Bishop Hill Greens and a tin-opener
Feb 11, 2011 BBC Climate: other Greens Brian Micklethwait writes about last night's BBC Radio 4 programme about the psychology of climate change. Having read the blurb for the show I had decided to give it a miss, and from what Brian has written I was probably right to have done so. Nevertheless, he makes some perceptive points about the problem facing our opponents given that many people have simply concluded that the world is not going to fry:
The elephant in their room is that they have lost this argument, in the sense that they need unanimity [on climate change], but are drifting further and further away from unanimity. They are ignoring this elephant. They are behaving like that economist, stuck on a desert island with various other sorts of experts, who is wondering how to contrive a tin-opener. "Let's assume we have a tin-opener." This won't work.
Bishop Hill
Also this from Brian M in the comments thread below the Samizdata piece:
They just flailed about for half an hour looking for the magic marketing pitch that would persuade everyone to act on their assumed unanimous belief, having said at the start that they would not be discussing any actual differing beliefs, by discussing that people might actually have good reasons for differing beliefs. There was no speculation about why people disagreed. Dissenters were not, as I say, medicalised. They were simply ignored.
It was funny, somewhat in a way that reminded me of that scene in one of the Douglas Adams yarns, where some cave man invents the wheel, and the marketers say has it been tested with focus groups. In that case, the marketers wanted to abort an actual miracle, ridiculously. Here, there were being expected to create a miracle, out of nothing. They tried, ridiculously, and of course failed. In both cases they were thrusting themselves to centre stage, where in each case they did not belong. The wheel just needed to start being used, as it actually was, of course. With CAGW, the argument has first to be won that it is actually happening. Unless and until that argument has been won, the marketers are helpless.
The marketers should have said that. Maybe some did. They didn't appear on the programme
Reader Comments (53)
Rick Bradford
"'They absolutely need the environment to be on the verge of catastrophe; just as they need victims for whom they can champion so that they can keep this image of themselves as being heroic, compassionate, champions of the oppressed (including the oppressed planet).'"
The Left has a deeply ambiguous view of the victims it privileges. They are so 'championed' and fawned over because they are already in the submissive position the Left wish the rest of us to be in.
Brent Hargreaves
The funny thing is this very day I was walking through town and some clown of a reporter stuck a microphone in my face and asked almost the exact same question.
My response, which I doubt will be broadcast was: "Don't piss into the wind."
It is good advice, regardless. But somehow not what he was expecting. I could guess as I saw the look in his eyes.
Perhaps Josh could use the idea. It is much more effective than "Piss off". Of that I am certain.
Cognitive dissonance.
"I couldn't stand the stress of listening..."
"You're right Dougie, I didn't watch either. I simply can't risk getting furiously angry at my age.."
"Frustrating to listen to..."
These people have it (CD) I would say. They short circuited and left before fully understanding.
Best comment from someone with cojone and says it all:
"I just finished listening the program, and it is better than we thought. Even though it gives the full floor to CAGW advocates, none of them come across as persuasive.
I also learned a new word today: 'eco-psychology'."
To the rest - get out of the kitchen.
This show was bread and butter and more for real thinkers.
The fact that our national broadcaster only interviewed propagandists for "one side" should be noted.
It does not need to be debated what "the truth was"
Look who were asked to talk in this show and stop scurring like tiny mice away from listening and learning more.
WWF, Futerra and a lottery funded Sterling organisation were prominent.
I loved the Sterling woman sayin that the Ethiopean 0.08 ton Carbon usage was a target to attain.
It was a rich mine to find. The guy who clearly was lying about "pollution" to get attention about climate change was obviously vaguely seen as a bit wrong by the presenter, but the presenter soon dropped the subject after the plattitudes kept piling on.
The program actually is pathological in the extreme and should be known as so.