It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Who We Are
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 148,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.
APA Mission Statement
The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.
APA Bylaws 1.1
The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by
the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner
the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions
the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association
the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications
thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
But that's the thing. Climate change is a LONG ways from any sort of consensus. It doesn't compare to say, the health risks of tobacco, which have a direct, repeatable, cause/effect relationship. It is merely the OPINION of this organization that people should adhere to such beliefs. Big difference.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Why do I get the feeling I am shooting at a moving target here?
I am going to try and condense this debate to some major points, since we seem to have gotten slightly off topic on several details. The article referenced is a blog, but the news report it is based on is at www.usatoday.com...
It starts with this paragraph:
Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living "green" your business.
Aye, a news reporter said that.
Now to be sure we don't delve off into different topics again, I define 'going green' as more than throwing trash into trash bins instead of on the ground, and more than refusing to allow a factory to spew tons of hydrochloric acid into the atmosphere. Those are wise moves that harm no one (except those who would harm society) and help everyone. But when I hear the term 'go green', I think of regulations that leave truck drivers out in the cold, literally, because they can't run a heater to keep from freezing to death. I think of a segment of the economy based on buying and selling carbon credits in order to be able to participate in the real economy. I think of cars that are inadequate and underpowered, little more than death traps dressed in flimsy skins of fiberglass.
You may disagree with me about what the term 'going green' means. If so, fine. But in my interpretation of the phrase, this is an ominous opening paragraph.
I might have missed something as my attention sadly waned, but hopefully you said something about planting trees and tiptoeing through tulips.
"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
This is not the view of the writer, as could possibly be attributed to the excerpt above. These are the words of the associate president of Yale University's psychology department. He is not speaking of conveying information, but of changing behaviors and attitudes.
"We know what messages will work and which will not"
Every so often, I hear of a story where a church offers a program to 're-educate' gay people. As others are, I am horrified by the thought of re-education. Yet here we have an associate president of a major university stating he wants to and can do just that, proudly. What's the difference?
Because there is no evidence that such 're-education' works? That being gay actually isn't a contemporary social problem?
We're not talking about a taking people who don't recycle plastics into organised re-education schemes. I'm sure such an idea sounds rather scary.
"We have vays of making you put glass into the recycling box!"
I know, I know, 'science'. But you seem to have little understanding of what true science is.
Again, quit the diversion. It's tedious.
Now, should psychologists become involved, with a stated objective to change behavior and attitude, that does not indicate a concern for the people receiving this 'information' (translation: re-education), because the theory being presented as correct is unscientific by definition due to its corruption by socio-political forces. Rather, I believe it indicates a desire for wealth. Global Warming has been used by quite a few of the upper-income class to make a hefty profit, and exactly what would give me cause to think that Alan Kazdin is any less desirous of wealth?
Psychologists are already involved. They are currently in the deep south with tazers hunting rednecks for re-education.
In short, your argument is flawed, as evidenced by the very words of the ones we are debating. There is much more to this than a simple desire to disseminate information effectively.
Of course, but the psychologists are interested in how to convey messages/information as effectively as possible. They are applying their efforts and knowledge to a relevant contemporary concern.
The fact that a few ideologues have decided that Al Gore and science sucks 'cos they tell them stuff they don't like, doesn't really outweigh the fact that all the relevant scientific and international organisations, and governments across the world accept it is a concern for human society.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by melatonin] extra DIV
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
lol But it IS the subject! The re-education of the masses to accept an ideological belief! But because you happily tug your forelock at any large organization, arguments otherwise are invalid??? Wow. That's some arrogance. I suppose, then, this thread should be closed, in your opinion? No debate, burn the unbelievers, story's over, you can all go home now?
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
You're just more interested in acting like an ass and being witty than discussing the issue. Hello ignore, so I can go on discussing this without further distractions. Sad really, because I have seen you contribute to discussion at times.
More than 22,000 people were surveyed in 21 countries and the results show a great deal of agreement on the issue.
The survey is published a day after 150 countries met at the United Nations to discuss climate change.
An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".
Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".
In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.
Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
Fergus W.M. Brown, CPE, UCLAN, Preston, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
James D. Annan, FRCGC/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1. The claim that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing is found to be false in our survey. However, there remains substantial disagreement about the magnitude of its impacts. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Forgive me for boring you mel. Here all this time I thought you were interested in a factual discussion...
You put up a very difficult argument to refute. Personal attacks, coupled with advice to not take them personally. Offhand disregard for posts. Blatant condescension. Continual diversion. Very good!
Unfortunately, you have not succeeded in your attempts to anger me. Sorry about that. I actually think you probably make one heck of a psychologist.
Psychology is all around us. This isn't medical malpractice. It's what psychologists DO. It's their job to figure out the way people think, why they think that way, and how to change it.
"Well, global warming isn't cause by humans so I'm going to dump this antifreeze in the sewers knowing it goes straight to the river. It's not like that will have anything to do with global warming it will just pollute the river I like to swim and fish in." Where's the logic?
Originally posted by nunya13
I don't think using psychology to get us to treat our Earth better is the way to go about it at all.
Originally posted by melatonin
TBH, don't know if I can be bothered now, but I think that's a more interesting and relevent discussion. Perhaps other people might care. My opinion, in sum, of course it is - as long as it is not highly invasive, subliminal, unethical. Especially when it is a relevent contemporary issue.
Think of how long people have lived on this planet. In the last, say, couple hundred years alone do we actually see a definite mark made on the planet. This has a lot more to do with way of life, not how many people are living on Earth (i.e., not really anything to do with population) When you talk about civilizations that lived just one thousand years ago there's no real mark to be seen. They used renewable, biodegradable materials in every aspect of their life.
Imagine a thousand years from now. They won't have to search at all for remnants of our civilization and what life was like. No. Instead they will be walking around in our filth trying to figure out how to get rid of it all (assuming they have become much more friendly to the Earth than we have).