Yes that’s it, the locals are just too stupid to notice global warming because they are conflating it to local temperatures. Let’s remind everyone bloviating about AGW the next time we have a heat wave and record setting local temperatures are recorded, that these local temperatures don’t matter.
Study finds local temperature influences belief in global warming
Columbia Business School’s Center for Decision Sciences’ study depicts how beliefs on global warming are mistakenly influenced by daily temperature
NEW YORK – May 27, 2011 – A study by Columbia Business School Professor Eric Johnson, co-director of the Center for Decision Sciences (http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/decisionsciences) at Columbia Business School, Ye Li, a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Decision Sciences, and Lisa Zaval, a Columbia graduate student in psychology, found that those who thought the current day was warmer than usual were more likely to believe in and feel concern about global warming than those who thought the day was unusually cold. The study, recently featured in Psychological Science, explains why public belief in global warming can fluctuate, since people can base their thinking off of the day’s temperature. The researchers behind this study are also affiliated with Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, CRED (http://www.cred.columbia.edu/).
The team surveyed about 1,200 people in the United States and Australia in three different studies in order to determine their opinions about global warming and whether the temperature on the day of the study was warmer or cooler than usual. Respondents who thought that day was warmer than usual were more concerned about global warming than respondents who thought that day was colder than usual.
“Global warming is so complex, it appears some people are ready to be persuaded by whether their own day is warmer or cooler than usual, rather than think about whether the entire world is becoming warmer or cooler,” said lead author Ye Li. “It is striking that society has spent so much money, time and effort educating people about this issue, yet people are still so easily influenced.”
The study also revealed that respondents were fairly good at knowing if it was unusually hot or cold–perceptions correlated with reality three quarters of the time. While politics, gender and age all had the predicted influences – for instance, on the researchers’ 1-to-4 scale of belief in global warming, Democrats were 1.5 points higher than Republicans – after controlling for the other factors, the researchers found that perceived temperatures still had nearly two-thirds the power as political belief, and six times the power as gender.
These results join a growing body of work that shows how irrelevant environmental information, such as the current weather, can affect judgments and opinions on climate change.
charles nelson says: …studies incorporated ‘perceptional offsets’
Requires a salute, Charles!
Rhoda Ramirez, right, that is where the thermometers have already been confiscated from the public! ☺
But… Global Warming is so 2010…
It should have been a study on Climate Disruption.
BTW, I proved many people here in Israel they are mixing personal belief with facts about the temperature in summer. I showed them how due to better and more extensive air conditioning we feel it is much warmer outside only because we are constantly in air conditioned places, and only occasionally go out and stay in the “real world”.
Well, I’ve got a tree in my garden and after adjustment (using a special tree-ring processing method) its tree rings match exactly the Global Average temperature record. Has anyone else heard of a tree like that?
There’s nothing influencing the psychological “understanding” about the weather in my area and it’s weather cycles.
Living in an area where the temps can change 20 degrees in a 50 mile radius depending on the location of hill/mountains, water, fields, forests and concrete jungles. Gives you understanding of weather and climate better then any PHD.
Of course, this is the official scientific record of total Global Warming from 1870:
“1: Global Temperature Record
Phil Jones”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
I was just poking fun at Columbia Business School youngsters. They really think people have no instinctive memory of climate! I know they do, but they have to be older than in their 40’s to experience the spectrum to meaningfully judge. No one I know over this globe claims that his or her climate has actually changed, at all. There are cold spells, warm spells, wet spells, dry spells; sometimes over a span of up to a decade, maybe two, but not long-term change, none.
Nobody that is except some selected crazy environmentalists. To ALL members of this group this world’s climate is falling apart in a basket and they keep pointing at science. In this one case, the science methodology is incorrect. Shame on them, shame!
I am waiting for one spot on this globe to be where there is a non-reversible change in climate, like “It’s never going to snow in the United Kingdom again” and after fifteen years surely enough, it never snows. Didn’t happen. Moreover, I am not talking about a study that ‘x’ species of sparrow’s center of population is now statistically 123.4 meters further north proving a warming globe. Sheesh! The only actual climate change I have been able to find is in the Sahara Desert and it is getting greener around the edges, and that is a good thing. Will it stick? Check back with me in another fifteen years.
Surely it is more likely that people who believe in CAGW (computer aided global warming /sarc) will also be more likely to consider the current day temperature to be higher than normal (note the study did not say they thought the day was hot or cold). If you believe in CAGW, then the current day has to be “warmer than normal” otherwise the belief is compromised. The study participants at least were generally consistent in their logic (at least as far as temperature perception goes).
2010 was the warmest year ever. I know this to be true because I read it in the paper. However, London started the year buried under snow and ice, we had a bloody awful summer and then ended the year buried under snow and ice again.
Funny thing, perception.
RE: Spector (May 28, 2011 at 12:44 am)
“Of course, this is the official scientific record of total Global Warming from 1870:”
Correction: make that “from 1850”
A global average is nothing without local reality.
We were also told that warming would not be uniform. If some people are noticing how cold it is, there should be more people who can say how unusually warm it is at the same time.
I liked the comment by Pat Frank: “I wonder how lead author Ye Li is going to feel when .. he discovers that he, too, was, “so easily influenced.”” Good one!
“It is striking that society has spent so much money, time and effort educating people about this issue, yet people are still so easily influenced.”
What Ye Li really meant to say:
It is striking that politically driven warmist advocacy has spent so much money, time and effort socially engineering and alarming people about this issue, yet people are still so easily influenced by common sense and the evidence of their own eyes.
Green Sand says:
May 27, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“No, honest guv, I don’t have a thermometer, I modelled, honest guv, I did, I modelled it.”
Thanks for the laugh. Too bad they have already used the name Farenheit 451 for a future story about burning books.
But, Comrade, this is no laughing matter. Do you own, or have you ever owned a thermometer??? Are you sure??? Then what can you tell me about your neighbors? Do they complain appropriately about the heat?
son of mulder says:
May 28, 2011 at 12:03 am
Well, I’ve got a tree in my garden and after adjustment (using a special tree-ring processing method) its tree rings match exactly the Global Average temperature record. Has anyone else heard of a tree like that?>>>
Well I for one have heard of a tree like that. Although I’ve also heard of ghosts, goblins, vampires, witches, spontaneous human combustion, honest politicians, santa, efficient governance, benevolent dictatorships…
If you have a bunch of time to waste, try reading the Illuminatus trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson. If you do, you’ll realize how when you start looking for something, even without trying, you see it all the time. It’s self-reinforcing. While reading about the Illuminati you will start seeing 5 and 23 everywhere. Voodoo, AGW, and socialist-liberal demogogues work that way.
The Center for Decision Sciences? Psychological Science? Are these things anything like “social” science?
As soon as subjectivity gets linked to the word “science,” True Science flies out the window.
True Science limits itself by being strictly objective. This limitation is a discipline which has benefits. By demanding things such as replication, True Science allows an understanding of physical reality which otherwise would be impossible, and offers humanity gains which otherwise would beyond its reach.
True Love, on the other hand, tends to be subjective, and to involve events which you can never replicate. It does not seem to matter whether the events involve a soul-mate, a grandchild, or the Almighty, they are not events which one can (or wants to) replicate before a bunch of scientists wearing white lab coats. Such events, which can dramatically alter the course of our lives, are simply outside of the scope of True Science. They are, by their very nature, “unscientific.”
This does not stop certain individuals from trying to make a science out of subjectivity, especially when they see a chance to profit from the gullibility of their fellow men, and are in essence con-artists. You will notice the above study is done by Columbia Business School.
In Business some allow greed-for-wealth to rule, just as in Politics some allow lust-for-power to rule. There is a tendency among such people to seek a way to herd their fellow man like sheep, or drive them like lemmings. Therefore they use “social” science and “psychological” science to increase sales or increase popularity (votes.)
The problem with such “science” is that it takes a dim view of what humans are. When you treat your fellow man like lemmings, you are missing much that is amazing and beautiful about humanity.
You are also setting yourself up for a fall. Not only are you missing the value of True Science, you are missing the value of True Love. You are earning yourself the worst of both worlds. You may think you are smarter than everyone else, and sneer at others as mere lemmings, but the lucre your greed gets you has far less value than Truth and Beauty. What’s more, the power your political lust gets you has far less power than true Truth.
Wealth and power are tempting things, but you don’t want to let them ruin your life and lead you to misery. Therefore, when you meet so-called experts in “social” science or “psychological” science or “decision” sciences, it pays to be wary. Are such “professors” treating their fellow man with dignity and respect, or are they treating their fellow man like lemmings?
When there’s confusion about global warming most people stick their heads out the window. James Hansen knew this effect tooooo well in his 1988 testimony when he ‘adjusted’ the air-conditioning system. ;O)
This study came from a business school. Where does science come in that label?
Perceptions are also affected by media alarmism of the Moscow heatwave and generally ignoring the South American big chill which killed millions of tropical fish. What about a study on how peoples perceptions of global warming are affected by the media alarmism? How about a study on how the Urban Heat Island effect alters people’s perceptions of global warming?
Yes they are. Enter the alarmism put through the media by Gore, Hansen, Susuki, BBC, Nature, Royal Society………………
Most people are not aware that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated over the past 80 years. Most people aren’t aware that most Pacific coral island atolls have gained land mass over the past few decades. Most people don’t realise that Bangladesh has also gained land mass over the decades, polar bear numbers stable, ………………. Yet people have a misconception due to the media. Where is the balance!?
“Lead author Ye Li: “It is striking that society has spent so much money, time and effort educating people about this issue, yet people are still so easily influenced.””
Yes, that’s a bummer, isn’t it? Especially when all that money and effort really went into brainwashing, not “educating” people. Well, as someone who actually and literally lived the dream of the AGW crowd (i.e. Having lived under the rule of a totalitarian socialist regime punishing harshly any dissenting thought) I am afraid I have bad news for the respected quasiscientists who bemoan the waste of intellectual and fiscal resources on the ungrateful, stupid masses:
People are surprisingly adept at seeing through any brainwashing attempt ultimately aimed at restricting personal freedom and imposing additional taxes under whatewer do-goodist pretext. Czech President Vaclav Claus is onto something here.
I suggest society invests all that money into something better: forced introduction of all pro-AGW politicians and activists to the most basic principles of (non-politicized) science…
This is a little off topic. My Mother-in-law is seventy-seven. She says the peonies are always in bloom for Memorial Day. Not this year, not in this place. East Central Nebraska has had a very cool, wet spring. Surprisingly, we set record highs in many towns, May 8-10. Joe Bastardi pretty well called our Spring: cool, wet, violent storms.
We live in a fish bowl of information. We are very likely going to know if NYC is having a heat wave, or London & Spokane are buried in snow, or Joplin and Tuscaloosa are in ruins. “We” may be only vaguely aware, but almost everybody these days has an eye for the weather that sees beyond the local horizon. The truth is temperatures have been in an observable cool phase in both the northern and southern hemispheres for about five years. Personal weather observations are closer to home: But overall the, “it sure is hot” confirmation of AGW has taken a break.
Our own personal observations influence what we believe. Who would have thought?
Stephen Rasey,
Do you have precipitation data to go with that?
SteveSadlov,
Have not seen you around for a while.
Good to see you back.
Amazing… people are more likely to take first-hand experiance as an indicator of truth than the word of people they don’t know on the other side of the world using instruments that they have no familiarity with.
At one point, the label “scientist” gave a modicum of trust in the second-hand information. It no longer does, so people revert to their own experiances.
This is news?