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.
It requires but one tyrant to foil the public mood. A 100% consensus matters little unless we vote accordingly. The three branches of US government were to act as checks and balances and if that should fail as it has we the people are duty-bound to change course with our vote. Unfortunately we the people have been educated for decades by the three branches of government that now behave as one. We’re too ignorant as a population to avert our fall from the world of free men. We’re the last nation to do so, so there’s a certain sense of inevitability in that. That makes us the worst generation.
The silly thing is that climate change proponents should be celebrating the pause. We have beat global warming! Of course, we know it’s just about politics, but doesn’t that prove it.
+1
I’m with Janice on this one…you like pot a lot. Someone needs to take the keyboard away from you and remove your caps lock key for starters.
“The phase change refrigerant of the atmosphere is water. Phase change of evaporation takes energy from the surface to lose it to higher regimes of atmospheric molecules, condensing back into another phase, the solid phase, returning to earth more swiftly than if it remained in the gas state.’
This is rain, right ?
Abe,
“That’s how it is. If you think you know something that needs to be said, say it.
I’m sure a lot of the people from your religion are anxious to finally see someone defend it.”
Oh, so much is obvious to the rest of us, but might need to be said to you:
You have the most interesting way of making something “so simple” into something incoherent, and your constant assumptions and flawed insinuations about people are so off-putting, that you ironically make things more difficult than they have to be.
For example-
“That’s why you’re mad.”
I’m not mad.
“You think the atmosphere is a big old giant heater in the sky like the government told you.”
I believe nothing of the sort.
“The same way they told you the same thing about pot being like heroin.”
The government has never told “me” anything about pot being like heroin, nor have I read anything from anyone, in particular the government, telling me that it is. My personal opinion is that extracts from the marijuana plant show promising results for medical patients who have cancer and certain types of seizures, but that “smoking” anything (lighting something on fire and inhaling the resulting discharge from it) is a stupid and dangerous practice not only for health reasons, but because it makes people do idiotic, stupid, dangerous things. Now, if you want to do stupid, idiotic and dangerous things at home, on your own, in situations where you can’t affect or hurt someone else GO FOR IT. But the moment you step into “society” and behave that way, society gets to react in the manner required by the degree of stupid exhibited.
Question-when you were typing the vast majority of your posts here, were you under the influence of pot? Or is your bizarre composition style just a personality quirk?
Sad commentary on the level of education in this country when garbage like this is produced. When he looks out the window and sees the snow coming down, what is he thinking? When the temperature falls below freezing in October, does he think, ahhh winter will end in January? This is weather and not climate? Maybe some of his tests subject aren’t quite brainwashed enough… yet. They are still believing what they’re seeing and not what they are told.
Why did this even make the news?
Right on dawg….
“Judith Curry calls that the iatrogenic effect. Where a proctor’s actions induce harm on the subject.”
Which then induces iatrogenic poverty.
“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.”
No, that’s the power of thinking for one’s self. Changing people’s minds is very easy to do when you can present a cogent argument.
The cogent argument only works if you understand what is preventing the listener from absorbing it.
Some common possibilities are :
1. fear of being wrong/imperfect
2. fear of losing control in being to accomplish the mission
3. fear of being unliked/left out.
4. fear of being ignored/unappreciated
Each fear needs to hear the cogent message differently in order to register in the brain.
Not disagreeing with you; however, my point is that when warmists fail to convince skeptics, like me, instead of trying to improve their argument, they usually resort to one or more logical fallacies, like Appeal to Pity, Argument from Motives, Argumentum ad Baculam, Argumentum ad Populum, Big Lie Technique, Blind Loyalty, Either-Or Reasoning, Equivocation, False Analogy, Finish the Job, The Half Truth, Just in Case, Lying with Statistics, Name-Calling, Non Sequitur, Overgeneralization, Playing on Emotion, Post Hoc Argument, Red Herring, Reductionism, Scare Tactic, Shifting the Burden of Proof, Slippery Slope, Snow Job, Straw Man, Taboo, Testimonial, Ad Hominem, fait accompli, We Have to Do Something, Jumping to a Conclusion, Zero Tolerance.
Ya, I think that pretty much covers it…
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
real science is a personal struggle, much like that of the starving artist.
Consider Einstein as he developed his theory of relativity whilst whilst featherbedding at a patent office. Most likely came close to getting fired on many an occasion. (The modern equivalent would be someone shopping on line at work).
The best thing is it worked, and no one could refute it to this day. Now a “scientist” could not do this as he would have to prostitute himself to the rigors of grant seeking, the new rent seeking. It takes balls to do real science.
+1
Ah, I see, it is our “entrenched views” that make us more believing of the “denial” messages. Not the fact that the majority of us go outside once in a while…
The supposition is false from the get-go, “with messages denying the existence of global warming.”
That’s not what anti-Warmistas believe; indeed, everybody that’s awake knows the earth has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.
We just don’t think it’s man’s fault.
“everybody that’s awake knows the earth has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA.
We just don’t think it’s man’s fault.”
I’ve been using this information outside the webworld and while I’m not surprised that it is resisted, I am surprised about the consistent pattern or style of rebuttal
1. oh, where did you get that info …
2. those ice cores are from the poles, they can’t possibly represent the whole earth
3. then usually the barrage of everything from polar ice sheets to polar bears and increasing frequency of foul weather.
4. the more edumacated dive into greater minutia such as the radiative forces of extra CO2, tipping points and mm changes in sea levels.
What I see so far is where you get your paycheck from matters a great deal. If your organization promotes the ruse, you do to. They fear for their jobs. Free speech is definitely taking a hit.
I also see folks who just want to belong to something (be liked).
The really smart people don’t want to be seen as being wrong. IF you show them a chart with temp and CO2 over time like Lord Monckton produced they damn near have a cow.
It’s complicated.
Here’s the link to the study : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/abstract
Surprise! Surprise! See where else the funding came from : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Program Office. Grant Number: NA10OAR4310213
Rolling eyes
So, the notion that things aren’t as bad as we were at first told is now a “negative view”.
In a follow up study will they be explaining how “up” is “down”?
Until now, most people just assumed climate change deni*rs were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.
I’m betting that Aaron is the kind of self absorbed holier-than-thou type who reads every word written about him, mostly because it feeds into his smug self image of intellectual superiority. So, Aaron, this one is for you.
You did nothing of the sort. If you’ll respond here I’ll be happy to explain exactly where you went wrong.
Who is the denialist Mr Aaron McCright? Do you know and can explain the science of catastrophic global warming?
I can’t give too much credence to “sociologists” who think in the simplistic terms of “conservatives and liberals”. Private Willis was singing about Victorian Britain, and he was wrong then.
“Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
This sentence shows his bias. He could have said:
“Until now, most people just assumed that the pro CAGW propaganda of the media and politicians has little influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
What a stupid man (Aaron); nobody on this side is denying climate change. We are debating the human impact and extent; evidence for cagw (models) and the scientific arguments against.
No wonder his team are in trouble!
I think Aaron should ‘deny’ himself a few burgers and sodas and desserts.
bad turn of events in Australia. PM Turnbulll’s wife has just been appointed Chair of a body with plenty of CAGW clout!
3 Dec: SMH: Jacob Saulwick: Lucy Turnbull to run Greater Sydney Commission
Lucy Turnbull will head the new organisation charged with overseeing planning and development across Sydney.
Ms Turnbull, a former Lord Mayor of Sydney, had been favoured to be selected to chair the Greater Sydney Commission, a new body with significant powers to steer the future direction of the city…
“The Greater Sydney Commission has the great potential to be a transformational way of having a collaborative working model for state and local government which has often not been the case in metropolitan Sydney,” she said.
The Greater Sydney Commission will have the power to create plans for development and public space across the city…
There will also be independent environment, economic and social commissions, as well as six district commissioners, nominated by councils but appointed by the minister.
The heads of three government departments – Planning and Environmental, Transport for NSW, and NSW Treasury – will sit on the commission…
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lucy-turnbull-to-run-greater-sydney-commission-20151203-gleai8.html
12 Nov: Clayton Utz: Strategic Planning for NSW: the Greater Sydney Commission and a new Part 3B
By Brendan Bateman and Alison Packham
The Greater Sydney Commission Bill 2015 does more than establish the Greater Sydney Commission; a new Part 3B in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would introduce strategic planning into NSW’s planning law.
The Greater Sydney Commission Bill 2015 passed the lower house of Parliament on 28 October 2015, signalling a commitment to strategic, interdisciplinary and collaborative planning, which has been on the agenda since the planning law review process of 2011-2013…
Part 3B will create a hierarchy of plans, where these regional and district plans will guide the development of local environmental plans (LEPs). Part 3B will require LEPs be prepared “to give effect to” regional and district plans; on the making of a district plan, each relevant council must review its LEP, prepare a planning proposal necessary to give effect to the district plan, and report to the GSC on its review and proposed amendments to its LEP…
***Following a whole of government approach, the GSC will be charged with co-ordinating the different levels of government involved in infrastructure and land use decisions, guided by the principles of ecological sustainable development…
2. Encourage development that is resilient and takes into account natural hazards
The GSC will assist Sydney councils to develop resilience plans to address the risks posed by climate change. Many Sydney councils have already begun this process.
3. Promote orderly development in the Greater Sydney Region having regard to the economic, social and environmental principles of ecologically sustainable development…
https://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/12_november_2015/20151112/strategic_planning_for_nsw_the_greater_sydney_commission_and_a_new_part_3b.page
I recomment that Aaron the Sociologist should read the peer reviewed paper The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline. He needs to get up to speed on science.
The bad things that Government does. Caused by USFDA and the World Health Org., i.e.UN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8 The OILING of America.
“george e. smith
December 2, 2015 at 4:08 pm
A biased ” study ” at the outset.”
Exactly my thought too!
Wayne Delbeke
December 3, 2015 at 1:40 am
It’s much worse than I thought in Alberta. Apparently the Big FOUR energy producers in the Oil Sands have been negotiating a secret deal with “BIG GREEN” and the ND government in Alberta. In return for putting a 30% CAP on development of oil sands emissions, (the current developers essentially get to keep most of the oil sands development to themselves thus freezing out competition) and in return the Enviros from the United States and Canada have agreed to stop opposing pipelines so the Oil Sands producers can get their product to tidewater.
The four producers head people stood behind the NDP Premier while she made the announcement on the Cap. They are not only supporting the destruction of the coal industry to their benefit, but these four players have essentially screwed every other oil and gas company in Alberta by colluding with BIG GREEN and the NDP Government, a government that followed the Obama mantra of “open” government. Yup, open alright. Open to a select few. I imagine this will go down just about as well as P.E. Trudeau’s National Energy Policy (NEP) back in the 80’s. There will be war in the patch in Alberta.
Other producers are furious as will be other investors who were planning and just completing other Oil Sands projects. I have to think Law Suits are being prepared as I write this both by the Oil Companies and parts of “BIG GREEN” that weren’t in on the negotiations.
Here is the tip of the ice berg:
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/secret-deal-on-albertas-oilsands-emission-limits-divides-patch
I’ll repeat what I said earlier today about our left wing governments in Canada by stealing a saying using slightly different words:
First they came for the coal companies, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a coal company.
Then they came for the oil companies, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not an oil company.
Then they came for the gas companies, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a gas company.
Then they came for you – and there was no one left to speak for you.
Bill McKibben must be having a heart attack!
Watch for more news on this later today, December 3, a day of infamy in the Oil Patch.
I imagine CAPP meetings will be rather difficult over the next few weeks. CAPP is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. There are going to be a lot of very angry executives from companies and investors who have now effectively been frozen out of Oil Sands development.
I also imagine that a lot of people that were against the pipelines are going to feel stabbed in the back by their compadres.
Interesting times.
Wayne Delbeke
France has 63 GW of nuclear capacity (with 58 reactors in 19 plants, only PWR: France has no fast reactor anymore, after 37 years of demonstration of the sodium cooled Phénix).
The socialists made a deal with the “greens”. The deal was very stupid, saying that MOX was to be stopped (when France has too much Pu from La Hague used fuel treatment plant), so the deal was rewritten to promise one plant would be closed, the oldest one: Fessenheim (the one near the Greenpeace, sorry, German frontier).
Despite the presidential promise of closing Fessenheim, no reactor have been closed, and both Fessenheim reactors have been updated with a poor man’s core catcher.
The government isn’t eager to close a plant and deal with the furious workers, furious families and furious community. The plant owners (EDF majority + German and Swiss minorities) don’t want to close the plant. This is a plant whose production is partly owned by foreign societies, so in order to close it the State would need to indemnify the foreign owners.
Now the greens have broken up with the government so there is even less desire to close the plant. But the socialists still want to look “green”, so they wrote a law:
– stating that the goal is to go from 80% to 50% nuclear in electric energy production (in 10 years, so long after the term of these elected clowns)
– capping nuclear capacity to 63 GW
The capping is a legal issue obviously, as officially there is no monopoly on energy production and nuclear plans, so any society could meet the insane regulator demands (*) and build a reactor.
The capping is illegal according to some analysts.
(*) Bouygues, the concrete pourer, couldn’t manage to correctly pour concrete for the used fuel pool of the new Flamanville because of … rebars. More steel than concrete according to some people. Result: the concrete couldn’t get in and there were hole and the whole stuff was destroyed and redone. Who asked for so much steel?
“messages denying the existence of global warming….”
He’s a complete idiot. No serious sceptics deny the existence of global warming, that would be ridiculous. In fact an important sceptical argument is that the climate is always changing.
Of course, sceptics will eventually win, because they have truth and integrity on their side. But it will take time….
Chris
I just read the first sentence of the abstract:
“Prior research on the influence of various ways of framing anthropogenic climate change (ACC) do not account for the organized ACC denial in the U.S. media…”
Prior research do not…
Clearly elementary grammar of sentence construction isn’t required in sociology research
I can’t think of single main stream media source that is not completely in the tank for the ACC meme.
Fox is mainstream
Dawg and Michael- don’t tell the “mainstream” press or pretty much anyone else that! The idea that Fox is mainstream isn’t something that everyone agrees with, trust me. (Hence the nicknames like Faux Media etc)
Herd mentality and mass hysteria about many things, especially weather and climate is entrancing for some, as history and current topics show so clearly. While our U.S. government is engaged in American Lysenko-ism, the corruption of some sciences within their agencies to achieve a political end that has little to do with AGW or saving the planet, it’s like skeptical, objective opinions win battles, but the war is far from won. Our Dear Leader, bless his pointed, little head, Mr. Obama and his minions, prance forward in their brave new world, waging war against the changing climate and insist that the JV team is contained. Orwell, Huxley and Kafka nod.