"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors."

-Jonas Salk

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Scientists Need Attitude

Just got forwarded this, and it's got a CC license on it. So here goes; quoted with permission.

The mass psychology of climate change - scientists need 'attitude'

Brian Davey, 2 December 2009

I am sure that there are a good few scientists who have got into studying climate change, thinking, as one CRU academic put it, that "the science speaks for itself" and really wanting to stay out of the increasingly bitter dog fight with all the rubbish repetitively thrown at them by climate change denier. The CRU storm and the dirty tricks used shows, if it wasn't clear enough already, that staying outside and above the mud fight is a forlorn hope.

Whatever the scientists want they cannot avoid that the science is deeply unsettling in its implications for everyone on planet earth, for every parent of a child because of what it says about their future, for every business whose production involves a huge amount of carbon energy in its input and particularly for businesses which sell carbon energy. It is patently obvious that millions, perhaps billions of people would prefer not to believe the climate science - and for these people climate scientists appear to be the bringers of thoroughly bad news.

Does not everyone knows what happens to people who bring bad news? If they don't they are lacking something in their education.

Ibsen's play

According to the Guardian, staff at the CRU have now received personal threats. The police have been asked to investigate. Ibsen pictured an almost identical situation just over a hundred years ago in his play An Enemy of the People. The chief character, Dr Stockmann, is dismayed to find that when he identifies that contaminated water from the towns tannery threatens the health of visiting tourists who might go to recently developed spa baths he is attacked by all and sundry - because of the financial ruin that closing the spa baths will bring upon the town.

While climate scientists get the police to defend their personal safety perhaps it is worth thinking about how they are going to defend themselves intellectually. For it is too innocent to believe that they can just "let the science speak for itself" against the thunderous clamour of a carbon-money based PR machine which bases itself on the wish of a large part of the public to look away from the reality of an exceedingly unpleasant future.

In this regard let us start with the observation, which ought to be obvious but clearly isn't, that the science can only "speak for itself" fully to other scientists operating in the same peer group. To the overwhelming majority of the population the science doesn't speak to them at all - they can't make head nor tail of it.

Indeed we can go further. This very unwelcome set of messages is probably perceived by many as coming from those kind of people who they think they remember from school - who rather than caring about enjoying themselves, who instead of being normal and caring most about sex, drugs, rock and roll, football and fashion, spent all their times in their bedrooms swotting and thought rather too highly of themselves for being clever - geeks and anoraks in fact, kill-joys. To this group of people the science says these people are still kill-joys.

Let me give a deeper explanation of where some of these kind of intense emotions come from. Every one of us has the experience when we grow up of "feeling small" when we are small - and particularly when in the presence of somebody who " knows what is in our best interest ". All the way through life we put ourselves in the hands of people who have an expertise and knowledge that we do not have - because it is quite impossible to know everything. Frequently, moreover the fact that other people have knowledge that we do not have puts us in the position of having to follow their advice, or even their direct instructions or orders. For a lot of people this is problematic emotionally when it re-awakens the feeling of being made to feel small. It triggers an exaggerated sensitivity about their social status and powerlessness. It is out of this that being patronised and condescended to is so emotionally tricky. There are situations where we have to act on advice where we feel unqualified to evaluate it and this leaves us uneasy - even worse if "the expert" pronounces in an insensitive fashion. This can easily reawaken our childhood feelings of humiliation, condescention, inferiority and powerlessness.

Now it is true that when scientists tell us "what we have to do" in regard to climate, they are, of course, not telling us what they personally want us to do but what nature, as shown in the science, requires us to do. This is completely impersonal. But that is not how it may feel at the emotional level for some people.

The traffic warden may also be telling us completely accurately what the parking regulations say - and that makes it particularly galling for some people. After all, compared to the exceedingly important person that I am, this person, this parking enforcer, otherwise has no status at all and certainly would not normally be the sort of person telling me what I can do.... (I'm trying to get into the attitude here, dear reader - in fact I don't own a car and have never had a parking warden hassling me about where I lock up my bike.)

Now let us think about this in relation to climate science. Time was when the important people who set the big agendas were entrepreneurs, economists, senior officials, senior politicians - then along come these people from the universities backing up what the eccentric greenies were saying. And what these climate scientists say is not only a nuisance and an inconvenience to business as usual - suddenly the economists and politicians and business people are being told that they need to dance to another groups agenda, to make radical adaptations to how economics works, to set up new policy frameworks, adopt ideas that cramp the previous freedom of action newly won by the free marketeers - so does it surprise that this creates resentment? Does it surprise that these scientists are felt to be on the make - to be after influence, power, research grants... their right to tell "us" what we should be doing.

To many people the fact that scientists - belonging as they do to the social group I identified earlier - are telling us what is required of us is not something that they are going to accept just like that! It's not just the elite that might start to get pissed off by all these green tips that the tree huggers want when they tell us how we should start living differently.

This thought was sparked in my mind when an acquaintance wanted to recruit me to what I personally think of as an odd medical idea and described her motives partly as being "subversive " in relation to the medical establishment. The idea that one might come across some very simple notion which has not occurred to all the medical scientists is appealing - despite all their clever knowledge and training ordinary people "with common sense" can make up their own cures - this would certainly "put all those clever doctors in their place".

Now the point about these resentments and emotions is that while climate scientists are playing cricket and "letting the science speak for itself" the PR and advertising agencies, the spin experts and many politicians understand these issues of mass psychology intuitively and play them very skillfully.

When they do so they also connect up to may people's money worries. We live in a society where the mass media constantly tells us that success is to be measured by how much we are able to buy, to consume. At the same time it is usually stressful and difficult for most people to actually earn the money to buy and consume at the level people are told they should aspire to. Parallel to all this the people running businesses are trying to make as much money as possible. Then along come these scientists, wearing wooly jumpers and camping in fields near power stations and the governments starts to accomodate the ideas of these wierdos - in order to tax away all our hard earned money.

Of course the idea that climate change is a scam for governments to tax people more is rubbish - but what this oft repeated mantra shows is what is uppermost in many peoples minds - money. This is part of climate change denial too.

Climate change denial thus contains a good dollop of bloody-mindedness against the "know whats best for yous" - including not only those clever scientists but the governments who think they have the right to take "our" money away from us and "think they know better than we do" how it should be spent - in this case on that "climate mitigation nonsense" that scientists gabble on about.

I suspect then that many climate change deniers are deliberately hooking into this notion of "the common sense of the ordinary man and woman" which trumps head-in-the-clouds science - as well as their prevalent monetary worries. There is a deeply rooted anti-intellectualism here, created by the emotional dynamics that arise in a society in which both knowledge and money are power. In this case the fact that we are dealing with science that is not even addressing a clearly visible current problem but something that scientists and politicians say will happen decades in the future adds a further twist. Climate change becomes an ideal target for rabble-rousing journalists and fringe politicians to whip up and play on a particular mass emotional complex. This is not just denial pure and simple, it is contrarianism - where "to be contrary" is both an intellectual and an emotional response of rejection. This is a topic which many people understand in a way which is emotionally structured by a toxic mixture of inferiority complexes and money worries.

So, what is to be done about this? Well, for a start we can notice that there is more at work here than just denial. We are also dealing here with some complex psychology, giving rise to some rather nasty emotions: a compensatory hatred which allows people to feel secretly that there are, in fact, superior to these scientists in their understanding - even though they, the scientists, have spent years studying the issues while the deniers have read two articles about grapes growing in the medieval warm period, seen three television programmes and have become instant experts.

Almost all of these amateur experts when confronted with real expertise and authority in their lives - for example when they go to their doctors - wouldn't say boo to them, but will do exactly as they are told. The flip-side of an inferiority complex is that people are actually very sensitive to being made aware that they hardly know a thing - so the correct approach for climate science is to rub the noses of the sceptics in their own ignorance.

So climate scientists have to stop thinking that the science will speak for itself. They have to stop playing cricket. If we want to use a sporting metaphor, they have to start playing rugby. This is well expressed in a recent posting at the GreenFyre blog that followed the CRU revelations which called on the scientists to go on the offensive by aggressive questioning of the sceptics. The aim of this exercise is to reveal the shallowness of their attack:

Which studies were compromised, how? be specific. Cite papers and data sets. What is the evidence? where is it? what work is affected? how? show me the evidence that says so.

This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work makes up climate science?

How does it affect the work that was done before the alleged culprits graduated from university? the work from before they were born?

Of the 30,000(ish) studies that make up climate science, which ones are undone? where is the evidence? be specific … show us exactly how and why?

You are certain it topples climate science? how? where? which studies? what evidence? You don’t know? then how are you certain?

Please run through a list of the studies you believe are affected? Hockey stick? what’s that? please refer to specific papers and studies.You don’t know? then how can you be certain?

Ahhh, Soandso 2004? so just how is it compromised? what part of the work? I thought you were certain?

This suggestion puts it very well: climate scientists have got to learn "attitude". Otherwise the PR industry, funded by carbon's vested interests, will continue to make mincemeat of them.

Creative Commons
This article is published by Brian Davey, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

What do you think of this?


Arthur said...

It sounds like what we really need to do is show those folks out there *how to make money* off all this :)

I think the article states the problem very well. Not clear that the proposed solution is actually helpful - it doesn't quite connect the dots for me.

David B. Benson said...

You need attitude, my mensch.

King of the Road said...

In what venue are the rugby playing scientists going to have the opportunity to say these things to someone whose mind can be influenced?

On blogs? They already are. In newspapers and magazines? You've written extensively on the current futility of that. At presentations to public gatherings? Preaching to the choir I'm afraid. So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?

I don't disagree here but don't see what concrete steps are being recommended.

Michael Tobis said...

I hadn't thought of this aspect of the problem before. At least not this clearly. I have no idea what to do about it.

I constantly feel inferior to athletes, but if I need something requiring physical strength and agility done, I am willing to pay somebody to do it rather than kill myself or at best do a lousy job and take twenty times too long to do it.

So I guess he's saying we have to claim the authority we have earned. I'm not sure that's right.

But I think the insights are useful. Especially for me, perhaps, since I didn't go to a normal high school, and haven't really experienced this stuff in person.

David B. Benson said...

Michael Tobis --- I am sure it is right.

Just in the way practicing M.D.s learn "bedside manner".

You need to explain to the patient that (s)he is very, very ill.

King of the Road said...

I guess I have but I'm pert much a social leper anyway. Not being at the cutting edge of intellect but somewhere back along the chord, I guess I paid for the ticket without being able to take the ride. But I certainly agree (as does Dr. Dutch, whom I've quoted in your blog) that you should claim the authority you've earned.

I'm not so sure about the M.D. example, given the popularity of homeopathy, anti-vax, etc. But I bet few would want to fly in an airplane designed by their carpenter cousin or occupy the 40th floor of a skyscraper designed by the guy across the street who sells insurance.

Valid points but what's the process of actually staking the claim?

Anonymous said...

King of the Road:

"So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?

"I don't disagree here but don't see what concrete steps are being recommended."


"if I need something requiring physical strength and agility done, I am willing to pay somebody to do it rather than kill myself or at best do a lousy job and take twenty times too long to do it."

Well, unless you're literally willing to shell out moolah to get Revkin to write that killer investigative piece on climate denialism, or to get Obama to give that inspiring stentorian-toned speech about the importance of energy independence and all that, or to get a news outlet to publish that humongous 1-page ad explaining that the Heartland Institute's 'conference' are a pile of dung...

An initial idea: Inactivists keep talking about 'questioning' stuff. As someone who actually knows climate science, can MT not turn that against them?

When someone starts going off about grapes during the medieval warm period, just respond "How do I know you or someone else didn't simply make that up?"

When Monckton says "You must not believe a word of what I say", immediately reply "I do not believe a word of what you say."

If some inactivist starts talking about how the earth has been cooling since 1998, simply ask "By what method did you obtain the trend? Do you understand the theory behind this method?" And again, "How do I know you're not making this up?"

Force the inactivists and their supporters to think critically about what they're spewing, and if that fails, to expose their own ignorance and gullibility. At the same time, make the public aware that your conclusions on climate science are based on verifiable facts, not lies or innuendo. It's morally legitimate, and it'll probably be effective. What's not to like?

I have some other ideas, but I think they fall outside the scope of Davey's general thrust.

-- frank

Richard Mercer said...

King of the Road
"In what venue are the rugby playing scientists going to have the opportunity to say these things to someone whose mind can be influenced?
On blogs? They already are. In newspapers and magazines? You've written extensively on the current futility of that. At presentations to public gatherings? Preaching to the choir I'm afraid. So what, exactly, is Davey suggesting?"

I still believe what I have suggested on a few blogs, which is that a made for TV movie should be made, exposing the denial propaganda campaign for what it is.
I'm thinking of a movie along the lines of books like "Climate Cover-Up" and "Merchants of Doubt". Enlist sypathetic help from people in Hollywood who know how to make a hard hitting, impactful movie. There are several I can think of who would be good for this. Reach the public where they spend so much time, in front of their TV sets.

A not unrelated tactic is to make it widely known what charlatans people like Monckton are, and make it clear that these are the so called "experts" who Republican deniers are listening to and using as "expert witnesses" in Senate and House committee hearings. Michael Crichton, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling have also testified to Congress, at the invitations of Inhofe, Joe (apologize to BP)Barton, and Rohrabacher.

Richard Mercer said...

Whether in suggested movie, or letters to the editor and editorials, information like the following may raise a few eyebrows.
(excerpted from my blog)

{And how else, but by virtue of the fossil fuel industry's influence in Washington, could it possibly be, that Congress, during congressional hearings before the House Science committee, gave more weight to the opinion of Pat Michaels than to that of their own scientists at NOAA, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and a co-chairman and lead author of the IPCC's 1995 report? Well, they say Michaels has a charming personality. I'm sure.

Pat Michaels was pitted against Jerry Mahlman, Chairman of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Scientific Advisory Committee, and director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
They were questioned by Representative Rohrabacher (R CA), who by his own words doesn't know the difference between carbohydrates, hydrocarbons or CO2. He grilled Malhlman, and didn't listen to anything he said, then gave a free ride to Pat Michaels, praising him for his contribution. Mahlman had the disadvantage of talking in unemotional, factual scientific terms, which Rohrabacher couldn't care less about.

Scientists are not usually trained in public speaking. As a rule, they are not skilled debaters, and are at a disadvantage when debating media savvy skeptic mouthpieces, who are not really interested in truth, so much as winning the hearts and minds of an audience, and advancing the political agenda of their fossil fuel paymasters. Real scientists tend to understate conclusions and speak in terms of probabilities of outcomes, which to the untrained ear, make it sound like they are unsure of the science. This is all people like Rohrabacher need to hear, as they percieve this as a weakness to be exploited.

Robert Watson
lead author 1995 IPCC report on climate change impacts:
Senior scientist of White House Office of Science and Technology
Elected Chairman of IPCC by unanimous vote in 1996.

He was pitted against Robert Balling who out and out lied about what science knew about rising temperatures in the Arctic, claiming temperature there hadn't risen in the last 50 years. In fact, NOAA had found temperatures at 9 Arctic stations in Alaska had increased by 5.5 C (9 F) over thirty years. Soil temperature had increased 2-5 C. Rohrabacher dismissed outright whatever Watson had to say, and only gave credence to Balling's testimony

Robert Watson headed the IPCC until the Bush adminisration used their influence to have him removed because he was convinced of AGW. They had him replaced by Pauchari, who was agnostic, but now is also convinced. So now the deniers attack him.

Pat Michaels received over $165,000 over a five year period in the 90s from the fossil fuel industry. Michaels' books and other publications are funded by the coal industry.

Robert Balling and his associates received $300,000 from the fossil fuel industry in the 90s. He recieved $50,000 from mining company Cyprus Minerals. Cyprus is the largest funder of an extreme anti environmental group called Wise Use. Cyprus also gave money to Pat Michaels. Balling has received money from the German coal industry and the British coal industry as well.

Ballings book "The Heated Debate" was funded by a right wing think tank(Pacific Research Institute) whose goal is the elimination of environmental regulations.
Kuwait funded his Arabic edition of the book.
Only under oath have either Michaels or Balling disclosed who funds them. Disclosure of funding is normally considered mandatory in science, for obvious reasons.}

Thanks to Ross Gelbspan for much of the above.

Michael Tobis said...

On paper, Balling and Michaels have credentials.

Balling wrote a book twenty years ago in which there is a preface by a Mr Wildavsky, if I remember the name right. Wildavsky's preface was the first place, as far as I know, that the idea of climate change as a collectivist conspiracy was raised.

Richard Mercer said...

In short, get into attack mode in more public forums than science blogs. I have made a habit of posting comments at articles of newspapers and other mainstream media, like CNN and AP on the internet. To facilitate this, I've registered with major newspaper websites all over the country, so I can leave comments to articles.
I don't need an article about climate change to do this. Any article on politics is enough for me to comment on why no one should vote for climate change deniers.
The tea baggers are always posting comments about voting out democrats in the fall. I counter with comments about voting out deniers.

These are read by a wider audience than science blogs are. AP's ongoing coverage of the BP gusher has given me lots of oppurtunities to post these comments. Whats frustrating is that I'm accesssing these AP stories through Yahoo, where uneducated yahoo deniers seem to be in the majority. They don't seem to know what to do, when confronted with actual facts.

I keep text files filled with things I can readily post in comments at these places, allowing me to flood them with factual information that counters the inept denier comments that usually are just parroting denier talking points. Often I just cut and paste from my blog, like I did above.

Maybe if enough of us do this, it will have the intended effect.
But I think the movie would have the most impact.

King of the Road said...

I think that leaving comments in newspapers is of marginal, if any, use. You'll typically see "149 comments" or some such and a quick degeneration into insult hurling. I think the only ones who read them are the ones already unalterably committed to their position. Now and again I'll do it, but only for fun, never with the idea that it does any good.

Frankly, it's interesting and useful to know who funds whom but I don't think a lot is gained by banging on the table and saying "but he's funded by the fossil fuel industry." It's certainly not relevant to the truth of what's being claimed. Attack the information, not the funding source.

I like the idea of a film but if it's a documentary that winds up on Planet Green, it's pretty much wasted.

The concept of engaging in a more directly confrontational dialog seems promising but I'm still not seeing anything that is a "game changer" here.

I think Michael's (and others) linking of things like the Russian heat wave, the Pakistani floods, the China landslides, etc. is promising.

Finally, it takes quite a nut case to think that fossil fuels will last forever (though such nut cases exist - Michael Medved is an example) so hammering on fossil fuel replacement for energy security seems promising.

My read is, however, that the sorts of sea changes required to take significant action as a society will not be possible until the threat is immediate and unambiguous (think Pearl Harbor).

Unknown said...

There is a very good book about the problem of persuasion with people who are sure that they are right: