From the UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL and the “SIMCITY beat them to it six years ago” department comes news of a climate role-playing game, where you get to be a U.N. delegate going to COP conferences, complete with a buffet. What kid could resist that?

A graphic prepared by MIT to cater to kids:
Is the key to sparking climate action a game?
81 percent of participants in a role play simulation increased motivation to combat climate change, regardless of political orientation
Research published by PLOS ONE found that 81 percent of participants in the World Climate Simulation, a role-playing game of the UN climate talks, showed increased motivation to combat climate change, even among Americans who are free market proponents, a belief strongly linked to denial of human-caused climate change in the United States.
Prof. Juliette Rooney-Varga of the UMass Lowell Climate Change Initiative led the research into how the game affected participants’ beliefs, emotional responses, and intent to take action on climate change. The study examined how World Climate affected more than 2,000 participants from eight countries and four continents, ranging from middle school students to CEOs. Across this diverse population, and regardless of political orientation, cultural identity, age, or gender, participation in World Climate was associated with increased understanding of climate change science, a greater sense of urgency and hope, and increased motivation to learn and do more about climate change. The more people learned through the game, the more their sense of urgency increased. As Rooney-Varga explains, “it was this increased sense of urgency, not knowledge, that was key to sparking motivation to act.”
The researchers also found that the game reaches people outside the traditional climate change “choir,” including free-market proponents and people who knew and cared little about climate change before participating. In fact, these people experienced greater gains in knowledge, urgency, and motivation to act. This finding is particularly exciting given the failure of many prior climate change communication efforts to reach across the political spectrum and to engage people who are not concerned about the issue. The study relied on statistical analysis of surveys that participants completed before and after experiencing World Climate.
The World Climate game is “an engaging, social experience grounded in the best available climate science,” comments Rooney-Varga. Participants take on the roles of national delegates to the UN climate change negotiations and are charged with creating a global agreement that successfully mitigates climate change. As in the real negotiations, each delegation offers policies for their greenhouse gas emissions. The developed nations pledge contributions to the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations cut their emissions and adapt to change; the developing nations specify how much they need to do so. Their decisions are then entered into the climate policy computer model, C-ROADS, which has been used to support the real negotiations, giving participants immediate feedback on the expected climate impacts of their decisions. First round results usually fall short, showing everyone the likely harm to their prosperity, health and welfare. Participants then negotiate again, using C-ROADS to explore the consequences of more ambitious emission cuts.
World Climate is designed for ease of use. As of July 2018, more than 43,000 people in 78 countries around the world have participated in it. The simulation has been reviewed by independent educators and scientists, found to support national science education standards in the US, and designated as an official resource for schools in France, Germany, and South Korea.
Co-author, Prof. John Sterman of MIT Sloan School of Management, notes that “research shows that showing people research doesn’t work. World Climate works because it enables people to express their own views, explore their own proposals and thus learn for themselves what the likely impacts will be.”
Dr. Rooney-Varga of UMass Lowell adds, “For most of human history experience has been our best teacher, enabling us to understand the world around us while stimulating emotions–fear, anger, worry, hope–that drive us to act. The big question for climate change communication is: how can we build the knowledge and emotions that drive informed action without real-life experience which, in the case of climate change, will only come too late? The answer appears to be simulated experience.”
Co-authors Eduardo Fracassi and Florian Kapmeier have used World Climate extensively across South America and Europe. Fracassi has seen World Climate inspire “life-changing insights,” with many participants “embracing projects that reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the real world and taking steps to protect people from future climate risks.” Kapmeier shared the simulation with the Germany Ministry of Education, which designated World Climate as an official resource for German high schools. As Kapmeier explains, the German government “realized that education is a key means to move climate policy forward” and “appreciates that the C-ROADS climate model in World Climate is used by actual policymakers.”
Co-author Andrew Jones of Climate Interactive sees relevance for climate communication more generally: “Our findings may be useful to anyone who is engaging others on climate action. It suggests three key ingredients: information grounded in solid science, an experience that helps people feel for themselves, on their own terms, and social interaction arising from conversation with their peers.”
###
The paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202877
Combining role-play with interactive simulation to motivate informed climate action: Evidence from the World Climate simulation
Abstract
Climate change communication efforts grounded in the information deficit model have largely failed to close the gap between scientific and public understanding of the risks posed by climate change. In response, simulations have been proposed to enable people to learn for themselves about this complex and politically charged topic. Here we assess the impact of a widely-used simulation, World Climate, which combines a socially and emotionally engaging role-play with interactive exploration of climate change science through the C-ROADS climate simulation model. Participants take on the roles of delegates to the UN climate negotiations and are challenged to create an agreement that meets international climate goals. Their decisions are entered into C-ROADS, which provides immediate feedback about expected global climate impacts, enabling them to learn about climate change while experiencing the social dynamics of negotiations. We assess the impact of World Climate by analyzing pre- and post-survey results from >2,000 participants in 39 sessions in eight nations. We find statistically significant gains in three areas: (i) knowledge of climate change causes, dynamics and impacts; (ii) affective engagement including greater feelings of urgency and hope; and (iii) a desire to learn and do more about climate change. Contrary to the deficit model, gains in urgency were associated with gains in participants’ desire to learn more and intent to act, while gains in climate knowledge were not. Gains were just as strong among American participants who oppose government regulation of free markets–a political ideology that has been linked to climate change denial in the US–suggesting the simulation’s potential to reach across political divides. The results indicate that World Climate offers a climate change communication tool that enables people to learn and feel for themselves, which together have the potential to motivate action informed by science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

information grounded in solid science
that would be solid as in a structure where the atoms are very loosely bond together and where it does not take much energy to release these bonds . That type of ‘solid ‘
I Have the rules for this game.
‘Each player selects a token then moves around the board on their turn by rolling two dice.
These tokens have special rules –
The car rolls one dice because it is electric and doesn’t have the range.
The iron is a tiny little token, because EU regulations
The Top hat owns the bondoogle Rentseeker company and is not allowed to buy property.
Each player can buy a property they land (except the top hat) on and must pay rent if they land on an owned property. The first player to land on the Utility company must buy it, the money is paid to the top hat, not the bank.
Rents are printed on the cards except the Utility company. Two dice are rolled and x 100. this is paid to the bondoogle rentseeker company, not the utility company.
Chance cards. The top hat and the EV are give fifteen get out of jail free cards at the start of the game’
Sounds a great game you’ve invented! What would you call it, Boondoggle Monopoly? or Just plain “Rentseeker”?
BoonDopoly.
And instead of ‘free parking’ there is ‘the sandpit’
RyanS has to stay there the whole game if he lands there. Because the average brain has more cells than a beach has grains of sand.
Some people just get a smaller beach
The cartoon graph looks amazingly like “Computer Model Projected warming” in brown and “actual temperature data” in cyan.
Once one accepts the proposition that reality is a flexible concept and that what you believe is as or more important than what observation demonstrates to be true, you can pretty much build an entire imaginary universe out of nothing. And, unfortunately with today’s academic standards, one can go on to build an entire academic career on the drivel that incubates in the undisciplined mind of pseudoscience.
Closer to home I have a suspicion that these “education” projects are federally government funded directly or indirectly to normally (previously?) competent areas of the university. The University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology put out a somewhat related document for the kiddies (no apparent smorgasbord) which had a couple of serious geological errors independent of the climate advocacy. I posted this but never researched it further and don’t have the link handy. As far as I can tell the Bureau is still doing real geology.
Programs of this sort may have economic or sociological parts which may not be of much interest to, or direction by, the scientific staff, therefore produced by junior staff who don’t understand advocacy or the subject matter. I am going to speculate further that these may be financial burdens to the university which may contribute to inadequate oversight. They would also be handed to those with interest in advocacy.
“The results indicate that World Climate offers a climate change communication tool that enables people to learn and feel for themselves, which together have the potential to motivate action informed by science.” This is the last line of the abstract, the PLOS study, which is clearly not science, nevertheless was NSF “supported.”
It is essential for parents to be a constant antidote to the constant diabolical social engineering going on in our schools. We also have to enrich the much degraded curriculum. I teach my grandson math and elementary physics and chemistry, explain how things work and ask him to try to explain things he sees.
I tell him that knowledge marches on and many things I was taught turned out to be wrong or partially wrong and to keep an open mind about it all. I used examples from history- geocentric theory, phlogiston, continental drift and the certainty and tyranny of the status quo on the subject. I discussed alarmist climate and information, history and data that indicate the alarm is greatly overblown (Ice Ages, MWP, Greenland farming, Scottish wine industry, LIA, the Thames, the Bosphorus and New York Harbor freezing over), all without accompanying help from changes in CO2. Unfortunately in this Neo-Medieval world, I’ve had to caution him to give the “right” answers at school and dont argue about it.
“it was this increased sense of urgency, not knowledge, that was key to sparking motivation to act.”
Ah, the power of brainwashing propaganda, Goebells was right all along!
The brainwashing starts early.
I still remember all the leftist uproar over reading primers like “Janet and Mark’, because they portrayed a nuclear family – the called it ‘social engineering’ back then.
Yet today…
Sort of like claiming that watching war movies is an adequate substitute for live fire exercises.
Quite a Freudian graphic. The children are compressed and constrained, imprisoned under the curved boilerplate of climate Hell. Those beneath the most constraining plate have given in. Those trying to escape find themselves in the double jaws of the beast having their breath squeezed out, shouting for help. The PC mix is there, and in keeping with the sеlf-lоатнiиg gцilт-гiddeи соlогlеss folk, they are the majority of the ones who have given up.
I would like to play this game.
I would role-play Trump and blow everything up! 🙂
The conspicuous flaw here is that theory is still not supported factually by the science. The game is totally dependent on ‘buying in’ to the assumption that man’s production of CO2 is the climate-change control knob. Get real!
Maybe we need a game where children try to tell us how much warmer a room is. I doubt any of them can detect anything under 5 degrees. Then look at the graph and ask how we are going to affected.
Also, maybe a game where we learn about optics and how the “y” scale of a graph can turn a minor problem into a major one by magically using tiny units for change.
I particularly like this sentence.
Self-awareness much? I guess this passes for academic research today.
Well, if they show me a John Cook research paper; I’d just laugh myself off the chair.
If they show me a Lewandowski paper; I’d laugh for an hour and bring the building down.
So yea, it depends on what they show, and if it shows what they think it does.
For any research I do, I always want minimum three sources to evaluate what I think I know. If I’m researching history, or programming my midi-keyboard; I start with three books or web sources and start with that. Then I’ve got a fighting chance to go in the right direction.
Full grown adults playing the model UN game, how childishly realistic. If only Al Gore could make enough money from this kind of thing to buy a big beach-front mansion, wouldn’t that be nice. Oh, wait.
Having designed role playing games, both in a graduate level management course and in my profession, the only way to get reliable result is to ensure that it is objective, providing everyone with accurate and complete information, includes all the players, and is not driven by the facilitator. Contrary to what they tried to say, that is not what happened in this “experiment.”
OT but a slightly related heads up: Tesla shares crashed 8% on Friday as two of its senior executives quit, just hours after the electric carmaker’s chief executive Elon Musk sparked concern by smoking marijuana on a live web show.
The company’s head of accounting, Dave Morton, and head of human resources, Gaby Toledano, said they were leaving the company, which has been placed at the centre of a string of controversies by its maverick CEO.
Morton, who joined the company just one month ago, said he was leaving because “the level of public attention placed on the company, as well as the pace within the company, have exceeded my expectations”.
Five weeks ago TSLA was briefly above $375; today it closed at $263. See chart and list of articles at https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/TSLA
So computer games DO inspire senseless acts (sometimes of violence). Who knew?
My first impression was, “Wow, look at all that good-looking food distracting the mock delegates from thinking about what they are doing!”
I am a staunch proponent of NEVER — and I mean NEVER — mixing serious business with seriously good food. Hence, I have never understood the concept of a “business lunch” or any “business” conducted anywhere near food. It’s a stupid, stupid concept, if you really take your business seriously.
That is called brain washing.
“The simulation
has been reviewed by independent educators and scientists, found to support national science education standards in the US, and designated as an official resource for schools in France,
– Germany,
and South Korea.”
That suits perfectly:
-german-kids-illiteracy-
https://www.google.at/search?q=german+kids+illiteracy&oq=german+kids+illiteracy&aqs=chrome.