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.
Abstract
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?
He muses:
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?
James Schrumpf beat me to it. What are these skeptic films they studied to come to their conclusions? I’m getting tired of them blaming a communications problem for the fact that their lies aren’t getting through to us.
Beware of psychologists writing about climate
Hilarious. “views on climate tend to be influenced by partisan media rather than unbiased research …. Obviously its bad news if films produced by climate skeptics have a stronger impact… “
Take a worn-out premise and bash it to death.
I know the answer to this one.
It’s because the truth is usually recognizable.
Plus their story just sounds so fabulous.
2+2 is 5…We’ve always been at war with Eastasia
I swear more and more it looks like BO is acting like Big Bro.
From the article, Eric Horowitz is quoted as being “a social science writer and education researcher.”
He writes (my bold):
Perhaps in his education research he could find the meaning of ‘fictional’. From a review at http://www.altenergymag.com (my bold):
and from Wiki:
Is it any wonder that people are not getting the ‘message’ when ‘science’ is reported with such loose terminology?
It’s also difficult to concern oneself with the predictions from the pro-CAGW proponents that are always several to many decades into the future. Present-day concerns such as affording energy costs to survive the current and immediate cold weather may be more pressing.
Exposure to the facts leaves people less inclined to panic.
And this is a bad thing?
F.Y.I. — The movies used (per the Horowitz article in Psychology today — link above) in the “study” (lol) were:
“Experiment” (LOL) #1:
Skeptic Film: “The Great Global Warming Swindle,”
pro-CAGW Film: “Children of the Flood”
“Experiment” (LOL) #2:
Skeptic Film: “The Climate Swindle: How the Eco-Mafia Betrays Us’
pro-CAGW Film: “Six Degrees Could [C]hange (the article said “Ghange”, it may not have been a typo; it may mean there will be a “Ghangification of the World,” i.e., the entire planet will be like the River Ganges…. ) the World”
From the abstract:
“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.”
I don’t see how anything useful can come after a sentence that so mangles the issues. While I have no use for Al Gore, I am not a climate change skeptic; I accept that climate changes naturally all the time, always has and always will. I also accept that the Earth has warmed somewhat since the Little Ice Age–the degree is disputable–and that humans may have contributed to some extent, especially through land use changes.
The real issues, which this paper apparently ignores, is whether the alarmists can reliably predict future climate–they can’t–and whether the unlikely consequences of their unlikely warming justify currently enacted and proposed mitigation measures–they don’t.
BTW, Greitemeyer for some reason omitted the strongest evidence that “skeptic” films are effective: 1) the very fact that he felt compelled to warn us against them; 2) his warning was published.
If you analyze the great preponderance of scientific papers counted by the “consensus” crowd as supporting AGW theory, you will find those papers have nothing to do with climate science. Great hoards of biologists, agronomists, economists, oceanographers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers (and now psychologists) have jumped on the bandwagon to write papers warning of global warming consequences without having a clue to the actual science behind AGW claims.
Like this paper, the studies begin and end with the assumption that AGW is a proven fact and then go on to project what effect that warming will have on squirrels in the park or whatever other specialty may fall within the author’ actual field of study (which is not climate science). This paper is a bit of a variation on the theme, because it at least doesn’t blame the audience refusal to believe global warming propaganda on global warming. It instead fishes around for any reason other than “recognition of scientific fallacy” for that failure to believe.
Mike Bromley! You made to Vienna (out of the fiery furnace of Iraq)! I’m so glad.
HAPPY CANADA DAY!! (just what do you guys celebrate — seriously. Canada has much of which to be proud, that’s for sure, valour in battle, medical discoveries, beautiful landscape, and much, much, more. But, is it just a “Canada is Cool” day? Or is there a historical event it is celebrating? Can you BELIEVE an American is so ignorant of your holidays? (smile) YES! I’m sure you just shouted.
Well, it’s off-topic, but I was looking for a place to say: HAPPY CANADA DAY!
(so I said it again!)
Take care.
“The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic films that makes them more powerful.”
Wow, they are proving the biblical adage – the truth shall set you free. Maybe this should get republished in a theology context.
“… strongest evidence that “skeptic” films are effective:
1) the very fact that he felt compelled to warn us against them;
2) his warning was published.”
[Gary Hladik at 3:01] Well put.
Best Regards John
Sceptic films make sense, alarmist films do not? That’s my hypothesis for the different effects.
According to Brian Wynne who was the Research Director for the Study of Environmental Change at UK’s U of Lancaster.
“When the geographer Hubert Lamb, who had been on a special fellowship at the Met Office, left in the early 1970s to establish the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, with the explicit interest in long-term climate changes and reconstruction of past climate states, financial support was not provided by the UK research system. The Met Offie opposition to Lamb’s kind of science found resonance in the reductionist culture of ‘good science’ generally in the UK, and the CRU programme was only rescued thanks to private support from Shell International and The Nuffield Foundation.”
How soon they forget which is why I adore books written before something becomes controversial. Had to get rid of the real mathematicians and physicist who “overwhelmingly staffed” the Met Office in those days. Get rid of the reductionists and replace them with constructivists and modellers.
And then proclaim the non-reductionists the real scientists.
Has he never read Chicken Little or the Boy that Cried Wolf?
Perhaps he should read Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails!
i aint got no education, collage to expensive. i aint got no well english ether. i got 5 galloons of petrol, a small generator + a winder air conditonr; so when globel warmning gets to hot i’ll just turn on my a/c . if the worlds gonna blow up thats OK with me cuz i don’t like nobody no more
signed capt dan, mayor of Stupidville, CA usa …duh…
b____
urp!!___
Hicks dont call gas petrol, they call it “Go Juice” YeeHaawww!
oh I don’t know….cities under water, cruise ships floating down town, hysterical multi cyclones spinning the wrong way…..
..it’s probably just because they are filed under fiction
My hypothesis is… in nearly every major disaster movie (which is the category these films fall into in the public’s mind), everything always ends up okay in the end. Yeah, millions of people die — somewhere else … not my family or friends…. . So, the audience always goes home feeling pretty good. And special effects are fun, but, LOL, who believes them? Result: The audience goes home feeling pretty good and completely unconvinced that CAGW is real.
In “The Day After Tomorrow” (2004), all the main charac [OOOPS — spoiler alert!!] — ters live.
Here’s the late Roger Ebert’s (who declares his belief in AGW at the end of his review — link below) take on it:
Source: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-day-after-tomorrow-2004
****************************
Typical example of feel-good ending from “The Poseidon Adventure” below. “There’s got to be a morning after …. It’s not too late, not while we’re living… .”
And, thus, O Truth in Science friends, there IS hope. All those “average-Joes and Marias” have an endless capacity for hope. They are our hope. No matter how terrible it gets, they are certain that, somehow, some way, it will all work out in the end. Only those whose hearts are hardened by greed or lust for power or for whom it is a their religion or who are mentally ill jump on the CAGW bandwagon (“[Their] logic [does] not serve [them], for [their] hearts are in the lie.” G. MacDonald). The overwhelming majority of the people, well, they just want to earn a decent living and have a little fun. And, because their hearts are not corrupt, their minds are open to persuasion that things will work out, that things, in fact, ARE working out, just fine. The null hypothesis is winning (the P.R. battle).
The average voter IS persuadable. And they’re not as gullible as some think they are.
All this to say, the battle for the minds of the voters IS won. The truth is coming out DAILY. It’s just a matter of time.
That’s why the pro-CAGW priests and their minions are screaming so loudly and madly working their 5 cent magic tricks. Their audience has mostly gotten up and left the theater and those who remain, are jeering them, “Aaaa, right, buddy. Like we can’t see you shoved that rabbit through a hole in the table there. LOOOOSERS! Haw, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!”
What the flying duck is “Environmental Psychology”?
Actually, Mr. Neilson, it’s a flying pig. #[;)]
The wonderful upshot of all this is:
To get the public to “stop global warming,” the Cult of Climatology has to try** to frighten them so badly that the public doesn’t believe what they’re hearing!
LOL — CAGW is so OVER!
[Gail Combs, likely others, too, has posted some great cites proving that intentionally trying to scare people is precisely what the pro-CAGW “scientists” have been doing for years.]
It’s like this boofheads- ”
The results suggest that there may be something about climate skeptic emails that makes them more powerful.