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.”
CO2 is mainly dissolved in the oceans. If they warm up, it is released and up goes the atmospheric CO2.
In the last 61 years, there has been a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration (http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Miskolczi%20-%20Idojaras%202007%20Jan-March.pdf).
And still, no CAGW forecasts have been proved “robust”.
Watch what El Niño/La Niña (ENSO) does, if we could understand this natural cycle, we could begin to understand the global climate.
Nothing backfires worst than lies, but, if catastrophic warmists clean their act, they disappear!
More at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
The extraordinary “Common Sense” of George Carlin:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Michael says:
November 20, 2010 at 12:10 am
“They are going to capture (CO2) for safe keeping and pump it it to the ground for safe keeping. They are already doing this.”
Michael, here in Germany the first trials are about to begin; but there’s vocal opposition from the locals at the site, and the entire exercise looks to me a lot like it’s about siphoning off EU research grants. No approval by now. Politicians try to pass the buck; nobody wants the responsibility.
Systematic desensitization.
In psychology it is one approach to help people be cured from a phobia. Repeated and stronger stimuli from something that is the trigger of the fear helps people overcome the fear.
We have had many people get incredibly sick from a flu. After BSE, Bird, swine flu scares for years, people no longer get frightened reading about all these population ending flu incidents. Every pandemic has been over blown. Every one at some point discovers a narrow cause and target of flu. Bird flu is common with people that have ingested chicken blood.
A few words on the eco-greens favorite new word, “Sustainability.”
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/15891-The-Sustainability-Inquisition.html
I know, I know…I’m posting it twice…but it’s worth it!!
Media’s Rules of the Game,,,,from the CRU Library
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
This outlines how to spin it!
jason says:
November 20, 2010 at 4:52 am
Well eternal damnation kept billions believing in god for centuries so why AGW?
========================================================
No, that isn’t quite correct. While many preachers will preach sermons on hell, and “eternal damnation”, very little is written of it in the Bible. Belief in God is a realized concept prior to belief in ‘eternal damnation” or hell. While I can only speak for myself, there are many reasons to come to the determination that there is something larger than oneself and mankind that leads to my belief. It is impossible for me not to see the wondrous hand of God when I consider the cosmos, the ant, the tree, and mankind. The belief that these things all occurred from a commonality without impetus stretches credulity.
David says:
November 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
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…
I don’t mean to be rude – but the phrase “No shit, Sherlock?” comes immediately to mind.
We in Ne Oregon are looking at highs in the 20F range and lows in the single digits.
It-is-only-November.
Got Coal?
One of the reasons why alarmist climate reporting fails is because the claims fail to materialize.
Here is just one example:
The article is from 2000 and tells it’s readers that snow is something from the past.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the- past-724017.html
Well, we all know how Britain looked like Greenland from space last winter.
And this is only the press.
We now have the alarmist examples from “Death Train” Climate activist and NASA Scientist James Hanson who told us in 1988 that Manhattan would be under water by now.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-rumours-of-manhattans-death-are-exaggerated/
Instead of being punished for their alarmist BS, these scientists are rewarded and the alarmist claims are repeated.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/puffington-host-past-the-point-of-no-return/
What is annoying and worrying is the fact that alarmists from the University of Berkley
instead of looking at the crappy science they (among others) produced are only interested how their alarmist predictions effect the public.
I think this is outrageous.
This underlines my opinion that we absolutely need to prosecute these scare mongers.
If we fail to do so, the next scare campaign is around the corner and they will continue to undermine the publics trust in the scientific world (they lost their trust in politics long time ago).
“… were more open to believing in the existence of global warming …”
They always have to get that “BELIEVE” in there.
They are right, there are no proven facts to “KNOW”.
It’s a global sales job.
What’s so special about proving that repeatedly screaming,
“WE’RE ALL GONNA D-I-I-I-I-I-E!!! ….. in AD2100, after the warming starts up again in AD2030 but for real this time….. AND WE ALL GOTTA DO SOMETHING N-O-W-W-W!!!”
makes people a little skeptical?
Just for amusement’s sake (mine) I’ve edited the first part of the post, slightly.
BERKELEY — Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of asteroid strikes can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to increasing the space program’s budget, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
“Our study indicates that the potentially devastating consequences of an asteroid hit threaten people’s fundamental tendency to see the world as safe, stable and fair. As a result, people may respond by discounting evidence for the catastrophic damage such a strike would certainly cause,” 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 deflect any potential strikes, Willer said, most people can get past their skepticism.
Recent decades have seen a growing scientific consensus on the potential for a major asteroid strike. A significant part of this consensus has been attributed to greater access to high powered telescopes and equipment by amateur astronomers…
James Sexton;
Well eternal damnation kept billions believing in god for centuries so why AGW?
========================================================
No, that isn’t quite correct. While many preachers will preach sermons on hell, and “eternal damnation”, very little is written of it in the Bible.>>
Sorry James, that’s not the point. The point is that people have a fundamental tendancy to FEAR the world, not so see it as a safe place. The fact that “eternal damnation” is widely accepted despite scarcely being mentioned in the good book is pretty good proof that the natural tendency of human beings is fear, and that humans will in fact choose fear even in the absence of supporting facts. This is exactly opposite what the psychologist claimed.
One might add a few thousand examples from history to the argument. How does this supposedly qualified psychologist explain the folklore of almost every culture that includes the existance of ghosts, goblins, evil spirits, bandersnatches and the like, all without a shred of evidence that they exist? Humans have a natural need to fear something, the only possible explanation for so many beliefs over the centuries emerging in the absence of any actual threat. Even without history we know this is true. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows they develop from time to time irrational fears despite any evidence they exist. Children fear the dark. No reason, but try and explain that to a six year old. Put in a night light, or leave the hallway door open a bit to keep the dark away because you’ll never win through explanation and logic.
One of my sons became very convinced that there were alligators under his bed. He was scared sh***ess. No amount of explaining, no amount of getting down on the floor and showing him… facts were immaterial. So I accepted his reality. I got a big garbage bag, made a considerable amount of commotion as I crawled under his bed, one by one captured the alligators and stuffed them in the bag, even got bit a couple if times, hollering the whole time so he would have a blow by blow picture of the battle. I took the bag to the front door, dumped the alligators outside, and told them they could never come back. After weeks of being unable to sleep for fear of alligators, kid went right to bed and never mentioned alligators ever again. Every parent I have ever conversed with about these things has a similar story or two or three. Point being that irrational fear in the absence of supporting evidence is the natural state of the human condition from the earliest age, not the babble being spouted by this clown whose professional association should yank his credentials on the basis of that single statement.
Michael:
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?
Maybe because they actually believed that they were going to wake up one morning last Winter in the “Mediterranean” U.K. surrounded by Palm trees and Girls Gone Wild?
Social Scientist Eh.
I know that Anthony does not want religious arguments on this blog but if he allows comments like,
jason says:
November 20, 2010 at 4:52 am
Well eternal damnation kept billions believing in god for centuries so why AGW?
I think I have a right to at least respond with at least one comment.
It is true that there are some people who fear “enternal damnation”as a motivation for decent behavior, but as a devout Catholic that is not the reason I believe in and love God.
Anti-Christianity is just as repugnant to me coming from “enlightened” sceptics as from “enlightened” left-wing nuts.
So if the moderators do not want religious debate please do not allow anti-religious comments. It is not fair to allow one and not allow the other.
davidmhoffer says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
“The point is that people have a fundamental tendancy to FEAR the world, not so see it as a safe place.”
Some people.
Calling us ‘deniers’ does not make us hide our heads in shame either.
SM says:
November 20, 2010 at 4:25 am
I think you’re quite correct, SM. Here in Canada (where, as noted the other day, our Senate has wisely defeated an ill-conceived climate act), IPCC lead author, Andrew Weaver, has been showing his alarmist activist/advocacy colours – again.
In a recent rant to a local rag – demonstrating once again the unbearable arrogance of climate scientists – Weaver went even beyond the Mannian (‘you must vote this way to protect us poor, embattled scientists’) to insist that Canada’s Prime Minister “has got to get get kicked out”. For details, please see:
Andrew Weaver’s intergalactic ballistic boomerang
There are things in the world to be feared and things to be loved, you have to find the right balance. I think it was Charlton Heston who said shortly before he died; “…the world is a tough place, nobody’s getting out of here alive…”.
I second the comment of Helen Hawkins.
Andrew
hro001;
The best part of Weaver’s rant was when he demanded that Harper be kicked out because “this is Canada, not Zimbabwe”. Of course if Harper had allowed that climate bill to pass, millions of people would have lost their jobs and become poverty stricken. Kinda like…. Zimbabwe. Only colder.
Helen Hawkins, Bad Andrew;
The comment you protest could have been worded more diplomaticaly, but at days end it was not a criticism of religion. It was an observation that people fear all sorts of things without the facts to support them. Religion requires faith, not scientific evidence. It takes a seriously evil dude to knowingly lead the flock astray by striking fear in their hearts to control them. If you insist on protest, protest that misuse of your faith.
re: davidmhoffer says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
Kudos for Dad!!! Great object lesson on facing fears. Oft-repeated theme throughout is “Fear Not”