERBUM – loosely translated as:
In GOD we trust, all others bring data.
That’s funny because it was my love of science and intelligence that allowed me to earn a PhD in chemistry. I was initially biased toward AGW but it was my science training that led me to the enlightened camp.
The “science’ of psychology is a good example of a science that has never proven anything of value.
Notice that the psychologist who examined Epstein certified that he was “not suicidal.” Psychologists are absurdly inaccurate in their evaluations of patients. Psychology qualifies as a junk science – every criminal trial produces two sets of psychologists – one (the prosecution) declaring the defendant to be normal, the other (for the defense) claiming the defendant crazy as a loon.
That’s Anderson’s Law: for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. 🙂
Typical leftist projection, they are incorrigible.
Only a fool would say the climate doesn’t change. So why the trick name? The millstone they hung around their own collective necks, clearly has global warming chiseled into it. It is that very same collective who attaches the catostrophic alarmism to every new crystal ball gazing and palm reading that I rail against.
For near on thirty years I’ve had put up with this rubbish (and pay for it)with every new year telling me our end is nigh…..unless you give us more money to build more windmills to save you from what we are not exactly sure of but will be in a hundred years or was it eighty or fifty or…. .
Whats the latest tipping point or end of days? Is it 12 years, according to the socialiat congresswoman or is it 10 years according to the child that they now have fronting the scam to shame us into accepting it? I really am over it.
You said it, brother, or sister!
Yeah, just wait for the next “man-made” catastrophe.
My guess:
The changing Axial tilt of the planet, due to water use in India…
It’s like these people never read anything about Plate Tectonics, rotational mass balance, moments of inertia….
It took me three sittings to read through that BS. It is still making me nauseated. They committed the ultimate sins in science. Preconceived answers, experiments constructed to regurgitate their preconceived answers. Not to mention unethical and immoral techniques on how to manipulate people.
Or 18 months…That one has also been making the rounds
Bryan, have you got an exact date? I’ve missed so many, I just want to mark it in my diary. I’ve missed so many I’m starting to feel a little guilty.
Psychologists need to learn that not all science is created equal. The science that can predict the time of the next high tide or eclipse to the minute is not the same as the science that tries to predict the weather or climate.
How to know more about science than a psychologist in 59 seconds!
Nonsense. Psychology is an exact science, making many proven predictions, like … I can’t remember any, my memory is failing.
One of the biggest false equivalence problems is the word expert. There are two types of expert and all they share is the name.
There are engineers, airline pilots, concert musicians, chess masters, and others who have very trustworthy skills. We call them experts because they can reliably do certain complex tasks very well. When an engineer says a bridge won’t collapse, she’s right 99.999% of the time. That’s the first kind of expert.
The other type of expert is so called because she knows a lot about a particular subject. When she says something will or will not happen, she is correct only by accident. Tetlock points out that expert predictions are no more accurate than those produced by a dart-throwing monkey.
Climate scientists are predominantly the second type of expert.
I have heard it said that, if we don’t trust experts, we shouldn’t climb aboard commercial aircraft. That’s false equivalence in spades.
CB, there is third type of expert that you left out that has an exquisite skill that infuriates the scientific alarmist.
One that can smell bill tish a mile off.
In the purest sense, an expert is someone with expertise. Knowledge, even thorough knowledge, is NOT the same as expertise. Expertise involves the internalization of knowledge, theory, practice, and a few schools of hard knocks, simmered long and slow in a broth of experience. You can teach knowledge. You can teach theory. You can teach best practice. You CAN’T teach expertise.
The true expert will just be right, but will be hard-pressed to explain why. The fake expert can write a book (and often does) on how he or she must be right because INOSTUF, before being found out wrong. Unfortunately, the bloviations of fake experts are what get all the media coverage.
“How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?”
Loaded question. First you need to show that there are any new weather patterns today.
It is clear that psychologists will never get the hang of basic physics.
Now that would be an interesting study!
Why do you think they studied psychology and not physics?
It’s almost like they had these conclusions in mind when they started this study.
I’d like them to explain the Nobel Prize of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, who were referred to as crazy by the scientific consensus and kept out of scientific meetings.
I started out as a “true believer”, it kind of intuitively made sense, but now I am a confirmed skeptic due to my belief in real science- you know the kind that isn’t settled – ever.
Not awkward at all. It is BECAUSE I believe in science (should be ‘the scientific method’) that I do not believe much of ‘climate’
seancescience and the purveyors of same.I have been looking for real, empirical climate science for two decades now and have not seen any.
If anyone has some I would be glad to see it. All I can see are studies that say may, might or should.
From what I have seen it is a field of study that has yet to produce any real science.
“From what I have seen it is a field of study that has yet to produce any real science.”
You obviously are a very perceptive fellow, Billy. 🙂
Modern Climate Science is 100 percent speculation. There is no solid foundation to this CAGW “science”.
“and many liberals cannot fathom that any rational human can doubt the scientific consensus on the issue”
Rational humans know that science is not “consensus” but rejection of hypotheses that are shown to be wrong.
For example, the fact that it is easy to demonstrate that urbanized areas(where most of the thermometers are) are warmer than low population areas completely disproves the hypothesis that a temperature based on all locations will accurately present the true temperature.
Rational humans also don’t believe that averaging temperatures means anything other than mixing oranges and apples make an orple.
Did it ever occur to them that “Belief” and “Science” are incompatible? You do not “believe in science”. You follow the predictions and see it they happen.
Someone send the one minute clip of Dr Feynman explaining the scientific method to them, and quickly.
There is real science and there is agenda science. Perhaps the designated pseudoscience handlers can be educated on that.
@tfa
Increasing reliance on authority to instill ‘scientific’ beliefs strongly suggests that Climatism is indeed a religion.
What was the science behind electro-shock aversion therapies ?
Happens, in USSR, mental institutions were tasked to re-educate dissidents.
I dare here any PSY related science pit “mind debugger” to come and disclose the source code (or anything alike) of the human brain.
Until then the whole “science of the soul” shall remain nothing but a scam.
Climate Science is much like Military Intelligence. It is neither. There is no Science in Climate Science, and for most intents and purposes, it isn’t about Climate either. It is about control.
“Within the United States, bipartisan progress on climate change has essentially come to a standstill because many conservatives doubt the findings of climate science and many liberals cannot fathom that any rational human can doubt the scientific consensus on the issue,” said Carly D. Robinson, MEd, of Harvard University, who presented the research. “These opposing perspectives do not create a starting point for productive conversations to help our country address climate change. Our goal was to find an intervention that might change the current situation.”
If they can try it, so can I, ie, find an intervention to change the current situation.
Psychobable won’t change the fact that climate change was, is, and always will be 100% natural.
They don’t even have the main source of atmospheric CO2 right, which is the ocean, not man.
They don’t know that the sun is the driver of ocean warming/cooling, extreme events, and CO2.
These psychologists promote the brainwashing of everyone else into submission so liberals can win.
“Our findings suggested that portions of the training that taught how to persevere and be resilient in the face of difficult climate change conversations may have been the most effective at promoting discussion,” Geiger said. ”
My life experience in perseverance and resilience in the face of difficulties keeps me going against these manipulative warmists. Some people [warmists?] need training for this? It’s too late now for that kind of training, as these characteristics are not generally quickly acquired via osmosis by keyboard warriors. The people running this SCAM usually don’t have such experience, as they are pampered beneficiaries of society’s largesse, and to them, persevering and being resilient means ignoring skeptical contra-evidence while demeaning and dismissing skeptics, working under a complicit media’s blessing and cover, until we relent or no longer have enough power to stop them.
If they ever prevail, psychologists will clamour for even more ‘scientific’ behaviour modification.
The absolutely most profound thing has occurred here that proves brainwashing works.
The old adage is, ‘brainwashed people don’t know they’re brainwashed.’
These psychologists don’t realize they themselves are among the brainwashed!
Future symposium themes for all these mal-adapted psycho-babblers could be ‘How could we be so stupid and how did we go so wrong?’, ‘Are we doomed to being climate-stupid group-thinkers forever?’, and ‘The economic, political, and societal mental health benefits of warmist scientists admitting to being a group a self-deceived self-glorifying band of propagandizing charlatans with an entitlement complex.’
Psychobabblers: I can answer your climate questions – will you ask or listen? If not, why?
From the article: “he first of the studies found that reinforcing belief and trust in science may be a strategy to help shift the views of climate change skeptics and make them more open to the facts being presented by the other side.”
What facts? All the CAGW alarmists have to present are endless speculation.
What would make a difference to skeptics is if you actually had some facts.
…and make them more open to the facts being presented by the other side.
On top of their speculations, the obvious display of their core hypocrisy. The flip side is what will make warmists more open to the facts and ideas presented by skeptics? They think fairness means skeptics must do all the listening and obeying.
They clearly expect to impose an explicitly one-sided relationship onto skeptics: receive and accept their gospel, repent and submit to their ‘authority’, and certainly don’t have any unauthorized ideas of your own.
I think there is a good analogy here. I understand medicine has many benefits. I guess you could say I believe in it. But I am very skeptical of many recommendations concerning medicine. I don’t “believe” in every prescription every doctor makes. There are many overprescribed medicines where lifestyle changes would be far more beneficial. There are prescriptions that engender far worse side effects than they address in many applications. Many drugs are of extremely high cost with limited to paltry benefits. The argument that we should listen to climate scientist like we listen to doctors is very flawed as climate scientists have no special understanding of their proposed remedies (solar, wind, batteries). But also do they really place so much blind faith in their doctors?
Planning Engineer
It is my personal opinion that physicians are generally more skilled at repairing trauma or removing diseased tissue than they are at identifying and curing debilitating maladies such as viral infections, dementia, heart disease, arthritis, and ALS. My personal physician, in one of his more candid moments, told me that they can measure blood pressure, but often don’t know why it is elevated or irregular. All of that speaks to medicine being more of an art than science.
I have worked in the Pharmaceutical industry for a long time. In that time I have learned we do not actually know how most the drugs function. Read a pharmacology report with with the drug or drugs you are taking. There is a great chance that you will see the phrase “while the specific function of the drug in unknown…” somewhere in the pharma-kinetics section.
The only time I want a physician near my body is if I have had a structural failure. This is an engineering problem not a medical issue.
Physicians are not trained in healthcare. They are trained to only manage acute and chronic diseased states, physical trauma related maladies. Again one is an engineering issue with engineering solutions available. The other two are disease states, that if we were honest are more likely to be self-inflicted. Physicians are powerless to prevent self-inflicted behavior.