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?
It’s as we all prognosticated. Near the end their voices become shriller – still none of which contain any fact.
The recent BBC (yeh.. I know) documentary: “ORBIT – Earth’s Extraordinary Journey”, all 3 episodes were full of fact, regarding atmospheric and ocean current changes during different seasons, including – tadaa.. – Milankovitch Cycles. They left out Solar cycles, PDO, AMO and ENSO altogether. It was a very informative series stuffed with facts and a definite must-see. For the BBC to produce such a thing is surprising.
Here’s the unsurprising thing. One of the presenters somewhere near the southern tip of Greenland, relying on the words of a single, possibly 50 year old Inuit that knows absolutely nothing about the planet he inhabits, says that the ice extent has reduced over the last 20 years. The presenter then makes this bold assertion
And that’s it – No scientific explanation for that statement whatsoever! Well, it was very carefully worded and the UK has had some recent cold winters. But – they show how this happened earlier through changes in the course of the jet stream brought on by seasonal change!
I wanted to edit that section from the series, but decided to leave it in and added some real facts and a warning at the beginning of my re-edited DVD.
It’s no wonder when they bombard you with proven scientific facts and then resort to a pathetic “message” not backed by anything other than the BBC head office wanting to stuff that in there, that they’re no longer believed. Thankfully, none of the series from Prof. Brian Cox included any of that gumpf.
I doubt it is an issue of the public being able to distinguish fact from propaganda. It would be nearly a first in history, after all.
Good find Benoit!
Alex says: @ur momisugly July 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I think that while it is still too early to genuinely attribute weather and temperature to to climate change, burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have not passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 can’t be a good thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why ever not? Trees were starving from too little CO2 Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
Ward JK, Harris JM, Cerling TE, Wiedenhoeft A, Lott MJ, Dearing MD, Coltrain JB, Ehleringer JR. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas
Humans are doing Mother Nature a great favor by returning a much needed nutrient to the atmosphere. A nutrient that all life depends on expect for a few minor exceptions.
Heck, CO2 is needed to regulate human breathing and blood pH. It is as essential as water and O2.
The essential point here is that most persons are not indoctrinated in global warming hype, either pro, or con. They are therefore, naturally skeptical. When someone arrogantly proposes a, “single cause”, cause, as it would seem, how could they possibly be as convincing as persons (still) maintaining that there is a distributed climate effect?
To Janice Moore:
Looks like none of the Canadians answered your question.
IANAC (I am not a Canadian), but July 1, 1867 was when
Canada was formed, by incorporating several colonies into
one, with a Constitution. It was originally called Dominion
day. They renamed it “Canada day” in the 1980s.
Some comments have compared the skeptic/alarmist divergence to one like science/religion. This seriously misunderstands the intellectual battlefield. It is actually a modern/post-modern disagreement. Alarmist are squairely in the post-modern camp.
most folks recognize the truth when they see it:
1) most people don’t see warming as a bad thing. if they did, tropical islands would not be popular tourist destinations. if driving SUV’s will make the winters warmer, they are all for it.
2) most folks keep hearing about sea level rise, but when they go to the beach nothing has happened. the roads along the coast are all still there. waterfront property is beyond their budget, so why should they worry if some zillionaire’s house washes away in malibu. it isn’t like the zillionaire was forced to buy waterfront.
3) natural disasters happen all the time. the average person doesn’t believe you can stop them by raising gas taxes and taking the bus to work. if it was so all fired important why are politicians flying to climate conferences in tropical locations?. most folks know that politicians will sell their soul to get elected and will tell any lie necessary to make it happen. it isn’t like you can take a politician to court for breach of promise. election promises are above the law, so the only way you can tell if a politician is lying is to check to see if their lips are moving.
@Janice Moore –
Yes, the alarmies are getting desperate, methinks – wonder how they will react to Briffa’s apparent defection (left-handed and back-door though it may be, it’s sure to enrage AND scare them.
Working on second volume of trilogy, looking for more testimonials for first volume so I can send queries on it (have two, but would like to get at least four); not much done on music lately, though I do have four big projects waiting for me: a 10th Symphony, of which only the first movement is complete; two arrangements of string quartets for string orchestra; and a set of pieces for harmonium (reed organ). Not sure you would like 10th Symphony – it’s pretty astringent, but I have written some more conservative pieces.
BTW – prayers are always welcome and appreciated. For me, it’s as much what they mean for the person doing the praying as what they mean for me. I don’t have to be religious to recognize that.
We’re getting off topic here – but WUWT doesn’t allow sharing of email addresses, for good reason.
Too much common sense. No PHD for you!
Re: Galane says:
July 1, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Thanks for the witty word correction. I deserved that. I will now hoard your horde missive in my “stuck it up my posterior” file.
No, there’s a broad scientific consensus that it’s STOPPED warming for ten years, and stopped warming significantly for 15.
“consensus that global warming is happening” means that the consensus believes “the pause” is temporary, but that’s a different thing.
Grandma always said to tell the truth!
If you do >>>>>> You never have to remember what you said ……..
Everyone is able to be a skeptic, if they choose, in today’s digital world, no?
Oh,,,,, the analog days 🙂
The additional CO2 has a diminishing returns effect, so it’s not that worrisome.
If “we” (the west) “do something” it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in the big picture. Asia won’t stop.
Rossi’s E Cat gadget may well be a deus ex machina. (Maybe he should have named it DEM.)
I wish that being right about the facts did make it easier to win arguments. Unfortunately, most people have the attention span of one sound-bite and have way too much “faith” in leftie politicians. Otherwise we’d win elections.
As commenters above noted, it’s a strawman that contrarians deny that the globe has warmed over the 20th century and that humans are partly responsible for it. It is this strawman that Obama attacked recently. What a basic blunder–or slimy debater’s trick for alarmists to continue to employ this tactic long after its disingenuous nature has been repeatedly explained.
Anthony: I was recently contradicted on another site when I said that contrarians believe that half the warming since 1950 has been due to manmade CO2. Could you post a multiple-choice poll to find out what %age of that warming WUWTers attribute to manmade CO2 emissions? E.g., Under 10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, etc. It would be valuable to nail this figure down.
It’s a pity there aren’t more skeptic movies. (Most of the ones from Anthony’s most recent telethon haven’t been posted yet.)
Anthony: I was recently contradicted on another site when I said that contrarians believe that half the warming since 1950 has been due to manmade CO2. Could you post a multiple-choice poll to find out what %age of that warming WUWTers attribute to manmade CO2 emissions? E.g., Under 10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, etc. It would be valuable to nail this figure down.
————-
If ANYONE believes that ANY percentage of the warming is man-made, how much would that be over the last 15 years?
I think that what ever the answer to the first part of the question the second part will be the same.
50 percent of zero is ??????
“…the attention span of one sound-bite … .” [J. D. Galt 9:39PM] — Fortunately, that works in both directions. #[:)]
That “faith in leftists” is, indeed, a problem. Sigh. How LONG will people vote Democrat SOLELY because: 1) their parents did; or 2) they cannot see that to create JOBS is the most pro-labor policy (versus simplemindedly voting for whatever the union bosses tell them to do); or 3) they think only Democrats care about: __ (you name it); or any number of mistaken beliefs about what Democrat policies really do…. well, you already knew all that. Just wanted to affirm that you have a good point. Educating the voter — that will be our salvation. JOBS is the key. CAGW (i.e., higher taxes and costs of doing business) KILLS JOBS (repeat).
****************************
Chad, thanks for telling me about your music and writing. Glad to hear that you are busily working away at your wonderful avocations. Yes, not on topic, so, I won’t comment further, except to say — keep on creating! And, if in the future you have any performances or publishing news to share, pipe up!
******************************************************
Chris R. – Thank you! I appreciate your doing my homework (too lazy — just asked, here!) for me. No more “Dominion Day,” eh? Heh, heh. Don’t like the reminder that they are still under a monarch I guess.
*******************************
Teddy Bear (well, what else could the “T” possibly be for? [:)]), “The thing with CAGW movies is they are … just plain boring… .”
LOL, enjoyed your post and……. mostly, I just wanted to use your adorable pen name. When I read your posts, I picture a cute-but-gruff-looking brown, fuzzy, teddy bear talking. A delightful image.
***************
“… there’s a broad scientific consensus that it’s STOPPED warming … ” [Roger Knights]
Yes!
Well, Man Bearpig, this WUWT person believes that whatever the % is, it is insignificantly small, far outweighed by natural forces, but, if you had a category that said, say, “.00001% to .0001%” I could check that box.
There is NO EVIDENCE of human CO2 causing ANYTHING on a global scale.
Until that evidence is shown, it should be business as usual.
Mindert Eiting says:
July 1, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Well, the Dutch mega-science-fraudster, Professor Diederik Stapel, who has admitted that he made up his data in 55 science publications, was sentenced yesterday to a social punishment. He has to work for 120 hours in our parks, cleaning up the dirt. Several scientists are disappointed about this mild punishment but it seems to me quite appropriate.”
The state cares for his own. From what I see Stapel was a social engineer, discouraging meat consumption, pontificating about what produces “sustainable” behaviour etc.
My hypothesis remains that, as the reputation of journalists and politicians alike has reached rock bottom, they use scientists more and more to spread statist propaganda. This will continue until even the last dimwit has learned never to trust a government scientist.
James Cook says:
July 1, 2013 at 7:31 pm
“The essential point here is that most persons are not indoctrinated in global warming hype, either pro, or con. They are therefore, naturally skeptical. ”
Most people own an indoctrination machine – commonly called the Dummy Box or The Eye Of Hell – that they paid for themselves and that they use for several hours a day to receive the daily conditioning. They are as indoctrinated as the typical Jonestown inhabitant.
Alex says at July 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I must ask why?
• Ignoring the question of what makes 400ppm a critical level…
• Ignoring the positive effects of CO2 (it is good for plants, agriculture and therefore eliminating hunger)…
• Ignoring the uncertainty in the cause of the CO2 rise (CO2 does follow global T with about an 800 year lag – MWP?)…
The real question to consider is the benefit of burning fossil fuels compared to not burning them. They aren’t free. They are burnt for a reason.
People burn fossil fuels because they want cheap energy. They want mechanised transport that can get food through the doldrums.
They want mechanised agriculture. And clean water pumped to their taps.
They want computers to share ideas and build a better world.
Actually, I think that could be a good thing.
Imaginary nightmare dystopias may cause anxiety but fossil fuels prevent real problems now.
So Alex, why can’t burning tons of fossil fuels such that we have no passed 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 be a good thing?
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.” D’oh!
This is a man who cannot see the storm coming. He is as defenceless against reality, as England was against this bunch freebooters, who by the way, lived in warmer times than we do‽
In his 1995 book “The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”
Carl Sagan not only exhorted his readers to be sceptical and learn how to think
critically, he laid his “Baloney Detection Kit” with a fine selection of anti baloney
tools.
I have no idea what numbers his book sold in. I bought a copy within days of it
appearing on the shelves and have read it several times.
Without actively applying it, I have noticed people on the whole (a very unscientific
sample!) actually have pretty good baloney filters anyway. Anything which seems
to go over the top is treated quite suspiciously. Perhaps a century of Hollywood
extremes has helped tune these filters pretty well!