Jump to content
Science Forums

The psychology and sociology of the International Global Warming Debate


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

The Psychology and Sociology of the International Global Warming Debate.

Climate Change Conversations - NYTimes.com

It seems to me something new is going on here.

 

I remember the old Science Fiction theme of a threat (meteor, contact, aliens etc) from outer-space and how this pulled all the nations of the world together-- to fight the threat, rather than each other.

Now we might need to revise that scenario. Fist there would be the Aliens are not Really Coming Group and The Aliens have Always Come Group . . .etc need I go on.

 

The debate has been politicised and/or hijacked by politicians

Timeline of Climate Change Science and Politics - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

42 to 41: how Abbott squeaked in – Crikey

 

Some say that Internationally we have Armageddon Fatigue.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/executive-style/managementline/2009/11/23/climatechange1.html

Sick of being told how we're all killing the planet? - National - NZ Herald News

Others feel denialists have lost their way

ABC Unleashed: A letter to your father

 

A new development is the increasing polarisation of the debate.

Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph

 

 

The recent rise of the net and its influence on opinion is also unique and worth looking at

Whatever you think, the psychology and sociology of this is fascinating, and something we should be researching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underlying emotion of global warming is fear. Once we are under the influence of fear, the time scale of our perception becomes narrow, since the dire need requires immediate action. This is how the slight of hand was able to work.

 

For example, if someone broke into your house, because of fear, the mind narrows the time scale of perception to the immediate now. One has to be in the now, to deal with the threat. One is not planning what they will eat for dinner in a few hours or what they had for breakfast. Time gets narrowed to right now.

 

With the global warming induced fear, the brain will also narrow the time scale of perception. One can not see the billion years of global cycles or warming and cooling. The last couple of decades becomes the immediate now under the level of fear. It is not total fear since there is still time, but just enough to get some narrowing.

 

If you discovered the man who broke into your house, was a friend playing a joke, the immediate now, would linger a few minutes. After the yelling and then the laugher, the time scale would expand again. Now one might wish to understand how he planned it and what you will do to even.

 

When you do this with a herd of humans, it can be reinforcing. By oneself, one might stay calm. But if there is someone freaking out, that will distract you and could cause you to get sucked into it. Those who try to calm everyone down, could widen the time scale of other by lowering fear. But if we censor them, the fear is better able to so we get the needed narrow time scale in the herd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as a problem to be co-operatively solved. It dosn't frigten me. I guess what would frighten me would be people not doing anything about it. Perhaps that's why i can't understand the psychology/socialology of it all.

If people are scared and feel impotent they are likely to 'shoot the messenger', get depressed, or become apathetic, "I can't do anything about it" . Yet this is the first planet wide problem that the individual actions can have an effect.

 

There were some interesting experiments on the sociology of conflict about 40 years ago in USA kid's Summer Camps. Experimenters were able to manipulate the in-group and out group behavior of the kids. they had two groups at each others' throats . They then manipulated the situation/problem so that an external threat could only be solved by both groups. This of course worked, encouraging peace between the two groups. hence the Sci. Fiction theme was vindicated. Sorry I don't remember the names of the researchers. I guess these days unless it was on TV it would be an experiment that would not get past the ethics committee.

 

I am just listening to the shadow finance minister Barnarby Joyce say "I would tell Copenhagen that you make a binding agreement with the major CO2 emitters first, then we will do (think about ?look at?) making an ETS and CES for us". (paraphrased)

So the predicted Sci fiction senario is not playing out nor the expected psychological co-operation why? power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is bad science, rather than better quantification of the effect of fossil fuel CO2 on climate, better proofs and better pedagogy, we have some who are satisfied with labeling skeptics deniers and ask them to disprove the theory. Your can't turn science on it's head and not get a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good o'l Hypography.

I was just forced to clarify my reasons for starting this thread on another thread!!

So at the risk of breaking the duplicate post rule, i ask for some indulgence from moderators

 

For the first time in our history we are being asked to operate in a planet wide consensus. In this i see us failing.

Hence the reason i started the thread on the psychology and sociology of this debate. While i believe our technology is up to the task of re-engineering climate (just); I am less convinced of the psychological and social factors keeping in step/in-sync. with the technology. Getting agreement on climate mitigating proposals whether it be dumping iron in the ocean or burying charcoal in our soil, needs a consensus and understanding and acceptance of the technology that i don't see. It also needs bravery, an acceptance of risk, an ability to cope with ambiguity, compassion for each other and acceptance of possible failure. Qualities our present education and other systems do not promote to a degree equal to the challenge.

 

Already people in Siberia see a new era of tourism opening up for them. While those in Bangladesh see their country under water. So the winners and losers here, will have different agendas.

 

But that is the mere tip of the iceberg. I don't see our social Systems being flexible enough to cope. Many were designed when obedience and conformity were the qualities to enhance ( Roman Legions, Catholic Church, Corporate Structures) in order to promote our power and survival. Will they help or hinder us now? I suspect they will hinder.

 

I also see our acceptance of new ideas--as a species-- as far too slow for the present rapid change happening around us. The WWW is helping;-i think-- but i am pessimistic.

 

There was a wonderful quote by a fellow named Michaels in a book The Unprepared Society that i used in a course i ran 40 years ago. Pity i can't now find it . It went something like "We must educate for compassion. . . . .for tolerance of ambiguity . . ."

 

I'm searching the web for this and getting depressed by quotes like

"All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume."

Noam Chomsky

 

"Truly successful decision-making relies on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking."

Malcolm Gladwell

"It does not take much strength to do things, but it requires a great deal of strength to decide what to do."

Elbert Hubbard

"If you want truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease."

Sent-ts'an

"You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen."

Michelle Obama

 

"The native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; and enterprises of great pitch and moment, With this regard, their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action."

William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

 

 

"The aspirations of democracy are based on the notion of an informed citizenry, capable of making wise decisions. The choices we are asked to make become increasingly complex.

They require the longer-term thinking and greater tolerance for ambiguity that science fosters. The new economy is predicated on a continuous pipeline of scientific and technological innovation.

It can not exist without workers and consumers who are mathematically and scientifically literate. "

Ann Druyan

A lot more depressing quotes here

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show_tag?name=decisions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The global warming debate works under the unproven assumption that warming the earth will make things worse in the long run. If you look at the near history of the earth, coming off the last ice age, there was a large melt down of glacier ice and considerable global warming. But things turned out better for humans and nature. Life able to spread into once barren areas and thrive. There is provable precedent for things becoming better, while getting worse is still unproven. Yet more people prefer the fictional account of the future, since it more like a good action movie.

 

We tried asteroids, super volcanoes, huge solar flares, earthquakes, crustal shifts, etc., as possible social action scenarios, but these remain on the best seller list for a short time. We still play the reruns. We finally found a good action plot that keeps on given and allows for many sequels. It is the perfect action movie, since the plot thickens, allowing a much longer run time.

 

When you go to the movies, you not only watch the movie, but you will usually buy snacks at the concession stand. A good action movie makes you eat more, being on the edge of your seat. The global warming movie theatre also sells at its concession stand. What would a good movie be without the snacks? The carbon credits are like a large box of popcorn we can share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My water pipes froze yesterday and my car wouldn't start today, because of the cold. Running the tap and a space heater thawed the frozen pipes, popping the clutch in second gear while my brother-in-law gave me a tow started my car. There are empirical methods to solve some of life problems, I don't know what we'll do about climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My water pipes froze yesterday and my car wouldn't start today, because of the cold. Running the tap and a space heater thawed the frozen pipes, popping the clutch in second gear while my brother-in-law gave me a tow started my car. There are empirical methods to solve some of life problems, I don't know what we'll do about climate change.

 

BrianG might make an interesting case study for this thread.

Here he talks about being cold so the earth mustn't be warming.

What is this logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Group psychology

Would this type of group dynamic go to explain some of what is happening in this debate?

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

 

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

 

 

 

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

 

 

 

Examples of Groupthink: Past and Present

 

 

 

Examples of groupthink “fiascoes” studied by Janis include US failures to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of Vietnam war, and the ill-fated hostage rescue in Iran. Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and economically.

What is Groupthink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BrianG might make an interesting case study for this thread.

Here he talks about being cold so the earth mustn't be warming.

What is this logic?

 

I may make an interesting case study but I never said "the earth mustn't be warming", I said "There are empirical methods to solve some of life problems, I don't know what we'll do about climate change." Untried, untested [ce]CO2[/ce] restrictions for climate change mitigation needs experimental testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the sociology of the debate.

It is interesting that here the debate seems to be dividing down the political spectrum.

With right wing people/voters more likely to be deniers.

For Yanks--for "Coalition" read Republican and further right.(=National Party)

Global warming opinion and the role of partisan cues

Published by Paul Norton

1 week ago

 

A recent Morgan Poll paints an interesting picture of shifting public opinion on global warming.

 

The poll shows that since 2006, and especially over the past two years, the percentage of respondents sayng that concerns about global warming are exaggerated has grown from 13 per cent to 31 per cent, whilst the percentage saying that “if we don’t act now it will be too late” has fallen from 67 per cent to 50 per cent. The percentage saying that “it’s already too late”, after dipping from 15 per cent in 2006 to 11 per cent earlier this year, has returned to 14 per cent.

 

The really interesting part comes when the figures are broken down according to Federal voting intentions.

 

Whereas a majority (69 per cent) of Labor voters believe that “if we don’t act now it will be too late”, a majority of Coalition voters (51 per cent) and 70 per cent of National Party voters, believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated.

Further, between November and December, the percentage of Labor voters in the “act now” camp rose by 5 per cent whilst the percentage of Coalition voters in the “concerns are exaggerated” group also rose by 5 per cent.

 

When we compare the latest poll with the April 2006 Morgan Poll on the same issue with the same questions, we find the following:

 

* Amongst ALP voters, the percentage saying “act now” was the same in 2006 (69 per cent) as in December 2009, whereas the percentage saying “concerns are exaggerated” has risen only slightly (9 per cent to 14 per cent).

 

* Amongst Coalition voters, the percentage saying “concerns are exaggerated” has risen from 18 per cent to 50 per cent whilst the percentage saying “act now” has declined from 71 per cent to 34 per cent.

 

In other words, the growth in public “scepticism” about global warming consists almost entirely of the growth of such opinion amongst Coalition voters.

 

This is not what one would expect if public opinion was shifting in response to new information about, or reconsideration of, the science of the issue.

 

If this were the case we would expect to find a growth in “sceptical” opinion across the party-political spectrum.

Global warming opinion and the role of partisan cues at Larvatus Prodeo

 

Some comments at the site too

I liked this one:-

So people are turning to politicians (POLITICIANS!) to help them decide what is factually true or most-likely true …

Maybe our species is too stupid to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the sociology of the debate.

It is interesting that here the debate seems to be dividing down the political spectrum.

With right wing people/voters more likely to be deniers.

For Yanks--for "Coalition" read Republican and further right.(=National Party)

...

 

I find it interesting that there is a secular/religious and big government/individual liberty divide in the Global Warming debate. The left wants socialism, and AGW provides an agenda for worldwide political change. AGW transcends nationalism, AGW appeals to a nature worship, the religious impulse in human nature.

 

The rejection of scientific skepticism on the left, the belief in a transcending science that no longer requires testing or questions. Isn't the party/political spectrum a perfect fit for the belief that government control of industrial [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions and for large scale carbon sequestration grants versus the urge for individual choice in fuel and energy use or production and reliance on tested climate change adaptation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the psychology for global warming is analogous to a magic trick. There is something interesting to distract the audience. The other hand is less obvious when it pulls the lever. Let me given an analogy for this magic trick. If it rained turtles, this would cause serious head injuries. Tests by independent labs, using falling turtles, have conclusively demonstrated the risk with being hit on the head by a turtle. To lower the risk, special helmets have been designed. These have also been tested, by independent labs, and are very reliable in terms of lowering the risk of head injury by falling turtles. Those who object to furthering this research are out of touch with reality, since the data clearly shows that a falling turtle can be dangerous.

 

Most of what I wrote is true, and could be proven in the lab. If we deny the first premise, the rest that follows, although still true, is a moot point. But to suggest this, can be spun to create the impression we are denying the majority of the truth and therefore one is out of touch with the consensus of truth.

 

The first premise of global warming is not the fact that the earth is warming. That can still be true. The first premise is the assumption that humans are doing this. Science has shown that nature has done the heat/cool cycle dozens of times in the past, but we not allowed to look there, since that is where the lever hand might be. Even though we can't show any other time where humans have done this in the history of the world, we must focus here for the trick to work. We then stack truthful things to the distraction. CO2 and global warming can still be true. Melting glaciers will increase the amount of liquid water. This is also true. If manmade global warming is not occurring, than one is saying melting ice won't make more water which does not agree with science.

 

It is like a magic act. The pretty female assistant, with the long shapely legs is real. Her hair is blond, which is one detail we are still debating. But the consensus agrees it looks good on her. The consensus also agrees she has a pretty smile. Before long the magician is levitating, so it must be real. To say he is not flying implies, implies one is denying what the majority is now seeing; flying. If you saw the lever and nobody else did, are you out of touch with group reality of flying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other element of the magic trick, enforcement, has to do with two types of correlations. The manmade global warming side gets to use fear/risk correlations. The other side needs to use a positive correlation, since their opinion does not stimulate fear.

 

With a risk correlation, 99% of the data can correlate non-risk and 1% can correlate risk, and it would still be a good risk correlation. With a positive correlation, 1% would be laughed at. It has to be better than 50%.

 

For example, say I wanted to make a positive correlation that said that hail will cause severe injuries. We go to the lab and may find this does occur, with some size hail, but not all that often, under most conditions. My data would not support this blank statement.

 

But if we approach this using a risk correlation, we only need one data point and further study will be needed. That is why, even though there is no positive correlation comparison between natural heat cycles (many data points) and manmade heat cycles (not yet one), if we use risk, less proof can look much better. All the doom and gloom can satisfy the standards of risk. But not all will meet a positive correlation requirement. That is why fear is needed; so we can use the easier standard. If we took away fear, so risk was not as much a issue, forcing a positive correlation, the magic is harder to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A pinch from another forum

Do you think this is true/right?

 

Pick one.

A. Global temps have not gone up.

B. Global temps have gone up but its the sun that making it happen.

C. Global warming is happening but it will cost to much to stop it.

D. Global warming is happening and we should do something about it.

 

Depending on how ant science you are, the surer your pick for option A. People who pick option A, are likely to not think HIV causes AIDS, the World is only 6000 years old, and Ronald Ragan was the best Prez ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the party/political spectrum a perfect fit for the belief that government control of industrial [ce]CO2[/ce] emissions and for large scale carbon sequestration grants versus the urge for individual choice in fuel and energy use or production and reliance on tested climate change adaptation?

Does this verbose sentence have a meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...