Cardiff University warmist desperate: "campaigners need to ditch the language of catastrophe and the images of polar bears"

Adam Corner, a warmist Cardiff University research associate, who´s "interests include the psychology of communicating climate change", reluctantly has to accept "that scepticism about the nature and seriousness of climate change has increased – rather than decreased – in recent years": 


Where public opinion about climate change could once be characterised as a state of mild concern, it has now become an amiable – or even disinterested – shrug. The more sophisticated analyses of trends in public opinion point to a clear link between the priority with which politicians and the media have treated climate change (linked to the economic crisis), and the weight it is assigned by members of the public. The issue has moved from centre stage to somewhere barely visible in the wings. Is it any surprise people have stopped paying attention?


In his research Corner has apparently found out that "this is a difficult time to communicate about climate change". Particularly the "clear and consistent links between conservative views and elevated levels of uncertainty about climate change" are worrying the research associate, who thinks that conservative climate sceptics could be brainwashed using this kind of tactics: 

Why are political conservatives more likely to downplay the risks of climate change? One possibility is that climate change has simply not been communicated in a way that resonates with conservative values and beliefs. Whereas those on the left can see obvious co-benefits in taking action to tackle climate change (initiatives to tax big polluters, for example, inevitably mean targeting the wealthy), there has so far been little for right-leaning folk to identify with.

But it doesn't have to be this way. There are policy solutions – and ways of framing the problem of climate change – that sit more comfortably with a conservative perspective. It is here that the business case for climate change – green jobs – is most likely to be effective. But there is also an urgent need to identify the conservative values – perhaps security and belonging, or an appreciation of the beauty of the natural world – that chime with arguments for tackling climate change.

Oh, yes, "green jobs" is a foolproof way to lure conservative climate sceptics!:

According to the report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, Section 1503 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus), the part that covers green energy projects got some $9 billion in stimulus cash for 2009-11 and created a whopping 910 direct jobs — those involved in the ongoing operation of the wind and solar projects that were funded.

 For a $9 billion investment, the administration created just over 900 new, permanent jobs. We could have had 20,000 jobs building a pipeline with not a dollar of taxpayer money being wasted. 

And of course the "appreciation of the beauty of the natural world" is another safe bet for getting conservatives onboard the global warming train:

The Spanish Ornithological Society in Madrid estimates that Spain's 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats annually. “A blade will cut a griffon vulture in half,” says Bechard. “I've seen them just decapitated."

“The troubling issue with wind development is that we're seeing a growing number of birds of conservation concern being killed by wind turbines,” says Albert Manville, a biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, Virginia.

“There are species of birds that are getting killed by wind turbines that do not get killed by autos, windows or buildings,” says Shawn Smallwood, an ecologist who has worked extensively in Altamont Pass, California, notorious for its expansive wind farms and raptor deaths. Smallwood has found that Altamont blades slay an average of 65 golden eagles a year². “We could lose eagles in this country if we keep on doing this,” he says. 

Other species at risk include the critically endangered California condors (Gymnogyps californicus) — which number only 226 in the wild — and the few hundred remaining whooping cranes (Grus americanus), concentrated in the central United States.

Good luck with "security" and "belonging", Mr. Corner! We are waiting for new creative suggestions! 

PS


Corner actually comes up with one excellent piece of advice, particularly addressed to the likes of WWF, Greenpeace and Al Gore:


 "campaigners need to ditch the language of catastrophe and the images of polar bears"