George, I admit that this is probably a result of my anti-PC,
scientific brain-washing over decades, but I don't quite get why you
disagree with Vicky Pope. If I drop an anvil on my foot, I believe
it has made contact with my foot without measuring every detail and
forming a value judgement of the event. The evidence (pain, dent,
crushed bones, blood, observation of trajectory of falling anvil,
approximate mass of anvil, coincidence of pain and damage with
apparent impact of anvil - you know what I mean) rather stacks up to
suggest that I have unequivocally damaged my foot. Are you saying
that this is merely my belief? I would say (when able to speak),
something like, "Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. My
concerns about my foot arise from the evidence.".
What say you?
Tom
At 11:31 24/07/2009, Brian Orr wrote:
>Dear George,
>
>A good solid building block for understanding the problem and for
>addressing this monumental challenge.
>
>But you don't mention politicians, who each has their own individual
>belief system - and who are key players
>in this game because they can help determine government policy and
>they have to communicate with the
>people to retain their jobs. And they purport to argue for what they believe.
>
>I believe (that word again!!!!) that as the climate change challenge
>slowly infiltrates the public's mind - as it
>will because it won't go away and the starkness of its consequences
>become ever more clear, then politics
>will steadily split down the divide of those politicians who find
>their consciences insist they become bolder
>in grasping the CC nettle - and those who just don't believe or are
>too engulfed in self-interest to bother.
>
> From this I would argue that we 'believers' should devote a lot of
> our energy in putting the political class under
>the spot-light, both individually and collectively. This must
>accelerate the process of cleaving those politicians who might
>fall behind the 'angels' from those who still wish to support 'the devil'.
>
>By moving this hyper-critical schism into the open, one will draw
>more attention to the urgency of what we're facing
>than any amount of serious scientific conferences.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Brian Orr
>
>On 23 Jul 2009, at 19:07, George Marshall wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Why people don't act on climate change
>>
>>
>>
>> * 23 July 2009 by
>> <http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=George+Marshall>George Marshall
>>
>>AT A recent dinner at the University of Oxford, a senior researcher
>>in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in
>>Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that his trip would
>>make a contribution to
>><http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change>climate change -
>>we had, after all, just sat through a two-hour presentation on the
>>topic. "Of course," he said blithely. "And I'm sure the government
>>will make long-haul flights illegal at some point."
>>
>>I had deliberately steered our conversation this way as part of an
>>informal research project that I am conducting - one you are
>>welcome to join. My participants so far include a senior adviser to
>>a leading UK climate policy expert who flies regularly to South
>>Africa ("my offsets help set a price in the carbon market"), a
>>member of the British Antarctic Survey who makes several long-haul
>>skiing trips a year ("my <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/>job is
>>stressful"), a national media environment correspondent who took
>>his family to Sri Lanka ("I can't see much hope") and a Greenpeace
>>climate campaigner just back from scuba diving in the Pacific ("it
>>was a great trip!").
>>
>>Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing
>>is that each has a <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/>career
>>predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to
>>generate change. It is an assumption that a moment's introspection
>>would show them was deeply flawed.
>>
>>It is now 44 years since US president Lyndon Johnson's scientific
>>advisory council warned that our greenhouse gas emissions could
>>generate "marked changes in climate". That's 44 years of research
>>costing, by one estimate, $3 billion per year, symposia,
>>conferences, documentaries, articles and now 80 million references
>>on the internet. Despite all this information, opinion polls over
>>the years have shown that 40 per cent of people in the UK and over
>>50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to accept that our
>>emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons
>>regard climate change as a major problem.
>>
>>I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a
>>reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I
>>see it as proof of our society's failure to construct a shared
>>belief in climate change.
>>
>>I use the word "belief" in full knowledge that climate scientists
>>dislike it. Vicky Pope, head of the
>><http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/>Met
>> Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change in Exeter, UK,
>><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope>wrote
>>in
>><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope>The
>>Guardian earlier this year: "We are increasingly asked whether we
>>'believe in climate change'. Quite simply it is not a matter of
>>belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence."
>>
>>I could not disagree more. People's attitudes towards climate
>>change, even Pope's, are belief systems constructed through social
>>interactions within peer groups. People then select the storylines
>>that accord best with their personal world view. In Pope's case and
>>in my own this is a world view that respects scientists and empirical evidence.
>>
>>But listen to what others say. Most regard climate change as an
>>unsettled technical issue still hotly debated by eggheads. Many
>>reject personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere - the
>>rich, the poor, the Americans, the Chinese - or they suspect the
>>issue is a Trojan horse built by hair-shirted environmentalists who
>>want to spoil their fun.
>>Many people regard climate change as a Trojan horse built by
>>hair-shirted environmentalists
>>
>>The climate specialists in my informal experiment are no less
>>immune to the power of their belief systems. They may be immersed
>>in the scientific evidence, yet they have nonetheless developed
>>ingenious storylines to justify their long-haul holidays.
>>
>>How, then, should we go about generating a shared belief in the
>>reality of climate change? What should change about the way we
>>present the evidence for climate change?
>>
>>For one thing, we should become far more concerned about the
>>communicators and how trustworthy they appear. Trustworthiness is a
>>complex bundle of qualities: authority and expertise are among
>>them, but so too are honesty, confidence, charm, humour and outspokenness.
>>
>>Many of the maverick, self-promoting climate sceptics play this
>>game well, which is one reason they exercise such disproportionate
>>influence over public opinion. The Intergovernmental Panel on
>>Climate Change (IPCC), on the other hand, plays it badly. Rather
>>than let loose its most presentable participants to tell the world
>>how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, it fails even
>>to provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no
>>human face at all: the only images on its website are the palace or
>>beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.
>>
>>Since people tend to put most trust in those who appear to share
>>their values and understand their needs, it is crucial we widen the
>>range of voices speaking on climate change - even if this means
>>climate experts relinquishing some control and encouraging others
>>who are better communicators to speak for them.
>>
>>Another key to achieving a widely held belief in climate change is
>>collective imagination. We will never fully appreciate the risks
>>unless we can project ourselves into the future - and that requires
>>an appeal to the collective emotional imagination. In the past
>>years I have been delighted to observe a growing partnership
>>between scientists and the creative arts, such as retreats for
>>scientists, artists and writers.
>>
>>It is clear that the cautious language of science is now inadequate
>>to inspire concerted change, even among scientists. We need a
>>fundamentally different approach. Only then will scientists be in a
>>position to throw down the ultimate challenge to the public: "We've
>>done the work, we believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?"
>>
>>George Marshall is founder of the <http://coinet.org.uk/>Climate
>>Outreach Information Network in Oxford, UK
>>
Tom Barker BSc, PhD
SWIMMER (Institute for Sustainable Water, Integrated Management, and
Ecosystem Research)
Nicholson Building
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3GP
0151 795 4646
[log in to unmask]
Support Contraction and Convergence - the global response to climate change
<http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf>http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
Download a model for the local response:
http://www.chester.gov.uk/pdf/Vision2050.pdf
