Posted on 11/28/2017 6:53:15 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
... What exactly does change minds about climate science? Research suggests that a variety of messages can influence people’s agreement with the scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and humans are contributing to it. And different people may respond differently to different kinds of messages.
Here are five insights from the young but growing body of research on climate change communication.
1. The messenger matters:
Some experimental studies manipulate the messenger to find out to whom respondents are most likely to listen. In general, matching messenger to audience leads to more effective messages. This is certainly true in climate messaging.
2. People respond to appeals based on their values:
Once the messenger matches the audience, research suggests that tailoring messages to fit the audience’s values can make people more willing to believe climate science.
3. Educating people about the science can make a difference:
Polling suggests that Democrats who are generally knowledgeable about science are more likely to believe in climate change. Educating people that there’s a broad scientific consensus about climate change may make people, particularly Republicans, more likely to believe it exists.
4. Emphasizing risk may spur people to action:
Some research has focused not just on whether people accept climate science, but also whether they’re motivated and willing to reduce their carbon emissions or support climate mitigation policies.
5. Affirming the power of the people:
Finally, correlational research suggests that when individuals and communities feel that they can help mitigate climate change, they’re more likely to act.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Alexander Maki is a postdoctoral researcher with the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment, where he studies environmental, volunteer and health behavior change.
Joseph Goebbels was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Why bother? It isn’t.
There is more definitive research about propaganda than there is about climate change.
When the wealthy liberals start dumping their coastal properties on the market because of fear of climate change—then I will believe.
Watch what they do—ignore what they say.
Solar Eclipse-summer 2017
The news outlets reported how quickly the air temperature dropped when the Sun was blocked!
Oh wait...
Quoth Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Real Science needs NO persuasion, it just is.
factual data tends to make people believe... hmmmm, perhaps the alarmists might want to do real research instead of relying on faulty models
Lol!
Nice juxtaposition!
““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.””
++++++++++++++++++++++++
How well they know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************
All about messaging. Nothing about
* facts
* published science
* list of predictions that the AGW crowd has gotten right over the last 30 years (the real key to scientific arguments)
Sure it is. We live on a dynamic, changing planet whose climate is driven by an ever changing nuclear fusion furnace. Climate on Earth changes all the time. Sometimes rapidly but mostly slowly over long periods.
Now, anthropogenic climate change? That is a totally different thing and is a fallacy.
Are these the same democrats that believe there are more than two genders and that a new unique life with it’s own DNA profile is not created at conception.
This sounded more like a lesson on how to create effective propaganda.
Secular Religion of Climate Change - bump for later.....
All five “insights” are about manipulation, not proof.....
Of course climate changes. It’s been changing on this rock for some 4 Billion years or so.
Damn all we can do about it.
This asshole couldn’t convince me this is 2017.
“scientific consensus” means nothing.
I am old enough to have seen SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS reversed a number of times. Plate tectonics is a prime example. When the theory was first proposed the “scientific consensus” was it was nonsense and the established scientist work to debunk it (actually a good thing). Now the theory is accepted (until something better comes along).
If at the beginning of the 1700 there was SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on everything we would still be living in the middle ages.
Whenever you see “scientific consensus” as an argument you know they don’t have the real evidence.
It is clear now that “man made climate change” is nothing more then a way for some to control others.
The government could tax citizens in the name of protecting them, or write new rules, regulation and laws to put restriction on how and where they live.
The American people may not always be the smartest most knowledgeable people around but they know BS when they smell it.
Like Ghosts and UFO’s ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.