Re: The psychology of climate change
Mike. Very catchy headlines. I’m not surprised at most of them, but a few of those blogs are running some pretty snazy headlines too.
That’s why I turned off the television and put down Newsweek years ago. I’d rather read the tech papers or a fellow scientist’s blog then what some catchy headline “suggests” to me.
Besides, those things are written at a 7th grade reading/listening level. How can one disseminate and digest complex information based on sound bites written for middle school level comprehension?
On a sidenote. Most folks here that are interested in economics read Chris Martenson’s blog, along with Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge), Karl Denniger (The Market Ticker), Mish Shedlock, ect..
These folks do not dilute their message. They write at a very high level of comprehension, and if one cannot “get” their message, then one must do a little side reading to understand what the heck they are talking about, right?
Imagine the MSM actually trying to put forth one of Tyler Durden’s blogs in the manner that they usually approach things (so that a 12 year old could read it. Not joking, they’re written at THAT level).
Now map that style to science. Can you see how frustrated I get with the MSM’s approach reporting on AGW? You regularly read, and comprehend, the complex writings of blogs. Contrast their style with the MSM.
Jesus. No wonder people think the sky is melting. Pure hysteria because the reporting is diluted to the level of readership. Don’t even think about attempting to discuss alpha and beta risk in a hypothesis test. Channel gets changed one sentence in. Or the reader flips to the comics.
You said a mouthful there. Now tell me what you were actually trying to say.
Sensationalist headlines, catchy soundbites, and dumbed down synopsis’ are insufficient food for thought on any subject. Those headlines that you posted look more like political slogans than any meaningful dialogue or discussion on matters of importance.
I mean honest. A few of them scream of hysteria. Sort of like global warming. Those type of headlines drip of emotion and are geared towards a reflexive response rather than any critical analysis.
In the end I think it does a gross disservice. There are many legitimate reasons for preservation of our ecology. There are better reasons for the curtailment of fossil fuel usage. Like running out of them. Not to mention the plethora of problems awaiting us after they do run out.
But the problem is that consumers don’t read. They consume. So, when I see “The Sky is Falling” headlines, I see consumers consuming soundbites and not doing much thinking.
An electorate that “thinks” in this manner is ripe for manipulation. That’s my numero uno concern regarding this AGW “debate” (Not really a debate when stifling tactics are used to silence dissent). My biggest concern is the progressive bastardization of science for political purposes. Science lacks sensationalism. It lacks fear mongering. It just is.