>From the abstract of Kahan et al: 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. .... subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition.
Both of these findings conform with my experience. There is a meme out there that climate scientists jigger models to get whatever result they want. So, when a climate scientist shows model results that indicate that solar geoengineering would basically work, yet it is clear that the scientist does not like that approach to "solving" climate problems, it shows people that the climate scientist is not just jiggering models. In many cases, I have seen people become convinced of the basic honesty of climate scientists when presented results from solar geoengineering simulations. I have also found that people who are presented with results from solar geoengineering simulations tend to increase their willingness to entertain the idea that greenhouse gas emissions might produce conditions that are bad enough to motivate the use of such drastic measures. Once people recognize the possibility of such bad outcomes, they are usually willing to do more on the emission side to avoid these outcomes. So, the results presented by Kahan et al conform with my experience in speaking with diverse groups. It is great to see a top-notch group like this doing this important work. _______________ 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 https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > Poster's note : Another study finding negative moral hazard. > > Paper : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907 > > Informal discussion : > http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html > > Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel > Model of Science Communication > > by Dan M. Kahan, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Tor Tarantola, Carol L Silva, > Donald Braman > > Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Sci. (2014, Forthcoming) > > 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. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
