From a submission by WUWT reader Benoît Rittaud and the “avert your eyes” department comes this bit of inconvenient psychology.
The Journal of Environment Psychology just published a (paywalled) paper by Tobias Greitemeyer (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Austria), entitled Beware of climate change skeptic films. That is the actual title of the peer reviewed paper.
The only problem is that in the study, it turns out skeptic films seem to be more effective than alarmist films.
Abstract
Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics. The present two studies examined to what extent (and why) climate change affirming and climate change skeptic films are successful in affecting people’s environmental concern. Relative to a neutral film condition, watching a climate change skeptic film decreased environmental concern, whereas watching a climate change affirming film did not affect participant’s concern. Mediation analyses showed that watching a climate change skeptic film decreased participants’ consideration of future consequences, which in turn decreased their environmental concern. Possible reasons why climate change affirming films did not affect participant’s environmental concern are discussed.
Of course, in the paper, the possibility that people are able to see whether the propaganda lies on An Inconvenient Truth side or on The Great Global Warming Swindle side is not taken in consideration.
Eric Horowitz, of Psychology Today, reports on this paper here saying: Are We Losing the War on Climate Change Cinema?
He muses:
The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.
Maybe because skeptic films portray facts and truth compared to unsupportable claims?
Skeptic films are showing the audience something they’ve not heard before; alarmist films are banging drums we’ve all heard endlessly for years. Of COURSE new information will cause opinions to change while old information will not.
The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.
———
Proves the old addage “honesty is the best policy”
Beware of climate change skeptic films.
————————————————–
If thy brain offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee.
Rob Crawford says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Of COURSE new information will cause opinions to change while old information will not.
ROFL. Exactly, this is the only reason why skeptics are winning. People just look at that new information.
Well, I trust humans are cleverer then that, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
Does one get funding when one proposes papers like this one(utter rubbish), or does the funding come after one gets tosh like this published.
This is absolutely absurd. Honestly.
Tom Riordan
My God, how dare those skeptics use facts against us!
Yeah, no bias here:
Maybe the “researchers” could figure out that climate alarmist propaganda has been spread so far and wide that only new critical info is likely to have any effect now.
I think they are more powerful, but for obvious reasons: the science behind global warming is actually very flimsey, but as Rob Crawford wrote, the message is beat into our heads that we just sort of accept it. Despite that tepid agreement, very few people really care about global warming as poll after poll shows. I suppose it’s “a mile wide and an inch deep” as the saying goes. Then people are introduced to skeptical ideas, most of the time for the first time, and they are introduced to an alternative explanation or an expose of how flimsey the science is, etc. They see warmists act hysterically, claiming every event is tied to global warming, even natural events. Then people feel lied to and they stop believing anything the warmists think.
The problem, in my opinion, is that people are not given the whole story through normal channels, the press is not skeptical enough (as they should be) and skeptical information becomes a “forbidden fruit” to them. The warmists are not interested in the truth, they are interested in directing everyone’s opinions to match their own opinions, by any means necessary, and this hurts them in the long run. I think Al Gore’s AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH really hurt the movement as it basically took over the whole thing, making it militant and hyper-partisan.
Social science mmm a name appears on my radar , could it be Stapel , yes !!
Yes Diederik Stapel , a former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands,
The same guy that hoaxed every research project he published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
His argument that “enviromentalism” is the opposite of skepticism to the claims of IPCC “consensus” science is ridiculous. He is one of the trend that is moving towards staking a position about “climate change” rather than “global warming.” From their point of view, I think they can grade themselves as effectively transitioning to a position where they can claim, falsely, higher moral authority, because they can deny without shame that their positions have changed. Pretty soon they will forget “warming” altogether and stake the money train on “climate irregularities” or similar garbage verbiage. In a few years they will be claiming they always only meant extra CO2 would only do “something,” maybe something very small or nearly undetectable, but that was always their position.
“Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics. “
Well, not exactly: we skeptics are fully aware that the globe has been warming although not so much recently, however, we do not agree that it is human caused.
Geez. You would hope that they could properly define the skeptical position . Maybe they watched too many alarmist movies.
Wait, “skeptic” films? There are such things? Could someone name a few of them?
An unbiased scientist or journalist would not openly identify with one side or the other in the act of doing scholarly work. Both Greitmeyer’s and Horowitz’s biases are openly displayed in blatantly assuming that alarmists are the good guys and hold a monopoly on the truth, especially where knowledge of climate science is outside of their area of expertise.
Funny how running around shrieking “BRAWK! The Sky is Falling! BRAWK! The Sky is falling!” just isn’t as effective as a calm and simple demonstration of the facts
Almost as funny as the way that alarmists are now having to face the downside of having almost total control of the media narrative up until now. There’s no way to keep that kind of thing going forever, especially when the weather refuses to cooperate and do what you said it was going to do. Which is why there’s nothing but downside for them whenever this issue comes up in public, and why they’re reduced to saying “Don’t watch the movies! Don’t read the stories! Don’t listen to any debate! It’s EVILLLL!!!! Close Your Minds to anything but our narrative!!!”
And that’s all they’ve got. And they’re surprised that it isn’t “effective”????
Funny to watch people go down with the wreckage of their own delusions.
Global warming is a bit like having to ooh and aah over someone’s new baby.. it’s expected. So many people do the expected and say publicly they have a concern over GW. But present them with some hard evidence and the manufactured expected concern diminishes or goes away.
JC
Dirty skeptics and their dirty facts.. Its seems even the alarmists are losing heart trying to cobble together another embarrassing inconvenient truth propaganda piece..
There was no rebuttal to Al Gores crappy movie, it stood alone with nothing but the odd brave voice calling out horrible BS inside..
Now with the skeptics movie you can compare the two side by side with an honest assessment of the research and the facts involved.. Point and counter point, straight into who’s pulling on who’s wiener..
Idiots cant pretend to save the world under such harsh conditions..
Its not so much the funding, its having your name attached to a flop disgrace that could very well be the straw that broke the camels back.. where is Al when they need him?
I am neither a sceptic nor a believer. I am a scientist/engineer.
Anthony: verb and subject do not agree in your headline: it should read:
“Skeptic movies meet their goal whereas alarmist ones DO not”
REPLY: that was already corrected prior to your comment, refresh – Anthony
Mark and two Cats says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Beware of climate change skeptic films.
————————————————–
If thy brain offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee.
=============
…it is better for thee to enter into blissful ignorance with no brain, rather than, having a brain, to be cast into the hell of skeptical objectivity.
“The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.”
Because you see clearly that you are being manipulated. You see misinformation and half-truths. You check the sources and see over-exageration. You compare discourse and practice of narrators. You hear fallacies. You see IMF, World Bank, UN, EU and all XYZ combinations of the world. Peoples don’t trust in politicians by nature. And, after all, peoples love the truth and hates lies. Just some investigations lines.
=====================================================================
Sorry. I can’t name any “films” unless they mean things WUWT’s 24 hr segments that ran opposite Al’s “Goreathon”.
But I can say you won’t find any of them on the SyFy channel though you may find presentations of CAGW papers that found alternate funding.
Umm shouldn’t that be DO not does? in the header.
As for the rest of the balderdash read into what you will: nonsense is always nonsense but can be amusing if only to watch others take it seriously.
Kindest Regards
I think WUWT needs a page to archive lists of movies, books, and other media that express the climate skeptic position — The Great Global Warming Swindle, Fallen Angels, State of Fear, all of those — so that people can offer them to friends who would never read a scientific paper but might embrace ideas presented in a different form.
James Schrumpf says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm
“Wait, “skeptic” films? There are such things? Could someone name a few of them?”
================================================================
I’m with you. I was stumped to name one.
@Mark and two Cats (July 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm): Brilliant!
Donald Corleone says:
July 1, 2013 at 1:50 pm “could it be Stapel “.
Well, the Dutch mega-science-fraudster, Professor Diederik Stapel, who has admitted that he made up his data in 55 science publications, was sentenced yesterday to a social punishment. He has to work for 120 hours in our parks, cleaning up the dirt. Several scientists are disappointed about this mild punishment but it seems to me quite appropriate.