Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change?

As glaciers melt and island populations migrate from shores to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, and it came to a peak during a Friday session, “Science without borders and media unbounded.”

Near the session’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association, National Research Council and the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

"You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, YOU haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying aloud, "That's right. Kerry said it."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill

..trust me if they could make as much profit saving the planet as they are destroying it there'd be a constitutional amendment making it illegal to harm the environment...

Meanwhile the rest of the planet just laughs at the stupid, ignorant Americans...as they plan for the worst..

I don't know that China or Russia are making great environmental strides.

Bryant

seriously on Television, the American People will
not understand what is going on.

How many Climate Change stories have been covered???
Not Many. Then you have Faux New featuring the
people who call it a hoax.

A sad fact, most Americans do not read newspapers
and Magazines. If TV does not make a serious effort
stories go uncovered and Americans are uninformed
or they believe Limbaughs version.

Sheez!


just in case it's not obvious>:sarcasm:

and why bother becoming informed about something you already know/believe isn't true?

And Al Gore is fat and his earth tone clothes clash with his huge overheated house.

There's a lot of money out there to be made to tell people what they want to hear rather than what is really happening. It is no different in TV news, politics or science. There are always people willing to buy a product that says exactly what they want to hear. Even better todays news format of opinion, he said she said equivalency often raises fringe people into mild stardom because TV needs another side of the debate. All that adds up to $.

Until the media in America stop INSISTING there are "two sides" to climate change, this ignorance will continue. That goes for you too, NPR.

The science of climate change is complex and hard for the lay person to understand.

The PR firms and corporate think tanks don't need to prove their position. They just need to confuse it so much that few realize the scientists have already proven what they claim.

Not to mention, climate change has some unfortunate implications.

Such as unlike a war where there's a clear enemy, the "enemy is ourselves and the easy life we have created.

People understand and avoid losing what they think they have better then trying to avoid what looks like a vague threat.

and the religiously insane

...by the big business interests, mostly Big Oil, who want to keep their profits rolling merrily along without impediments.

It's really that simple as to the why of it.

Now as to the how of it, especially how to change it, as we all know that is complicated. It's hard to get the truth noticed when the lies have been promoted to the point where people take them as articles of faith. When Fox News and the rest have made it an article of faith that "there is disagreement, so we should not act on it"; or "it's just a theory, and theories may be wrong"; or "it's a plot by the left wing to redistribute wealth"; etc., well those are hard to argue with and we need to devise some methods that cut through the lies without accusing those who believe the lies of being stupid.

It is really essential that we start to think about how to deliver our message to address the emotional aspects. We need to make people understand that their livelihoods will not be destroyed as we move from an oil-based economy to clean energy. It is no good to just make the logical argument -- the logical argument is irrefutable, yet it will never convince a good segment of the population. But we cannot just shrug our shoulders, saying that that "they will never be convinced". On the contrary, we must redouble our efforts to figure out how to convince them, including using emotional arguments.

One thing, it seems to me, is the principle of caution -- a favorite of conservatives and conservative personality types. IF it is even possible that we are adversely affecting the climate, should we not err on the side of caution? It is a simple risk proposition, where you consider how to minimize the chances of the worst-case scenario.

We need good narratives and examples that tug at people's hearts and speak to their best impulses, which I believe are in all of us whether conservative or liberal. We need to stop berating others because of their beliefs that we find to be wrong, and promote our own positions in a convincing way. Yes, yes I know all about the mighty right wing Wurlitzer and I abhor it as much as the next person. But the truth has its own power. Now is a time to reach out to our brothers and sisters in a way that acknowledges our common humanity and the fact that most of us are struggling along as best we can and do want the best for ourselves and our children and even each other, and look to find common ground.

Given that's about the level of mental horsepower which most Americans seem to display these days, why should we be surprised?

So instead they listen to Rush, who tells them that GOD is the only one who can change climate and that man has no ability to destroy the planet. Forget about splitting the atom and what that has caused by man's hand.

n/t

Most only know what their masters want them to know.

We are not impressed with your writing skills.

But thanks for playing. :hi:

The answer as to the corporate media's motivation is an inherent conflict of interest whether through ownership or commercial purchasing power, if the corporate media's propaganda were to represent the workings of agency, their clients would be commercial buying corporations and the wealthiest corporations are fossil fuel based.

The American People are just customers or consumers to be sold a product, candidate or down the river if it furthers the narrow, best interests of that corporate media institution, this has even bled over in to public television and radio starved of public funds.

The power of propaganda and brain washing is not limited in its' use against unintelligent people, most anyone can be swayed if enough of their information streams are corrupted and with only six corporations owning approximately 90% of everything the American People read in the papers, magazines, books, hear on the radio and see on television, corrupting those streams whether by conscious or subconscious means is not that difficult, in that regard I believe the growing power and influence of the Internet actually improves the situation.

Thanks for the thread, Zephie.