
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to UNSW psychology doctoral candidate Belinda Xie, everybody is somewhere on the spectrum of climate denial.
Climate change denialism is something we all suffer from
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn 07 FEB 2020 CAROLINE TANG
Even those who don’t question human-induced climate change can fall on the spectrum of climate denialism if they are all talk and no action, a UNSW psychology researcher argues.
Climate change denialism is something that applies to more than just diehard non-believers, a UNSW Sydney researcher argues.
The unprecedented bushfire crisis has strengthened demand for government action on climate change and galvanised Australians to take to the streets protesting against the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Some Australians have taken more drastic action, such as actor Yael Stone who gave up the permanent right to work in the US.
But for many people, such action seems unrealistic.
“While we may know it is better for the environment to give up our car for public transport, stop using single-use plastics, or eat less meat — we do not always do all these things all the time.
“It’s almost impossible to live with zero impact on the planet, but it’s what we do when we recognise this that matters”, Belinda Xie asserts.
The UNSW Scientia PhD candidate specialises in cognitive science and researches the psychology of climate change.
“It’s important that we acknowledge we are all climate deniers, to some extent, and then understand how and why we reached this point,” Ms Xie said.
“It’s not simply because humans are bad or selfish people: there are a lot of external factors out of our control, such as the information we consume that can encourage denialism, or the way our economy is set up.
“So, we then need to ask ourselves: how do we overcome this denialism – what action can we take as a community and what can government and business do?”
…
“Making behavioural change at an individual level is important, but it’s just as important for the people and institutions at the top to inspire and implement change for the good of our planet and future generations.”
…
Read more: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-change-denialism-something-we-all-suffer
Belinda Xie’s paywalled paper is available here.
How can greens achieve that idealised state of society described by Belinda Xie, in which leaders and institutions inspire people to more fully commit to fighting climate denial, and inspire people to actively work to correct their personal climate behavioural shortcomings?
The problem Belinda describes is similar to the problem Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong faced when trying to consolidate the authority of their respective Communist states. In the immediate aftermath of the revolutions which propelled them into power, plenty of people claimed to believe in Communism, but on an individual level there was a widespread lack of wholehearted commitment to the actual practice of Communism.
The Communist solution was institutionalised “self criticism”; encouraging people to publicly confess their personal shortcomings and pledge to do better. According to The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks);
In order to be fully prepared for this turn, the Party had to be its moving spirit, and the leading role of the Party in the forthcoming elections had to be fully ensured. But this could be done only if the Party organizations themselves became thoroughly democratic in their everyday work, only if they fully observed the principles of democratic centralism in their inner-Party life, as the Party Rules demanded, only if all organs of the Party were elected, only if criticism and self-criticism in the Party were developed to the full, only if the responsibility of the Party bodies to the members of the Party were complete, and if the members of the Party themselves became thoroughly active.
So the new position is, unless we agree that CO2 is going to kill us all, and soon, then we are in denial?
Apparently we’re all penis envy deniers with mopery and intent to gawk. It’s Viennese psychology Belinda, forgetaboutit.
“….researches the psychology of climate change.”
She should switch to researching the psychology of people who push massive frauds upon the world. She might learn something useful.
Might as well pile on,
Belinda Xie.
Written a paper, quaint term these days.
Sitting at a computer.
Components sourced from mining done by fossil fuelled excavators.
Transported by fossil fuelled ships.
Manufactured in furnaces and factories.
Office built the same way.
Clothes ditto.
Eats food manufactured the same way but has never done a days work growing , tending and processing her own food, ever.
–
Perhaps the title is misleading
Fossil fuel realist.
We are all fossil fuel realists to some extent.
“The UNSW Scientia PhD candidate specialises in cognitive science and researches the psychology of climate change.”
She misses the whole cognitive dissonance aspect of her cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
(vulgar euphimism) experts!
I really hate it when people attempt to speak on my behalf, especially when they are wrong. I do not deny climate change. In fact, I wish the Earth would heat up quicker. The global average is what – 55 degrees F. A more lush, greener, wetter planet. Who doesn’t want this?
Just because someone’s a doctoral candidate doesn’t mean they’re not an idiot.
So true. 🙂
Lenin and Stalin knew what to do with the collection of foreign ideological volunteers that showed up to help in Moscow. They too were welcomed in the gulag or worse.
I would suggest the video series of interviews on Youtube with the Korean escapees from North Korea. What they talk about is not some distant history. It is current.
Australian climate psychology is one of the more virulent strains. Educate yourselves before the the climate Mengele’s emerge.
My current belief is that the main purpose of higher education in modern society is to keep the unemployable from cluttering up the crowded job market for another couple of years.
It’s welfare.
This is chilling. She will make a fine minister of doctrinal compliance in the new age. “If you are not turning cartwheels for de-carbonization and living the paleolithic life, you will get special attention”.
I don’t deny the climate. There is clearly a climate. If you add the words, “present-day short-term extreme anthropogenic” and postfix it with “change.” You start hitting my “deny” zone. Even then, I wouldn’t hit the “there is absolutely no chance” zone. Just, it’s in the, even if you say there are unicorns, I’m gonna need to see one to change my opinion.
I do expect the seas to rise. They’ve been higher than today. I expect the ice to melt. There have been warmer times. I do expect another ice age. There have been multiple ice ages in the past. I also expect humans to be able to moderate all things eventually, which means our domain control would reach the level of the sun, the seas, the earth, and the air. But that day isn’t this day. For all our might, our actions are background noise to the forces regulating global temperature. Like turning on a single lightbulb won’t overwhelm your AC’s ability to regulate household temperature.. because of the lightbulb and the AC operating in different magnitudes of power. Sure, in a closed system, the lightbulb would eventually get the temperature up to 4 or 5 thousand degrees. it’s just… Earth isn’t a closed system.
“Belinda Xie’s paywalled paper is available here” and guess why Belinda Xie’s paper hides behind pay walls.
Eric Worrall, there’s more under the sun …
https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC+%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B9+%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%85&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ALeKk032dvLr8n-AOsOnb_eLhrVY5ZuHxw:1582252360151&lr=lang_en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWsPyuzeHnAhXORhUIHd3-DmkQuAF6BAgPEAI&biw=360&bih=518&dpr=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Horatio+there%27s+more+under+the+sun&oq=Horatio+there%27s+more+under+the+sun+&aqs=chrome.
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Volume 65, October 2019, 101331
Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act
Highlights:
• Our model explained 72% of variance in Australians’ climate change risk perceptions.
• The same model explained 47% of variance in willingness to take mitigation action.
• Affect and response inefficacy were the strongest predictors of risk perception and willingness.
• Prescriptive norms and free-market ideology were strong predictors of willingness.
____________________________________
• Our model explained 72% of variance in Australians’ climate change risk perceptions: owning the fact that said model is not based on facts but on possibilities.
• The same model explained 47% of variance in willingness to take mitigation action: owning the fact that said model is not based on facts but on the interviewed eagerness to rise in the interviewer’s perception.