Es ist wirklich ein anstrengendes Geschäft, dieser Klimaalarmismus. Ständig muss man an die „gute Sache“ denken, darf Kritik an Kollegen oft nicht aussprechen, wenn diese mal wieder übertrieben haben. Die Klimaskeptiker könnten dies ja für ihre Seite ausschlachten. Die Produktion von schlechten Klimanachrichten geht natürlich nicht spurlos an den beteiligten Wissenschaftlern vorbei. Viele glauben sogar ihre eigenen Geschichten und können vor lauter Angst nachts nicht mehr schlafen. Dies ist übrigens kein Scherz. Judith Curry hat sich in Ihrem Blog der Sache einmal angenommen und lässt Betroffene und Psychologen zu Wort kommen. Letztere haben auch bereits eine Diagnose des Phänomens: Prä-traumatischer Stress.
Siehe auch Artikel in der Washington Post vom 14. Juli 2015:
What it’s like when your job is to predict the end of humanity
As recently as 2009, Camille Parmesan had a career that most scientists can only dream of. That year, the University of Texas professor was named one of Atlantic Monthly’s 27 “Brave Thinkers” for her efforts to save species whose habitats are threatened by climate change. The distinction — which placed Parmesan on a list alongside Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Barack Obama — arrived two years after she shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for serving as a lead author of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But beneath the acclaim, Parmesan recalls, her work left her “professionally depressed” and panicked — so much so that she eventually abandoned her life in the United States for a new one on the other side of the Atlantic, according to the environmental news website Grist.
Weiterlesen in der Washington Post
———————–
Die australische Regierung besitzt in Sachen Klimawandel durchaus eine realistische Sichtweise. Immer wieder werden aus der Politik Stimmen laut, die eine wissenschaftliche Überprüfung der IPCC-Klimahorrorszenarien fordern. Eine Gruppe prominenter australischer Klimawissennschaftler aus dem IPCC-Umfeld macht dieser Drang nach mehr Transparenz offenbar so starke Kopfshmerzen, dass sie nun einen Brief an die Regierung verfassten, in dem sie von einer solchen Überprüfung dringend abraten. ABC News berichtete am 7. Juli 2015:
A group of prominent Australian scientists has warned climate sceptic MPs against wasting time and parliamentary resources on an inquiry into the evidence of human influence on climate change. The scientists have sent a letter to West Australian MPs Dennis Jensen and Chris Back, offering to brief them on the latest science instead. The letter was sent by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and co-signed by 12 others, including Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University and Professor Lesley Hughes from Macquarie University.
Weiterlesen auf ABC News.
Was treibt die Briefschreiber an? Ist es die Angst vor Entdeckung?
———————–
Es ist immer wieder interessant, einen Einblick in Strategiegedanken der Klimaalarmisten zu gewinnen. Am 9. Juli 2015 gelang dies wieder einmal, als die Taylor & Francis Group in einer Pressemitteilung erklärte, man müsse den Klimawandel viel stärker mit dem Thema Krankheiten verweben, um die Leute effektiv zu erreichen. Machen Sie sich also auf eine neue Welle von „Klimawandel fördert Schnupfen“-Zeitungsartikel in der nahen Zukunft bereit:
How to engage the population with climate change? Frame it as a public health issue.
Recent research in Environmental Communication examines the powerful influence of mass media portrayal of climate change and subsequent public identification with the issue. Climate change is often reported as an environmental issue, this depiction arguably lacks personal relevance to individuals. Weathers and Kendall study US reportage of climate change in a public health frame; a more powerful presentation for motivating public engagement and action against climate change?
The majority of the US public are known to largely gain their understanding of climate change from the mass media. Previous climate change communications have largely been from a scientific and environmental perspective, leaving audiences disaffected. Little coverage has raised public health consequences of climate change such as higher incidence of asthma, allergies, disease and heat stroke amongst many. Would US citizens alter consumer decisions and seek solutions to climate change if they realised the implications for human health in their own communities as well as the Arctic? The authors conduct a multi-year content analysis of 270 US climate change news reports in a public health context to assess quantity and style of reporting delivered to Americans.
A 2007 Gallup poll of US citizens revealed 41% to be personally worried about climate change. In 2010 this dropped to 28%. Is this correlated to media coverage? Consumer demand for dramatized news has dictated less coverage on climate change over the study period, but did the style of presentation change? Climate change articles were classified into public health related issues; general health, heat, weather, respiratory problems, water/food borne disease and vermin borne disease. Despite a drop in coverage, those framed in a public health context sharply increased, especially in relation to heat and general health, evidence of public health framing as an effective means to communicate climate change. The authors urge increased coverage of climate change in a public health context to bridge the knowledge gap between the public health community and the general public to encourage mitigating steps. Weathers and Kendall note “here is one starting point for examining, tracking, and critically assessing the story of climate change in public health terms—a project that deserves further attention from communication, environment, and public health scholars.”
