In Sunday's WaPo, Joel Achebach says, "Rigorous science is the best weapon for persuading the public that [climate change] is a real problem that requires bold action."
The best weapon? Is that true?
Things smart people assume 15
-
Posted 1:16 PM on 5 Aug 2008
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 5:33 am
05 Aug 2008
Umm, that would be a "no".
[Cf. also - evolution, belief in god, etc.]
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:34 am
05 Aug 2008
The late Donnela Meadows (co-author of Limits to Growth) said it best in her 1999 paper, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System (PDF): Places to Intervene in a System (in increasing order of effectiveness):
Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).
Material stocks and flows.
Regulating negative feedback loops.
Driving positive feedback loops.
Information flows.
The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints).
The power of self-organization.
The goals of the system.
The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise See her paper to see what she means by these points.
If one doesn't know all the possibilities, one is locked into a rigid response.
Right now I'm most interested in strategy of changing the mindset/paradigm.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:42 am
05 Aug 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:06 am
05 Aug 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:21 am
05 Aug 2008
I guarantee Americans' mindset didn't suddenly change midcentury in such a way that people woke up and said, hey, I want to cover the nation in pavement and live way out far from the city in an anonymous, cheap box from which I have to drive anywhere I go and where I never see anyone not exactly like me and from which I can nurse paranoid fantasies about Others who want to take away a form of life that largely consists in pursuing and purchasing consumer items from China with which to fill my anonymous box. They see that way of life as sacrosanct now, but not because they were persuaded, but because they were channeled there by the material imperatives of America's corporate class. They could be channeled elsewhere.
grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:28 am
05 Aug 2008
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:22 pm
05 Aug 2008
But science deals with actual truth, not perceptions nor opinions nor preferences. Only science showed the medical profession that washing their hands between patients could save lives. Only science could put instant communication wirelessly between people on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
And only science can prove that Global Warming is real, is dangerous, and will affect all of us sooner than we think. If people's "mindset" cannot be changed by truth, what's the point of thinking? Might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Des Emery
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:59 pm
05 Aug 2008
That's just the way it is. You have to meet people where they are. Put it in terms they can relate to:
Patriotism: energy made in America
Fuel efficiency: good old American ingenuity
Gas prices: will only come down when we use less oil.
Jobs: energy efficiency and local power mean more jobs in communities that need jobs.
..and so forth. Come on, people. It's not that hard. Get off your high horses.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:50 pm
05 Aug 2008
But I do think there is something true in what DR said. This sort of reminds me of all the feminist ideological battles of the 70's/80's (radical vs. liberal vs. socialist vs eco vs anarchist). As I look at the landscape today, I think the socialist-feminists were right in emphasizing that it was the material gains of women (particularly access to good jobs and wages) that have had the longest-lasting effects. (No doubt the other approaches had effects also.)
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:34 pm
05 Aug 2008
The reason? I place a large percentage of the blame on a single book that has held the minds of the western world in the mental rut of Stone Age "pie in the sky" philosophy for the last 2,000 years. At every turn, the priests have tried to destroy reason and rational thought with faith.
Does it surprise anyone that the most faithless of countries are the ones leading the way now?
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
ehsdirector Posted 10:39 pm
05 Aug 2008
The effects of global emissions has been in academics since the 40's. Government measuring monitoring regulations have been tracking our impact for three decades filling buildings with supporting documents and viable options to stop what has become our current reality.
Social media driven perception has always become the reality that trumps strong logical scientific efforts.
Logic, common sense and science are tools for the elite and have always been ignored for a more "passionate or interesting, feel good" stories about "things we already know and want to hear".
The current candidate options are a prime example of this (rehashed carter era stuff).
Every good scientific environmental and energy plan this month will be trumped a 1000 fold by paris's mock energy plan of McCain further proving the over obvious point of mine.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 5:20 pm
06 Aug 2008
More condescension and arrogance from Climate Fundamentalists who apparently don't even know what the "consensus" is of which they speak. Add a dash of ignorance and we get broad statements about people who may have different religious beliefs than your own.
Here is a great example of someone who is absolutely certain that AGW Fundamentalists are correct...
http://www.maniacworld.com/Badly-in-Need-of-Science-Lesso ...
This didn't start out as a joke.
I have never met a group of less open minded folks who didn't speak in tongues. At least those whack jobs don't have the power to tax my family.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:43 am
07 Aug 2008
I'm just saying that I personally am interested in changes in mindset/paradigm. I think circumstances are ripe to develop a new vision, and that in the confusing times ahead, people will be receptive to new worldviews.
One thing that Donella doesn't mention is the creation of networks and institutions, where new ideas can develop and grow, where people can find companionship and support.
I actually think this is the most important thing that is happening now.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 2:39 pm
07 Aug 2008
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:39 pm
07 Aug 2008
Seeing is believing, so yes the mindset follows the example. A neighbor puts up a solar panel, shows the other neighbors his lower power bill.
A video on youtube shows the neighborhood going solar, it's viral I tell you.
Sure DR is right the mindset change needs a substantial change in the reality of how power is generated, with solar. And then the example changes the mindset.
It's a fractal phenomenon, how the herd or school of fish changes course collectively is determined by simple rules governing the interaction of the individual fish, or people. Seeing is believing, saving money of power (and being green) is smart, smart is status.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink