From George Mason University, shifting the message. Note that this is the same university that was shocked at the outcome of their poll on TV weathercasters. Look for this message in the media soon. Confusing weather and climate maybe? People don’t suffer from climate change in a single day, but local weather changes. Cold and flu “season” for example.
When Climate Change Becomes a Health Issue, Are People More Likely To Listen?
New study suggests re-framing the issue helps people better understand and relate to climate problem
FAIRFAX, Va.—Framing climate change as a public health problem seems to make the issue more relevant, significant and understandable to members of the public—even some who don’t generally believe climate change is happening, according to preliminary research by George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication (4C).
The center recently conducted an exploratory study in the United States of people’s reactions to a public health-framed short essay on climate change. They found that on the whole, people who read the essay reacted positively to the information.
Previous research conducted by Mason investigators and others, using people’s beliefs, behaviors and policy preferences about global warming as assessed in a national survey, identified six distinct segments of Americans, termed Global Warming’s Six Americas.
In the current research, 4C director Edward Maibach interviewed approximately one dozen people in each of the Six Americas after they read the brief essay on the human health implications of global warming. As expected, he found that members of the audience segments who already believe strongly that climate change is happening had a strong positive response to the new information, while people who are less sure if climate change is happening also found value in the information. Nearly half of the comments made by members of the “Disengaged” segment, for example, indicated that the essay reflected their personal point of view, was informative or thought-provoking or offered valuable prescriptive information on how to take action relative to climate change. Moreover, about 40 percent of those people in the “Doubtful” segment had similar positive reactions to the essay.
“Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and infectious diseases, while shifting the visualization of the issue away from remote Arctic regions and distant peoples and animals,” says Maibach. “The public health perspective offers a vision of a better, healthier future—not just a vision of an environmental disaster averted.”
The research, which was published in the latest issue of the BioMed Central Public Health journal, also provides clues about specific public health messages that might not be helpful (such as eating less meat) and points to examples or associations that might trigger counter-arguments and negative reactions.
“Many leading experts have suggested that a positive vision for the future, rather than a dire one, is precisely what has been missing from the public dialogue on climate change thus far,” says Maibach. “We believe this survey is one step in shaping a way to talk about climate change that will reach all segments of the public—not just those who already are making behavioral changes.”
A copy of the full study can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/qc/1471-2458/10/299.
Donna Laframboise says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:53 am
“[…]In 2006, while on a walk in the mountains…Ed had an epiphany that forever changed his life. He realized that climate change is the ultimate threat to the public’s health and wellbeing…Ed’s research interest is focused on the question: How can we use communication and marketing to influence the behavior of populations for the benefit of society?”
I would take people like that seriously:
http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2006/04/15/let-my-people-go-posted-by-dave-in-texas/
I don’t know anybody who doesn’t believe climate change is happening; rather they, and I, believe the scientifically-proven (ie real science) fact that it’s been happening for 4 billion years.
Definitely you need a Climate change!, otherwise…..
This is wrong on so many levels. Just when I thought my climate crapometer couldn’t possibly be driven higher, this story comes out, about how framing a lie in terms of lies about public health makes it more sellable. As the above comments ably point out, public health has generally improved with rising average temperatures, and worsened in colder periods.
I suppose the next study will show that children become more concerned about melting glaciers if the meltwater is measured not in liters or cubic kilometers, but by the number of kittens that could be drowned in it. Global heat flux energy could be described in terms of the number of puppies that could be incinerated. Then they could be lectured in school to think of drowning kittens and burning puppies every time Mom or Dad starts the car.
So, according to these guys, Summer is less healthy than Winter. Good luck selling that nonsense.
MrsB says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:16 am
The BBC are running an article about shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas, complete with ‘before and after’ pictures. Any comments?
Too many variables to make a meaningful comparison. For starters you can’t usefully compare a monochrome and a colour photograph. Even if taken with similar cameras under similar lighting. Ice need not always appear as white and a photograph from that distance dosn’t tell you very well how much of it there is. That’s before even considering the likes of avalaunchs or that levels of precepitation can vary.
Two photographs taken decades apart isn’t much to draw any sort of hypotheis from.
The United Nations has warned that extreme winter weather has killed more than one million livestock animals in Mongolia and is likely to harm the country’s food supply and worsen poverty.
Volunteer workers in Mongolia have been telling the BBC News website their experiences of temperatures falling to around -35C (-31F).
According to reported national data, more than 1.7 million animals have died due to the zud this winter
Then people starve to death in the winter.
“Framing climate change as a public health problem”
“people who read the essay reacted positively to the information”
I would have expected people to react negatively to bad news.
Does redefining something make something real? How exactly does that happen, unless you are pedaling propaganda in the first place.
This is the IPCC version for health professional to pass down to their dumbed-down-fluoridated-patients.
You can frame climate change in any way you want to scare people dumb enough to know better:
Climate change COULD take away your pension plan.
Climate change COULD take all your money from your bank account.
Climate change COULD destroy your family.
Climate change COULD make your teeth rot faster (like the ice!!!).
Climate change COULD make the air in your tires hotter and risk having a blow out while driving on the highway.
Climate change COULD make your freezer work harder and cost you more in electricity.
Climate change COULD have snow fall in your neighbor’s lot while in yours it could be a scorching 40 Celsius.
Climate change COULD make politicians smarter… well I don’t think climate change could do that… one could wish though.
Etc…
Great – re-package 1 lie (AGW) into another lie (AGW causes health problems – evidence please?) so that you can scare the population into your social engineering scheme (govt energy control & left wing politics in general). Yep, that really makes me believe you have some solid science behind all of this. NOT. (sarc off)
Give it up folks. These idiots are teaching our children. When I was in college, they taught proven science not personal opinion. With the current crop of elitists pushing the progressive politics, global warming, multiculture and PC ,there is little hope for the future.
Andrew30 says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:22 am
‘Unless the warmists drop their lies and tell the farmers to start moving into shorter season crops we will see global urban starvation on a level never seen before.’
I never used to follow the ‘New World Order de-population’ stories before, but you’ve got to admit that as a strategy, it’s brilliant – get the world geared up for massive warming (seed/crop selection, growth areas, irrigation, supply chains, etc).
Then when big-time cooling hits, most will be screwed.
Still not buying into the conspiracy theories. But as the current vernacular goes, just sayin’…
The headline asks the wrong question.
“When Climate Change Becomes a Health Issue, Are People More Likely To Listen?”
Because people have been listening but rejecting the AGW movement it should read,
“When Climate Change is Framed as a Health Issue, Are People More Likely To Be Fooled?
This is so typical of the left wing. They always assume people who don’t buy their garbage haven’t heard their message loud enough or clear enough or in the right frame.
With AGW they can put it any way they want.
A billion climate refugees, wars are likely, health is at risk, drinking water will vanish, seas will rise, snow will disappear, mass extinction will occur, mass starvation etc.
As a regular monitor of RC and CP I’ve witnessed all of their lunacy mascarading as informative and educational advocacy.
It all comes back to the fatally flawed climate models and their fantasy that all they need do is pile up more asinine claims to make their case.
That reminds me of , and I speak from personal experience back then when I moved to English Canada, when you tell people you don’t speak the same language and don’t quite understand all they are saying, they tend to repeat the exact same phrase, words, but much louder… as if saying it louder would make the other person understand better.
Truth does not need subsidies, government and/or taxing. Only manipulation and falseness are requiring governmental action through subsidies and taxing.
Is not it like that, Mr. Obama ?
@frank K. – Weather Channel, Smether Channel. One of their partners is the Tata Institute of Social Sciences! Aside from the social “sciences” nature of the article, follow the money; start with Tata Chemicals.
Wasn’t there a peer reviewed paper that purported to show that when global warming reaches a certain level, humans will be unable to loose metabolic heat fast enough, and literally cook from the inside? Or am I imagining it?
Any Quebeckers will recall the framing of the “independence” oriented question for “sovereignty-association” in a referendum.
The independence question was refused so they made the association question so ambiguous that no one knew what yes or no really meant anymore. They had polling firms try different phraseologies to see if one version fared better than the other.
At some point, a yes answer can be achieved if you frame the question in such a way that a yes response sounds better than a no. (No matter what the subject.)
The PR firms must me making a bundle on this one.
bob paglee said:
“If I copied the address correctly, a pdf version of Dr. Miskolczi’s interesting paper that debunks IPPC’s pet theory of water-vapor’s positive feedback as described in my previous post can be found …”
Second reference to the IPPC. Pachauri would deny any connection to that place.
Can the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) be seen as anything other than as a Goebbelian graduate school of propaganda?
As for the actual “framing” study itself (found at biomedcentral.com), it illustrates that touting something as being sweet and pleasant (and healthy!) will always prevail over shilling that same thing as repellent and obnoxious. As in:
“Climate change laws will make the air smell as sweet perfume and will stuff your belly with healthy green salads.”
Versus….
“Climate change laws will make the meats rot in the sweltering summers and leave you shivering and cold in the winter.”
And the technique even predates Goebbels. Here’s some info from Wikipedia on the great PR manipulator Edward Bernays, who didn’t need to “frame” his ideas with “healthy and happy” in specious academic papers:
# Bernays worked with Procter & Gamble for Ivory soap. The campaign successfully convinced people that Ivory soap was medically superior to other soaps.
# Bernays helped the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) and other special interest groups to convince the American public that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. This was achieved by using the American Dental Association in a highly successful media campaign.
# In the 1930s, his Dixie Cup campaign was designed to convince consumers that only disposable cups were sanitary.
# Bernays used his uncle Sigmund Freud’s ideas to help convince the public, among other things, that bacon and eggs was the true all-American breakfast.
One dozen people. He, he he , haaaa haaa, splutter pant. OMG thats rich. OH! in each of six districts, oh well thats eer different, he, he he, haaaa haaa, spltter pant.
Hah! I laugh at their weak and futile attempts to re-brand CAGW! But when this tactic fails, what next? Will they drop polar bears from the sky? Portray desperate animals committing suicide? Will they (gasp!) throw dozens of airliners at New York City?
Hahahaha! I’m kidding, of course. Nobody could be that stu–
Oh, wait…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxDPhVc9iM
Climate Change as Opium of the People.
At least it explains why the eco-nutters are in bed with the Marxists.
Hey, I have ideas for other institutes, such as the Institute for Astrology Communication, the Institute for Dowsing Communication, The Institute for Snake Oil Communication. Each with their own important brief to inform the public (objectively, of course). And, who knows, maybe I can scoop a few bob in subsidies.
“… even some who don’t generally believe climate change is happening”
Man I get sick of seeing this type of misrepresentation of the skeptic.