Current+attitudes+towards+climate+change


 * Climate Change is hazardous to your health ||
 * Smoking ||
 * Asbestos ||
 * DDT ||
 * Climate Change ||
 * Evaluating timelines ||
 * Current attitudes towards climate change ||
 * Progressing attitudes towards climate change ||
 * References ||

**What informs today’s attitudes towards climate change? **

Many hundreds of thousands of world citizens, scientists, environmentalists, leaders and observers accept the science of anthropogenic climate change and are engaged in action at all levels of society. There are also a significant number of climate champions working to draw attention and action to this most pressing issue. The drag on this however, remains significant enough that the collective actions of our species is vastly insufficient to effect adequate change.

Let us therefore look at some influences which are consciously or unconsciously stalling progress:

**Propaganda **

One of the early pioneers of the field of ‘public relations’ - also referred to as ‘propaganda’ was Edward Bernays. Applying principles of crowd psychology and the psychoanalytical findings of his uncle Sigmund Freud, Bernays occupied a significant space in the history of influencing 20th century attitudes. He did this because he considered that people acted like animal herds, and therefore needed to be controlled. In his own words, from a 1928 essay entitled ‘Propaganda’;

//“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.” //

Though controversial, some of Bernays’ proven techniques included press releases, publicity stunts and the indirect use of third party authorities to promote the views of his clients. There are many examples to be found in each timeline, where these techniques have been, and continue to be, employed. 55.

So who is influencing opinion on climate change today? In late 2011, Riley E. Dunlap, regents professor of sociology  at Oklahoma State University, and Aaron M McCright, an associate professor of sociology at Michigan State University, mapped a network of key players in the climate change denial camp (see below). 56.  Well-financed and well organised, this pool of fossil fuel leaders, conservative think tanks, contrarian scientists and front organisations has attacked the vast majority of mainstream science and climatologists since the Reagan era. Their chief aim is to sustain a structure of free markets and keep government regulation at bay - as part of a wider push to preserve the current social order of the West.

**The role of confirmation bias in stalling attitudinal progress. **

In a recent article by University of Queensland John Climate Communication Fellow John Cook, strong evidence is not enough to change the attitudes of some.

//“A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change...For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%; text-decoration: none;">far more likely to reject that climate change is happening <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">.” //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">He concludes, //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">“The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias.” // <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">57. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">As long as climate change is viewed as an opponent of the current global economic construct, confirmation bias will remain the glue that sticks compulsive denial. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">With a different perspective, this could radically change. Climate change could be viewed, for example, as “the result of operating a model based on infinite growth in a world of finite resources - a catalyst for a new and sustainable construct” or perhaps “an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and lead the way in inevitable reform”?

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The question of framing **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">In 2005, Fast Company magazine published an article by Alan Deutschman called ‘Change or Die’. It reported on scientific research into changing behaviour through a study of heart disease patients. It found that fear of dying did not sustain behavioural change, rather, the ‘joy of living’. It came down to the issue of ‘framing’. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">58.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">‘Framing’ refers to how you describe, or ‘frame’ an issue, by taking into consideration what the issue is, who you are addressing, why it’s important to them and what they can do about it. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">59. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;"> In the context of changing attitudes towards activities harmful to our health, framing could be the difference between success and failure. So much so that how a message is framed can affect the outcome - the actions we choose. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">60. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;"> In May, 2009, Journalist John M Broder wrote “The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” He went on to write that the issue is being framed in unappealing ways, a view that environmental research group EcoAmerica has uncovered over several years of research. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">61.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">A finite pool of worry **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">There is also a limit to the number of issues which can occupy the forefront of the human mind. Referred to as a ‘finite pool of worry’, it means people’s capacity for concern is usually restricted to those issues which are nearer term and closest to home. With issues such as unemployment, health, economic woes, political unrest and terrorism high on the agenda, it is difficult to grab - and hold - public attention on an issue which is playing out (in relative terms) slowly and subtly. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">62.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Top of mind **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">It is also likely that with each example, public attention can be drawn to the issue but it is difficult to sustain attention long term. Advertisers refer to this as keeping their message ‘top of mind’ and it explains why advertisements are presented repeatedly. But if people are not given a compelling reason to remain engaged, their attention soon moves elsewhere.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Emotional numbing **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Continued worry or anxiety can lead to a desensitising or numbing effect where individuals become ‘immune’ to issues that drain them emotionally. Studies have observed this reaction from people living under constant duress - such as those in war zones or environments under repeated threat. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">62.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Baffled by science **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Scientific evidence is, by its very nature, technical and clinical. Unless data is interpreted into relatable, clear concepts, it is difficult for the average person to process the idea that higher carbon dioxide concentrations and increased ocean acidification bear any relationship to their daily life.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The tyranny of distance ** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">The human mind is not designed to immediately react to threats that seem to manifest themselves in the distant future, such as climate change. In //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">New World New Mind //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">, Ornstein and Ehrlich wrote that human brain hardwiring precludes us from being able to take the long view. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%; vertical-align: super;">63. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">When climate science models the future but cannot pinpoint dates and specific influences, it’s a bit like next year’s tax bill or the amount of interest you’ll have to pay on your credit card purchases: the implications seem too abstract and too far away.