From MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:
Climate-change foes winning public opinion war
EAST LANSING, Mich. — As world leaders meet this week and next at a historic climate change summit in Paris, a new study by Michigan State University environmental scientists suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.
The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, finds that climate-change advocates are largely failing to influence public opinion. Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.
“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
The findings come as leaders from 150 nations attempt to forge a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. During a speech Monday at the Paris summit, President Barack Obama said the “growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
Nearly 1,600 U.S. adults took part in the MSU study. Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change and then completed a survey gauging their beliefs on the issue. The articles contained either positive or negative real-world messages about climate change, or both.
The positive messages framed the topic of climate change around one of four major issues: economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health. According to the article addressing public health, for example:
“Medical experts argue that dealing with climate change will improve our public health by reducing the likelihood of extreme weather events, reducing air quality and allergen problems, and limiting the spread of pests that carry infectious diseases.”
In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.”
Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.
“That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”
###
The study appears online in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science. McCright’s co-authors are fellow MSU researchers Meghan Charters, Katherine Dentzman and Thomas Dietz.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So let’s see; despite years of cAGW/Climate change/etc. propaganda by the MSM and by government agencies, of bullying tactics, and certain dismissal from jobs if refusing to go along with said propaganda; of an overwhelming Warmunist campaign in the schools, and a war fund of literally $billions, a small, rag-tag, shoe-string budget determined, gumption-filled army on the web is winning. And that both baffles and enrages them. They’ve tried everything; scream louder, softer, threaten with doom, cajole with happy bunnies, flowers and unicorns dancing with polar bears; you name it. It has all failed disasterously.
Isn’t it wonderful?
The social sciences are broken, irretrievably humpty dumpty. All the king’s horses are the only group that can put the final touches on them. They have been totally co-opted by neoMarksandSpencers, just like CAGW. It is no surprise that all the proponents ‘debate’ these days is being carried by homogenized sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and communications specialists with only their anomalies in evidence. We have the unbelievable spectacle of warming scientists running away from debate right on our television screens.
Poor Mike Mann is giving the same 2008 speech with his old slides whenever some one wants to give him a prize or something and he answers the same old prepared questions for a dwindling group of admirers. When is the last time we heard from Kevin Travesty, of course he may be snorkeling around looking for missing heat, or Al Gore, whose surreality project went up the Eiffel Tower never to come down – caused, I’m told, by angry Syrian refugees displaced by global warming.
“Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.”
Obviously, this psychobabble doublespeak is emblematic of Sociologist/Climate Crusader who is unable to come to terms with contrary perspectives regarding the potential outcomes of CAGW.
trademark ‘climate change’ is a Ponzi scheme labelled ‘science’.
real science is the first to loose.
Regards – Hans
Be careful with the ripples when the academentia bubble explodes (or bubbles, because I feel the GCM, the psycho-socio, the renewables bubbles are related but distinct).
“It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views,” says Aaron M. McCright, a Michigan State University environmental scientist.
“Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.”
It seems to me that it is not “extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change”, it is just difficult to change them the way you want to.
Just popped in here for a break after the long UK debate on Syria but I find “opponents of climate change v climate-change advocates” somewhat confusing nomenclature.
Which group is actually opposing (i.e. attempting to stop) climate change?
The study itself is, in short, a piece of social research by a scientist from a completely different discipline who fed people fabricated news stories with religious and political sub-plots and concluded that people are “entrenched in their views”.
Quality!
Like the message (placebo effect) but the messenger is an obvious botch up. His goal is likely more funding to fix the “problem” his study purports to reveal. This is why Sukla’s crew brought in the messaging guru from the tobacco battle. It’s a political messaging battle. Not some much science.
Environmental Scientist = Climate Scientist = Oxymoron.
Real scientists don’t wear these trendy labels.
Not so much entrenched in my view as unconvinced by the evidence for and more convinced by the evidence against.
What the tools trying to promote the climate apocalypse fail to realize is that over time most people have a pretty good BS detector.
And while relatively few people understand physics, most people do correctly recognize the BS cliamte hypesters use, even if it is coated in physics.
A saying in ranch country is that you can put whipped cream on a cow pie, but it still tastes like sh!t.
Hearing our President literally lie about islands disappearing in the Pacific when they are in fact growing would a good example of that in action.
The Administration hands out taxpayer loot to keep the EPA in line:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-gave-employee-9000-in-bonuses-after-less-than-three-months-on-the-job
DB
I followed the back and forth bloodbath yesterday and then went back to look at some of the graphics I’ve picked up over time here. My favorite one for instant impact and really so simple my pompous and perfect neurosurgeon friend and his equally pompous and perfect wife couldn’t undermine was in the latest article by the Lord.
Figured I’d share.
Hope it helps in the battle.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clip_image010_thumb6.jpg?w=732&h=525
knutesea: Got a link to a larger version of that chart? /Mr L
LE
Sorry, not handy. I plucked it from the WUWT Lord Monckton article. I am a man of limited e-paste skills but am trying to learn.
Seems plain ole copy paste for images doesn’t work all the time with WP. By the time I up my skills I’m sure WUWT will have moved onto holographic 3D projection blogs. Perhaps even talking avatars for posters like yourself.
[Reply: to paste an image, just copy the address and paste it into your comment. If the address ends with .jpg, .gif, or .png the image will appear. If there are characters after the ‘.jpg’ or the others, delete them first, or the image will only be visible when someone clicks on the URL. ~mod.]
Maybe us skeptics aren’t influencing people as much as we think. Maybe its in part from all of the failed and exaggerated predictions by the believers in HICC (Human-induced climate change) that haven’t been happening that is resulting in the public questioning the HICC’s science?
“HICC!” lol — What a person says when drunk.
(a little comedy relief… Ben? Ben?? watch this 🙂 )
Foster Brooks and Dean Martin (youtube)
(a.k.a. Two — HICC! — “Scientists” Meedinuhbar…)
#(:)) lololololol
Janice, I watched this twice, tears streaming down my face with laughter! How I miss television shows like this! I also realize I have a much deeper crush on Dean now than I did as a kid. 🙂
+1 for Captain Obvious 🙂
Memo
To : Staff
From : Grand PooBah of Spin
It has come to our attention that a recent percent of the population is noticing that our climate predictions are not occurring. Please execute the following actions post haste:
1. Reassign the people who started with global warming to the Bernays Remedial Marketing School
2. Survey the current middle managers for the latest buzzwords in maintaining fear.
3. Assess how much money is left in the budget for subcontracting out the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Cooling Campaign (CACCC). See if that guy with the solar flare tracker glasses gizmo is still around.
Please activate all necessary contracting waivers concerning fair practice and protected classes with the exception of my sister-in-law’s proposal. She still lives in the basement and I really can’t handle it much longer.
Aaron M. McCright , name calling and study bias by a git like yourself will automatically put people against your cAGW faith.
Perhaps Aaron you should familiarize your self with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
In your study “Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change ” what a moronic way to try and skew your pseudo-science Aaron
This isn’t off topic — but unless this is a total hoax, a separate post is in order. Here’s the link
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/ted-cruz-to-convene-congressional-hearing-to-examine-claims-of-global-warming-activists/
To appear are Curry, Happer and others
Not a hoax.
The good Dr has it up on her webpage
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma/#more-20590
Separate post indeed.
Cruz’s comment, “As the son of two scientists, I have been taught since I was very young that scientific conclusions should be based on the evidence and the data.” won’t go over well with President Obama, Al Gore, and their fellow alarmists.
That’s GREAT, Luysii!!
Thanks for the heads up!
(from above dailycaller article)
The hearing is scheduled to take place in Washington next Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 3 p.m. in the Senate Russell Office Building. (RELATED: As Obama Attends UN Talks, Congress Undoes His Global Warming Agenda) {hyperlink inside above article}
As of now, Cruz has called at least four witnesses, including John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and William Happer of Princeton University.
Witnesses:
Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Mr. Mark Steyn
International Bestselling Author
*Additional witnesses may be announced
Bravo Ted Cruz!!
Senate Space Subcommittee hearing : live on the 8th
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=CA2ABC55-B1E8-4B7A-AF38-34821F6468F7
The study was based on a lie to begin with, that sceptics denied “deny” that the climate is changing. The NSF funds this junk? Really??
Your tax dollars at work: An NSF-funded ‘study’ that is designed to show that all of the Really Good Things the President wants to do by fighting ‘Climate Change’ (“economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health”) are being frustrated by the evil “conservative leaders and Republican politicians.”
What’s the logical next step? Shut up the heretics (“deniers”). And don’t think they won’t try—using your tax dollars. Has our host been audited yet?
/Mr Lynn
LE
I trust not, but you can be damn well sure that if you are commenting on this webpage you fit a profile as a nonconformist. You are in some database kept by the government for expressing opinions counter to the current thinkspeak.
You are also being datamined as we speak for phrases and patterns consistent with a denier. The dataminers then turn that info to the message mapping crew that put your objections into a top 25 list of questions. Those questions get grouped into themes and then master messaged into the top 3 things they want to say to neutralize dissension.
It’s all a very ugly business these days.
The only true way to have unintruded debate is in the basement while wearing colanders.
Or not to speak at all. I was just talking with a friend Tuesday evening who fears to say anything more controversial than how her cats are doing, even using a pseudonym. Me, I just put on my colander and type away.
/Mr Lynn
It’s not that we are entrenched in our views, rather CAGW is not real, and so we have to remain skeptics.
The “denier” epithet may seem to have a primary purpose of shaming and ridiculing the target, but its real target is the neutral scientist-engineer-statistician who might other examine the evidence for themselves. Its use is intended to dissaude independent analyses of climate change proponent’s supposed scientific basis of anthropogenic warming, which is of course shoddy science at best, fraudulent at worst.
I notice that right now Scientific American seems to be changing their tune (??) – they have just published two sceptic articles, one by Matt Ridley and one about sensitivity to CO2.
For Jeff in Calgary, Dave in Canmore and any other like minded Canadians, with thanks to Josh, Alberta joins Ontario, Quebec (and BC) in the fight against climate change:
?dl=0
But who will save the beavers?
“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
I don’t know, but it just seems very unprofessional for somebody with advanced degree in sociology working in academia to putting a “denier” label on people. One would think that an individual who is supposed to be educated to this degree would know better than to pick sides in the CAGW debate when studying it from a sociological perspective; are not psychologists and sociologists supposed to be neutral when they study things like this?
I guess this demonstrates how much professionalism has deteriorated in academia. Disgusting to see it happening.
What happened to the idea that science requires distanciation and objectivity?
Now the “science process” and methodology is just about submission to journals, editors, peer review, reviews, and publication. And maybe impact factor and quantitative research evaluation.
I haven’t read the “study,” but wouldn’t it be important to have knowledge of the study participants’ position on climate change prior to subjecting them to the made up statements? Did they look at that? If 99% went into it thinking climate alarmism is nonsense, and are then presented with the “negative” messages (and, hello, just calling them “negative” is a demonstration of bias), wouldn’t we expect a high percentage to simply see those messages as confirming the beliefs that they held anyway (i.e., the “denier” message basically had no influence, because they already believed that)?
Science in this country has taken a huge hit. It’s at the point where I do not have confidence in any of the traditionally science-heavy agencies (e.g., NASA and NOAA). The incessant call to shut down debate is astounding. As a scientist (physicist), I’m seriously frightened about our future, and not because I fear the climate changing (it always has and always will), but because the whole understanding of how science actually works is being politically defined, confined, and corrupted.
Barbara L. Hamrick
“Science in this country has taken a huge hit. It’s at the point where I do not have confidence in any of the traditionally science-heavy agencies (e.g., NASA and NOAA). The incessant call to shut down debate is astounding. As a scientist (physicist), I’m seriously frightened about our future, and not because I fear the climate changing (it always has and always will), but because the whole understanding of how science actually works is being politically defined, confined, and corrupted.
Barbara L. Hamrick”
Powerful paragraph Hamrick.
As trite as it may sound, the freedom for science to conduct its objective methods is under attack.
That attack is also an attack on freedom of expression/speech. That attack is an attack on the rights commoners achieved post Magna Carta.
Science has not forgotten how to practice the scientific method. Its objectivity has been coopted. While this is not new, it certainly is being done on a grand scale for a grand topic. It could be that people won’t miss it until it is gone.
Hope not, but that seems to be human nature.
Bravo and well stated!
When a record is broken on every race in a world championship, the public, reasonably, doubts the results. Too good to be true is often fake. Even great sport champions don’t always win.
When everything is “explained” by climate change/global warming, what do you expect?
And why don’t we see the negative results in biomedicine?
If this study has any importance, it’s fleeting and certainly not science. This was an exercise in marketing and public perception. Why was it even funded by the National $cience Foundation? After all, the National $cience Foundation is supposed to produce science, not propaganda.
This outfit is in serious need of a labotomy.
Lamar Smith should take a hard look at what it’s doing with taxpayers’ dollars.
Well. Abe. (o_o)
Not sure about all you wrote, but one thing is quite clear from what you wrote:
You like pot — a lot.
Okay, tonite it was my turn to laugh.
He’s obviously not on the final edit team.
Nope (lol). Abe is obviously on the rolling team. HICC! er, no, I mean, cough… cough… ggggiiiiigggggglle (well, I’ve heard that is what potheads do — cough and giggle a lot). And stink — THAT I have experiential knowledge of. “What was that stench back there?!?” I asked my companion. “THAT was pot (sp?),” he said.