I have seen this phenomena among audiences in talks that I have given. I think that some people who deny the reality of human-induced climate change do so in part as a psychological defense mechanism -- if a problem seems too large to solve, there may be a psychological advantage in denying that the problem exists.
The appearance of a potential solution, even if illusory, gives people the psychological space to admit the problem. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Our YouTube videos* The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> Carbon turnover rates in the One Tree Island reef: A 40-year perspective<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnCt5NXL_U0> More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Josh Horton <[email protected]>wrote: > In addition to the moral hazard issue, this study also presents evidence > suggesting that discussions of geoengineering can have a depolarizing > effect on the wider climate change debate. In essence, the argument is > that geoengineering doesn't carry the same amount of cultural/political > baggage as other, more charged aspects of the climate debate (for example, > implicit anti-capitalism), and so allows for a less intense, more > deliberative focus on the facts. The authors point out that this doesn't > necessarily lead to greater support for geoengineering, just a more > considered debate. > > Josh Horton > > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:52:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > >> Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs >> below): >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/**papers.cfm?abstract_id=**1981907#<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907#> >> >> This is the 3rd or 4th study I've seen (including my own) which found >> negative moral hazard. There have been no findings of positive moral >> hazard in any study of which I'm aware. >> >> Dan works on the Yale cultural cognition project >> http://www.culturalcognition.**net/ <http://www.culturalcognition.net/> >> Please note his email, cc and >> [email protected] for comments. >> >> Thanks >> >> A >> >> Abstract: >> We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = >> 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural >> cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on >> cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the >> cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a >> distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines >> information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) >> selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across >> diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on >> climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that >> information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study >> hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential >> contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 >> emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of >> climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from >> competing models of science communication, that exposure to >> information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of >> climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found >> that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were >> slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned >> to a control condition. >> >> Number of Pages in PDF File: 41 >> >> Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk >> perception >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WY24Zt6j0NQJ. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
