Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Guardian social scientist Rebecca Huntley, climate activists have to get even more emotional to convince the rest of us of the importance of global warming.
Stop making sense: why it’s time to get emotional about climate change
Rebecca Huntley
Sunday 5th JulyIt took me much longer than it should have to realise that educating people about climate change science was not enough. Due perhaps to my personality type (highly rational, don’t talk to me about horoscopes, please) and my background (the well-educated daughter of a high school teacher and an academic), I have grown up accepting the idea that facts persuade and emotions detract from a good argument.
Then again, I’m a social scientist. I study people. I deal mostly in feelings, not facts. A joke I like to tell about myself during speeches is that I’m an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Over the 15 years I’ve been a social researcher, I’ve watched with concern the increasing effects of climate change, and also watched as significant chunks of the electorate voted for political parties with terrible climate change policies.
There is clearly a disconnect between what people say they are worried about and want action on and who, when given the chance, they pick to lead their country.
The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows. But climate change is more than just the science. It’s a social phenomenon. And the social dimensions of climate change can make the science look simple – the laws of physics are orderly and neat but people are messy.
…
In an article for the academic journal Risk Analysis, the head of Yale’s program on climate change communications, Tony Leiserowitz, showed that in 2003, when respondents were asked in surveys for their first reaction to the phrase “global warming”, only 7% reacted with words like “hoax” or “scam”. By 2010 that had risen to 23%. There was a parallel trend in the UK: between 2003 and 2008, the belief that claims about climate change had been exaggerated almost doubled from 15% to 29%.
…
Rebecca Huntley is the director of research at Essential Media. She is an author of numerous books and a regular commentator on radio and television. She is an adjunct senior lecturer at The School of Social Sciences at The University of New South Wales.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/05/stop-making-sense-why-its-time-to-get-emotional-about-climate-change
There is an alternative to trying to persuade people with emotion. Green activists could try making sense.
If climate activists had embraced nuclear power from the start, I would never have questioned global warming predictions. It was the absurdity of the proposed renewable solution which first raised questions in my mind about climate claims – if the proposed solution doesn’t make sense, maybe none of it makes sense.
The handful of green activists who are now embracing engineering sanity does not make up for the rest of them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, The Guardian’s plan is to sustain the status quo. After a long progression of em-pathetic appeals and intimidation, more people are choosing to stand, rather than kneel. Good luck.
The Guardian is down to what, 200,000 a day sales? It is so bad they are begging from money on their website.
Clearly people have switched off, in their droves, from the Climate Doom cr@p. Like crying wolf, people eventually become desensitised. Then, if they have a brain, start to wonder if it was always a lie.
You cant fool all the people all the time. Climate Doom doesnt get a special ticket.
“The Guardian is down to what, 200,000 a day sales?”
In pre Covid February their sales were barely over 125,000. Since then likely nearer 20,000….seriously.
It will probably cease to be in a print version within a couple of years/
That bad eh? Good.
“…the laws of physics are orderly and neat but people are messy.” – Rebecca Huntley
“When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails.” – Einstein
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” – Einstein
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” – Einstein
“…the laws of physics are orderly and neat but people are messy.”
Spoken by one who is neither an expert in physics nor computer modeling.
Rebecca Huntley ‘is an author and researcher with degrees in law, a first class degree in film studies and a PhD in Gender Studies’.
I wonder where she places herself on the Dunning Kruger curve?
And while we’re here, doesn’t the Dunning Kruger curve tell all scientists how pathetic social science is?
“I wonder where she places herself on the Dunning Kruger curve?”
Probably one of the most common issues where complexity is involved.
I meet truck drivers with seriously more rational thinking, maybe caused by these people depend on rational thinking in order to succeed.
Not to worry my dear, Prince Charles himself will keynote the Davos World Economic Forum, slightly delayed by the pandemic.
His keynote address? Why, “The Great Reset”.
This is the next phase of Germany’s “Great Transformation”, a mere runner-up, authored by Dr. “John” Schellnhuber, CBE, as Merkel’s “science advisor”. And the good Dr. John has the Pope at his side with his “Laudato Si” encyclical. He even got a CBE, Commander of the British Empire Royal Title. How’s that for “high society”?
I just cannot understand why the Guardian’s Ms Huntley is worried at all.
Scientific method:
So logically, if she weight the same as a duck, she’s made of wood?
And therefore…
A WITCH!!!
“my background (the well-educated daughter of a high school teacher and an academic),”
That tells us all we need to know. This lady seems to think that because she was the daughter of parents who have lived in narrow-minded academic protection all their lives that we should all accept her silly views. All she does is demonstrate how inexperienced the academic world is, and how they have corrupted the minds of the unthinking masses.
“I’ve watched with concern the increasing effects of climate change,”
What? Things like warmer weather, milder weather, less cyclones, tornados etc., less bushfires, more rainfall, increased agricultural production, increased global greening.
Let’s have more of these “concerning effects.”
What do you mean more? Let’s just have two examples for starters. Come on Rebecca, the podium is yours ……
“I’ve watched with concern the increasing effects of climate change,”
The thing she watches with concern is the reaction (“effects”) of the people she looks down on. Not the actual physical world.
She conflates/combines the physical world with the reactions of the social world, and thinks the reactions are due to climate rather than hype. AND THEN goes on to claim that we need to increase the hype.
Remember, she’s “an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about” … essentially no one is as smart/perceptive as her, very few people are on her level (except maybe Hannibal Lecter).
she’s “an expert in the opinions of people who don’t know what they’re talking about” – like hers?
She probably nods her head knowingly, importantly, when she hasn’t a clue, and takes every outlandish climate “crisis” headline as accurate without a skeptical thought, because she lacks the background and the academic ability to understand the topic (they self describe as a social “science” but we should dispute that vigorously). All sounds good to her, though, so logical and so socially acceptable, so she’s on board with looking down on those with the opinions that don’t know what they’re talking about. Those deplorables.
This article seems to be a response to counter the logical arguments put forward by Shellenberger and Michael Moore , in their recent forays into exposing the nasty facts surrounding RE.
However she does drift back to “green science” with this sentence.
“The science behind climate change has been proven correct to the highest degree of certainty the scientific method allows”
But it does raise the question – Can a consensus of less that 100 scientists that are not randomly selected, be considered the scientific method ?.
–But it does raise the question – Can a consensus of less that 100 scientists that are not randomly selected, be considered the scientific method ?.–
It does not matter how many scientists
Can less than 100 scientists be used as sample polls in indicate the wider view of views of thousands of scientists. Sure. But doesn’t matter if 100,000 scientists had some opinion.
What is the best average surface air temperature of Earth.
I say 20 C.
Why is pre-industrial time important?
What was the average global surface air temperature of pre-industrial time?
Can anyone give the time period of pre-industrial time?
“Pre-industrial society refers to social attributes and forms of political and cultural organization that were prevalent before the advent of the Industrial Revolution, which occurred from 1750 to 1850”
[[I am saying that is correct, but gives general idea]].
Anywhere within 100 year period and before this time. So obviously 0 AD is pre-industrial as is 1 million years ago.
Anyhow, the Industrial Revolution is said to have started in England and 1850 AD is when said to have started in US. And some other countries may not have yet, revolted. It’s quite eurocentric or non global way of looking at things.
Why would someone say got to keep average temperatures from not rising above 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial time temperatures?
Are they afraid to use the words, Little Ice Age?
Is reliable benchmark temperature related to pre-industrial time?
{obviously not.}
Are we trying avoid the issue that no one actually knows what the average air surface temperature of Earth is, now, or at any other time in the past?
I know that average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average global land air surface temperature is about 10 C and together they average to about 15 C.
I am also aware the the Southern hemisphere has been long considered to be cooler than Northern hemisphere. And this difference is about 1 C.
Should we be concerned mostly about global average surface temperature or be more concerned with global land average surface temperature.
Maybe we should be more concerned about the average temperature of Earth’s two ice caps.
Or since the Greenland ice cap is warmer, it’s temperature should important.
All I know, it is very cold.
Back to point, what is the pre-industrial global temperature?
I will give quiz question:
A About 13.5 C
B About 14 C
C About 14.5 C
D Some other number {explain}.
It’s not really a quiz, it’s an opinion poll.
Also what is 2019 AD global temperature?
A About 15 C
B Some other number {explain]
Now I don’t think global air temperatures matters much. I think average temperature of entire ocean determines global temperature
My answers are D and B. Explaining: D: about 3.4 C and B: about 3.5 C
But were I believer in global warming cargo cult religion, I would say it should have something to do global water vapor.
So need to know how much we have now. Guess how much was in pre-industrial time, and determine what would too much water vapor in the future.
Because if I was cargo cult believer, I think I would know/believe doubling of CO2 is about 1 C, and such doubling is suppose increase water vapor, and thereby maybe cause some significant amount of global warming.
Since she prefers emotion to facts, she is not a scientist.
She’s angling for a professorship in some kind of “science” at Harvard.
Phillip perhaps we should insist that she provide the math to prove her stance as a scientist?
Anything with the word “social” in front of it is absolutely NOT a science.
I had to allow myself a smile when she wrote “the highest level of certainty the scientific method allows,” because that shows that her whole premise is based on something which is not true. I suppose she never steps outside of the bubble of true believers, and is not even aware of the all the mess that climate science is in. But, people like that are probably resistant to uncomfortable truths anyway, and would likely even tell Richard Lindzen that he didn’t know what he was talking about.
“it’s time to get emotional about climate change”
Yes. Because they haven’t tried that before.
‘Highly rational’ … but we need more emotions! You just couldn’t make it up.
I am neither an alarmist nor a denier – How can one deny that climate changes? I accept real science – theories fought between scientists to arrive at conclusions that either prove or disprove their theories.
This interesting footnote in the guardian:
“The Guardian believes that the climate crisis we face is systemic. We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope.”
And Ms Huntley’s:
“More science isn’t the solution. People are the solution.”
Dismissing science in favour of people’s opinions – how can we survive as a species?
How can the Guardian say “We want their stories to inspire hope.” ? when all I hear is doom and gloom from Extinction Rebellion, climate modelers and the media.
And sadly no real, practical, realisable solutions for 7 billion souls offered by the protesters.
Those with a high opinion of themselves should avoid displaying their ignorance.
If this woman thinks that climate change theory displays the highest level of certainty that scientific method allows, she can’t know much about Science, because that statement is indisputably false. I can’t think offhand of a more fatuous statement made by anyone in the climate change movement, which is going some on the fatuity scale.
And what emotion does she most want to evoke? She doesn’t say, but you just know that it’s fear.
Some individuals only appear to be crazy (manniacly-hasenian syndrom) because pays good money, but for groups, association etc., even as high up as democratically elected governments, the collective madness is no exceptional state of human masochistic fallibility.
You know what word I’m tired of? Science.
Why? Because it’s the new buzzword. I’ve been around long enough to hear “synergy” used completely out of context to the original parameters and definition of the word and used as the new buzzword in the business world.
Funny how you don’t hear synergy used anymore in business….why? Because it was overused as all buzzword are but more importantly because the business world realized that true synergy is not something they can achieve and therefore the word did not hold up to it’s definition. By over-using synergy (and symbiotic…ugh, don’t get me started on that one!), the business world didn’t get it’s affects…and so the buzzword died along with the HUGE profit margins that using the word was supposed to produce.
The same can be true for the word science. Overused buzzword but this time in the political world…and it needs to go to the wayside as the be all end all term that will bring about exactly what they want if they just invoke the word into every sentence. The buzzword will solve all our ills! Just keep saying it and it will be true!
It is not a buzzword but more importantly; science and the pursuit of knowledge utilizing the scientific method is NOT and I repeat NOT a religion nor does it belong in a temple. Any use of the word to imply otherwise is deceitful and no better than overusing a buzzword and believing in the power of invocation.
Outstanding!
As I read the posting,it occurred to me that the Guardian is now doing satire.
The woman’s self description is priceless.
You could not make up such idiocy as an act of fiction.
Climatology has fallen so fast,that the chosen ones are reduced to self mockery.
I wonder if being 100% wrong in your “projections” of doom,could offer any explanation for the public ignoring your panic?
Chicken Little,the old version,still marches amongst us.
She falsely claims the science is settled to the highest levels possible (in which case why is ECS running at 3C +/- 1.5C!) before rolling out three main reasons for people not accepting AGW theory; confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance.
Unsurprisingly she doesn’t address the fact that alarmists also use exactly the same methods to confirm their own alarmism.
As anyone who has a 5-year-old can attest, telling them they can have a cookie only after they put away their toys, is likely to be responded with – “That’s not fair!”
So employing proxy armies of fascist blackshirts to tear apart US cities isn’t emotional enough? Makes me wonder what would be. Maybe a dirty bomb or two?
They’re jealous of BLM and ANTIFA.
If I were them, I wouldn’t just rely on more cowbell- I mean emotion. I would get the MSM pounding the “fact” of climate change, governments and NGO’s, “science” institutions”, as well as the entire education system touting it, and $billions of dollars spent “educating” sheeple -I mean people.
Oh, wait.
“Stop making sense”?
When have they ever made sense?