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.
Steve Oregon said July 19, 2010 at 11:29 am:
“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.”
Good points Steve, and I think the alarmists are seeing that their creepy and dire (unfulfilled) predictions are less and less effective. So what this George Mason U. study is touting is “AGW alarmism with a Happy Face.” As Bing Crosby crooned, “You’ve got to accentuate the positive. Eliminate the negative. Latch on to the affirmative. Don’t mess with Mister In-Between.”
Hence your list above becomes “With happy AGW laws, there will be billions of climate beneficiaries, wars will be less likely, health will increase, drinking water be abundant, seas will recede, snow will be beautiful, mass happiness and prosperity will prevail, etc. But we all must pitch in, and those holding us back from the beautiful low-carbon Shangri La must of course be nullified.”
Global Warming’s Six Americas: “the Alarmed (18% of the adult population), the Concerned (33%), the Cautious (19%), the Disengaged (12%), the Doubtful (11%), and the Dismissive (7%)” should be the Bamboozled, the Snookered, the Flummoxed, the Frazzled, the Skeptical, and the Realistic. Their numbers are of course highly inflated on the Alarmed/Bamboozled side, since this is all about “rallying the troops”. It must really suck to be them about now, and they need all the encouragement they can get.
@ur momisugly Gary Hladik says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:26 pm
REPLY: Man, that is some sick [snip]! Do these people have NO shame??
May their funding streams continue to wither.
Well of course it’s a health issue, just imagine all the co2 eating away at the thermosphere, and all those more death rays from the sun getting through wrecking cellular havoc causing cancer.
DNA modification would work better, as in the “Brave New World”, the manufacture of a new docile, working class, as the “gammas’, would fulfill the most fantastic dreams of the self designated “Alpha” superiors, like, I am sure he considers himself, Al Baby bedwetter, a.k.a. “El Gordo”.
OT
NATURE NEWS – Seismology: The secret chatter of giant faults
The Earth – Jupiter synodic period (399 days = 1.093 years ~ 13 months)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sep19.htm
For the past few weeks, seismologists at the University of Washington in Seattle have been on high alert. Any day now, they expect a flurry of microtremors deep under the nearby Olympic Peninsula, just as occurs roughly every 12–14 months. And when that wave of vibrations comes along, the researchers will be ready to catch it.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100714/full/466312a.html
However all this insanity can be stopped, a la American way. ….
Buy more pop-corn!….Interesting times indeed.
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?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they have shrunk, we’re not in the middle of an ice age last time I checked, and to expect things to remain exactly in stasis is simply unrealistic
Vuk etc. says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Would the moon’s position on that date modulate such “collective gathering”?
Would it be felt more strongly on those places where it happens a Sun-Moon opposition or conjunction relative to earth?. If so, where are these places located?
“Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and infectious diseases, ”
Of course, since C20th warming only amounted to at most 0.7C folks with heat related health problems could always move a couple of hundred miles north instead of being taxed to the hilt for a non-problem.
Well, the following paper says that these forces get multiplied:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29238677/Earthquake-3
They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change then go on to say that people don’t understand what the problem is!
Though it’s bad I just pray for an extended cooling period (30 years or so) and watch these people squirm.
So if you tell people that by robbing their neighbour’s house, their increased wealth will yield health benefits, will that make them feel that robbing is a good thing??!!
This is a sign of desperation.
The first threat (you will all die!) didn’t work. So now they use a different threat (“You will all suffer from unspeakable illnesses!”).
Time to fire the marketing team I think.
The catholic church tried that a long time ago by scaring people and children to follow the Church and the way of God/Jesus or else they would suffer eternal damnation in Hell. Well, look where the Catholic Church is today… people are waking up to the Lies and Deceptions of organized religions.
Which is the state of the USA where there are more GWRs?
Ray says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:52 pm
In my country, a few days ago, a catholic bishop said “they are to defend the environment and not only that, if you ask me, I will tell you that my nation is the World, and we take care of our nation”.
You must remember that, past December, when Copenhagen agreement was dying, the pope himself, 24 hours before, came out to declare that “all good Christians should have to back the Copenhagen agreement”, though a few days later he added he did not support any green church.
This article clearly shows that most people, whether they are concerned about AGW or not, still have a fear of the `weather`, that`s conclusive.
I see the Earth a bit like the human body, it can loose excess heat quite well, but if it`s too cold, it will suffer. Nasty things like plague can set in, that killed around 30% in Europe, and much higher with indigenous peoples.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28353083/
http://presqueisle.mainememory.net/page/1061/display.html
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
Marxist ideology and socialist utopian beliefs are like religious faith. Rarely does a person change his religion on the basis of rational thinking. Conversion requires some sort of emotional trauma, humiliation, or near death experience.
So unfortunately for a site like WUWT, even the soundest arguments and physical evidence against AGW are unlikely to change many minds among today’s ruling elite and media. Indeed, the socialists are like fundamentalists. An important part of the appeal of their ideology lies in a “religious” sense of self-righteousness.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:11 pm
THEY will enjoy, whether heat or cold, only we the nasty and despicable subhumans will perish making them feel joyful….this is what Al Baby thinks in his wet full daydreaming, however we must assure it won’t happen that easy, because if easy then no fun.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:59 am
‘Then they could be lectured in school to think of drowning kittens and burning puppies every time Mom or Dad starts the car.’
That’s soooo last century! The Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK have already had a lengthy television campaign frightening kiddies with cartoons of drowning puppies.
I’m warming to the idea of incinerated kittens though!
This sounds all too wonderful. Reminds me of the hopey changy thing I voted for. And that turned out hopey changy crappy! Makes me think these global warming, changing, snow is warming and hot is warming, rain is warming and drought is warming folks consider people like me to be very, very stupid, and unable to learn from their own mistakes.
For Anthony,
Three retirees, each with hearing loss, were playing golf one fine March day. One remarked to the other…
“Windy, isn’t it!”
“No” the second man replied, “its Thursday!”
And the third man chimed in…
“So am I, let’s have a beer!”
I’m not very impressed by the survey or Maibach, et al’s, analysis of the responses. The 18-sentence, 1-page, statement on climate change elicits expected responses. What would the expected response be to the statement “O1 – Most people agree with the sentiment that “good health is a great blessing.”? Yes, near-unanimity
I scaled the data in Maibach’s Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 and calculated the average disagreement for the entire dataset to be 3.5 and the range was from -0.9 to 10.
In addition to O1 (Da = -0.9), the responses to B2 and C1 aren’t surprising:
B2 – Cleaner energy sources and more efficient use of energy will lead to healthier air for children and adults to breathe. (Da =0.1)
C1 – Peoples’ health is dependent on the health of the environment in which we live (Da = 1.5)
at the other extreme:
T3 – Indirectly, global warming harms the quality of our water, air and food, and our ecosystems, all of which can lead to increasing rates of disease and death (Da = 10.2)
Overall averages”
O – sentences: Da =3.5
T – sentences: Da = 4.6
B – sentences: Da = 2.2
C – sentences: Da = 2.3
IMO, focusing on potential benefits doesn’t offset the disagreements on the “threats” of the climate change debate.
“Framing climate change as a public health problem”
It sounds like the perfect marriage.
Both fields are full of liars, crooks, and scientists that over estimate what they know. Both fields want government funding. Both fields want to run our lives and both fields want more control over us.
No field of science has had more time, money, and research than medical.
The global warming scientists could learn some new tricks.