Here’s a story that maybe some AGW outliers might want to read. Finally, recognition that doom and gloom, hell and high water, and all that… really aren’t effective, and people are getting “climate fatigue” from all that sort of senseless hype. Surprisingly, many major science news outlets (Physorg, ScienceDaily for example) are carrying this press release from University of California, Berkeley, of all places. But then, after you get past the headline, your realize who’s really in denial. – Anthony
Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
BERKELEY — Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
“Our study indicates that the potentially devastating consequences of global warming threaten people’s fundamental tendency to see the world as safe, stable and fair. As a result, people may respond by discounting evidence for global warming,” said Robb Willer, UC Berkeley social psychologist and coauthor of a study to be published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science.
“The scarier the message, the more people who are committed to viewing the world as fundamentally stable and fair are motivated to deny it,” agreed Matthew Feinberg, a doctoral student in psychology and coauthor of the study.
But if scientists and advocates can communicate their findings in less apocalyptic ways, and present solutions to global warming, Willer said, most people can get past their skepticism.
Recent decades have seen a growing scientific consensus on the existence of a warming of global land and ocean temperatures. A significant part of the warming trend has been attributed to human activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite the mounting evidence, a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that 48 percent of Americans believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated, and 19 percent think global warming will never happen. In 1997, 31 percent of those who were asked the same question in a Gallup poll felt the claims were overstated.
In light of this contradictory trend, Feinberg and Willer sought to investigate the psychology behind attitudes about climate change.
In the first of two experiments, 97 UC Berkeley undergraduates were gauged for their political attitudes, skepticism about global warming and level of belief in whether the world is just or unjust. Rated on a “just world scale,” which measures people’s belief in a just world for themselves and others, participants were asked how much they agree with such statements as “I believe that, by and large, people get what they deserve,” and “I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice.”
Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.
Results showed that those who read the positive messages were more open to believing in the existence of global warming and had more faith in science’s ability to solve the problem. Moreover, those who scored high on the just world scale were less skeptical about global warming when exposed to the positive message. By contrast, those exposed to doomsday messages became more skeptical about global warming, particularly those who scored high on the just world scale.
In the second experiment, involving 45 volunteers recruited from 30 U.S. cities via Craigslist, researchers looked specifically at whether increasing one’s belief in a just world would increase his or her skepticism about global warming.
They had half the volunteers unscramble sentences such as “prevails justice always” so they would be more likely to take a just world view when doing the research exercises. They then showed them a video featuring innocent children being put in harm’s way to illustrate the threat of global warming to future generations.
Those who had been primed for a just world view responded to the video with heightened skepticism towards global warming and less willingness to change their lifestyles to reduce their carbon footprint, according to the results.
Overall, the study concludes, “Fear-based appeals, especially when not coupled with a clear solution, can backfire and undermine the intended effects of messages.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, it sounds like the warmies have finally bothered to read through the WarmList.
Too little too late, we’re onto you. And the rest of the public is now catching up as well.
Isn’t it true, once people think, they say — How could I have been that stupid.
But another study, yawn.
Fear is a very short-term motivator and it quickly turns to anger.
Obviously these Berkeley people ( I dread to use the term ‘scientists’) live on a different planet.
If you repeatedly lie to people they get tired and stop believing you.
Well – judging from the comments collected by Dropstone on James Delingpole’s latest blog in The Daily Telegraph (‘On the anniversary of Climategate, the watermelons show their true colours’) – not only has the whole thing got nothing to do with WARMING – its got nothing to do even with CLIMATE.
Basically, its all about ‘wealth distribution’ and world government…
Read and be very, very afraid…
Speaking of psychologists, they will be studying the naked body scanner model for decades to come. They can’t help all the head scratching.
I’m just saying.
The IPCC broke a rule we all learned as kids…..NEVER CRY WOLF ….. and they have been crying wolf for over 20 years, ( there is NO wolf ) and doom and gloomers have been preaching the end of times since the beginning of times…..yawn….exactly
Ian
Didn’t Anthony run a piece recently giving advance warning that the psychologists were about to jump on the bandwagon? Is this the first foray into the battle?
I remember being a student. I remember thinking we could change the world. All it would take was the power of our pure, rational thought and actions, that we could change the world for the better.
30 years later, I see the world somewhat differently and realise how difficult it is to unpick what has been done in the past, how interconnected the world is and that for every change we might make there is a cascade of consequential reactions, i.e. I am no longer that high-minded student with simplistic ideals. Presumably, the students in this study think along those same lines as I did at that age – all 97 of them – (greater sarcasm rises in direct proportion with age too). Now that my own children are at uni, I do smile to myself a lot when I hear them trot out the same old rubbish I used to spout. Bless ’em.
I wonder what the age was of the other 47 volunteers?
COOL IT Stupid!
It’s already been done.
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
I can not believe that we have become a nation of people who have been running around like “Chicken Little” screaming because the sky is falling. A people so afraid that we allow ourselves to be groped by our government.
Words like “Honor” “Dignity” “Courage” need to be studied and re-introduced to our thinking and our civilization.
There is and will always be danger. Are we as a nation going to live by fear and allow ourselves be so debased?
I’m just saying.
By the way, that main character in Cool It was one of the broad casters from the Copenhagen Summit apologizing for the warmists.
Look him up and compare the old footage of him from Copehhagen.
… “The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. “….IPCC…. Facts!! Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!
=======================================================
They were presented with two questions containing,”facts” from the IPCC…. So in essence, the Questionnaire wants them to choose either the X AGW question or the Y AGW question…. Both are skewed to give the right political answer.
Isn’t modern science grand?
The question “Is the world just?” is nonsense. Justice is a moral quality. The natural world is neither just nor unjust; it exists and works in ways not connected with morality. Our life on earth is the same: neither just nor unjust. Our choices, now–those certainly have a moral dimension and may be just or not; but that wasn’t the question asked. Examples: Is this tree just or not? How about this cardboard box? Ask a false or nonsensical question, and just try to make sense of the responses. Do it at Berkeley, and you have compounded the problem. The article is a bad joke.
Where I live it is currently -21C which is record cold for this time of the year. Where I live people complain about the cold throughout the long winter and talk about planned trips to warmer locations. People also complained about the unusually cold summer (this the second unusually cold summer). Where I live people wear toques and gloves in the winter as they ride the LRT to work. The LRT car’s heating system loses the battle with the cold as the doors must open to let people on and off. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada)
http://www.accuweather.com/video/432724657001/extreme-winter-travel-conditions-thanksgiving-week.asp
http://www.accuweather.com/video/681364180001/the-cold-train-rides-roughshod-over-europe.asp?channel=vbbastaj
The problem with telling people the truth that the planet will warm less than 1C due to a doubling CO2 and that the warming will mostly occur at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere is that there will then be no motivation for CO2 taxation.
If you explain to the public that plant’s eat CO2 and that all plants including food crops thrive when CO2 levels are higher (For example, there is an increase in yield of 30% for cereal crops for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. We are of course carbon based life forms.) and that there is planet wide, an increase in precipitation when the planet warms, there is no motivation to transfer trillions of dollars to corrupt third world governments.
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
Telling the truth appears to not be a viable option if the objective is to spend trillions of public dollars bankrupting countries on a problem that is a benefit not a problem.
I would suggest leaving a way out. If the planet cools rather than warms it will be evident to all (what are you going to believe the fib or your own eyes) that the doomsday scenario is an obvious lie.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
“Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
“The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. ”
My comment: The increase in vegetation in desert regions is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 (Plant lose less water due transrespiration when CO2 levels are higher.) and due to an increase in precipitation due the current cyclic warming. Unfortunately the cycle has changed and the planet is cooling.
UK Sceptic says: Wrote
November 20, 2010 at 12:58 am
“One of the groups pushing the AGW agenda hard is Freinds of the Earth. Here is what they have to say about the soon to be released 2009/2010 winter related deaths in the UK:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/winter_death_advance_notice_19112010.html
FoE’s logic of the absurd is faultless.
H/T to Richard North, EUReferendum.”
If they wanted the government to help them insulate their homes, why didn’t they just ask for that?
my vege patch is growing fantastic thanks to all the extra carbon we produce just think more carbon more veges it will be a better world
Dr. John Ware says: Wrote
November 20, 2010 at 2:43 am
“The question “Is the world just?” is nonsense. Justice is a moral quality. The natural world is neither just nor unjust; it exists and works in ways not connected with morality. Our life on earth is the same: neither just nor unjust. Our choices, now–those certainly have a moral dimension and may be just or not; but that wasn’t the question asked. Examples: Is this tree just or not? How about this cardboard box? Ask a false or nonsensical question, and just try to make sense of the responses. Do it at Berkeley, and you have compounded the problem. The article is a bad joke.”
All I know is the purpose of man is to become as God is.
A reasonable person with a QI above 80 would expect some good news to balance the torrent of bad news. The unrelenting emphasis on disaster does not cut the mustard with bright young folk who will be the decision makers of the future.
What worries me is present decision makers like the USA Rep Baird who chaired the recent hearings. There is no place for propaganda tactics, like the pre-emptive strike message that 98% of doctors who agree is better than 2% who do not.
It would ne neat to see the next IPCC report written in two parallel sections, one which assumes AGW to be as believed and the other dealing only with natural variation. People are interested in the baseline case of no man-made warming, even though most believe there is some.
OT
We are not doing the TSA thing to keep us safer, we are doing it for the dead people from 9/11.
Those people are dead. They have no idea we are doing something for them . Cause they’re dead.
I’m just trying to see things from the other side.
After spending a large amount of public money, scientists discovered that Optimists thought that the glass was half full and pessimists thought it was half full.
Michael says:
November 20, 2010 at 2:50 am
UK Sceptic says: Wrote
November 20, 2010 at 12:58 am
“One of the groups pushing the AGW agenda hard is Freinds of the Earth. Here is what they have to say about the soon to be released 2009/2010 winter related deaths in the UK:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/winter_death_advance_notice_19112010.html
FoE’s logic of the absurd is faultless.
H/T to Richard North, EUReferendum.”
If they wanted the government to help them insulate their homes, why didn’t they just ask for that?
Because it’ll be a complete waste of money. We’re going to have a lovely Mediterranean climate in the UK thanks to AGW. All the money is being spent on non productive sustainable energy, not some hideously old fashioned, practical prevention. Just don’t mention the thousands of people who are going to die of hypothermia before climate utopia arrives though.
/sark
Steve R says:
November 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
For millions of years, I suppose, human beings have had to find their way to coexist with the notion that their entire existence could be snuffed out at any instant. And as we explore and discover more and more about the world, we uncover even more apocoliptic threats to our survival.
Megavolcanoes, tsunami’s, asteroid impacts, avian flu, return of the ice age, nuclear winter, global warming. We are Human Beings. We’ve always lived with the awareness of our own mortality, and for most of us, we are able to prosper and thrive despite this burden. I can’t help but be amused to see the gloomy predictions of the climate change alarmists be ignored by most people.
——————
sums what I was going to say up!
anyone thinking that the “world” is Just? safe or unchanging IS living a Delusion already, so I guess its those folks who are most likely to fall for we can control the world hype too.
Justice is a human creation- someon? dei ty? forgot to program/create , that into the way things really work:-)
Presumably, the students in this study think along those same lines as I did at that age – all 97 of them – (greater sarcasm rises in direct proportion with age too). Now that my own children are at uni, I do smile to myself a lot when I hear them trot out the same old rubbish I used to spout. Bless ‘em.
I wonder what the age was of the other 47 volunteers?
Exactly. Comparing 97 nineteen year olds attending Berkeley (a self-selecting liberally biased group, even as compared to other colleges) to 47 people spread across the united states of indeterminate age… gee.. who’d have imagined that the 47 people are less inclined to believe that Al Gore is a prophet?
Maybe folk should take a look at Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theories for an explanation of why scare tactics don’t work and some outcomes. Especially the Belief disconfirmation paradigm.
As for it being the Boy who cried Wolf, personally I see it more as Chicken Little in nature.
Festinger, L. (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of A Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World, by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter. Harper-Torchbooks