Fearing the Findings on Fear Messaging
If you’re a climate blogger who often plays up the most potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming, and a new sociological study finds that “dire messages warning of the severity of global warming and its presumed dangers can backfire,” what do you do?
You shoot the messengers, of course. In this case, as Joe Romm headlined last month, that would not be the researchers of the study but the journalists who wrote about it:
Media blows the story of UC Berkley study on climate messaging
A day after that post appeared, the messengers received another scolding from Brad Johnson, Romm’s blogging colleague at the Center for American Progress. Johnson elaborated on how the media purportedly botched its reporting of the findings. But he was also mildly critical of the Berkley press release, for its “confusing portrayal of the study’s results,” and also of the researchers. Johnson asserted that their conclusions “have been somewhat misleadingly presented” in their own paper.
But what really caught my eye was this passage from Johnson:
In part because of the misleading presentation in the paper and the press release, journalists like the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin, New York Times’ Andy Revkin (who rejects the science that significant climate impacts are already being felt in the United States), Time Magazine’s Bryan Walsh, Greener World Media’s Adam Aston, Discovery News’s Kieran Mulvaney, and social scientist Matthew Nisbet misinterpreted the results.
That’s a whole lot of misinterpreting going on, and from people I trust to get things right. So I thought I’d check this out with Robb Willer, a UC Berkley sociologist and a co-author of the study. What follows are two questions I asked him and his responses (via email):
Q: Was your paper presented in a misleading fashion, and if so how?
BW: Perhaps predictably, being one of the two authors of the paper, I don’t think that it was presented in a misleading fashion at all. I corresponded with Brad Johnson over email some about this. I think that his blog post was, on the whole, a pretty accurate discussion of the paper and its findings. Where I differ with Brad is in his characterization of the messages we used in our research. In them we tried to, (1) give an accurate description of the scientific view of global warming’s “possible” consequences, and then (2) close with either optimistic or pessimistic conclusions. The result, we claimed, was that one message was “dire” and the other “positive.” I think they were on the whole. I think this is straightforward reasoning, and not at all misleading.
Here’s an analogy I drew in my email with Brad: if I told you something terrible was “possible” (e.g., “your neighbor could get lung cancer”), but I am optimistic and confident it won’t if reasonable steps are taken (e.g., “if she quits smoking and adopts a healthy lifestyle”), I wouldn’t call that a “dire” message. And certainly it wouldn’t seem dire in contrast with a message that said her prospects for recovery were extremely poor. I think it would be justifiable to label the message with the optimistic conclusion as “positive”…or at least as positive as it gets when you’re messaging about cancer, global warming, etc.
Q: Did those journalists Brad listed misinterpret the results of the paper? If so, was there any particular misinterpretation that warrants correcting?
BW: One thing that has come up in a couple places is the small sample size used in the research. For example see here. [KK: Willers is referring to this criticism from Robert Brulle: “The conclusions drawn from a tiny study don’t support the extravagant claims made in the press.”] It’s very understandable to criticize social scientific research for having a have a small sample size, and I think it’s a criticism with some very obvious merits. But a couple points should be kept in mind.
First, these were experimental studies. The value of experimental studies lies not in the use of large, representative samples from larger populations, but in the use of random assignment of study participants to experimentally controlled conditions. Such an approach largely mitigates concerns regarding spurious causation. Experiments are a powerful empirical method, especially well-suited for testing causal claims. Of course there’s an important place for large-scale representative survey studies as well, though they are typically viewed as most useful for describing patterns of opinion in large populations. They are useful, but not as well-suited as experiments, for evaluating causal claims such as the one we examined (the old “correlation doesn’t equal causation” point). In our paper we began by citing large-scale survey data suggesting that belief in global warming had leveled off or even declined in the U.S. in recent years. We then turned to experiments to test a hypothesis that might help explain that pattern.
Second, my co-author and I have conducted other studies on this subject that agree with those in the paper. For example, an earlier version of our paper included studies showing that negative messages about global warming tend to backfire in their effects on belief in global warming. One was another smallish study with 50 undergraduate participants, the other a larger field study of 306 Americans recruited via the internet. In the course of peer review, Psychological Science suggested that we cut these studies in order to make the paper more focused on the link between individuals’ “just world” beliefs and belief in global warming. They viewed this as the more significant scientific contribution of the article, not the point about positive versus dire messaging. The latter point is not as novel from a scientific perspective, as I understand that there is a fair amount of past research on the relative efficacy of fear-based appeals versus more positive ones.
But, these clarifications aside, I want to say that I don’t have any desire to quibble with global warming activists. My co-author and I conducted this research not just to advance the general, scientific understanding of political attitudes, but hopefully also to offer some practical insights on why so many Americans struggle to accept the conclusions of scientific research on global warming. We hope that this research offers some helpful insights for people working in this arena. My co-author and I continue to conduct research in this vein, including a couple projects we are working on now. We hope that these and future findings will help us better understand global warming skepticism and related patterns of opinion. The dynamics of public opinion and political attitudes are quite complex and we believe that systematic, scientific research in this domain is potentially very important and fruitful.
***
The other part of that passage from Brad Johnson’s post that struck me was his gratuitous swipe at Andrew Revkin. Johnson wrote that Revkin
rejects the science that significant climate impacts are already being felt in the United States
It seems odd that Johnson would shoehorn this in as an aside. Anyway, I emailed Revkin to ask if the characterization was accurate. He responded just before leaving for the climate talks in Cancun:
One quick gripe of course is with his (intentionally?) murky statement of my views on U.S. climate impacts. Of course the U.S. has felt significant climate impacts this year (ask anyone in Nashville).
What is not clear at all is whether there’s a discernible contribution in US extreme weather from global warming driven by the global buildup of greenhouse gases.
keith, ok this is what i was waiting for when i asked here last week about romm’s article. i’ll bold the comparable text. here’s what robb willer told you:
“In [the messages we used in our research] we tried to, (1) give an accurate description of the scientific view of global warming’s ‘possible’ consequences, and then (2) close with either optimistic or pessimistic conclusions. The result, we claimed, was that one message was ‘dire’ and the other ‘positive.’ I think they were on the whole. I think this is straightforward reasoning, and not at all misleading.”
now the troublemaking paragraph from the press release:
“Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.”
i think it’s easy to see how this press release was misunderstood, in the US political context where the basic science is so hotly contested that opponents of carbon cuts use ‘consequences’ and ‘apocalyptic consequences’ interchangeably.
is it really not clear to you how a somewhat jaundiced eye might not understand that the ‘factual data’ included bad consequences? leading to the understanding that talking about bad consequences at all was bad news for stooopid greenz?
greens who are actually doing exactly the right thing, according to brad johnson’s read of the study:
“In short, the researchers found that the approach taken by leading climate messengers such as Al Gore (‘An Inconvenient Truth’), Van Jones (‘The Green Collar Economy’), and Bill McKibben (350.org) of combining scientific urgency with solution-oriented hopefulness should be successful, and particularly powerful with people who believe strongly in an inherently just world. That audience includes a significant proportion of conservatives and religiously observant people.”
where’s the problem here, keith, are you shooting back at the messengers?
(sorry for the paragraph breaks, i misjudged. btw, this comment form doesn’t work on an iphone.)
ok the bolds got stripped too. i’m reposting the comment.
===
keith,
ok this is what i was waiting for when i asked here last week about romm’s article. i’ll bold the comparable text. here’s what robb willer told you:
“In [the messages we used in our research] we tried to, (1) give an accurate description of the scientific view of global warming’s “˜possible’ consequences, and then (2) close with either optimistic or pessimistic conclusions. The result, we claimed, was that one message was “˜dire’ and the other “˜positive.’ I think they were on the whole. I think this is straightforward reasoning, and not at all misleading.”
now the troublemaking paragraph from the press release:
“Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.”
i think it’s easy to see how this press release was misunderstood, in the US political context where the basic science is so hotly contested that opponents of carbon cuts use “˜consequences’ and “˜apocalyptic consequences’ interchangeably.
is it really not clear to you how a somewhat jaundiced eye might not understand that the “˜factual data’ included bad consequences? leading to the understanding that talking about bad consequences at all was bad news for stooopid greenz?
greens who are actually doing exactly the right thing, according to brad johnson’s read of the study:
“In short, the researchers found that the approach taken by leading climate messengers such as Al Gore (‘An Inconvenient Truth’), Van Jones (‘The Green Collar Economy’), and Bill McKibben (350.org) of combining scientific urgency with solution-oriented hopefulness should be successful, and particularly powerful with people who believe strongly in an inherently just world. That audience includes a significant proportion of conservatives and religiously observant people.”
where’s the problem here, keith, are you shooting back at the messengers?
dp, I’m going to let Robb Willer’s words speak for themselves. If it comes down to a choice between accepting Brad Johnson’s interpretation of Willer’s study, or Willer’s interpretation of his own work, I think I’ll choose the guy who carried out the research and wrote the study.
i don’t think you can do that.
you have been a professional editor. i know what your job was, because believe it or not i’ve done it myself, avocationally.
if you don’t address the question of whether the audience — the press — would have understood “factual data” to be much more than an explanation of pollution & the carbon cycle, you’re misrepresenting the situation.
dp, I do this blog as a hobby horse. Thus I get to do what I want. I’m not going to separately analyze the posts from all the writers and see if they correctly interpreted the results of the study. Brad did that and concluded they got it wrong. I figured I’d ask the researcher and he’s not saying that. Would he not be the best person to judge?
Usually when journalists misconstrue a study in an article, the researcher has no problem addressing that. I gave Robb Willers a chance to do that in this post.
It’s up to you to take him at his word or not. I have no intention of going any further on this in my blog.
i’m pushing because your answer, like your article, is playing a fine line of misunderstanding what i’m talking about.
robb willer didn’t answer your second question. in fact he said he was not going to answer your second question: “I don’t have any desire to quibble with global warming activists.”
and as for the first question, the answer is bizarre!
“Q: Was your paper presented in a misleading fashion, and if so how?
“BW: Perhaps predictably, being one of the two authors of the paper, I don’t think that it was presented in a misleading fashion at all.”
how in the world does a scientist in any field “predictably” think their study was presented correctly by the press? that’s a giant red flag to me that there was a misunderstanding of the question.
it’s very unclear to me that robb willer understood what issue brad johnson had raised; it seems like willer was taking umbrage at an attack on the paper itself.
a simple question would clarify.
does robb willer believe that “factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change” is the clearest way to describe the character of that portion of the survey’s article?
If you read between the lines, Robb Willer is being exceptionally polite.
following the links in brad johnson’s article, about who misinterpreted. here is the press release paragraph again:
Next, participants read a news article about global warming. The article started out with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. But while half the participants received articles that ended with warnings about the apocalyptic consequences of global warming, the other half read ones that concluded with positive messages focused on potential solutions to global warming, such as technological innovations that could reduce carbon emissions.
andy revkin, who read the paper itself, appears to have got it:
Behavioral researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that dire descriptions of global warming, in isolation, can cause people to recoil from acceptance of the problem.
kieran mulvaney seems ok. sometimes leans away from the “in isolation” part but it’s there in his text.
so let’s go to the people who maybe missed it. juliet eilperin @ the wapo:
Talking gloom-and-doom about global warming may backfire with the public, according to a new study on climate attitudes from the University of California, Berkeley….
In the experiment involving undergraduates, the subjects read a news article that began with factual data provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, but had two different endings. Half ended with warnings about the disastrous consequences of climate change, while half offered potential solutions to the problem, such as clean energy innovations.
since the description is pretty much verbatim, i guess here the question of misinterpreting comes right at the start: would “talking only gloom-and-doom about global warming” have been more accurate?
but others are clear misses. bryan walsh misunderstood the key sentence:
The subjects were then randomly assigned to read one of two newspaper-style articles. Both pieces were identical through the first four paragraphs, providing basic scientific information about climate change, but they differed in their conclusions, with one article detailing the possibly apocalyptic consequences of climate change, and the other ending with a more upbeat message about potential solutions to global warming.
adam aston embellishes the finding (there was no ‘YES WE CAN avoid a complete meltdown’ article tested):
The take-away of the Berkeley study is practically self-evident. Communicating findings in less apocalyptic ways, while offering and explaining solutions, can help the skittish process and accept the information more constructively.
as does matthew nisbet:
Besides demonstrating the inefficacy of fear appeals about climate change to engage the public, these two studies discussed also point to the need to communicate about specific policy solutions, especially if they are posed in the context of personally relevant actions and benefits.
politeness counts; but what he said to you mirrored what he wrote to brad,
That said, I (perhaps predictably!) disagree with your characterization of our paper as “misleading.” In the messages we used in our research, we tried to give an accurate description of the scientific view of global warming’s “possible” consequences, and then close with either optimistic or pessimistic conclusions. The result, we claimed, was that one message was dire and the other positive, and I think they were on the whole. I think this is reasonable and not misleading.
which sort of skips over the press release wording, straight to the question of whether any sane green group of any merit or influence speaks in the language of the ‘dire’ paragraph:
Unfortunately, according to many members of the IPCC, global warming is now at a point where it may be irreversible. “We fear it may be too late. We may have reached the point of no return,” says Caroline DeFoe, Professor of Environmental Studies at Yale University, “I hate to admit it, but all the numbers and computer models point in the same dire and devastating direction. No one knows for sure how horrible it will get, but we should prepare for world wide chaos and destruction.”
who is this cautionary study result supposed to teach? i guess james lovelock heard it loud & clear?
I do this blog as a hobby horse.
So true, so true.
It’s interesting that Mr. Kloor contacted Dr. Willer and Mr. Revkin but not me.
I, like all the other journalists, are only able to base our work on the published studies by Willer and Feinberg, not any unpublished work they’ve done.
People who are interested in this question should read the actual text of “news stories” that tested a presentation of climate science with alternate endings.
Dr. Willer says the text is “an accurate description of the scientific view of global warming’s “˜possible’ consequences.”
However, the text actually talks not just about “possible” consequences, but consequences that are already being felt (emphasis added): “In particular, the past decade has seen record breaking heat waves all across the world, including a major heat wave that killed at least 35,000 people in Europe in 2003. Along with heat waves, global warming is also heating up ocean temperatures, which could have a direct impact on the intensity of hurricanes. .. . According to the IPCC, frequency of wildfires in California, Nevada, and Arizona has already reached record highs and could continue to rise. In addition, possibly the most serious consequence is sea-levels rising. As the earth warms up, the massive sheets of ice that make up the Artic and Greenland are melting at a dramatic pace. As they melt, the runoff flows into the sea which gradually raises sea levels all around the world.”
That sounds like a pretty “dire” description of global warming.
In other words, the message they tested isn’t like saying your smoking friend could “possibly” get lung cancer, it was like saying “Your blood pressure is up, your oxygen levels are down, you have a persistent hacking cough, and from your x-rays you have early-stage lung cancer.” Which is pretty dire.
Then either “There’s nothing we can do to treat your cancer; it will spread and in a few years you will die.” Or “Fortunately, the cancer is treatable, with a good chance for a full recovery, as long as we start right away.”
Mr. Revkin, I think, really has an obligation to explain precisely what he meant when he said “the hard reality that the risks posed by an unabated rise in greenhouse-gas emissions are still mainly somewhere and someday” and that there is an “absence of hard evidence” or “direct experience” of “human-unraveled climate,” “at least in prosperous places.”
uh oops i forgot i only skimmed joe romm’s piece, and in fact inadvertently repeated part of his thing, and now that i think of it,
Gosh, who ever would have guessed that a message that says “it may be too late” “” that the problem is just too damn big for science to grapple with, so much so that we don’t even know where to start “” might not work so well?
Seriously people, is there anybody on the planet who uses that message “” not counting, James Lovelock, intermittently, the exception that certainly proves the rule … ?
based on that i’m going to agree with joe romm on this and on saying andy revkin overreached in applying the study to the copenhagen video, even after seeming to cover the bases at the start, and i’m done, except for any other mistakes i made.
Brad,
Why would I contact you? You asserted that a gaggle of smart people got the study wrong–and that the researcher himself presented the conclusions in a misleading fashion. I figured I’d go straight to an author of the study to see if he agreed with your characterizations. (Isn’t this what Romm did with Calderia regarding Superfreakonomics?)
Should I have contacted you after Willers answered me? What for? I know that you were in similar correspondence with him. In fact, I was waiting for you to put up his response to you in an update before hitting the send button on my post.
Alas, it doesn’t appear you got the response you hoped for.
You didn’t publish the actual messages tested. Why don’t you do to so in the body of your post — as I did here — so this won’t be the matter of taking Brad’s ‘word’ over the authors’.
If you did post it, then everyone would see that 1) the ‘dire’ message — that the problem is just too damn big for science to grapple with, so much so that we don’t even know where to start — is one that essentially nobody uses, except maybe Lovelock and 2) the ‘positive’ message — Doing nothing risks “many devastating consequences” but “much of the technology we need already exists” — is the one that is the cornerstone of my messaging (since it is what the science says) and of pretty much everyone from Al Gore to Bill McKibben.
It is too long for me to post the entire thing, but it is worth noting that all participants saw this paragraph:
“The IPCC says many devastating consequences of global warming are possible, some of which we have already begun to feel. In particular, the past decade has seen record breaking heat waves all across the world, including a major heat wave that killed at least 35,000 people in Europe in 2003. Along with heat waves, global warming is also heating up ocean temperatures, which could have a direct impact on the intensity of hurricanes.
As ocean temperatures continually rise, it is predicted that the frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes will also rise. Furthermore, the rise in global temperatures could also have a significant impact on the number of wildfires occurring across the U.S.. Rising temperatures are believed to lead to increased dryness and drought. According to the IPCC, frequency of wildfires in California, Nevada, and Arizona has already reached record highs and could continue to rise. In addition, possibly the most serious consequence is sea-levels rising. As the earth warms up, the massive sheets of ice that make up the Artic and Greenland are melting at a dramatic pace. As they melt, the runoff flows into the sea which gradually raises sea levels all around the world. As the seas rise, the IPCC predicts that current coastlines could start to disappear, including much of Florida, California, Texas, and Hawaii.”
Pretty damn dire “” though completely science-based, kind of like An Inconvenient Truth. On our current emissions path we risk devastating heat waves, more superhurricanes, dryness and drought and wildfires, and dangerous sea level rise. Sounds a lot like Hell and High Water!
So it seems pretty clear that whatever a study would this small of a sample could prove, it is misleading to argue that it showed “dire messages warning of the severity of global warming and its presumed dangers can backfire.”
Perhaps it proves messages that end by telling people it may be hopeless may backfire, but, again, no non-Lovelock person I know says that and it seems kind of obvious in the first place.
One final point: the ‘positive’ message states “Much of the technology we need already exists.” Can’t argue with that!
Re Revkin, & his “What is not clear at all is whether there’s a discernible contribution in US extreme weather from global warming driven by the global buildup of greenhouse gases” – is he aware of Begley’s Newsweek piece on fractional risk attribution?
“A climate whodunit – science nails the blame game” – http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/27/can-we-blame-extreme-weather-on-climate-change.html
The key point here is one of semantics. If you read the actual materials that the study participants were provided (which none of the journalists referred to appear to have had access to at the time they wrote their respective articles, and which Keith should do now), most folks would NOT use the same terminology that Dr. Willer uses. As noted above, all the study participants read an “article” prepared by the researchers with a main body that most of us would probably describe as “dire” – flooding, fire, heatwaves, drought, rising oceans underway and growing worse in the near future. One group then read an ending that said essentially “scientists have no idea how to even begin to address this catastrophe” – most of us would probably say: that’s not merely “dire” that’s “hopeless”. The second group then read an ending that said essentially “however, technology currently exists which if deployed could avert many of the worst impacts”.
The point is that BOTH groups saw the same extremely DIRE predictions. But one group then saw a hopeless ending (there’s noting to do) and the other saw an optimistic ending (we have the tools to attack this problem). That is NOT consistent with the way that the said journalists portrayed the research results (almost certainly because they did not at that point have access to the actual “articles” used in the research).
+1 Dr. Romm
Re Revkin vs(?) fractional risk attribution (comment#16 above), I’ve sent him an email asking; will report back.
Joe Romm (15) writes:
“You didn’t publish the actual messages tested. Why don’t you do to so in the body of your post–as I did here-“
Fair enough, though I did link to your post several times, so everyone could read your critique.
My turn. I’m curious why you didn’t discuss the other part of the methodology used for the study–the scary commercial videos shown to participants. From the study:
Next participants watched a 60-second dire message video. This video consisted of two existing videos selected from a collection of short videos disseminated as internet and television advertisements that aimed to educate the public about global warming. The first segment used a speeding train heading toward a small girl as a metaphor for the imminent catastrophe that awaits the children of the world, and the second showed anxious looking children who verbally simulated a clock’s ticking as they also described the potential devastation that is coming due to global warming. Both videos were selected because coders blind to the study hypothesis rated them as highly “negative,” “scary,” and “apocalyptic”, and because they emphasized that innocent children would be the ones most likely to suffer from the dire effects of global warming.
Brad Johnson does refer to this part of the study in his post (calling the videos “public service announcements”) but glosses over their importance to the study’s findings.
Let me quote directly from the study’s conclusions: Our findings extend past research showing that fear-based appeals, especially when not coupled with a clear solution, can backfire and undermine the intended effects of messages.
This video and this one were the two “public service announcements” shown to study participants. I leave it up to readers to discern the clear solution expressed in either of them.
For more background on the past research the Berkley study authors are referring to, see this Matthew Nesbit post.
@ Johnson
I hate to be the first one to break it to you but weather is not the same as a climate. Let me introduce you to a few basic facts about weather and climate.
– We did have a number of severe weather event over the last 10 years. And so we did over previous 10 years. And so on.
– There is no proven connection between the GW of 0.8 degree over the last 150 years and severity/frequency of weather events.
– The number of victims of any given event has little to do with actual severity of the event. It is mostly a function of the density and the condition of the local population.
– There is no known connection between precipitation shifts and global temps. There were many major droughts well before we started emitting carbon.
I believe as a journalist you should have invested a bit of time learning something at least on the level of Climate of 101 before issuing your “dire” description of the GW.
I hope you are enjoying nice weather in Cancun. BTW, do you really believe that the importance of your work justifies the CO2 emitted by the airplanes that take you back and forth?
I believe the referenced study only measured a person’s likelihood of giving a message a hearing, not acting on it. When the subject is AGW, if action is not consequential, a hearing””or not””is not relevant. To the degree this is so, does the coverage being given this study mean that only those with both a “positive” messaging and a “positive” solution have a positive chance in our PC 2nd wave feminist liberal””or is that progressive””subculture? If so, isn’t such thinking the thinking””or is that feeling””that made this problem as intractable as it feels like it is? Didn’t Einstein have something pertinent to say about using teh same thinking that created a problem for solving it?
Anyway, re those associated with the Center for American Progress. As I observe behaviors, dynamics, and understand game theory, CAP is the think tank that did the heavy lifting re the Administration’s “Climate” legislative strategy. That strategy failed and/or got bolixed by the Democrats (and here, among other things, I am thinking about Joe Romm’s surety that the President could get a better bill in 2010 inferencing a strategy going awry).
Regardless, whatever one may find to fault in current behaviors of CAP employees, I think their behavior tends to make sense when one sees it as the last acts of true believers in that failed/mangled strategy. The door to the wishful double positive (message & action) miracle that was being marketed is closed. If you have been as close to the center of power as CAP has, not going to another plan””yet””has its logic; is wishful thinking that would feel pragmatic””when time has run out and game theory says there is no other positive/positive strategy.
Wouldn’t such be a reason for not getting into a post-partisan “plan whatever?” A further reason for not doing so is that the economic analyses supporting ACES & CEJAP would need to be scrutinized and updated. I believe revisiting the assumptions used in the McKinsey & CBO analyses would find them looking a bit like swiss cheese when updated to the realities of the current flash frozen collapse of global capitalism. New analyses would result in a “not-positive” “positive/negative” situation and yield both non-hearing and continued non-action.
And a feeling of moral piety withstanding, “non-action’ is an oxymoron. Demanding a “positive positive’ when the reality for this is not there is vain hubris. There is no such thing as green greed and the wishful feeling that there is is preventing new””if not positive””thinking from getting a hearing. My bias for this: I find it impossible to disprove that the methane time bomb has been detonated and tipping points are now passed. Consequently, denial of not positive news is the presenting problem the US faces. Such has been the demise on many other empires, only this time we are taking the whole planet with us.
FYI, I have suggested to Democracy Now that when they are at COP16 next week they see what the economic assumptions are that delegates and NGOs are using to support their strategies in Cancun. I invite others to suggest they do so as well. The sooner we get past our social discomfort with non-positive things, the better . . . and this may be something that cannot be done in mixed company (and given the gender mix in some organizations, this may be another insurmountable problem created by the thinking that created the problem).
@Sashka – I assume you’re aware that Brad Johnson was merely quoting from the “news article” text used by the researchers? (If not, perhaps you should have invested a bit of time in Reading 101.)
yeah those videos are terrible. i went to http://fightglobalwarming.com like the big huge letters on the tv said, and there was nothing there but photos of desiccated kittens. it was a drag, man.
My bad.
My only excuse is that unlike some other participants I’m blogging while doing some actual work.
@ sashka
“My only excuse is that unlike some other participants I’m blogging while doing some actual work.”
in my state about 22% of the working population can’t get the work they need. i can tell you where a lot of them live, if you want to kick them.
Yet another social study studying the obvious.
Let’s be bold:
Yet another social study studying the obvious.
Now, let’s quote ourselves:
Yet another social study studying the obvious.
So much ways to emphasize our own words!
Now, if only I could find someone to dictate my words…
😛
> “Our findings extend past research showing that fear-based appeals, especially when not coupled with a clear solution, can backfire and undermine the intended effects of messages.”
Sounds to me like if we delete the “, especially”, the resulting statement is accurate & un-misleading, and everyone’s happy:
“Our findings extend past research showing that fear-based appeals not coupled with a clear solution can backfire and undermine the intended effects of messages.”
(Caveat/confession, I have not read the paper and am not paying close enough attention, really. Take with some salt.)
Suppose 22% of employed population in your state consider themselves underemployed. First of all, the glass is 78% full which is not so bad these days. Second I don’t have any beef with any honestly working person (this lot doesn’t include bloggers paid by third parties) irrespective of his/her perceptions of their employment situation.
Romm, of course, is part of a paid political machine specifically organized and funded to immediately attack any deviation from the so called Progressive line. That he so firmly believes that catastrophic fear mongering and vituperative attack are effective communication tools says a lot about the value of his opinions.
It is rare to see such a textbook-perfect example of an argument ad hominem as in comment 30. Hats off, Mr. Kelly.
@Paul Kelly:
That he so firmly believes that catastrophic fear mongering and vituperative attack are effective communication tools says a lot about the value of his opinions.
Hi Paul!
I agree that Joe tends to focus on the potential bads about climate change, but I’m in a sharp disagreement with people like Keith that he does so in a similar manner as denialists play them down.
In any case, can you name a climate-centric blog that does more to publicize diverse solutions, energy-wise, than Climate Progress? I haven’t actually visited the blog other than through a reader in a very long time, but I seem to be getting a pretty constant feed of clean energy solutions. Maybe we’re getting info from different sites?
Thanks,
TB
TB,
The posts on alternatives are Joe’s one saving grace.
The problem with the scenarios presented is that they are overly catastrophic. If someone were to analogize a medical condition to the state of the planet and effects from global warming, it would be far closer to a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, with CO2 serving as sugar and renewable energy as insulin. Or some such.
Romm does have a vested interest in portraying global climate change as a planet buster. Mr. Kelly is observing reality, not making an ad hominem attack. Romm has the best digest of green technology news on the intertubes. Everything else he writes is polemic, and pretty bad polemic at that. (Hint to journalists: Dragon is not your friend, as it produces logorrhea.)
I think the current state of public opinion on climate change reflects the findings in the study. The threat of inevitable doom is psychologically appealing to those who tend toward a depressive personality type. Maybe Climate Changes gives them a sense of superiority to the “ignorant” masses. Rather than use the Bible, the IPCC consensus is the ultimate authority on the Truth. Just like the street corner preachers imploring us to change our sinful ways, repent, and accept the Saviour, doubters must embrace CAGW, impose the most drastic global policy money can buy, and accept the Hockey Stick as factually accurate. The judgmental attitude tends to repel most people in exactly the same way preaching fire and brimstone turns people off from religious fundamentalism. Occasionally, they reveal how they actually wish for more devastating natural disasters and record-breaking heat waves to vindicate their conclusions.
More mentally balanced people are skeptical another end-of-world prediction, especially from judgmental, I-told-you-so messengers. What is useful about obsessive cynicism over a poorly understood problem we have supposedly created by our wicked, selfish mere presence? Reluctance to accept CAGW because of problematic research methods and selective access to the data, is a state of sinfulness and corruption. The catastrophists ridicule this shamefulness by personally attacking those who dare to express doubt as “denialists”. They liken CAGW skepticism to rejecting Evolution or even Moon Hoaxers.
But the depression-prone crowd will accept nothing less than carbon pricing. In reality, they are more concerned about punishing someone than actually solving the problem. You don’t need a degree in economics to know that somebody will be making money off this scheme. When Al Gore testified before Congress, he was questioned about his heavy financial investment in carbon trading. His response was basically, “How dare you!”
In this latest episode, it’s the messenger who shot. Keith went straight to the horse’s mouth to verify the accuracy of the reporting. Amazingly, there is a persistent zero-tolerance approach that anything that conflicts with their confirmation-bias, is deplorable. Guess what guys? It’s not Big Oil or knuckle-dragging old-time religion manufacturing doubt about global warming. It’s the zeal to denounce even slightly moderate views on climate change. When the science does an adequate job presenting the evidence for CAGW, continuing your hysterical persecution will only evoke more skepticism. This wouldn’t be necessary if the evidence supported your claims. Instead of poo-pooing various solutions, show some enthusiasm if you expect to be taken seriously.
#15 Joseph Romm
Is this the first time Joe has post on C-a-S?
Just wondering
Re: medical analogies for planet earth
The best medical analogy for planet earth would be
Münchausen syndrome
I am Jack’s spastic colon
I think you mean Munchausen by proxy.
On a related note, Michael Levy at the Council on Foreign Relations suggests
“that we need to do better job understanding how peoples’ beliefs about change change evolve if we want to help them better understand what’s really going on.”
If they want ‘us’ to undestand what is really going on, stop the hype and manipulation..
An example of the fear messaging
Greenpeace say 150,000 deaths a year due to climate change (man made – presumably) on their website
Is that just an eco lobby group being alarmist…?
From the exceutive summary of ‘Positive Energy’ -2007 an IPPR document ( The progressive UK think tank – basically Labour party) advicing the UK Government, Defra, DECC, etc –
The second sentence:
Behind the stories, real people are allready being hit, with climatechange now killing 150,ooo peopl a year (1)
Thus, reported as a proven fact designed to get the executive response to climate change that this group requires.
The advisory board packed with eco lobbyists and green interests. Futerra one of them
I had to buy the report to find the reference, (no politician usually gets beyond even the first couple of pages of an executive summary)
World Health Organisation 2005 factsheet: Climate and Health
I tracked the factsheet down and this is where the definite 150,000 ‘climate change’ deaths ‘facts’ for that report came from.
Measurement of health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.
Note, the very approximate, may have and likely’s
The report also says 600,000 deaths due to weather related events – of which 95% in poor countries.
Thus the biggest killer is being poor, NOT ‘climate change’
In an earlier comment, there was much discussion about saving the future generations, but appathy amongst the AGW advocates for the poor now.
The DECC have even defined ‘climate change’ to only mean man made, excluding ALL natural climate forcings…
Thus, maybe, guestimates by lobby groups, with vested political, justifying their own existance and financial interest, turn into facts for governmnet policy to be decided from…
I am a ‘climate cynic’ – deniar is too passive.
The ‘what” and “why’ of life that humans wrangle with as conscious self-aware creatures will prove to be our undoing. To the degree we use our self-awareness to primarily be aware of ourself we are insufficiently evolved to be rational as the issues we become conscious of increasingly trigger neuropeptide responses, which our neurological, immune, and endocrine systems are evolved to protect us from. To teh degree we apply our self-awareness larger social groupings, other life forms and the biome, the capacity to exercise rationality fare a bit better, but never enough to logically merit the term sapience as our species name, homo sapiens, claims for us. At best we are homo sapiens-wannabes. And the discourse in this post and comments are examples of such.
Individually and socially we affect differrent strategies for protecting ourselves from awareness of either “whats” or “whys” that are beyond our sapience to live with. CAGW is something we cannot prove we have not tipped the planet into. Awareness of this confronts a western bias””to perceive ourselves as individuals””with neuropeptide responses that we are not evolve sufficiently, either individually or socially be rational about.
This study’s findings indirectly support this: “positive” messaging improves the chances of a message getting a hearing. In the consumeristic culture our economic system is predicated on, marketing is similarly restricted in terms of what yields ‘success.’ In general, 51% of the human population has a relatively more whole neurology than the balance and are, consequently, even more challenged by the basic ‘what’ and “why” questions in terms of specificity (this neurological difference is further reinforced with hormonal differences). Stimuli that are experienced as non-positive” trigger neuropeptides and any of our various strategies relative to this happening. Since, rationally, CAGW required commensurate action””not just a hearing of a non-positive message, socially, we who are encumbered by privileged are twice challenged to be rational.
Because of the aforementioned marketing constraints, and a for-profit model for providing our culture with news, the need to do so with a “balance” that is””in general””felt positively about, precludes our social condition from being what can, logically, be labeled rational. Systemically, we are cut off from rationality. Denial, reframing, cynicism, and piety (four of our many strategies for addressing certain neuropeptide conditions) are observable in this post and its comments. Because humanity has evolved to possess a multitude of strategies concerning non-positive stimuli, and to the degree our former economic hegemony has afforded some the privilege of being biased to experience ourselves as individuals, with the fascist political system we have allowed to usurp our democratic republic, we in the US are, ironically, effecting choices that assure our and the species’ demise while feeling otherwise. Such is really quite childish, but also””rationally””our condition.