From the TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP
Public may be more accepting of advocacy by climate scientists than previously thought
The experiment, conducted by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, showed that on five out of six occasions when a fictional scientist made advocacy statements to the public on Facebook, their own and their colleagues credibility was left unharmed.
The example statements, tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, covered a broad spectrum of potential public engagement activities, including a recent scientific finding, a discussion of the risks and impacts of climate change, pros and cons of different proposals to address climate change, a broad call for action on climate change, and two different statements where the scientist endorsed a specific action – limiting carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants or building more nuclear power plants.
The only instance where the credibility of the scientist suffered was after the endorsement of a specific controversial policy – building more nuclear power plants. This suggests that the American public are more likely to object to a scientist’s advocacy statement when a specific standpoint is endorsed, and not when more general statements are made.
It has previously been thought that public advocacy on issues such as climate change can compromise the credibility of both individual scientists and the broader scientific community. However, this study suggests that scientists have the ability to communicate with the public without the risk of harming their reputation.
“This study certainly won’t end debate about how scientists can best contribute to public discussions about climate change,” said lead author John Kotcher, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at George Mason University. “However, we hope that our findings at least help stimulate a more evidence-based conversation among scientists about the relationship between scientific advocacy and credibility, rather than simply relying upon intuition or anecdote to choose which role is best for them.”
In a commentary that accompanied the study, scientist Simon Donner, from the University of British Columbia, welcomed the findings, but also said that it should “not be mistaken as a green light for scientists to publicly say or do anything without thought about the repercussions for themselves, the scientific community and the audience.”
###
Like I’m ever going to take anything seriously that is published in a journal called Environmental Communication. It’s politics.
Whoever is concerned more with appearance of credibility in the public eye, than actual credibility, will lose both.
Just another of a plethora of “studies” about communicating “the message”. They spend so much in time and resources on this kind of stuff how one can one not be inclined to conclude that their product is deficient.
More lies inspired by gravy train scientists.
Co2 is not a POLLUTANT but rank greed is.
You have wasted time and money again.
A quote from Fawlty Towers.
” What kind of butterball do you take me for”.
Trojan Horse :
“The experiment, conducted by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, showed that on five out of six occasions when a fictional scientist made advocacy statements to the public on Facebook, their own and their colleagues credibility was left unharmed.”
Some way to bring fake news by ‘a fictional scientist’ to a broader auditorium with the excuse of doing studies on ‘credibility’.
The truth and the fallacy of the argument is perhaps best stated by the philosopher Terry Goodkind: “People are stupid. People will believe what they want to believe or are afraid is true, regardless of the evidence.” There is no antidote to the condition and everyone must continually examine their selves to guard against falling to an untruth in the pursuit of truth.
“Science” is the new religion of the western world. People tend to believe in alarmism because, “what if it is true?” And so we get fragments of “Silent Spring” and cholesterol is bad, sugar causes diabetes (just like CO2 causes temperatures to rise), “Fahrenheit 911,” GMO’s (geneticall altered organisms); each will be the death of humanity. [As an aside, every food crop grown in the world is a genetically altered organism – the alternative can be nothing more than hunter/gatherers collecting wild berries and spearing meat on the hoof as it flies by.]
The only solution is to apply what we call the “scientific method” to everything, testing to see what bears out in diverse experiments that shed new ways of thinking on the problem, refining and discarding that which does not work.
Reason will be the salvation of civilization—not “science” with all its pier reviewed censorship.
If you think you’re super smart and eminently qualified to rule the world and have lots of money, there are people you can hire to make lots of noise. The MSM has nothing to do but focus their cameras on the noisemakers, who will be joined by hordes of guilty, ignorant, do-nothing virtue signalers, so the level of noise increases evermore. Finally, we must protect our sanity with a small cultural revolution.
Is that a Freudian slip? Or are you consciously saying “dumb as a post”? 🙂
There can be another driving force behind advocacy: money. Being in-ya-face and controversial draws attention.
Very recently Radio New Zealand interviewed one Bill Mcguire. They often find a recent publication and interview the author (on many subjects). Bill’s latest book addresses the “extreme sensitivity” of physical global phenomena” (earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunami e.t.c).
“There is evidence that monsoons in India can trigger earthquakes” This is (apparently) due to decreased loadings on the sea floor due to the increased water in the atmosphere 🙂
“Spring melts of snow can trigger volcanic eruptions due to decreased loadings” 🙂
“Warming around the Southern Alps (NZ) will cause more landslides” A study I recently did on climate stations in the Southern Alps shows an increase (at very most) of 0.2 c over 60 yrs. A number of stations show ziltz.
One of the last questions put to Bill was, “are we in trouble?” – answer – ” yes, we are in trouble” (all due to AGW of course.
Don’t f’rt folks you will bring a typhoon down on your head 🙂
Two things – How can they expect this to pass without a computer model?
Next, oh God, here comes the onslaught!
How can the credibility of a climate scientist be damaged? Isn’t akin to capturing unicorns? Neither exist. You can damage a myth.
Sheesh.*Isn’t that akin…* and *You can’t damage…*
I hope it was obvious.
Let’s make sure I get this…
So a group whose purpose is to communicate anthropogenic climate change, conducts a “study” demonstrating that communications of catastrophic climate change claims (by an imaginary “climate expert” no less) is effective… whatever that means… and this “study” is conducted within the arena of Facebook? Well, then, that seals the deal….
Nonsense.
Uh, you mean, they were trapped in their university thought bubble, Facebook accounts of the green and left undergraduated students to send and receive fake news over and over again. So that in the end they no longer knew whether they were transmitters or receivers or what they should actually be. This explains a lot.
This is more advanced research from political climate science. We just need political climate psychology to weigh in on it to complete the circle. Jerks!
Well, the re-searchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication may have arrived at bargaining step of Kübler-Ross model, but I’m already sensitised to misanthropists.
Their conclusions are hilariously flawed if they didn’t take into account, and adjust for:
1-the fact that trust in “climate scientists” is at an all time low, so most people don’t assume they have a respectable reputation in the first place that could “be” affected by advocacy
2-because trust in climate scientists is so low, no body really gives a crap what they do or say anymore
3-according to only what the article states, only ONE of the situations/questions/scenarios actually demonstrates a specific advocacy-the one that caused the problem. Simply stating that we need to do something, or stating one’s “professional” opinion generally about something isn’t necessarily viewed as advocacy specifically. We all want to save the planet, but I don’t advocate for anything specifically.
4-How is it possible (or rational) to expect people to savage the reputation of an imaginary scientist? Did they build imaginary websites and create imaginary employment somewhere in which people could “react” by trying to contact an employer or organization?
5-Did they conduct the “experiment” with a group of people known to respond in a specific manner-people who WOULD attempt to discredit a scientist immediately and consistently they viewed them as advocating when they shouldn’t be?
A. If not, then no response from those exposed to the experiment could simply be a matter of not caring at all, not paying attention, being busy with more important things, not being prone to respond in the first place….
I’d really like to see some “social scientists” conduct some studies using critical thinking skills and logic and reason for a change. If they do, they might EARN some credibility from me. But no one gets credibility automatically simply by having a title or a college degree. Nope. And people like the ones who did this study are ruining any chance of having any credibility all by themselves anyway.
Much agreed. Universities that push advocacy instead of neutrality in politically charged academic issues are only damaging their credibilities. Hear this, Berkley, Colorado, Penn State, East Anglia, etc. (ad nauseum)…
Center for Climate Change Communication? Universities really have a Center for that? Why? Then they really jump the shark using Facebook as a valid research tool.
We need more propaganda, marketing and advocacy in the world like we need more car commercials during sports games.
Instead, how about a “Center for Learning How Natural Climate Variation Works”. Just a thought.
It has become a debate on hiw to deliver the message. The message itself will never be debated because it won’t stand up to scrutiny.
Some information on methods:
“To answer these questions, we conducted a randomized online survey experiment using a quota sample (N = 1235)”
The paper is here
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
Facebook users as lab rats. Did they give permission?
Facebook = Game of Phones
George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication is a propaganda and indoctrination facility whose mission is to advance the Man-caused climate change fiction. They are part of the Fake News crowd and have no credibility.
Their entire “Environmental Policy” major is the same. I walked through the GMU bookstore a month or so ago, and looked at the textbooks for the courses in that department. My blood pressure skyrocketed seeing the propaganda masquerading as serious fact.
The policy hacks have the audacity to act as though their department is equal to the biology department as a “science major”, when the little real science presented is “science-lite”. Even the classes that sound like they might have practical or educational value are meant to indoctrinate students. All you have to do is look at the assigned textbooks.
If you really hate yourself, spend some time with the environmental policy majors and/or graduates. It may drive you to drink.
The percentage of the population that go along or fail to bother reasoning a scientific claim if it confirms their political culture has only gone up the past 60 years, climate science would be very different without that trend. Of course that implies they wouldn’t be bothered by a nonobjective science authority being advocates.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing but the premise seem likely factual to me. There comes a point when clinging to past values as if they’ve been maintained and exhibiting shock at what is obviously a deteriorating cultural standard is counter productive. This is the world we’re living in. Better to incorporate these realities in the case against the giant Greenshirt Iron Mask that is being sized for the entire planet by the U.N. Climate protocol.
What sort of rose colored glasses do so many skeptics in particular wear?
The paper may be rubbish but the claim doesn’t shock me at all, I think it likely. How many AAAS members are planning to march this coming Earth Day? (Plenty). Very close to a public majority aren’t going to blink at science advocacy conflicts.
Do you really think there could be a Climate Change science and media consensus cartel if there wasn’t a deep social/social culture willing to put blinders of logic or more traditional ethical standards on?
Joan Rivers had a memorable stand up comedy line when she would make shocking or crude social observations and the audience would react with shock or disdain; “GROW UP!” she would shout at them. As I read these reactions I have to wonder what sort of climate change movement you’ve been watching that you would be surprised by this papers claim? It all seems thematic and predictable to me.
As usual these days, it’s not the message that’s the problem, it’s how the message is delivered. I don’t think they’ll ever work out where they went wrong!
Mason U climate Cominterm, home of Shukla and the Gang of 20 who wanted sceptics to be waterboarded or crucified or something by a Congressional SWAT team? Yeah, if you don’t show yourself amenable to CliSci communication you could wake up with a horse head in your bed.
The public may be supportive of advocacy, I’m for that. What the public won’t stand for is being defr@uded. That is why this fr@ud must be exposed. People don’t like being played as f00ls.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/
To understand what is really wrong with this study, one needs to look at the Supplementary Material. The entire study rests on asking questions about several single-sentence fake Facebook posts, made by fictional scientists (really a professor) or a TV Meteorologist (the only change in the bio is the profession).
These single sentence Facebook posts are expected to represent “advocacy”…..they don’t, they are so mild as to be simply ridiculous. Climate Science Advocacy looks like SKS, RealClimate, etc. Not just a simple statement about climate.
More non-science from the realm of “social science” and “science communications”.
Must this institution deceive social media addicts to gain their data?
This is quite telling about the tactics of the progressive science practors.