124 Analysis of Sander Von Der Linden


Dec 2015 A.I.T.M "As the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 21, continues in Paris, Claudia talks to Dr Sander van der Linden in Princeton about how psychological science can help policy makers to communicate about climate change."

Summary

Alex's transcript deconstructs down to : So Linden says, 'normal people are as certain as I am, they aren't worrying enough about CC cos they can't see anything immediate, and one thing is we could do is shout "climate change caused flood".
- The benefits of Green are not immediate so we shout "clean air has BIG benefits" ''

And then I can simplify that further
Seems to me that he is coming up with an alarmist justification for deceiving about CC
* He's 100% certain about CC, believes people's measures today could avert catastrophe in deep future.
That kind of talk will lead to thoughts in in "true believers" minds
* You deceive about extreme weather to worry people
* You deceive about the harm of particulates, to make it look like today's energy conservation, saves lives tomorrow.

One check to see he might not have a grip on reality is he asserts "psychology has really played a very small role in informing policy-making on this issue." ...Deceiver ! 97%, 97% is all we hear.
and Yes he does he turn out to be close to Lewandowsky
There is a minor attempt at framing in the intro
"the reality of climate change?"
Why use the reinforncing word "reality of" ? You don't say "the reality of mad cow disease" etc.

Background Checking

Claudia : Did 10 part series on psychology of CC before. However since then not really an activist, but has had crazy item before with Chris Jones.
Sander von der Linden : Mad Lewandowsky connection ? Yep, last two Sci-Am articles were written with
Twitter Check : not much
Expert check : Barry Woods, Mike Hulme, Jose Duarte would be familiar with Linden. nothing specific found so far.
When Barry Woods put questions in blog comments , alarmists avoided answering them
I see Linden wrote 2 articles in Sc-Am with Lew this year ( one Black Chimney stacked & calling skeptics deceivers ! irony
Seems both pull stunts for their cause ...

BTW Barry mentioned something real interesting that the defintion of consensus is deliberately vague to try to catch as higher fig as possible "We're basically going with Ari's p0rno approach"

Paragraph check

By analysing Alex Cull's Transcript

Para 2 : Not worried cos CC seems distant, we have no experience "there's reliable information to indicate that certain. extreme weather events are getting more intense" Yeh but there's probably "reliable information to indicate that certain" OTHER "extreme weather events are" NOT "getting more intense" part of variation of stats.
P4 : scary messages make people close down, so instead highlight how people can DO something POSITIVE by mitigating . ..Sure he means building flood defenses cos you can't mitigate things already built into the system.
P6 : " leveraging group norms" making you aware that neighbours are "reducing their energy consumption"..Jesus so he thinks you can mitigate today's floods by reducing yesterdays energy consumption !
P7 : But you are asking people to give up something now, but the reward in the future is uncertain.
P8 : We should focus on "what can be gained from immediate action"
P10 : Focus on stuff like : "reducing emissions.. improves air quality"
P11 : Bribe people to be green ?
P12 : That backfires
P14 : "psychology has really played a very small role in informing policy-making on this issue." ...Deceiver ! 97%, 97% is all we hear. So that deconstructs down to :
So Linden says, 'normal people are as certain as I am, they aren't worrying enough about CC cos they can't see anything immediate, and one thing is we could do is shout "climate change caused flood".
- The benefits of Green are not immediate so we shout "clean air has BIG benefits" ''

And then I can simplify that even further
Seems to me that he is coming up with an alarmist justification for deceiving about CC
* He's 100% certain about CC, believes people's measures today could avert catastrophe in deep future.
That kind of talk will lead to thoughts in "true believers" minds
* You deceive about extreme weather to worry people
* You deceive about the harm of particulates, to make it look like today's energy conservation, saves lives tomorrow.

(I note that although the presenter did that climate psychology series in 2009 she didn't hype, but played a straight bat. I would guess it's was the producers idea to interview Der Linden
However in the intro : "the reality of climate change" Why use the reinforncing word "reality of" ? You don't say "the reality of mad cow disease" etc.)

NPR Discussion

I did find a discussion of Sander van der Linden On the NPR page. I guess he's on tour pushing his Climate Psychology research/propaganda. (where I expected to find discussion in the comments, few mention it. It's just full of alarmists slinging out their same old insults and conspiracy theories about ""deniers". And then 'deniers' waste time in pointing out science arguments)

Jim Bouldin pointed out that like Lew, der Linden has previously CONSTRUCTED another study against skeptics

Jim Bouldin said"(The journal called) Climatic Change has now followed suit with van der Linden et al, on how best to communicate "consensus" findings, an unbelievably trite paper."
Seems Linden has a reputation for being a "Consensus Entrepreneur" someone who seeks to manufacture
\\the so-called linear model, or "the plan" (Sarewitz), or "gateway belief", which states that establishing a scientific consensus with the public will lead to public support and policy action.//

"Van der Linden et al that claimed to find evidence to support this. But bizarrely, their own data in fact does not support the hypothesis at all"
study analysis

Previous AITM item with Chris Jones

Alex described it as "surreal"
Dr Chris Jones from Sheffield University on the complex psychology of wind farm opposition
"The Complex Psychology Behind Wind Farm Opposition National polls consistently show that a majority of people support wind power in principle, but when it comes to local schemes, there's often vociferous opposition. NIMBYs often get the blame. They're portrayed as selfish individuals who say no, for purely self interested reasons. Claudia talks to Dr Chris Jones, social and environmental psychologist from the University of Sheffield, on the windy hills North of the City, about why opposition to wind farms is a complex matter and that the "Not In My Back Yarders" can have valid and varied reasons for being turbine-rejectors."
features Keelan Meade
Alex has a write up on BH Unthreaded Jun 12, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Upshot Pseudo-psychology for Alarmist cause

So what we got ? a bunch of papers seemingly constructed to forward the political cause of climate alarmism.
Ironic as the same psycholgists warn of things like "motivated reasoning", yet that's what they are doing
and then end up with Climate pseudo-psychology.

1 : Lewandowsky : with his misreresent skeptics and "moon landing deniers
2 : Cook with an artificial 97% Consensus paper to use as a psychological weapon
3 : That earlier flawed Linden expt mentioned above with Linden as a "Consensus Entrepreneur" trying to show 97% Consensus can be used to change peole over to alarmism
4: This new Linden paper : suggesting how to focus psycholgy to get people on side
5. A paper called "Climate Change Foes Winning Public Opinion War" which Paul Matthews takes apart : Exposing the writers as "policial activists" trying to make a hit on climate skeptics under the guise of a psychology paper.

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

<-- BACK HOME REALITY CHECK INDEX * USEFUL BLOG INDEX
note/comments
NEXT -->