Skip Navigation
Climate Hope @lemmy.world
RockBottom @feddit.org

What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us

www.unsw.edu.au

What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us

geteilt von: https://aussie.zone/post/19997535

Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.

Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them

This part of the research is actually quite interesting. Its the bandwagon effect, people concluding, "everyones heading that way, must be for a reason."

Its all the more reason to keep the pressure against the propaganda from the likes of Koch, Rhinehart or Palmer, et al.

You never know, the mass of action from others could convince these people, with their deep vested interests, of their own folly.

10 comments

  • Perhaps if people talked about it like actual science, rather than talking about it the same way zealots talk about religion. Perhaps if people were actually willing to discuss the individual merits of individual issues, rather than throwing everything under the blanket of "climate change" and excommunicating anyone socially if they don't agree 100% with every ridiculous little thing under that blanket. Perhaps if it wasn't used as a bludgeon to harass people who have absolutely nothing at all to do with any sort of impactful decisions anywhere in the process, because the adherents of the Church of Scientism lack both the will and the intelligence to actually do something which will make a real difference in the world.

    There is a very serious unaddressed corruption issue in the world today, and unless people find the will to actually recognize it's existence, every other issue will continue to fall to the wayside in people's hierarchy of priorities.

    • And the last part is by design. The media is owned by billionaires, politics are influenced by them. Renewables would take huge parts of manmade inquality away which would mean loss of power for the insane powercrazed. As long as media is privately owned and its first goal is making money instead of informing people, it is going to be overwhelming. Overwhelmed people dont have time to do science. This means only the privileged who are not wageslaves can actually invest time to read and think.

      We have to agree to primacy of science. We also live (or at least say we do) live in democracies. This by definition means majority rule. If the majority of people who have worked, read and learned in a particular field tell us that we need to abolish oil and gas NOW, then the do that. We dont discuss feelings, we dont meet in the middle, we just do it. Its not that hard.

      • The scientific method and majority rule are literally incompatible. The entire purpose of the scientific method was to establish a mechanism within society for breaking from majority rule.

    • Perhaps if people were actually willing to discuss the individual merits of individual issues

      Would those "individual merits" happen to be talking points explicitly developed by oil companies and conservative thinktanks to have just enough woo and half-truths to sow doubt as effectively as possible?

      Perhaps if it wasn't used as a bludgeon to harass people who have absolutely nothing at all to do with any sort of impactful decisions anywhere in the process,

      Please provide an example of this harassment. Do you mean people who make other people feel bad for not recycling or driving fuel inefficient vehicles or something?

      the adherents of the Church of Scientism lack both the will and the intelligence to actually do something which will make a real difference in the world.

      There is so much to unpack here. Did you, someone who later claims to be a scientist, just use the term "Church of Scientism" unironicly? I'm assuming you aren't referencing Asimov and are instead dismissing people who have strong opinions and are supportive of moderating human activity to minimize its contribution to climate change as having a blind, religion-like faith in science? What kind of scientist are you exactly?

      What would you consider to be "something which will make a real difference in the world"? Are you dismissive to the extent that any effort in regards to climate change isn't making a difference? Or are you criticizing average people for their inability to exert control over the actions of entire industries who feel so threatened by any such efforts that they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on PR campaigns convincing people that those efforts aren't necessary and they should instead just recycle or some bullshit? Bullshit that will make about as much of a difference as a drop in the ocean compared to the actual change serious regulation could make?

10 comments