Through out this class we have been focusing a lot on proving global warming and climate change. How Culture Shapes The Climate Change Debate takes a step back and focuses on why there is still objection even though the consensus through out the scientific world is that climate change does exist. He uses his background in social science to prove that this is do to our culture and, more specifically, our political background.We do this some what subconsciously. When scientist release new information related to politically sensitive subjects people read the evidence in the light of their preexisting beliefs. One person could read a statement that proves climate change and see it as so, but another person could read the same statement and will find evidence that supports their beliefs. He also states that, "we are the product of our surroundings." This means that we are more likely to follow the same belief pattern as our social group.
Andrew Hoffman mentioned early on in his book that specific evidence for or against climate change will actually strengthen the viewers previous belief, no matter what end of the spectrum they are on. If a person that beliieves in climate change reads facts against it, their previous belief tends to grow stronger. The same can be said for a person that does not believe in climate change. If this person is given evidence that proves climate change is true, then they will react in a defensive manner, strengthening their previous belief against climate change.
Another thing that creates problems for the climate change debate is our way of life. Bill McKibben mentions this in his book, Eaarth, when he talks about humans going on with, "business as usual." Because our oil consumption and energy use is so engrained in our daily lives, it would be incredibly hard to change our normal.
I am excited to continue reading this book and I am looking forward to getting a deeper explanation about the role culture plays in the debate of climate change.
I think that's totally insane that people's preexisting beliefs will be reinforced by contradictory evidence. I have no problem with people viewing things with a little suspicion-we can't believe everything we read. But you should always keep an open mind. I think there is a sort of stigma in our society associated with changing your mind because it involves admitting that you were wrong. There should be no shame in ignorance unless you choose it willingly.
ReplyDeleteI like Rachel's word here, "insane." It does sound like a form of insanity if you can't allow new, contradictory information, to change the way you think. The frightening thing is that maybe there is a kind of mass insanity that keeps people from accepting a new reality, no matter how much scientific evidence piles up!
ReplyDeleteI think it's definitely an issue when looking at society and its views on climate change. It's crazy how easy it is to see people watch one news report and see a famous anchor deny the change and then suddenly they feel inclined - and correct - in denying it too. We definitely need to find a way to appeal to people's emotions and opinions and teach them to believe climate change is real and a threat to humanity.
ReplyDeleteI just do not understand how people can view scientific evidence that is proven and still find ways to think that it isn't true. It is really ignorant, and disappointing. I know our life style revolves around fossil fuels and that our government as well as personally we are invested in them but if it is such a risk to our lives why do we continue this way?
ReplyDeleteIt completely shocks me how some people think, especially when there is scientific fact, not just hypothesis, but fact that change is here and not going away! People seem to not like change from their daily lives, so when things have to change, it becomes an inconvenience to them and nothing happens. Then we become stuck where we were, in a mess..
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that people tend to subconsciously filter the data that they read to support their previous beliefs. It is hard to believe that by reading an article supporting climate change can actually strengthen someones belief against it. Most of us are just too close minded for our own good.
ReplyDeleteThe book I'm reading also deals with the subconscious aspect of climate change, but focuses in more on how we are innately wired to not be able to process a problem like climate change. There was a key part in it that coincided with one of your points, regarding the strengthening of beliefs. It spoke on the different types of biases that we subconsciously use when processing information, more specifically the confirmation bias. We are more likely to pay attention to information that solidifies what we believe and more likely to disregard information that refutes what we believe. I thing that these types of biases are part of the problem in dealing with climate change, as those who already have some sort of belief about it to begin with are less likely to be convinced despite very real evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt is shocking to hear that climate change deniers could read something that clearly supports the existence of climate change, and still find a way to turn it around. I guess people hear what they want to hear.
ReplyDeleteAs far as it being difficult to change, the authors in my book and the Stern Review had the same opinion. Rather than trying to get to 350 ppm, they wanted to set a goal of 500 ppm, which is still not going to change much as far as our future goes. Their reasoning was because they do not think the economy can handle such a radical change that it would take to completely get to where we need to be in order to save the planet. Also, capitalism is so engraved in our minds that all we think about is improving growth, which would be very hard to get out of someone's way of life.
ReplyDelete