From a submission by WUWT reader Benoît Rittaud and the “avert your eyes” department comes this bit of inconvenient psychology.
The Journal of Environment Psychology just published a (paywalled) paper by Tobias Greitemeyer (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Austria), entitled Beware of climate change skeptic films. That is the actual title of the peer reviewed paper.
The only problem is that in the study, it turns out skeptic films seem to be more effective than alarmist films.
Although there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is human-caused, these issues are denied by climate change skeptics. The present two studies examined to what extent (and why) climate change affirming and climate change skeptic films are successful in affecting people’s environmental concern. Relative to a neutral film condition, watching a climate change skeptic film decreased environmental concern, whereas watching a climate change affirming film did not affect participant’s concern. Mediation analyses showed that watching a climate change skeptic film decreased participants’ consideration of future consequences, which in turn decreased their environmental concern. Possible reasons why climate change affirming films did not affect participant’s environmental concern are discussed.
Of course, in the paper, the possibility that people are able to see whether the propaganda lies on An Inconvenient Truth side or on The Great Global Warming Swindle side is not taken in consideration.
Eric Horowitz, of Psychology Today, reports on this paper here saying: Are We Losing the War on Climate Change Cinema?
The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.
Maybe because skeptic films portray facts and truth compared to unsupportable claims?