Good pointer. -- The article itself is openly available for all: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html Downloadable: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/pdf/463284a.pdf -- The Editorial is openly available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html
The Opinion piece, referred to in the Editorial, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463296a.html Nature 463, 296-297 (21 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463296a; Published online 20 January 2010 describes the science behind how people do and don't pay attention, and how people really do change their minds. Sadly, it is paywalled. The key messages -- based on good scientific research about opinion change -- will not please people who are passionate and vocal about getting climate change taken seriously, but who aren't themselves scientists--the passionate bloggers, the public activists, the people whose impulse is to lambaste the opposition with a broad brush and a sharp tongue. That's the very human, and very counter-effective, response. This is either irony or tragedy, our grandchildren will know which. Which key messages? My opinion, the hard ones are these: >From the public teaser for the paywalled Opinion piece: "People's grasp of scientific debates can improve if communicators build on the fact that cultural values influence what and whom we believe, says Dan Kahan. In a famous 1950s psychology experiment, researchers showed students from two Ivy League colleges a film of an American football game between their schools in which officials made a series of controversial decisions against one side. Asked to make their own assessments, students who attended the offending team's college reported seeing half as many illegal plays as did students from the opposing institution." The rest is paywalled. >From the open Editorial: >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html "... be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side." It's hard, isn't it? But that's what the science says about how people work. So, where's Judith Curry these days? Others whose politics may be at odds with big global solutions at government level, but who are doing good science and good teaching, who ought to be encouraged more to speak up? --------------- On Jan 21, 10:02 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a good look at the problems faced by the climate change > community just published in NATURE. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. 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/globalchange
