Essay by Eric Worrall
The study authors suggest “top down interventions” will be required.
‘Doom and gloom’ don’t change stubborn climate change denial
By Dan Holmes
Friday February 9, 2024Climate change denial remains difficult to challenge despite the scientific consensus and availability of information.
A new behavioural science study suggests this means governments need to put more attention to “top-down” approaches to addressing climate change.
…
While some did change behaviour, this varied based on country, initial climate beliefs, and which outcome was being measured. For instance, “doom and gloom” climate communications made people more likely to share climate information, but less likely to plant trees.
“Negative emotion induction intervention appeared to backfire on policy support among participants with low initial climate beliefs,” they said.
“These results suggest that climate scientists should carefully consider the differential effects of the prevalent fear-inducing writing styles on different pro-climate outcomes.”
…
“Top-down change might need to be prioritised to achieve the emissions reduction necessary to stay within safe planetary limits for human civilisation.
…
Read more: https://www.themandarin.com.au/239189-doom-and-gloom-dont-change-stubborn-climate-change-denial/
The abstract of the study;
Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries
MADALINA VLASCEANU , KIMBERLY C. DOELL , JOSEPH B. BAK-COLEMAN , BORYANA TODOROVA, MICHAEL M. BERKEBILE-WEINBERG, SAMANTHA J. GRAYSON, YASH PATEL, DANIELLE GOLDWERT, YIFEI PEI, […], AND JAY J. VAN BAVEL +248 authors Authors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE ADVANCES
7 Feb 2024
Vol 10, Issue 6Abstract
Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.
Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
I’m surprised it took a study to verify the premise that stepping up the doom and gloom will not persuade people who think the climate crisis is nonsense.
If you don’t believe in the tooth fairy, would stepping up the doomsday rhetoric persuade you to put your teeth under the pillow?
The alternative, “top down interventions”, in my opinion is rather threatening, the velvet being stripped from the steel fist. We’re going to make you put your teeth under the pillow, and if you refuse, you’ll have lots of spare teeth?
I am still looking for the first paper addressing “psychological interventions” for people who “see” a climate doomsday despite any objective evidence (i.e. suffering mass delusion)
The question I’d like to ask, to one of those afflicted, suffering from this climate change mass delusion would be along the lines of “Do you see it now, here in the room with you?“
“Top-down change might need to be prioritised …”
Pol Pot MarkII you reckon guys?
GK Chesterton wrote this 100 years ago, and I don’t think it can be improved upon.
We shall soon be in a world where a man can be howled down for saying two and two make four, in which furious party cries shall be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people shall persecute the heresy of calling triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.
re: “GK Chesterton wrote this 100 years ago …”
I think the precursor step was on exhibition last year, when the ‘vogue’ question was “What is a woman?” and the respondent answers given documented by Matt Walsh.
Haha! Yes, when a SCOTUS nominee demurs, saying she’s not qualified to answer because she’s not a biologist, then we are in trouble — not least of all because she’s ‘not’ lots of things upon which she’ll be called upon to understand in the ostensible exercise of her role.
We learned a very important lesson about 80 year ago about propaganda from the german NAZIs about how dangerous it is to alter the truth by using a selective argument in order to gain a desired outcome. People with degrees in the human mind are using their knowledges not to seek the truth but to obtain a desired outcome. They could use a little history so they understand just how dangerous the outcome could be for their little games.
indoctrinating-youth
And then there is the master behind the process that taught us so much about this Heinrich Himmler.
The United States was founded with the idea of the first Amendment protecting freedom of speech. The more information available to you the wiser your decisions while the climate mafia choses to restrict ideas for a desired outcome. Michal Mann is the ring leader with his refusal to explain exactly what his methods are to reach the conclusion he inflicts on us. Bad science at its best.
Just remember that every con job starts out with the words “Trust me”.
Only in recent human history has the capacity for creating universal mischief been available. In the much-maligned feudal era the lazy and stupid hoed the baron’s turnips and knew nothing of kings. Academia, in the form that it existed, as an extension of the church, attempted to determine the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. There were no printed works and science and philosophy were not even mysteries to all but a few. At the same time, no one individual, through the current epidemic of greed, venality and narcissism, could ruin the lives of millions. We have made much progress.
Yup. Just like all religious concepts. If you don’t accept the premise as true, the consequences of the truth of the premise are irrelevant to you.
If you don’t believe in Allah, telling someone how bad he is going to torture you after you die is not going to make you a Muslim.
If you don’t believe in Cthulu, warning you about its ineffable awfulness isn’t going to change your mind.
If you don’t believe in Jesus or his dad, telling you what this divine tag-team is going to do to you if you don’t believe in them is not going to change your mind.
The academic unemployment rate would rocket through the roof if all the supposed academics who based their entire careers on unfounded beliefs rather than science were appropriately and rapidly retired. These are the people who burned “witches”, jailed Galileo, starved much of what is now Ukraine during Stalinist rule and killed over 40 million Chinese during Mao’s “great leap forward” because they enforced policies based on those unfounded, unscientific and incompetently untrue believes.
The behavioural “scientists” whose study is referenced above would soon be flipping burgers or begging for change if we had a true merit-based system of academic appoinetment.
So here we have, yet again, another hand-wringing session as to why so few are willing to join a quasi-religious cult that preaches suffering and hardship for most of its followers. And unlike most religions, there is no promise of heaven or paradise after death. Nothing but a miserable stone age lifestyle for all one’s remaining years. But there are some similarities to various religions – the high priests are totally excused from the poverty and hardship and are allowed to run here and there preaching their doom and gloom.
Doom and gloom that never comes. So first we have a secular religion that promises misery to its adherents (save for the high priests) and a method of attempted conversion that is a variation of “the boy who cried wolf”. Al Gore, Michael Mann, King Charles, ect., cry wolf day and night from the highest flying private jets, but the wolf never appears. No one has ever seen the wolf…..So why would any thinking person take on a draconian primitive lifestyle to avoid being savaged by a wolf that hasn’t (and will never) come?
Why would anyone even have to wonder why any and all sorts of persuasions don’t work?
First sentence: “.Climate change denial remains difficult to challenge despite the scientific consensus and availability of information. “
I stopped reading there. The entire article or “study” is based on this false premise. The rest is propaganda (lies).
When you know the truth, no amount of lying and scare mongering can be convincing. Only a fact based argument with supporting evidence can change minds, and computer models that are not fit for purpose are not evidence, except as a demonstration that the modelers do not have a grasp on the subject.
“Top-down change might need to be prioritised to achieve the emissions reduction necessary to stay within safe planetary limits for human civilisation.
EVERY TYRANT, FUHRER, COMMISSAR, GENERAL SECRETARY and UNELECTED ACTIVIST GROUP claims that his/its superior knowledge and understanding justifies beating the uncomplying peasants into submission. That notion is more than one step too far away from democracy,
Things to be worried about:
Death, taxes…
True. I don’t want any part of the WEF/Technocratic/Transhumanist agenda.
Tyranny under the name of SCIENCE! will be cruel and exacting.
They really want to go full Lysenko, and throw all dissenters and heretics in the gulag.
From the above article, quoting the article by Madalina Vlasceanu, et. al.:
“Top-down change might need to be prioritised to achieve . . . “
Might that involve what we previously witnessed coming from Joseph Goebbels and from the Gestapo (aka Geheime Staatspolizei or “Secret State Police”)?
Also, I duly note—with derisive laughter—that article is listed as having more than 250 authors!
WTF? . . . the title of the publisher “ScienceAdvances” is pure fraud, providing nothing of the sort.
We need a study for them to understand that false climate propaganda invites ridicule and correction?
Psychological interventions don’t work on people armed with facts and real data.
Sounds like they’re calling for gulags for those with “wrong thought” (i.e. 1984 thoughtcrimes).
“Climate change denial remains difficult to challenge despite the scientific consensus and availability of information”
So … the answer is to further restrict the information and hype the “Clientific Consenus” even more?
Reminds me of what Hillary Clinton said of Trump supporters.
“Maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members,” she said in a clip released late Thursday.
“And sadly, so many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure,” Clinton added. “He’s only in it for himself.”
Of course, she was speaking of those she called “deplorables” that didn’t vote for her.
But seems those who promote ” A new behavioural science study suggests this means governments need to put more attention to “top-down” approaches to addressing climate change.” think the same way.
“despite the scientific consensus and availability of information.”
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” – Michael Crichton
————————-
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton
————————
“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.” – Dr Richard Lindzen
==============
then there’s this oxymoron: “climate change denial”. No sane person denies that that Earth’s climate changes, DUH.
==============
and… not one of the dire predictions about climate has come true. Not one. It still snows in Minnesota, the glaciers are only melting back to PREVIOUS size as they reveal what’s trapped under them, ocean levels are reaching an asymptotic value, rising water levels on the east coast are from deflection of the shoreline from millions of tons of dirt flowing to the sea via the many rivers, etc.
It’s true. Humans, with the abilty to reason, and KNOW that tclimate change is a hoax to make $trillions for those pusing the lie,, CANNOT be programmed to accept the LIE.
So, I guess, it will come down to the leftists’ shooting war, and 3/4 of the earth perishing, before Liberty and Justice addresses the liars.
healthy skepticism is hardly an abnormal mental condition so of course psycho treatments won’t have an effect … in fact I would suggest that the people who believe skeptics are mentally unbalanced are in the fact the ones with a mental condition that might require treatment …
I heard over the weekend that Canada has pending legislation that could make it illegal to publicly “deny” climate change. Does anyone have any information about this, either that it’s true (even to some degree) or just a rumor? I haven’t been able to find anything.
Climate “skeptics/deniers” are not vulnerable to climate fear mongering or the fallacy of consensus due to their understanding of the facts of the science and their doctrine. So a more draconian approach is needed or find better ways to mess with people’s perception of reality such as do multi-contingency smoke and mirrors false flag games….also draconian.
Yet, we are all vulnerable to (psych-tech) regardless of our educational background or giftedness. Our use of devices expose us to the formatting our dopamine metabolism based on B.F. Skinner’s schedules of reinforcement such as variable ratio schedule of reinforcement, which is the same schedule of reinforcement inherent in gambling. If you are scrolling 8-12 hours a day, you are already hooked.
Old guys like myself hate messing with little gadgets and fidgeting navigation and prefer our wives, our wine, our pipes and cigars, walks in the park, chess games, books, great films, cocktails with friends etc for our dopamine hits. WUWT is the sole extent of my blogging and social media. I have never owned a cell phone, don’t own a PC, lap top or any other devices….. don’t need to my work provides but I still solely use a land line because they work better.