Bishop Hill Diary dates, navel gazing edition
Nov 14, 2014 Diary dates Greens Media The Guardian has organised one of those Guardianesque events at which they get a lot of greens together to discuss how green things should be:
Are the media contributing to the problem of climate change through apocalyptic stories, or by giving equal airtime to sceptics despite the scientific consensus? Could better reporting help us feel less hopeless and helpless?
Anne Karpf is Reader at London Metropolitan University and a freelance journalist
John Vidal is environment editor of The Guardian
James Painter, of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford, is author of 'Climate Change and the Media'
Sally Weintrobe is a psychoanalyst and editor of 'Engaging with Climate Change'.
It's on the 18th November in London. Details here.
Reader Comments (27)
They really are starting to panic. Irrelevance beckons for the scare mongers as planet Earth refuses to go along with the con.
One day, with any luck, they will disappear completely up their own backsides.
They're half-way there already, it seems to me. One more push should do it!
This is very much "the Team" much battening down the hatches, sticking their fingers in their ears, and going 'La La La La........."
The wheels are coming off the gravy train - no one is listening to their every word - they feel isolated
So lets just have a mutual admiration society!
Here's how it works:
If the scare stories don't demoralize you, then the fact that there are unrepentant liars in charge is supposed to.
Don't buy it, greenies. Free your mind.
Andrew
at the Royal Court Theatre, this Saturday 15 Nov is The Day of Action! Inspired by our current production of 2071
..another trip to green lah-lah-land
Note how our "King Canute" "green" govs are so focused on the war of the future, they let Putin's war of today go on unhindered.
Just had a wicked thought that might get me snipped; why don't we all book 10 tickets each (they are free) and leave them talking to a largely empty hall.
Sally and friends in full flow here 28 Jan 2013 - from 18mins in:
//
Climate change - what lies beneath its widespread denial? Laurie Taylor talks to Sally Weintrobe, the editor of the first book of its kind which explores, from a multi disciplinary perspective, what the ecological crisis actually means to people. In spite of a scientific consensus, many continue to resist or ignore the message of climate communicators - but why? What are the social and emotional explanations for this reaction? They're joined by the Professor of Social Policy, Paul Hoggett.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzv2n
//
I think that merits a general "WTF?".
Which parts of the MSM are giving equal time to sceptics? Sure there may be some MSM outlets that try to, but none that I watch/see/hear. The only ones that give equal airtime to sceptics are the ones that give zero airtime to the topic at all. Elsewhere, it's generally wall to wall alarmism.
not banned yet,
Thanks for the post. This really is getting curiouser and curiouser ...
I for one am grateful that I will have a gallery seat for the coming "When Prophecy Fails" performance. This really is a daring launch into new territory on the cognitive dissonance circuit.
So, do any of these idiots have any qualification at all to speak on the climate?
Anne Karpf sociologist
John Vidal Guardian "He joined the paper in 1995 after working for Agence France Presse, North Wales Newspapers and the Cumberland News." - no mention of even a degree.
James Painter: James joined the BBC World Service in 1992. He first came to the RISJ as the BBC Journalist Fellow in 2006 and was subsequently a Visiting Fellow at the Institute.
Sally Weintrobe is a psychoanalyst
In Contrast
Andrew Montford: Chemistry degree many years commenting and investigating the science.
Mike Haseler: Physics degree many years commenting and investigating the science.
Anthony Watts: Weather man.
etc.
just..........................It'll be a tough choice between:
Spending a week locked in a cage with 12 hunger crazed tigers, a dinner party from hell in the 'exulted' [giggle]..... 'company' [yuk] a troika of; Russell Brand and Simon Cowell and Ed Miliband. Or, a Graun enviro-loon cheese and windbag soiree?
Someone, please..............I can't go on.
Could better reporting help us feel less hopeless
No but better reporters might help.
He joined the paper in 1995 after working for Agence France Presse
To work at a journal in france he must have at least a diplôme in journalismmaybe from uni de grenoble, bordeaux or parisien.
Sally Weintrobe?
wasn't she the one trying to get the NHS to medicalise "deniers" via The Portman Clinic? - I notice that initiative has floundered (for the moment?) and references to in/on their web site have been disappeared.
More like "Beyond the denial of alarmism"...
I'd guess they are but political fashionistas. They will move on to other things in due course, and this transition will have little to do with science since that endeavour has shown for some time that the alarm over our impact on climate is a contrived one, contradicted by observations on many timescales and so weakly supported by theory that computer models of widely agreed incompetence have been deployed to support it.
No, no, John Shade, it is a religion. Facts don't enter into it. Look up the history of the Miller-ites in the 1840's and their belief in the end-of-the-world-real-soon-now. The world didn't end despite several predicted dates, but the remnants are still going under other names.
No, they have their prophesy brought down by the prophet Algore, from Mount Unbelievable in the sacred IPCC hills. Sacred 3 bladed symbols must adorn each hill, with frequent blood sacrifices and we must all repent. This is just a sack cloth (from a little boutique in Milan) and ashes (from an albino yak at a tibetan monastery) wailing ceremony. Everybody wails disconcertedly until the audience is fed up, and then goes home saying "that will show them".
"Mrs Sally Weintrobe is a Fellow of The Institute of Psychoanalysis and Chairs its Scientific Committee."
"Her commitment to fostering interdisciplinary exchange with other human scientists has led to this remarkable book."
"She has written and lectured on identity and entitlement attitudes, grievance, prejudice and greed. Her most recent paper was on runaway greed and climate change denial."
It would seem our problems are all in our heads.
could be fun , the only real question just have mad will their pronouncements be , no doubt when the Guardian tells us of this 'world changing ' event we will find out .
"Which parts of the MSM are giving equal time to sceptics?"
The issue is they do not think that sceptics should get ANY coverage , it makes sense when you totally believe that you cannot be wrong in anyway and that your 'saving the planet '
'Climate change' is a great employer.
A transcript of the Weintrobe weep is at
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130123_ta
The book she edited on the subject has an introduction by Chris Rapley, and an Amazon review by Chris Rapley.
So will they be discussing Seth Blatter ,alleged corruption and cover ups at FIFA or are they worried they will be labelled as Conspiracy Theorist too.
@ Athelstan
Seems like you have come up with ideas for three new "reality TV" shows!
Nov 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM | not banned yet
For Sally's benefit (though I suppose she would never come here), the reason for widespread climate change inaction and skepticism, 'denial', is an 'innate' skepticism possessed by humans and known to psychologists. It is triggered by narrative features of the concept being sold, and hence the trigger requires no domain knowledge at all. Narratives that are too coherent, too certain, too forceful, too emotive and too arrogant, will cause the public to suspect deep down (subconsciously in most cases), that the subject being pushed at them is deeply flawed. This is the case for the CAGW narrative. The 'innate skepticism' is most likely a long-evolved defensive reaction to narrative takeovers, which afflict us very regularly indeed. In NON climate domains, Lewandowsky calls this characteristic a 'stable personality trait, a 'key to accuracy', which lessens the chance of folks being manipulated by misinformation. In the climate domain, his own wordlviews cannot admit to this effect explaining widespreqad skepticism; he um... denies his own papers that describe this effect. So to lessen internal cognitive dissonance he has to (attempt to) place (the main) skeptics beyond the pale - way outside the bounds of 'normal' skepticism if you will. One of several flaws in this approach is that one can't similarily place the bulk of the unconvinced public 'beyond the pale'. See the Psychology of Climate Psychologiaztion parts 1, 2, 3 at WUWT. Part 1 below (long!):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/06/wrapped-in-lew-papers-the-psychology-of-climate-psychologization-part1/
Nov 15, 2014 at 12:17 PM | Andy West
A most perceptive comment. I would also add that being 'too certain' used to be frowned upon in scientific circles.
Graeme No.3 , your theory has some appeal - it can explain a lot, and is real easy on the brain. But I think Andy West, above, and in his series of posts at WUWT, has got more depth and even more explanatory power! Nips the old brain though.
Nov 15, 2014 at 4:58 PM | John Shade
Thanks, John :)