Climate change: why people choose ignorance

Image above from Benvitalis' blog

Excerpt from Yahoo news, highlights by "The Frog"

Why Happy People Hide From Climate Change

Takepart.com – Wed, May 22, 2013

Ignorance may be bliss, but bliss also leads to ignorance—at least when it comes to climate change.

...

The study, published recently in the journal Science Communication, surveyed 736 undergraduate students. After asking them how they felt about the topic, the study then looked to see how likely they were to seek and gather more knowledge about it, said study author Janet Yang, a researcher at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

...

Most people—51 percent—also say they don't think global warming is caused by people, or don't know, according to a Pew Research Center Survey. In other words, they do not know that manmade carbon dioxide is increasing worldwide temperatures, the conclusion reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The most surprising result to Yang was that she uncovered a social "norm" to engage in information avoidance—if a person thought their peers were more likely to avoid information on the topic, then they were more likely to avoid information on it as well. Typically, as is the case with other environmental issues, social norms—what you believe other people want you to do—lead people to seek more information, not less, Yang said.

"If you believe people think you should know more, you are more likely to seek out information," she said.

In this case, if a person spends time with others who avoid information about climate change, then they are more likely to do the same, she said.

The research suggests that when trying to inform people or get them to care about and do something regarding global warming, it may be useful to stir up some kind of emotional response.

"Stirring up emotion and using more visual story-telling—based on the study I think that'd be effective at getting people to seek more information," she said. "We need to deliver a sense of urgency that can effectively stimulate emotional responses to this issue among the audience," the authors continued in the paper.

It could also be useful to portray information-seeking as responsible and favorable. Furthermore, it's important that people understand that they can do something about it; those who thought their actions have no effect were more likely to avoid seeking information, Yang said.

"Risk communication about climate change might benefit from arousing a sense of curiosity or debunking false beliefs about current knowledge so that people are not complacent with what they already know," the authors wrote.

Yang said that she cares deeply about climate change, because it will have "a huge impact on our generation and future generations." When she confronts climate change deniers, she tries to convince them that it's a real problem, if she thinks it's appropriate. But if it's a casual or dinner conversation, "I don't always engage, because I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable," she said. "But perhaps I should."

Risk management failure illustrated

"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". 

by Peter Sandman, specialist in the field of risk management. See also "May the force be against you" on this blog
 

The hockey stick is real!

The ice building of "Monte Senario" on the hills near Florence, in Italy, as it was in early 20th century. At that time, it was filled with snow in winter and it could produce tons of ice in summer. Today, it would be barely able to produce a few ice cream cones; and probably not even that. It is tangible evidence of warming and not just that: it proves that the climate reconstruction called the "hockey stick" is correct in indicating that temperatures have substantially risen up during the past century. 

Evidence that you are doing something right in the climate change debate often comes from the denial reaction. Most of the times, messages on climate change are simply ignored but, occasionally, the reaction is strong; sometimes rabid. Then, you must have hit a sensitive point!

The most egregious example of this denial reaction is with the so called "hockey stick" curve, the reconstruction of past temperatures that comes with a shape that vaguely reminds, indeed, a hockey stick. Here is the original curve as proposed by Mann and others which appeared as Figure 2.20 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001, based on Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999

 

Later studies confirmed the curve, also extending it all the way to about 10,000 years ago in a new study by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix.

Nevertheless, the controversy didn't die out; on the contrary, it keeps flaring, as you can find yourself by googling the term "hockey stick temperatures." If you mention the hockey stick in any kind of on line debate, it is almost certain that you'll be attacked by people who will start by stating how surprised they are that you are still believing that old and debunked graph. Entire books have been written with the purpose of "debunking" the hockey stick curve, to say nothing about personal attacks and legal harassment against Michael Mann and other researches in the field. 

So, denial has had a certain success with the hockey stick and the question is how do we counter these attacks. It is not easy, but let me try to suggest some strategies on the basis of my personal experience. First, let me list three things that you should NOT do.

1. Climate change denial is grounded in fear. Most people react to bad news by turning away, if they can (this is what I called the "Star Wars Force Push Effect". But for some, fear is so great that they feel that they can't just turn away; they rather react taking an aggressive denial posture. Since fear is not rational, it cannot be overcome by rational arguments. Trying to discuss the science behind paleoclimate measurements will just make deniers more aggressive. 

2. If you try to defend the scientists who performed these studies, you'll be subjected to what I call "Desdemona's trap". In Shakespeare's play, Desdemona tried to help a friend in need but she succeeded only in reinforcing her husband's idea that she was betraying him. The more you try to defend a fellow scientists, the more you'll appear to be in collusion with him/them. In taking this attitude, you'll simply reinforce the belief that scientists are engaged in a world-wide conspiracy designed to trick the world into believing in the fictional story of climate change. 

3. Letting yourself dragged into a heated hockey stick debate is tantamount to disaster. If you are a scientist, most likely you know much more about the matter than your opponents. But this is not a debate that you can win using data and rational arguments. Most people who read the exchanges will have a hard time understanding what is science and what is pseudo-science. We are all human and we react to emotional arguments more than to scientific ones. Once the debate veers into straight accusations and insults, many people may well conclude that scientists are the evil guys of the story. 

All right, that's what is not to be done. What do we do, then? Well, there are no miracle solutions, but I can tell you of a test that I made and that seems to have worked well. 

As I described in a previous post of mine, recently I spoke about climate to several of my fellow citizens in the town of Fiesole. I introduced the issue of climate change by showing them something they know well: the ice house that, a century ago, was producing ice in summer.

The ice house is something they could relate with; surely not a machination of some evil scientists. It was obvious that the old ice house, today, couldn't produce any amount of ice larger than enough to make a few ice cream cones. So, climate has changed over a century, and it has radically changed. Only after having them understand the local change, I introduced the global temperature measurements, showing them that what we experienced in our town is consistent with the global warming trends. I short I could show to them that the hockey stick is real!

That I coupled with a call to action; emphasizing concrete measures that could be taken to avoid brush fires, to make life more comfortable during heat waves and the like. In this, I followed the advice from Peter Sandman, an expert about risk management, as I described in a previous post.

I didn't have any denial reaction - as instead it had happened in previous debates in the same town. I was somewhat afraid that someone could have risen up and said "but this winter was cold, so where is global warming?" but that didn't occur. And it was not the lack of negative reactions; if you have some experience with speaking in public, you can easily feel the mood of the audience. In this case, it was a clearly positive reaction. People understood what I was telling them and agreed with me. They also felt "empowered" at the idea that they could do something practical together.

It doesn't mean it will work all the time and in all situations - it may be more difficult on line than in real life. But I think it is a good strategy for a variety of cases: start with local evidence of long term warming, something that people can understand. Then, emphasize positive action and don't enter in useless squabbles. 

Try it; then you'll tell me how it worked. 

_________________________________

You can read the whole story of the hockey stick debate in Michael Mann's excellent book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars"

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.