Several years ago I read Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman (http://www.amazon.com/Break-Through-Environmentalism-Politics-Possibility/dp/0618658254) and it was one of those books that changed my outlook and approach to life. Seligman is a professor of psychology and I do not know how well he’s respected in his field, but I love his books. He is a research scientist and effectively uses research to support his hypotheses and strategies, which can turn a pessimist who thinks no one would read her blog into an optimist who can’t wait to share her inspirational thoughts with the blogosphere. One of the more humorous findings was that pessimists tend to be more realistic, but there are all sorts of mental and physical health benefits to optimism, so what the hay. And people are drawn to optimists! They even successfully predicted the elections one year for president, the house, and senate with >80% accuracy a priori by rating the positive language used in speeches. Optimism definitely helps explain why Bush won & Kerry lost (you can even see it in the lines of their faces) and how Obama made his unprecedented ascent. The article “Climate-Change Strategy: Be Afraid – But Only a Little” by Bryan Walsh (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2032405,00.html) highlights that for environmental issues (and probably other) the public also needs a little less gloom and a little more cheer.
Adults do not like to be lectured, even if they deserve it. On one hand, it’s amazing that the “fear strategy” doesn’t work. I was raised on it and it seemed pretty effective in some respects (I avoided poisonous candy from strangers) and depressing in others (it is safer to avoid humans at all costs). Fear seemed to work pretty well for the Bush administration; although maybe it was actually his administrations’ optimistic confidence that there was every reason to be afraid (to which there is obviously some truth). It is a sign of optimism to blame others for faults that may lie within one’s self. It’s also optimistic to think you can be part of the solution. I hope we science writers can work on our optimistic spin, while still staying grounded in the realm of reality. It’s nice that there is apparently some data to support that people respond to the optimistic message about potential solutions and opportunities (ironically) presented by global climate change.
First, let me make it clear that I think the data overwhelming supports that global climate change is happening and that we should be concerned; and there are things we are doing where it would pay to err on the side of caution. However, the reality is that the experimental design sucks. Responsible scientists replicate, and even when they’re doing a large natural “experiment” they would always have a control. Karen Kidd’s study adding synthetic estrogens from birth control pills to part of a lake while having a control side comes to mind (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070521-sex-fish.html ) —not ideal from an experimental standpoint, but the field demonstration provided good evidence for what was expected based on smaller scale studies. To find that your predictions hold in the field where there’s a lot more complexity is a strong piece of evidence. But with climate change, we do not have a great control. It seems like in some cases, it might be useful to acknowledge that this is not the ideal experiment, and that in such cases, a weight of evidence approach can be useful as was used with cigarette’s and lung cancer association.
I work on questions related to conservation biology and I have a challenging time reading about some of the environmental problems, because they can be so depressing and demoralizing. At the risk of melodrama, I love what is mortal. Jeffery Kluger’s article from 2006 called “Global Warming Heats Up” has a lot of the pitfalls of journalists writing about science; even though I agree that the data supports global warming and found that he had some interesting tidbits, I can see why an article like this is fuel for the Rush Limbaughs of the world. First, Kluger acts like you’d be an idiot not to “believe in” global warming, which sets up an antagonistic relationship with a skeptical reader. I do not want to have to believe in natural phenomena—I want to base my assessment on the data, so if the data are so compelling then be even-handed. Second, the language in many places is extremely biased, which is a turnoff. For example: “That is what scientists call a feedback loop, and it’s a nasty one…” Melodrama indeed. He uses quotes like this one from Adrian Luckman indicating concern about climate changes in Europe related to changes in the Gulf Stream: “We in the UK are on the same latitude as Alaska. The reason we can live here is the Gulf Stream.” Um, people live in Alaska; just ask Sarah Palin. He uses language that anthropomorphizes plants, which leads me to dismiss his validity as an author: “…forests have shifted their tree lines as much as 100 feet upslope, trying to escape the heat and drought of the lowlands. Such a slow-motion evacuation may seem like a sensible strategy…” Plants do not make sensible strategies! It’s called dispersal and directional selection. Finally, he uses data that is questionable. The example he gives of amphibians experiencing extinction related with warming has not been substantiated and there’s evidence suggesting that the interpretation of that data are flawed, which at the time of writing may not have been obvious to non-scientists.
Many of the faults of this article would not be committed by most scientists, which is a major reason to advocate for scientists having a chinwag with the public. Providing an “upbeat” message on news that does not always seem upbeat may prove challenging in some respects, but it may motivate not only the public but us scientists as well. A really great book, Break Through: Environmentalism, Politics, and Possibility (http://www.amazon.com/Break-Through-Environmentalism-Politics-Possibility/dp/0618658254) talks about the strength of the positive message at length. So the next time you want to get your message across—in politics, the classroom, the media, or to your own true love this Valentine’s day—put on your rose-colored glasses and, why not, reach for the stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment