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?
I guess the viewing public grow weary of all those Schneiderian Scenarios (scary, simplified, dramatic) as one might grow weary of violent, trashy movies out of Hollywood – despite their huge budgets, famous names, and special effects. Especially given that whenever some validation of these scenarios has been possible, they have so often failed to look credible.
Posted over at that Psychology rag:
Over at Horowitz’s laughable article it appears that every single comment is from sceptics quite rightly ripping him apart for writing such nonsense.
This only goes to show that the viewers are smarter than the authors.
10:10 No pressure, anyone?
Mad as a box of frogs, they are.
If CAGW actually WAS a serious problem, we’d be drastically cutting back non essential CO2 production. High on the list of cutbacks would be alarmist movies.
Climate Alarmism, or “Climatism” has been an enormous success as far as ideologies go. But, even in Soviet Russia, Lysenkoism only lasted about 35 years. It must be enormously frustrating and saddening for them to see it fall. They were doing so well for a time, and then things suddenly started falling apart. There will be finger-pointing, blaming and shaming as to why it failed. All part of the process. Truth wins out in the end.
Mike says:
July 1, 2013 at 7:37 pm
“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.”
Post-modernity was simply the organized attempt by the Marxists in the 60ies to reclaim the ground they gradually lost after 1917 through the general failure of communist coups in the West on the one hand and through Popper on the other hand. These days they run large parts of government “science” with their post modernity, most notably all of psychology and sociology, but it’s devoid of meaning. It only ever can try to cling to the back of a working economy and suck its blood, and once it sucks too much, the economy dies. The eternal fate of a system of thought that despises producing anything.
While starting in the soft sciences. Postmodern thought is increasingly invading the hard science space. In addition to climate science, you can see this occurring in The Social Text Affair.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
I always wondered why climate skeptics are soooo bad. Their films scream propaganda, a 10yrs old would notice it. That being said, it’s of course not better on the other side…
So I guess that’s the reason then…to smash the head of the public as hard as possible in the opposite direction. But, please, don’t speak about honesty and facts…that’s laughable.
“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.”
And there, in a single sentence, is the reason for the results he finds. Skeptics generally acknowledge that the earth has warmed. That is, they do not deny that global warming has happened, as he states right in his abstract.
Secondly, most skeptics acknowledge (whether they understand the physics or not–I don’t) that there is indeed a greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, all things equal, adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere will raise the temperature by a predetermined amount, though the effect of each additional unit of CO2 added has a lesser due to the effect being logarithmic. That is, skeptics do not deny that CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans will cause a temperature increase.
To take myself as a personal example, I learned both of those facts by listening to both sides of the debate. Yet, here, in an abstract no less, is a claim by a warmist that I apparently believe neither of those facts, i.e., that the earth has warmed and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In other words, the author has not yet learned that he is wrong about the skeptics’ positions on these issues.
Therefore, should he actually watch a skeptic film, or possibly read this or a million other comments and articles by skeptics, he himself would likely learn something that would make him less concerned that a bunch of raging lunatics (that would be us, of course) are trying to fry the earth for no apparent reason other than ignorance. (Of course, he no doubt has done exactly that, but continues to misrepresent the skeptics’ stance, for reasons of his own.)
Anyway, is it a surprise that when non-scientists concerned about global warming view the facts of the matter, fairly presented, they are prone to changing their view somewhat in favor of the skeptics’ position? Is it a surprise that, after being assured that skeptics recognize CO2 as a greenhouse gas and recognize a late 20th century warming period, they are also inclined to believe the claim, and relieved to learn it, that the warming apparently ceased over 15 years ago?
In this case, perhaps the paper’s paywall is in place in an effort to (unsuccessfully) protect its author from ridicule?
jdgalt says: @ur momisugly July 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm
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…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In advertising it is called the The seven second rule “Their whole message is all given in the 1st 7 seconds – the prospects’ problem, their solution, their guarantee, and the cost. They have supporting evidence that follows…”
This is why the warmists use attention grabbers like Hansen’s flooded NYC. It gets people’s attention within that critical seven seconds. It is also why we have in general been losing the PR war. We are amateurs and they have hired top professionals like Stan Greenburg, husband of Ms. DeLauro (D) CT who gave the USA the Food (un-Safe) Modernization Act of 2010. (That is how I stumbled onto him)
It helps to research the opposition especially since most people have never heard of Stan Greenberg. (old links again)
From another source:
Greenberg writes for the Democratic Strategist link and also formed Democracy Corps link and is linked to the London School of Economics (Fabien) Third Way philosophy link (note the Carville Greeburg logo at top)
(Check out what the “Third Way” actually is link You will find the UK’s Tony Blair, The USA Clintons, and the WTO Pascal Lamy all behind the LSE “Third Way” )
Greenberg Carville Shrum directed Campaigns in 60 countries link
Globalization and middle class prosperity by Greenberg
Even the democratic Underground doesn’t like Greenberg Carville Shrum “Regarding Carville and dirty politics“ link
(And yes I am rotten at the seven second rule.)
I thought he stated the problem well. It does invite philosophical speculation. It is like a kind of great experiment that has been set up right before our eyes, and if you can only properly recognize the variables and set up, you can see the results.
rogerknights says: @ur momisugly July 1, 2013 at 9:44 pm
…..
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That type of question would have to be very very carefully worded.
Has it warmed since the Little Ice Age? YES
Does CO2 contribute to warming the earth? Probably, depends on feedbacks.
Has mankind contributed to climate change? Yes through land use changes, cutting or planting trees, irrigation… That is what we do change our environment just like a beaver does.
In the temperature record, has mankind contributed to warming? YES, through siting at airports and areas increasing in urbanization,
manipulatingadjusting the data, the station dropout issue and the error bar issue.Station dropout issue
On the “march of the thermometers”
The ‘Station drop out’ problem
AGW is a thermometer count artifact
I do not think you would get a simple answer to the question because we are skeptics and know the answer is not only NOT simple but that scientists still haven’t pinned down the list of factors that contribute to changing of the climate. Funds and attention has been diverted to shaping public opinion in the manner the politicians want.
The IPCC mandate states:
It was never about finding out what drives the climate, it was always about making humans guilty of crimes against Mama Earth.
Here is Eric Horowitz website with the article he wrote for Psychology Today about this paper posted: http://www.peerreviewedbymyneurons.com/2013/06/29/are-we-losing-the-war-on-climate-change-cinema/
Here is what he says in his ABOUT section
First a cartoonist and now a sportswriter. Scraping the bottom of the barrel?
Skeptics/Climate Realists have been the fly in the Climatists’ ointment. They tried mightily to “communicate climate change”, and it failed, thanks in large part to the internet. Some people you just can’t communicate with:
The greatest cunning is to have none at all. – Carl Sandburg
@Gail Combs –
In answer to your poll question, based on all the discussion here at WUWT and on all the books and other blogs and other online sources I have consulted, I attribute an infinitesimal negative contribution of CO2 to global warming – something like -0001 percent of it. Why? The negative feedbacks that operate as CO2 increases. The effect of increases appears to be slightly more than self-canceling.
Of course this is the opinion of a non-scientist layman, but as a sometime historian (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970) I do have some appreciation of the story that is told by the sources. And I have read enough of medieval and ancient history to see clearly that temps were higher than today in past eras, which I think is among the most damning evidence against the alarmies.
“(And yes I am rotten at the seven second rule.)” [Gail Combs]
Perhaps (I think you just don’t stoop to that level, myself), nevertheless, ….. you are EXCELLENT at: quality research and passionate and effective teaching. Keep up the good work! #[:)]
********************
So many FINE posts and comments above,….. here are a just few of the more recent ones:
“This is a man who cannot see the storm coming.” [Perry, 7/2/13, 1:57AM (weird — [:)] — thanks)]
…. or, maybe he did…..
“… the … paywall is in place in an effort to (unsuccessfully) protect its author from ridicule… .” [Rod Everson, 7/2/13, 6:54AM]
LOL. That did a lot of good.
” … a bunch of raging lunatics (that would be us, of course) are trying to fry the earth for no apparent reason… ” [out of context, but good! — R. Everson at 6:54AM]
“Beware… .” [from title of discussed article]
“Mad as a box of frogs, the [climate alarmists] are.” [Catweazle666, 7/2/13, 5:01AM]
“Facts and logic favor the realists, always,… .”
[J. Paddik, 7/2/13, 2:13(hey, look at that)AM — and, good — for — you to plant a beacon of truth in the “enemy’s” territory]
“… as the reputation of journalists and politicians alike has reached rock bottom, they use scientists more and more to spread statist propaganda.” [Dirk H, 7/2/13, 1:06AM]
Yes. Nevertheless….. #[:)]……
“Truth wins out in the end.” [Bruce Cobb, 7/2/13, 5:52AM]
Hundreds of “Climate Skeptic” films & videos, the majority of which are Full Feature Length. Collected from various sources, and various streams. Please visit the “Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science” website, and choose from the links, or see the “Quick Page Menu” button at the top left of every page. Monckton, Singer, Morner, Crichton, Durkin, Bellamy, Klaus, Idso, Coleman, Beck, Hannity, Ball, Plimer, Schmidt, and many many more, including Anthony Watts himself !
Yes indeed “Skeptic Movies” are more interesting, principally because they are TRUE !
Click my name to go there now !
I thank you all for your support over the years. – Axel