should psychology as a tool be more frequently employed by proponents of global warming?

Question

every concept and cause has its skeptics. politicians use the media and their underlings to 'spin' their message and make it more accessible to the public. sometimes the spin works too hard though, and the politician loses credibility.

should or could proponents of global warming use some version of persuasion, of psychology, of 'spin' to present facts and conclusions? it seems absurd that it should even be necessary, but with the unwarranted criticism and skepticism about climate change, it seems psychology could be at least as useful a tool as a thermometer...

what do you think? would credibility suffer, or would it be worth it to use specially trained experts to better 'promote' the inevitable conclusion?

Answer 1

I agree with you, sort of.

While using psychology to trick people into believing (or not believing) in global warming is a massively bad idea, the principles and methods of behavioral psychology can be used to get people to adopt more environmentally sustainable practices in their daily lives.

Behavioral Psychology is the science of behavior modification through the use of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment.

Positive reinforcement is the absolute most powerful shaper of human behavior. So if you do something, and you are rewarded for doing it (either naturally or artificially) you will continue to do it.

Behavioral psychology has successfully increased the rates of carpooling in numerous trials, and could be implemented on massive scales. Really any behavior that is good for the environment could be made to be reinforcing for people, the problem is that in order to make these programs an initial investment in capital would be needed.

But the savings of most interventions far outweigh the costs.

Answer 2

Every 500 years say - there is a warming in the climate of the earth - however there is unprecedented abnormal measurements in the equation - mankind is having considerable impact on this occurence - this cycle - in terms of global warming the carbon contribution through the fossil fuel economy that drives industry around the planet the aeroplanes the cars the trains the ships - petroleum gasolene fuels the engines - that allows people everywhere to travel - there is new advanced cleaner fuel systems - available more economical advantages - why then is commerce reluctant to change from a fossil fuel economy mentality - this is the twenty-first century - nanotechnology presents humankind with the potential to change every area of human activity - transportation - industry - commerce -education - medicine - agriculture - the permutations are endless - humankind has the opportunity - adolesence phase has passed away in evolutionary speak - giving maturity - to the people of the earth - one would expect more responsibilty with having evolved as a species and yet there is a fog of ignorance and contradiction in government. i am one for optomism for change - the economy will drive better on a cleaner more sustainable eco-freindly nanotechnology economy - beleive - the children are the next generation - we have to adapt to cleaner lifestyle management - be happy for everyone can make a difference - let's create a cleaner safer world to sustain the bio-diversity of the planet.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, I don't think ignorance is the problem we're dealing with (with the possible exception of Jello). I have absolutely no doubt that Bush, Cheny, Rowe, et al know the facts. Why else would they force the States to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get enforcement of laws we have depended on since the 1970's? They promote disinformation to maintain their profiteering. Look at that oil company that's offered huge $$$ to ANY person who can offer ANY credible scientific evidence to counter or discredit the data. Do you really think those guys don't know what's going on? If they really thought Global Warming was a hoax, do you think they'd feel they needed to offer a reward to refute it? Every undergraduate student in the world would have already done so if there was evidence. The people who oppose environmental efforts are like the ones who claim the moon landings were a hoax.

This is very similar to the propaganda campaign that paved the way for the rise of fascism in the 1930's. It has nothing to do with truth, or proof.

Answer 4

Use of psychology in this way is not a thermometer, it is a persuasion tactic. As such, it is unethical to use it in this way. Unfortunately, those opposed to proper consideration of global warming are not opposed to using deception when putting their views forward. All the facts and the best dispassionate interpretations are what we need.
A psychologist in Adelaide

Answer 5

See what you are doing to me. Sorry Patz I agree with Jello, we should provide the facts, the sources, information and then have open discussion (backed up with sources) when presenting any view.

We may not agree with that view but if we get a chance to discuss and debate it openly then at least we can understand the other's view.

Nobody is correct all the time. We all make mistakes, we all get things wrong. Let's get rid of the culture of spin and blame and openly discuss the issues. No tricks, no underhand tactics. Just open discussion. Works for me.

Answer 6

Brainwashing techniques have been used from the beginning. How do you think this madness has had this much legs.

I guess if one is losing followers, by way of common sense, one might stoop to more effective forms of propaganda.

Get real

Answer 7

Ja woll, mein Führer!

We should register all people that are against GW, seize their property, capture them, and put them on trains to GW re-education camps in Poland. That is the final solution! When logic fails....well then, you know what.

Mein Führer! I can walk!!! You could be a Reichsmarschall des Großfrisco Reiches. Scandoval would love you!! Gavin would like a G string photo shoot with you!

Hermann Wilhelm Göring just called and said "That is the spirit of liberalism" and "Aloha from Hell".

Answer 8

Its a shame that people are so ignorant that facts alone arent enough. I would say dont go using psychology to teach the facts, but do go on the offensive against the oil companies and others by exposing their motives and tactics. Newsweek did a great job of this 2 weeks ago. They had a great story about the propaganda machine that tries to deny global warming.

Answer 9

Why do you need to use some version of persuasion, of psychology, of 'spin' to present facts and conclusions?

Why can you just provide facts that can be verified by others?

Answer 10

Credibility would suffer if it was done in a blatent, in-your-face manner that most people would catch on to. If it was done in an educational and tactful way, then more people might be swayed to the cause. This is probably true for most agendas.