I love you with 95% certainty

Image from "Safety risk and management"

A few days ago, "Nature" published a paper titled "Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims", by William Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark Burgman. The paper is described as dedicated to "helping non-scientists" in understanding scientific claims, especially in relation to the climate change problem. The authors claim that "the immediate priority is to improve policy-makers' understanding of the imperfect nature of science. The essential skills are to be able to intelligently interrogate experts and advisers, and to understand the quality, limitations and biases of evidence." (emphasis mine)

It is an appreciable effort, but I think it totally misses the point.  The first problem is that the list is understandable (actually, obvious) for scientists, but not at all for non-scientists. Let me report one of these 20 points as an example

Significance is significant. Expressed as P, statistical significance is a measure of how likely a result is to occur by chance. Thus P = 0.01 means there is a 1-in-100 probability that what looks like an effect of the treatment could have occurred randomly, and in truth there was no effect at all. Typically, scientists report results as significant when the P-value of the test is less than 0.05 (1 in 20).


I don't know what kind of policy-makers you deal with, normally, but those I am acquainted with won't make it beyond the first point. But, apart from this problem, I think that the paper misses the essence of the debate on climate change. Many scientists still operate on the basis of the "information deficit model"; that is, they assume that people will make the right choices when correctly informed. Unfortunately, this is not the way the real world works.

As Dan Kahan has amply shown many times, in issues such as climate change people first take a position based on their pre-conceived ideas, then look for facts that support their position. We all know that science, as every human endeavor, is subjected to uncertainties but, given the way people behave, it is simply suicidal to emphasize "the imperfect nature of science" in the debate, as the authors do. It means giving ammunition to those who have been playing the uncertainty card against science. It means confusing those who have been honestly trying to understand the problem of climate change. It means forgetting that people don't just have a mind, but also a heart and that if you want to move them to action, then you must win their hearts and minds!

Think about that: would you tell to your sweetheart "I love you with 95% certainty"? Not even a scientist would.


______________________________________________________


 Here is the list of the 20 points of the paper by Sutherland et al. The full article on Nature is here.

1. Differences and chance cause variation.
2. No measurement is exact.
3. Bias is rife.
4. Bigger is usually better for sample size.
5. Correlation does not imply causation. 
6. Regression to the mean can mislead.
7. Extrapolating beyond the data is risky.
8. Beware the base-rate fallacy.
9. Controls are important. 
10. Randomization avoids bias.
11. Seek replication, not pseudoreplication.
12. Scientists are human.
13. Significance is significant. 
14. Separate no effect from non-significance.
15. Effect size matters.
16. Study relevance limits generalizations.
17. Feelings influence risk perception.
18. Dependencies change the risks.
19. Data can be dredged or cherry picked.
20. Extreme measurements may mislead. 

Climate change: we are losing the debate

"It's one of those days when I feel I got off on the wrong planet. Terrifying report on climate breakdown greeted with indifference and guff." (tweeted by George Monbiot)

The new IPCC report is out and it tells us what we already know and that most people still refuse to believe or choose to ignore. Nothing new in the debate; nothing will change. The best that will happen is that the report will generate a moderate interest for some days before disappearing from the mediasphere. At worst, someone will find in it something that can be interpreted as a mistake and that will be enough to demolish the whole report in the media, just as it happened for the previous report with the story of the melting Himalayan glaciers.

Scientists are still working on the basis of the idea that their job is to examine, analyze, and report; then it is over. Maybe that's a correct definition of the duty of scientists in many fields, but scientists are also human beings and, as human beings, they must do more when their findings indicate that we are facing a terrible danger, as it is the case with climate change. They are the ones who can perceive the danger better than anyone else and it is their responsibility to tell people about that.

Imagine that you see someone who is going to jump out of the window of the fourth floor. You go there and you tell him "as a scientist, I can tell you what your speed will be when you reach the ground. But I won't tell you whether jumping out of the window is dangerous or not."

Now, look at the summary for policy makers of the IPCC report and look for the word "danger." You won't find it.
 
Let's face it: we are losing this debate. We need to start telling people what we really think about the dangers ahead. Otherwise, there is no hope.



(similar considerations have been expressed by Clive Hamilton in a post titled IPCC report will make no difference in culture of denial)

Three kinds of denial

Peter Sandman discusses here the three main types of denial. For a specific discussion by Sandman on climate change denial see “Climate Change Risk Communication.  image from "resilience.org"

by Peter Sandman

The word “denial” has lots of uses and lots of definitions in different fields. Even within risk communication, the word gets used with widely varying meanings that are usually more implicit than carefully defined. I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else. Without pretending to have come up with a definitive typology, let me try to tease apart three kinds of denial I think are important in risk communication.

All three matter mostly in precaution advocacy. And all three are in contrast to the usual core problems in precaution advocacy, ignorance and apathy. When you’re trying to rouse people to action about a risk, the principal barrier is generally that they don’t know enough or don’t care enough (or both) to take the risk seriously. Denial masquerades as apathy. Maybe some denial can even be seen as a kind of apathy. But it’s different from ordinary apathy in important ways.

 

Denial type one: It hurts to think about it

In my 2003 article on “Beyond Panic Prevention,” I wrote about denial as an antidote to panic: People so frightened they’re at risk of panicking go into denial instead. “Like apathetic people,” the article notes, “people in denial are reluctant to pay attention to the issue; if pushed to talk about it, they do so without emotion.” The key difference is how they respond to alarming information. “Apathetic people don’t have much initial interest in your warnings, but once you get through to them they become more concerned. But people in denial have a very different response: The scarier your message, the deeper into denial it pushes them.”

In this article and elsewhere, I have written about a number of ways to reduce and prevent this type of denial. Here are seven:

• Legitimate the fear, so it can be acknowledged and accepted.
• Provide action opportunities. People are less in need of denial if they have things to do.
• Provide action choices. People are less in need of denial if they have things to decide.
• Focus on victims who need to be helped and potential victims who need to be protected. Love is a bulwark against denial.
• If appropriate, focus also on malefactors who need to be caught and punished. Unless it escalates into out-of-control rage, or is itself denied, anger is also a bulwark against denial.
• Model tolerating fear, not being fearless. You’re finding it scary too, but you’re bearing your fear and addressing the situation – so maybe I can too.
• Stress determination but not necessarily optimism, rather like Winston Churchill in the dark days of early World War II: “We will fight them on the beaches….”

I went into a lot more detail in my 2009 website column on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial.” This column discusses at length two key sources of climate change denial: cognitive dissonance and intolerable emotion (The discussion of climate change “psychological denial” in this article has nothing to do with the “strategic denial” of people with a stake in convincing others that global warming isn’t real or the “intellectual denial” of people who are genuinely skeptical about the majority’s evidence.)

This 2009 column implies a much broader definition of denial than I was using in 2003. Now it’s not just fear that can make you “go into denial.” So can guilt, sadness, anger, and other emotions. And so can the uncomfortable feeling (cognitive dissonance) that arises when we can’t make attitudinal sense of our own actions or lifestyles.

The “Climate Change Risk Communication” column also lists some subtypes of what I am now calling “denial type one,” other than simply claiming the risk isn’t so.

• Isolation of affect – acknowledging the risk without feeling its emotional punch.
• Intellectualization – acknowledging the risk but finding ways to deny its importance or urgency.
• Displacement – over-reacting to some other risk in order to avoid focusing on this one.
• Humor – turning the risk into an object of ridicule in order to avoid having to take it to heart.

“The core of denial is motivated inattention,” the column states. “I direct my attention away from information that threatens to upset my worldview or my emotional stability.”

Denial type one is mostly unconscious. People don’t usually say to each other, or even to themselves, “I’m feeling too much cognitive dissonance to think about this” or “I’m too emotionally distraught” to think about this. They’re likelier to see themselves as simply apathetic about the risk … or to see you as simply wrong that it’s serious. You have to diagnose the denial in order to address it effectively.

 

Denial type two: I don’t need any more worries to think about

I wrote about denial type two very recently, in my July 2, 2013 Guestbook response.
In a nutshell: People often shrug off a risk in order to minimize their distress. When very high distress trips an emotional circuit breaker, that’s denial type one. But even if I’m not especially distressed about an issue, I may well prefer to avoid becoming distressed about it. It’s not as if I were feeling some kind of stress deprivation. I have enough stress in my life already. So I blow off your warnings.

That’s denial type two.

In my July 2 Guestbook response I called denial type two “willed apathy.” Like denial type one, it’s a kind of motivated inattention. But the motivation is a lot less powerful and a lot more conscious than it is in denial type one. It’s not that I can’t bear to think about the new problem. I’d just rather not have to. Once you get me distressed enough about it to overcome my resistance, I’ll add the new problem to my worry agenda … and delete or diminish some older problem(s) to make room.

 

Denial type three: It’s futile to think about

This is the kind of denial you’re calling my attention to. It usually goes under the label “learned helplessness.”

Psychologist Martin Seligman and colleagues developed the “theory of learned helplessness” in the 1960s and 1970s as an explanation for depression. In a key 1967 experiment by Seligman and Maier, dogs that were shocked when there was no way to escape learned to bear the shocks stoically without trying to escape. Later when an escape route was available, they tended not to find it. Having learned that there was nothing to be done to stop the torture, the dogs became less able to learn newly available solutions.

At least in humans, the effect of learned helplessness isn’t just cognitive. The motivation to try new coping responses is reduced. And according to Seligman, an emotional state that resembles depression is inculcated; people who learn that they’re unable to control their own lives become passive and depressed.

As a risk communication concept, learned helplessness (denial type three) is issue-specific rather than global. Learning that we can’t do much about a specific problem makes us passive about that problem, disinclined to take action about it or even to find out more about it.
Denial type three can be conscious or unconscious. Some people – like you – announce that it’s futile to fight. Others just give up.

The boundaries between denial type three and the other two types are fuzzy. If someone’s learned helplessness gets so pervasive that it leads to depression, it starts to look a lot like denial type one: I can’t bear to think about it. The fuzziness works in the other direction too: People who can’t bear the emotional burden of addressing a problem – such as climate change – may defend themselves from that burden by insisting that the problem is hopeless. As for the border between denial types two and three: If you’ve already got too many problems on your worry agenda, it makes sense to focus on the ones that are likelier to prove solvable.

What can we do to fight learned helplessness – your own or someone else’s? I wrote about this at length in a 2012 Guestbook entry entitled “Why are people so politically inactive? Is it denial? Are they sheeple? What can be done?” In that response I tried to distinguish denial (“I can’t bear what I’m feeling”) from hopelessness/helplessness (“I believe there’s no point in trying”). Now I’m calling them denial type one and denial type three respectively.

The “obvious answer” to learned helplessness, I wrote then, “is to try to bolster your audience’s sense of self-efficacy. But I think that may be – in part, anyway – the wrong answer.” I continued:

According to the literature, the best way to increase people’s self-efficacy is to arrange for them to have mastery experiences; success breeds confidence. But there are other ways, most notably modeling (“if she can do it so can I”) and social support (“if he says I can do it, maybe I can”).
I don’t question any of that – but I think it’s probably close-to-irrelevant when someone’s low self-efficacy is mostly a rational response to reality….
Instead of cheerleading for efficacy, my hunch is that it will help more to get on the other side of the risk communication seesaw:

• “This feels almost futile, doesn’t it?”
• “At most we can only help a little – and maybe not even that!”
• “Even if we win a battle or two, we’re probably not going to change the world.”

The myth of Sisyphus – the Greek king compelled to roll a boulder uphill forever – is powerful precisely because so much effort really is Sisyphean. It can’t be good risk communication strategy to try to convince people that it isn’t … or, worse, that they should feel like it isn’t whether it is or not.
And yet things do change….
I think it is good strategy to acknowledge and even proclaim that change and unchangeability are both characteristics of life; that it’s hard to tell which of our efforts might make a (probably small) difference and which efforts are doomed from the outset; and above all that it’s more fun (“fun” in the most serious sense) to take your best shot than to stand around watching.

This time around I want to add three more observations.

First, it’s worth noting that tasks often feel Sisyphean when they’re not. To pick one example out of many: I can only guess how discouraging the battle for gay rights must have felt until just the past few years. Governments and companies do everything they can to make their critics’ goals look unachievable. It’s often wise to ignore the impression of futility and pursue the goal.

Second, community organizers are professionals at overcoming people’s false sense of helplessness. Regardless of your political leanings, you’ll find much of value in books like Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Among other tips, Alinsky writes about the huge importance of early victories, even manufactured victories achieved by aggressively demanding something that was about to happen anyway.

And third sometimes we really are helpless. Sometime it simply makes sense to give up, and save our efforts for a more achievable goal.

The justly famous “Serenity Prayer” written by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous asks God to “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” I certainly don’t claim to possess the wisdom to know the difference.

Fighting catastrophic climate change: it is a job for psychologists

It is becoming more and more clear that we can't fight catastrophic climate change unless we understand why we can't fight it. And this is a job that involves understanding how the human brain works (if it works!). Here is an excerpt from an article by psychologist Mary Pipher on Time Magazine that examines the question

I’ve learned not to argue too long with people who do not “believe in” human-made climate change. I figure it’s impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into. But the fact is that even those of us who do believe climate change is man-made are in partial denial about our enormous global problems, and almost all of us minimize or normalize the situation.

Our denial is understandable. Our species is not equipped to respond to the threats posed by global warming. Humans are built to find food and shelter, reproduce, and enjoy each other. We are genetically programmed to react to threats by fleeing or fighting, and at first, our environmental crisis does not seem to allow us to do either. We’re better at dealing with problems that are concrete, close-at-hand, familiar and require skills and tools that we already possess. Our global storm is invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, and caused by all of us. We have Paleolithic arousal systems, Neolithic brains, medieval institutions and 21^st century technology—not a good mix for solving our climate problems.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/15/we-are-all-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2ZBhOQhs4

Communicating the climate problem: the Aristotelic approach

This 2007 video by Greg Craven has been viewed by more than five million people. Touted as the "rational response to the climate change debate" (see also Craven's book), it has been seen as an important milestone on diffusing the right climate message. So much that it gained a dedicated post in the denialist blog "WUWT"

In some respects, there is no doubt that Craven's argument is effective. Show the alternatives, discuss them, then come to a conclusion on purely rational grounds. It is the Aristotelic approach; it is speaking in syllogisms.

But there are problems with this video. For one thing, in the Youtube page where it appears, about one third of viewers pressed the "don't like" button. And, if you look at the more than 40 thousand comments, you'll notice that many, perhaps the majority, are rabidly denying the human role on climate change, or even its existence.

So, it seems that the video preaches to the believer but that it doesn't budge the unbeliever.  That doesn't meant that the clip is not well done, nor that it has had no impact. But, six years after its first appearance, we can see that the debate is way too complex, harsh, difficult, and emotional to be winnable by a "rational response".

It is a debate that cuts through our very essence as human beings. Syllogisms may affect our brain cortex, but are not enough to change the way our deep brain works. We need much more than syllogisms to win this battle.

Or so I see it. What do you think?

The tipping point of climate change denial

In a previous post I had noted how the position of climate deniers was becoming more and more untenable. Now, the speech by President Obama seems to have moved things forward quite a bit: many people seem to be "feeling the heat," almost literally.

At least, so it seems from a revealing article by Chris Ladd, Republican commentator writing on the Washington Times. This article needs to be read and savored - truly stunning for the way he clearly states how the GOP communication strategy is backfiring. Peter Sinclair has already commented on this piece; let me reproduce here some excerpts from it (highlighting mine):

..... we must realize that our strategy of blind blanket denial is developing into a political suicide pact. 

We must stop wheeling in crank “scientists” who deploy tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry to “debunk” the credible research on climate change. 


On a political level, Republicans must not confuse climate change with other science vs. belief issues. On this issue public opinion will eventually move in the direction of established facts regardless of how much distortion we generate.
 
Climate change ..... is becoming apparent enough to the average layman to affect their holiday plans. We cannot swim against this scientific tide much longer.

When public opinion comes into line with the established science, our denialist position will cost us our opportunity to participate in shaping policy. We are setting ourselves up for a sudden, catastrophic political collapse which could spread beyond this single issue.

 .... conservatives cannot participate in shaping these alternatives if the party allows itself to be defined politically by a pack of ridiculous cranks. Categorical climate denial might be the single greatest threat to the long term future of the conservative movement. For the Republican Party in the U.S., denial is a river that is rapidly running dry.


Now, the political debate is a complex system and, as such, it is subjected to rapid "phase transitions" in which issues ignored up to a certain point become suddenly centrally important. That may be the result of a single, exceptional event, such as the 9/11 attacks, or as the result of a gradually mounting body of evidence; as it may happen with climate change.

Are we seeing the climate debate tipping point arriving? We can't say yet, but note that Mr. Ladd's article didn't attract (so far) the usual flow of rabid denialist comments. So, we may be in for big changes, indeed.

Temperatures are not rising, hence global warming is a hoax

Some years ago, Maria, the Moldovan woman who took care of my old aunt, told me the story of when she had rushed back home from Italy, to see her sick mother one last time.

Apparently, in Moldavia there is the use of lighting up a candle beside the bed of a dying person. Maybe it is to light the way for the departing soul, maybe to remark the solemnity of the occasion, or maybe something else; I can't say. But that was what was done with Maria's mother. The priest had come to administer the Extreme Unction to her and then a candle was lighted up and placed on her nightstand. Her sons and daughters, including Maria, sat in the room, waiting in silence.

Night came and, at some moment, Maria's mother woke up. She opened her eyes, she saw the lighted candle but she seemed not to care. She looked at her relatives, called them by their names, she smiled and she chatted with them of this and that. Maria told me that for a while it seemed that the sickness, the Extreme Unction, the candle, and everything else was forgotten. It was just as the old lady had totally recovered and she would live for many years more.

Then, the old lady said she was tired. She closed her eyes and she fell asleep. In the morning, the candle had burned to the end and the old lady was gone; peacefully in her sleep.

The coming ice age and the virtualization of reality

Maybe you have already seen this image (reproduced from Greg Laden's blog). It is part of a campaign aiming at discrediting science and scientists. It goes more or less like this: Those scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age coming. So much that it even made it to the front cover of "Time". And then, later on, they started talking about global warming (which was then transmogrified into climate change to further confuse us). How can we trust these people?

Well, the image on the left is a hoax; such a Time magazine cover never existed. As explained in a recent post by David Kirtley on Greg Laden's blog, it is a Paintshop job. The real cover is this one, not from 1977, but from 2007

The hoax that had "scientists worried about the coming ice age" reminds very much to me the story invented by Ronald Bailey in 1989 to to attack "The Limits to Growth" study. In a paper that he published in 1989 on "Forbes" he stated that the study had predicted that we would run out of some major mineral resources (gold, zinc, oil, and so on) by some specific dates that were already past at that moment. That, of course, showed that the whole study was completely unreliable. Well, Bailey's story was totally invented. There were no such predictions in "The Limits to Growth" study!

Reviewing these stories, it is impressive to see how effective these dirty tricks can be. And they are so simple! Just invent something from scratch; show how those pompous scientists turned out to be making silly mistakes. Nobody will check whether it is true or not but, if it is a good story, it will spread wildly around. This one of "scientists worried about the coming ice age" has done quite some damage to science and to all of us. Others, such as the "climategate scandal", turn out to be even more stubborn and dangerous.

It is also impressive to note how easy it is to create a complete alternate reality which has never existed. Simply changing the title of the cover of a magazine generates a whole parallel universe in which scientists are busy at warning people and policy makers about the need of preparing for an incoming glaciation. It is called, sometimes, "virtualization". We are so much focused on what we see and we read on the internet and on the media that we easily lose track of the fact that there is a physical reality, out there. Then, the ghosts of our imagination take over and create their own reality, complete of heroes and villains, virtues and vices, crime and punishment, and happy endings. But it is a reality made of such stuff dreams are made of.

If we work in communication in climate science, we might be tempted to use these methods. We shouldn't. Virtualizing reality by creating legends is a form of dark magic; not a good thing to get involved with. But, at least, we should know what kind of tricks and ruses we are facing. And, also, we should remember that physical reality, in the end, always wins. 

Stopping climate change is not just a good idea, it should be the law!

The Gummi Bears riding their "quick car" in the tunnels of the Gummi Glen. In this animated TV series of the 1980s, the characters were always shown buckling up before riding their quick car. At that time, seat belts laws were not yet commonplace and were often ignored. So, the Gummi bears were enlisted to remind to children that they had to wear seat belts while riding a car. 

Already in the 1960s, crash tests had clearly shown the effectiveness of seat belts in saving lives in traffic accidents. Nevertheless, the introduction of seat belts for passenger cars faced many obstacles. One was with the automotive companies, which often saw seat belts as an extra cost that they didn't like to bear. But customers were probably the most important problem. People knew about the risk of traffic accidents, but still they disliked seat belts, normally not using them even when they were available in their car. People often doubted the usefulness of belts; fearing the risk of remaining trapped in a burning car. Many disliked the feeling of constraint that wearing belts generated. More than all, it was a psychological problem: most drivers felt that they had a certain "power" on their vehicle and disliked the idea of a passive constraint on which they had no control.

Because of these motives, when a seat belt law was enacted in Italy, in the 1980s, it is said that you could buy t-shirts that had a fake seat belt printed on the front side, with the idea of duping traffic officers. If it is true, it is a great example of how weird is the way the human mind works. People would pay money NOT to be safer! (And, if it is a legend, the very fact that it diffused in the media indicates that some people were at least willing to consider it as true). Fortunately, today things have changed and there surely exists a general consensus that seat belts are not just a good idea, they are the law.

The story of seat belt laws has many points in common with that of the climate change problem. The reaction is in many ways the same: people ignore the climate problem, just as people in the 1970s often sat over seat belts rather than wearing them. Unfortunately there is no clear-cut consensus, today, that stopping climate change is not just a good idea, it should be the law.


So, can we learn something from the case of seat belt laws as a "model" for fighting anthropogenic climate change? Of course there are differences but, yes, it is worth examining in some detail seat belt laws as a success story in societal risk management.

A first point is that seat belt laws never were the objective of the kind of widespread denialist campaign that we are seeing today against climate science. That was not for lack of arguments: a 1981 paper by John Adams had found no clear evidence that the introduction of seat belts reduced the total number of traffic fatalities. Had the "Merchants of Doubt" stepped in at this moment to exploit Adam's data, probably we still wouldn't have seat belt laws. But no lobby decided to ride the issue and, without a political support, this view of seat belts remained confined to a tiny minority and it didn't generate the kind of aggressive denial that is typically seen in the debate on climate. Over the years, Adam's paper was disproved by experimental evidence clearly showing that seat belts do save lives and reduce injuries not just in laboratory tests, but also in the real world (see, e.g, this paper).  

Notice how the lack of complete certainty did NOT stop the effort of legislating on the mandatory use of seat belts. Seat belts laws can be seen as a correct application of the precautionary principle: don't wait for absolute certainty, but act when there are sufficient data to establish that a risk exists.

Finally, seat belts were mandated by law much before the public was fully convinced that such laws were necessary - it was sufficient that policy-makers and opinion leaders were convinced. A 1977 poll in the US reported that 80% of respondents strongly opposed seat belt laws. These early data contrast with the present general opinion, which is now opposite. A 2008 poll, reports that "when asked whether they favor front seat belt laws 66 percent of 16- to 20-year-olds said they favor them 'a lot', and 26 percent said they favor them 'some' ". Evidently, the public learned to appreciate seat belts only after being pushed (a little, and sometimes a lot) to use them.

So, the story of seat belt laws shows us the importance of financial lobbies in the decision mechanisms of our society. Today, legislative action against climate change has been stopped by a series of effective propaganda campaigns which have succeeded in politicizing the issue and making it impossible to manage rationally. This is probably the most important stumbling block we are facing nowadays. As long as the denial machine is financed and active, progress with the climate issue can only be very slow.

But it is not impossible to beat even a very powerful lobby: it could be done in the case of the tobacco and the pesticide industries. It takes effort and patience but, if we work on that, eventually we'll succeed. Then, the example of seat belts shows us that absolute certainty is not necessary in order to act on a dangerous problem. The fact that a law may be unpleasant - such as wearing a seat belt every time one rides a car - does not prevent from reaching a general consensus that the law was needed.

We do have sufficient evidence that the problem of climate change is serious and important and, at some moment, we'll arrive to a general consensus that stopping climate change is not only a good idea, it is the law.

400 ppm: time for a communication tipping point

Image from Celsias

The round number of 400 ppm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has no special physical significance. The dreaded atmospheric "tipping point" that will lead us to climate catastrophe could have been passed already, or perhaps it could be somewhere at a higher concentration that we'll reach in the future.

But 400 ppm could herald a different tipping point - one that has to do with the perception of the urgency of the climate problem. A communication tipping point.

Perhaps, the low point in climate consciousness was reached last year, when the US presidential elections went through without climate change even being mentioned in the debate. Think about that: is there any way to sink deeper than that? But things are changing. The writing is on the wall: the Web is bubbling up with sites, blogs, forums, videos. There is a general understanding that if we still have a chance to avoid disaster, we must catch it now. Even the blog you are reading, "the frog that jumped out" is a result of this new perception. And that's going to have effects.

The "communication sphere" is a complex system that is subjected to tipping points just as many physical systems. So far, it has remained precariously balanced on a situation where organized denial has been able to block the consciousness of the danger we face from diffusing in the communication space. But, if we reach the tipping point, the communication system will undergo a transition that will change everything. It will bring back the climate problem to its rightful place in the list of priorities we have: the most worrisome, dangerous, terrible threat that humankind has ever faced in historical times. The number "400" could be the mark of this communication tipping point.

Recognizing that a problem exists is the first step to solving it. A small push in the right direction may be just what we need to pass to the next stage. So, let's all push together!

The mind of the denier: Desdemona's trap

This is a post that was previously published on "Cassandra's Legacy" 

 The plot of Shakespeare's "Othello" can tell us something on how to face denial in the climate change debate. In the figure, we see Desdemona in an interpretation by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.

In Shakespeare's "Othello" we see a fine example of how easily people's minds can be manipulated. In the play, evil Iago convinces Desdemona, Othello's wife, to plead with her husband for her friend, Cassio. She doesn't know that, at the same time, Iago had planted in Othello's mind the suspect that she was having an affair with Cassio. So, the more Desdemona pleads for Cassio, the more Othello becomes convinced that she is betraying him. The result is a self-reinforcing chain of misunderstandings that eventually leads to disaster.

Othello, clearly, suffered of what we would call today a "conspiratorial mindset". It is not uncommon as a trait of human personality. Jared Diamond, in his book "The World Until Yesterday," maintains that "constructive paranoia" is a survival-oriented genetic trait. Indeed, it may be better to be afraid of a non-existing danger than to walk unaware into a trap. But, if paranoia may have been an asset in the dangerous world of hunters and gatherers, in our world exploiting paranoia has become an easy way to to manipulate people's minds;  governments do that all the time. But governments are not the only players in this game and a paranoid mindset may also be the main factor that generates the commonly termed "denialist" attitude in the debate on climate change.

"Denialism" is a form of refusal to accept reality that occurs in many fields of knowledge, but that takes an especially virulent aspect in the climate change debate. People who actively engage in the denial of the validity of climate science and of its results are often defined as "deniers" or "fake skeptics." They rarely have scientific credentials in the climate field, or even in science in general and their statements are only superficially scientific. They seem to be focused on the idea that scientists are not just in error with their conclusions but rather are engaged in a plot to spread lies about climate in order to gain prestige and money.

Studies by Lewandowsky and his coworkers show that deniers often have a strong conspiratorial mindset; that is, they tend to believe more than the average person in conspiracies such as "chemtrails," "abiotic oil", assorted 9/11 legends, fake lunar landings, and the like. So, it seems that deniers process information on climate change according to the structure of their specific "cognitive mechanism" which is dominated by the conspiracy concept. Their own constructive paranoia is playing a trick on them, bringing them to the conclusion that climate change is a huge conspiracy that sees climate scientists and governments teaming up in order to trick humankind into submission and slavery (1).

That doesn't mean that there are no powerful lobbies spreading disinformation in the web and in the media - they do exist. And we also have evidence of individual scientists and professionals paid to spread lies around. However, there is no evidence that individual climate deniers of the kind who spend time "trolling" on the web are paid for what they do. We can't exclude that some of them could be, but it matters little. Think about that: how much would you want to be paid to help destroying the world (including yourself)? No payment would be enough, unless you really believed that climate change is an evil conspiracy to enslave everyone. Then, the PR companies that manage denial campaigns for the fossil fuels lobby simply exploit this attitude, without the need of actually paying them.


Once we understand the mindset of deniers, we see how easy it is for scientists to fall into Desdemona's trap. Normally, scientists have been trying to use scientific arguments to defend their points, without realizing that the more they plead for the reality of climate change, the more deniers see their beliefs reinforced. For their conspiracy oriented minds, every rational argument brought into the discussion becomes further proof of the ongoing conspiracy (think of Desdemona's situation!).

At the same time, people who have a scientific mindset find the behavior of deniers completely impossible to understand in rational terms. As a consequence, they tend to think that they are facing professional disinformers. That means, of course, falling even more into Desdemona's trap. If these accusations are explicitly expressed (and sometimes they are) deniers will see their beliefs even more confirmed. These contrasting positions lead to a self-reinforcing loop in which the participants from each side become more and more entrenched in their opposite beliefs. 

In the end, Shakespeare's tragedy is playing out in front of us. The fossil fuel lobby is playing the role of Iago; deniers play the role of Othello; scientists play the role of Desdemona, all totally immersed in their different roles. So far, Iago has been winning hands down playing on the naivety of both Desdemona and Othello. If the "debate" (so to say) continues in these terms, the final result can only be, appropriately, a tragedy - in this case for the whole humankind.

So, how do we avoid falling into Desdemona's trap? Well, there are a number of mistakes that we should avoid. The first is to think that we can convince deniers with scientific arguments. It should be clear that it doesn't work: the more you try to do that, the more you fall in the trap. But the true cardinal mistake that you can make when you debate a denier is to lose your temper and use sarcasm, insults or - worse - accuse him or her to be a paid troll. That's the perfect way of falling head first into Desdemona's trap. Think of the impression you give to the people following the debate who are not conspiracy oriented (2) - they will think that you are the evil guy! At this point, it is game over - you lost.

What should we do, then? Well, remember that conspiracy oriented climate deniers are a tiny minority in the world, even though they may be very noisy. So, the target of your action is not them, it is the large majority of people who are not conspiracy oriented and who haven't yet processed the information about climate change in their minds. So, the best is to avoid the confrontation with deniers (unless it is absolutely necessary) and concentrate in diffusing the concept of climate change with the public in general. For instance, let me cite from "DarwinSF"

"Our one-day elementary school project, Climate Change is Elementary, bypasses the usual negative discourse by assuming that every educated person agrees that it is a scientific "fact" that the climate is changing and that man is largely to blame. We do not confront the deniers and skeptics, we circumvent them by taking the school family directly to a vision of a clean and green future. We also focus on working with the innovators, the early adopters, and the early majority, who tend to agree with us. We ignore the late majority and the laggards, or deniers, who will only hold our program back."

See? This is the way to go. Think positive, circumvent denial, focus on reality. It is a battle that we can still win if we understand how to fight it.



_______________________________________________________

Notes

(1) There is an interesting question about the conspiratorial mentality of denialists: if they are so worried about being victims of the conspiracy set up by climate scientists how come that they are not worried about the opposite conspiracy set up by the fossil fuels lobby? This is a point that some people think proves they are paid trolls. But this is not necessarily true. As I am citing Shakespeare in this post, I could comment saying that, "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't". My impression is that the "method" lies in the mindset of denialists which is rather coherent in its various facets. Denialists see themselves as freedom fighters, independent thinkers immune to the mind-control machine that governments have set up. As such, they tend to project themselves into the figure of the "lone-scientists-fighting-against-the-establishment" and to place a lot of trust in him (rarely her). That explains, for instance, why people who are sure that oil depletion is a hoax to have us pay higher gasoline prices often fall into ecstatic joy when hearing new promises of free and abundant energy from the lone genius of the day. Indeed, many successful scams are based on the narrative of a lone individual fighting against the establishment. And, getting back to Shakespeare; think of this: how is that Othello suspects Desdemona, but not Iago? Well, because Othello projects his own personality into that of his comrade in arms, Iago, while he can't do the same with Desdemona. We humans are like that: we tend to believe what we think we understand (and Shakespeare understood humans probably better than any other human in history)


(2) Think of another facet of the plot of Shakespeare's tragedy: how the protagonist, Othello, plays the total dumbass of the story - so easily duped into destroying himself and everything around him. And, yet, Othello does not appear to us as a bumbling idiot; no; we see him as a tragic figure we sympathize with. You know why? Because he starts in the play with a big handicap, that of being black in an all-white world. The fact that Othello is black is the crucial point of the plot that, otherwise, would be simply ridiculous. Now, think about deniers in the climate debate: they start with a handicap even bigger than Othello's one. They know little or nothing about the science of climate and yet they have picked up a fight with the best experts in the field. Curiously, this handicap generates a strong psychological effect in their favor: it is called the "appeal of the underdog" (aka the "Sylvester vs. Tweety" effect). You see it used in the movie industry all the time - the final winner of the battle is always the one that looked like the loser at the beginning. So, if you are a climate scientist, be careful at avoiding to place yourself into the role of the evil guy of the movies!

___________________________

See also the blog titled "Desdemona's Despair", defined as "the clearinghouse for all of the very worst news about the future of life on Earth, such as global warming, climate change, deforestation, overfishing, acidification, oil spills, resource depletion, drought, pollution, overpopulation, dead zones, mass extinction, and doom." The reasons for the choice of the name "Desdemona" are not stated anywhere in the blog, but may well be the same that I described in this post.

Communicating climate change: may the force be against you!

Yoda's three fingered force push - from Star Wars.

Don't you have the impression, sometimes, that the force is against you? Every time you try  to say something about the dangers of climate change, you see people literally being pushed away from you by an invisible force. It feels like being Star War's Yoda, pushing away enemies with "the force".

The problem is known, although not often referred to in these terms. Here is what Peter Sandman, specialist in the field of risk management, has to say on this issue:

When somebody says something that people don’t want to hear – and certainly don’t want to have to think about or acknowledge – they sometimes self-mockingly stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “La-la-la-la-la.” This is a very literal representation of the essence of denial.

Sandman also adds an example:

.....for many women in the developed world, the main problem is denial. Far from being apathetic about breast cancer, many women are terrified about it. In order to avoid intolerable fear, they must avoid thinking about breast cancer; in order to avoid thinking about breast cancer, they must avoid checking for lumps.

Sounds familiar, right? It is the essence of the problem we face with communicating climate change. People react with denial. Some of them simply don't want to hear about climate (it is the "Yoda push" effect) - others react becoming the "aggressive denier" characters who infest blog comments and discussion forums. But people in denial of climate change are not evil; they are not on the payroll of the fossil fuel lobby. They are showing a perfectly human reaction to a frightening situation.

How do we overcome this reaction? Not easy, but not impossible, either. Let me cite again from Peter Sandman:

In our 2003 column on “Fear of Fear,” Jody Lanard and I offered a list of strategies. Among the important ones:

• Give people things to do.
• Give people choices among things to do – that is, things to decide.
• Encourage love, camaraderie, and community involvement. People can tolerate more fear when they’re protecting others they care about.
• Encourage anger (where appropriate). People can tolerate more fear when they’re fighting back.
• Be a role model – show that you are bearing your own fear.

Then we wrote:

Most importantly, treat other people’s fear as legitimate…. “It’s natural to be afraid, I’m afraid too” is a much more empathic response to public fear than “there’s nothing to be afraid of.” If we want people to bear their fear, we must assure them that their fear is appropriate.

So, we should not "sugar the pill" nor we should try to scare people. Truth is the way to go. The key point is to give people a way to fight back.

Of course, there is much more to say on this issue, but this post should give you some idea of how "risk management" of climate change can be approached in a professional way. Give a look to Sandman's paper, which is a mine of ideas and revelations. Then, your comments are welcome.


____________________________________

For a moment of relax, if you can understand Italian (actually, a peculiar version of Italian as spoken in towns along the Tuscan coast) you can see Yoda's force push in action in this clip.

Welcome to the boiling frog blog

This is a blog dedicated to communication in climate change. 

We are a group of concerned people who believe that the science of climate may not be completely settled, but that the risks involved with climate change are clear enough. It is time to act.

Acting on climate is no trivial matter: humankind is facing a tremendous barrier made of apathy, ignorance and fear that, so far, has blocked or slowed down action. So, our first objective as human beings is of communicating the urgency of the situation. Only after we have reached a global consensus that climate change is a priority issue, it will be possible to act on it effectively.

So, far, the task of communicating the climate problem has not been successful because most concerned people are not trained in the art and the science of communication. That has resulted in an incredible number of mistakes which often have backfired. We need to do way better.

This is what we want to discuss in this blog. We need to learn how to communicate. It means to learn how to tell the truth on climate in a way that doesn't scare people  but, on the contrary, stimulates them to action. It is possible, but we need to do it right.

We chose the image of the boiling frog as a reminder of the human situation on planet Earth. We hope it is to be intended as meaning that we are (or should be) more intelligent than frogs. We can still jump out!