From Yale University and the “we had to burn the village to save it” department:
Geoengineering, an emerging technology aimed at counteracting the effects of human-caused climate change, also has the potential to counteract political polarization over global warming, according to a new study.
Published Feb. 9 in the journal Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the study found that participants — members of large, nationally representative samples in both the United States and England — displayed more open-mindedness toward evidence of climate change, and more agreement on the significance of such evidence, after learning of geoengineering.
“The result casts doubt on the claim that the advent of geoengineering could lull the public into complacency,” said Dan Kahan, professor of law and psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the research team that conducted the study.
“We found exactly the opposite: Members of the public who learned about geoengineering were more concerned and less polarized about global warming than those who were told of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a way to reduce climate change,” he said.
As defined by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), “geoengineering” refers to deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment in order to offset some of the harmful consequences of human-caused climate change. Potential examples include solar reflectors that would cool global temperatures by reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth and so-called “carbon scrubbers,” which would remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Both the NAS and the Royal Society, the preeminent association of expert scientists in the United Kingdom, have issued reports calling for stepped-up research on geoengineering, which also was identified as a necessary measure for counteracting the impact of global warming in the latest assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In the study, researchers divided the 3,000 participants into groups, providing some with information on geoengineering and others with information on proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They instructed the participants to read and evaluate actual study findings offering evidence human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, was heating the Earth’s temperature and creating serious environmental risks including coastal flooding and drought.
“The participants who learned about geoengineering were less polarized about the validity of the evidence than were the ones who got information on carbon-emission limits,” said Kahan.
“In fact, the participants who read about carbon-emission limits were even more polarized than subjects in a control group, who read the information on the evidence of global warming without first learning about any potential policy responses,” he said.
This result was consistent with previous research on a dynamic known as “cultural cognition,” which describes the tendency of individuals to react dismissively to evidence of environmental risks when that evidence threatens their values or group identities.
“The information on geoengineering,” said Kahan, “helped to offset bias by revealing to those study participants with a pro-technology outlook that acknowledging evidence of global warming does not necessarily imply the ‘end of free markets’ or the ‘death of capitalism,’ a theme that some climate-change policy advocates emphasize.”
Kahan added that the significance of the research extended beyond the issue of whether the advent of geoengineering would stifle or promote public engagement with climate science.
“What’s important is that people assess information about science based not only on its content but on its cultural meaning or significance,” explained Kahan. “The study supports the conclusion that science communicators need to broadcast engaging signals along both the ‘content’ and ‘meaning’ channels if they want their message to get through.”
###
The study was conducted by a team of researchers associated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma.
Citation: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science DOI: 10.1177/0002716214559002
These comments just go to show that most opposition to AGW alarmism is not reasonable skepticism but is as purely emotional and ideological as the alarmism itself. In this century we will become able to feasibly control how much and where the earth is warmed or cooled and computer models good enough to guide the process safely. This will be a tremendous boon to mankind. Avoiding the next ice age alone will be worth it but there will be far, far more.
Ed
February 13, 2015 at 11:04 am
“In this century we will become able to feasibly control how much and where the earth is warmed or cooled and computer models good enough to guide the process safely.”
If we extrapolate the progress in controlling or forecasting the climate over the last 100 years, which was zero, I predict that in 2115 we will be just as unable to do any such thing as we are now (assuming, as usual, an exponential increase in our abilities, which results, given an exponent of zero, in zero increase over 100 years).
Ed? Ed??! EDWARD!! Waaaake up! You were having the funniest dream… .
Janice, add this one,http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761http:// Sorry that did not paste, but it is BBC Sci/environment section feb 14 2015. Some more “Geoengineering”, seems like that is the next level of the warmists excuses or ” solutions” seeing that Cap and trade” does not fit the agenda.
Oh, My Gosh, Ed I hope you don’t have a say in this!
The model from the University of Notre Dame shows liquid carbon dioxide being pumped into the sea. Could someone please tell me at what temperature does carbon dioxide become liquid?