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.
Dear Dr. Willer and Mr. Feinberg,
I wish to communicate the following in the least apocalyptic way. Your state, i.e. your employer, is bankrupt. Soon you will be dismissed from your state jobs and will be forced to get real ones or else live under a bridge. This is going to happen whether you believe the world is just or unjust.
I would conclude with a positive message focused on a potential solution, but I don’t see one out there.
making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint
I take this to mean the current methods do not produce a compliant populace, and compliance is critical to the success because the science isn’t working for them.
davidmhoffer says:
November 20, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“The best part of Weaver’s rant … ”
I’m not sure that “best” is the adjective I would have chosen to describe Weaver’s choice of phrasing [assuming that Knox has quoted him verbatim … and to the best of my knowledge Weaver hasn’t launched a libel suit, yet, so presumably he did!]; “most ironic”, “most ignorant” or “most offensively and unscientifically arrogant” definitely. But “best”?! Nah … I don’t think so 😉
Not that I dispute (or even mildly disagree with) your conclusion had Harper succumbed to the “climatically correct” provisions of such a disastrous and ill-conceived private member’s bill.
It’s interesting the quotes from the co-authors choose to frame oppositional readings in terms of “denial”, or “discounting evidence”.
Alternative explanation: unrealistically extreme negative messages constitute a meta-signal, telling us we are being fed a myth. In the UK, we had the government’s “Act on CO2” TV ad showing a puppy drowning because a little girl failed to switch of the lights – as soon as you see something so absurd, you know you are looking at the product of dishonest marketeers rather than factual reportage.
The reason why they can back fire is because the knowledgeable research these claims and find no evidence at all. Also it can become too obvious to almost any one that certain claims are utter nonsence. Only reason why global warming theory phrase has changed is because the planet has not demonstrated these twisted ideas. These agenda ridden scientists/non-scientists should not be allowed to spin there way out of trouble and we should all stick with ‘global warming theory’ as the phrase and not climate change or climate disruption etc.
The confusion of the term ‘global warming’ and ‘global warming theory’ is also a big problem for most non-scientists because these mean two different things. How many non-scientists/scientists have been called ‘denier’ because they don’t agree with the global warming theory. (politicians are extremely guilty of this too) The global warming phase refers to the planet warming over a period which no sceptics I know deny. Yet, the confusion is obvious by many (even some alarmist scientists) been called deniers because either they don’t think the person believes this concept or make it out that they don’t (spin) The ‘global warming theory’ that refers to human contribution of CO2, causing dangerous levels of rising temperatures where action is needed to stop despair for human civilisation, has a much different meaning.
Scientists/non-scientists not believing in this and been called a denier or other names is utter nonsence and sad reflection of bad understanding of the subject. The change in phrases just makes it more confusing when people may be disagreeing with ideas that may be different to each other of what the term means.
The ‘global warming theory’ as described above has been falsified by scientific method and the observable planet shows no scientific evidence of this happening.
Matt G,
Thanks, but I think even “theory” is a strecht, maybe more like “conjecture”.
But you are right, while global warming and cooling naturally happened, and will continue to happen, the Global Warming Conjecture was unsupported and all of its predictions have failed.
More at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
Quote from Otto Edenhofer, German economist and IPCC official.
“We redistribute world’s wealth by climate policy”.
From an article in the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Nuff said!
Complete address for the above.
http://www.gwpf.org
“The comment you protest could have been worded more diplomaticaly, but at days end it was not a criticism of religion.”
davidmhoffer,
I understand. And I know there is room for criticism of religion. But, my so far unacknowledged complaints are more about inconsistent moderation/policy here as they are the criticisms of religion themselves.
Andrew
“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.””
These are bogus criteria .
Bad Andrew;
But, my so far unacknowledged complaints are more about inconsistent moderation/policy here as they are the criticisms of religion themselves.>>
My understanding is that many of the mods are volunteers, and as what you are referring to is frequently a judgment call, one must expect considerable variance in application of policy. As someone who has an a couple of occassions sparked or participated in debate that got a thread closed down, please understand MY complaint.
History is repleat with examples of struggle for power that are repeating themselves today. As the economist from the IPCC said, it is no longer about science, it is about redistribution of the world’s wealth, and who will be in control of it. It is about power. History’s lessons are lost to us, condemning us to repeating them, if we cannot discuss them rationaly and objectively. The fact of the matter is that the struggle for power has historicaly been between governance and religion. That is a slight on neither.
The primitive tribe was guided by their fiercest fighter, the chief, and their wisest elder, the shaman. When they agreed the tribe followed. When they disagreed, there was dissension, confusion and possibly revolution. The Church of England was born of disagreement between church and monarch. Communism regarded organized religion as the greatest threat to it once the monarchy had been removed. Alexander the Great conquered half the planet before he was 30 and was widely believed to be a god. We subject ourselves to long line ups and indecent intrusions at the airport to protect ourselves from religious extremists. The history of power and religion and governance are intertwined.
We cannot learn history’s lessons if we cannot discuss the history for fear offending those of a given faith. It is one thing to be critical of a religion for its beliefs. It is another thing entirely to observe the historical realities regarding the use and misuse of both power and belief.
The debate has long left the realm of science, logic, and fact. It is now about belief systems and power. If understanding the wrong doings (and the right doings) of historic confrontations between belief systems and governance provides us the means to learn from them and so not repeat the horrid mistakes, then we must be able to discuss the historical facts without descending into a religious debate. The mods seem reluctant to pull the plug until things get nasty, but I applaud them for being as lenient as they can until it does.
This debate is not about religion, it is not about science. It is about power, and the quest for power follows history’s path. I’ll put my religious sensibilities aside at this point because I’ve no intention of being condemned to repeat history’s lessons without putting up one he**uva fight. I don’t care if the guy in the trench next to me is left or right or devout or atheist as long as he knows that the common enemy is totalitarian distribution of poverty. We can have a nice civil discussion about the existance of deities and the meaning of life when the shooting stops. Until then history’s lessons are part of the ammunition package and no point shooting them at each other.
Well this conversation is drawing to a close so I will just quote Pope John Paul II.
“Be not afraid”
The mods seem reluctant to pull the plug until things get nasty, but I applaud them for being as lenient as they can until it does.
We happy few, we band of (unpaid) brothers, have always tried to allow as much freedom of expression as we rightly can. (There are limits.)
There are no perfect solutions. If we grant latitude (which we do), people will complain about disrespect for this or disrespect for that. Dennis Miller once commented that not even 80% of the American people are in favor of motherhood or apple pie.
But go the other way and you are in Taminorealclimateland where dissent is quashed and the hallelujah chorus dominates.
One (among many) of the reasons this blog is so popular is that our exalted host lifts his hand in favor of the former course.
We choose to “err” on the side of free expression — and not regard that as an “error”.
evanmjones;
We choose to “err” on the side of free expression — and not regard that as an “error”.>>
I for one applaud the balance you’ve struck. It is the openness to debate the issues and facts that is perhaps the most compelling argument there is that sites like Tamino’s and RealClimate and others are actively suppressing factual information that disagrees with their belief systems. Ask a tough question on those sites, and (as I learned early in my personal quest to learn the science) it may never see the light of day, or be snipped and responded to with sarcasm and ridicule out of context. I’ve been snipped here too when my rants get out of hand, and rightfully so. But I’ve outright disagreed from time to time with various articles by Willis Eschenbach or Tisdale or Anthony himself and not once was my argument deleted, edited to make me look silly, or responded to out of context. The fact that this forum is secure enough in the science it presents to discuss in that manner is the single strongest and most obvious evidence that the doomsayers have built a house of cards and wrapped it in a cloak of morality that is visible to no one but themselves.
Congratulations to all of you on a job well done.
(and Willis, I surrender on the issue of weasels going on killing sprees but maintain that the proper term for the myth is “rural myth” not “urban myth”. Can I please win just ONE tiny point?)
“We choose to “err” on the side of free expression — and not regard that as an “error”.
Not in all cases. I’ve been deleted for opining on a certain topic, while others have INTRODUCED and opined on the supposedly objectionable topic seemingly completely freely. What I did was in response and I was the one who got deleted.
It’s kinda like the NFL where dude throws an elbow but the refs “didn’t see it.” They only saw the response. (Which is hard to do when the “initial elbow” is in a published comment and everyone can still see it.) 😉
Andrew
David says “and Willis, I surrender on the issue of weasels going on killing sprees but maintain that the proper term for the myth is “rural myth” not “urban myth”. Can I please win just ONE tiny point?”
How about Goremyth — would that do? But frankly, I would prefer a more pungent epithet… ummm– can I have an “s” please, to go with the “t”, and can I drop the “y” and the “m”? Oh yes, and can I also please have an “i” too?
Anyway, I appreciate WUWT allowing me my Airing Of Grievances in the best Festivus Tradition.
Now, who wants to put up the Festivus Pole? J/K! 😉
http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm
Andrew
The study detailed in this report suffers from small study syndrome. A total of 142 people were used as subjects, 97 in one part of the study and 47 in another. Studies this small are almost certain to be wrong and have error bars larger than the effects found. Worthless for drawing any kind of conclusions.
The AGW crowd has been crying woof for far to long….
If anyone starts using google on all the players… they begin to find out about the 1975 FREEZEOUT… that became a Burnout 20 years later…
And, for the really inquisitive cartoon watching public, they learned about ICE Ages, then warm periods, then ICE Ages – maybe this stuff just happens.
And, CAL profs. just can not understand why the public is smart enough to see the BS.
Guess they will have to stop teaching that version of Earth History…
“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.”
Oh I see. We just haven’t gotten the right kind of message.
How typical of the left. It’s always their message hasn’t gotten out or it was presented poorly. “There’s no way those resisting could have understood us and still remain opposed.”
Yeah, we’re all hanging by a thread of misunderstanding waiting for a more refined message to get us past our skepticism.
I’ll bet half of the alarmists who are trying to put this pandamonium cat back in the bag are now accepting that they were probably wrong, caught up in “it”, and all they’re really concerned about is finding some posture that enables them to come out of this with at least a tiny shred of credibility.
Goood luck with that.