This priming effect was reported to me informally by the researchers running the NERC study, although they framed it differently. Albeit hearsay, their report to me (paraphrased) was 'If scientists are thinking of doing geoengineering, then AGW must be a serious threat'.
This alternative priming hypothesis doesn't seem to have been fully explored in the study below. Speculation on people's motivation and likely behaviour is risky. Best to test! A On Jul 24, 2012 8:11 PM, "Alan Robock" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > This op-ed in the Sunday New York Times, which is interesting in its > entirety, discusses an experiment in which if you tell people about > geoengineering, they are more likely to believe in climate change. I found > it an interesting idea, but as is discussed, the problem of educating the > public is complex, as also pointed out by Paul Krugman. The links and text > are below. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/were-all-climate-change-idiots.html > > We’re All Climate-Change Idiots > By BETH GARDINER > > CLIMATE CHANGE is staring us in the face. The science is clear, and the > need to reduce planet-warming emissions has grown urgent. So why, > collectively, are we doing so little about it? > > Yes, there are political and economic barriers, as well as some strong > ideological opposition, to going green. But researchers in the burgeoning > field of climate psychology have identified another obstacle, one rooted in > the very ways our brains work. The mental habits that help us navigate the > local, practical demands of day-to-day life, they say, make it difficult to > engage with the more abstract, global dangers posed by climate change. > > Robert Gifford, a psychologist at the University of Victoria in British > Columbia who studies the behavioral barriers to combating climate change, > calls these habits of mind “dragons of inaction.” We have trouble imagining > a future drastically different from the present. We block out complex > problems that lack simple solutions. We dislike delayed benefits and so are > reluctant to sacrifice today for future gains. And we find it harder to > confront problems that creep up on us than emergencies that hit quickly. > > “You almost couldn’t design a problem that is a worse fit with our > underlying psychology,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale > Project on Climate Change Communication. > > Sometimes, when forming our opinions, we grasp at whatever information > presents itself, no matter how irrelevant. A new study by the psychologist > Nicolas Guéguen, published in last month’s Journal of Environmental > Psychology, found that participants seated in a room with a ficus tree > lacking foliage were considerably more likely to say that global warming > was real than were those in a room with a ficus tree that had foliage. > > We also tend to pay attention to information that reinforces what we > already believe and dismiss evidence that would require us to change our > minds, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. Dan M. Kahan, a Yale Law > School professor who studies risk and science communication, says this is > crucial to understanding the intense political polarization on climate > change. He and his research colleagues have found that people with more > hierarchical, individualistic worldviews (generally conservatives) sense > that accepting climate science would lead to restraints on commerce, > something they highly value, so they often dismiss evidence of the risk. > Those with a more egalitarian, community-oriented mind-set (generally > liberals) are likely to be suspicious of industry and very ready to credit > the idea that it is harming the environment. > > There are ways to overcome such prejudices. Professor Kahan has shown that > how climate change solutions are framed can affect our views of the > problem. In one study, not yet published, he and his colleagues asked > people to assess a scientific paper reporting that the climate was changing > faster than expected. Beforehand, one group was asked to read an article > calling for tighter carbon caps (i.e., a regulatory solution); a second > group read an article urging work on geoengineering, the manipulation of > atmospheric conditions (i.e., a technological solution); and a control > group read an unrelated story on traffic lights. All three groups included > hierarchical individualists and egalitarian communitarians. > > In all cases, the individualists were, as expected, less likely than the > communitarians to say the scientific paper seemed valid. But the gap was 29 > percent smaller among those who had first been exposed to the > geoengineering idea than among those who had been prompted to think about > regulating carbon, and 14 percent smaller than in the traffic light group. > Thinking about climate change as a technological challenge rather than as a > regulatory problem, it seems, made individualists more ready to credit the > scientific claim about the climate. > > Research also suggests public health is an effective frame: few people > care passionately about polar bears, but if you argue that closing > coal-burning plants will reduce problems like asthma, you’re more likely to > find a receptive audience, says the American University communications > professor Matthew Nisbet. > > Smaller “nudges,” similarly sensitive to our psychological quirks, can > also spur change. Taking advantage of our preference for immediate > gratification, energy monitors that displayed consumption levels in > real-time cut energy use by an average of 7 percent, according to a study > in the journal Energy in 2010. Telling heavy energy users how much less > power their neighbors consumed prompted them to cut their own use, > according to a 2007 study in Psychological Science. And trading on our > innate laziness, default settings have also conserved resources: when > Rutgers University changed its printers’ settings to double-sided, it saved > more than seven million sheets of paper in one semester in 2007. > > Simply presenting climate science more clearly is unlikely to change > attitudes. But a better understanding of our minds’ strange workings may > help save us from ourselves. > > Beth Gardiner is a freelance journalist. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/krugman-loading-the-climate-dice.html > > **Loading the Climate Dice** ** By PAUL KRUGMAN ** ** ** > > A couple of weeks ago the Northeast was in the grip of a severe heat wave. > As I write this, however, it’s a fairly cool day in New Jersey, considering > that it’s late July. Weather is like that; it fluctuates. > > And this banal observation may be what dooms us to climate catastrophe, in > two ways. On one side, the variability of temperatures from day to day and > year to year makes it easy to miss, ignore or obscure the longer-term > upward trend. On the other, even a fairly modest rise in average > temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events — > like the devastating drought now gripping America’s heartland — that do > vast damage. > > On the first point: Even with the best will in the world, it would be hard > for most people to stay focused on the big picture in the face of short-run > fluctuations. When the mercury is high and the crops are withering, > everyone talks about it, and some make the connection to global warming. > But let the days grow a bit cooler and the rains fall, and inevitably > people’s attention turns to other matters. > > Making things much worse, of course, is the role of players who don’t have > the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry, > lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial > stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability > is one of the key tricks of that industry’s trade. Applications range from > the Fox News perennial — “It’s cold outside! Al Gore was wrong!” — to the > constant claims that we’re experiencing global cooling, not warming, > because it’s not as hot right now as it was a few years back. > > How should we think about the relationship between climate change and > day-to-day experience? Almost a quarter of a century ago James Hansen, the > NASA scientist who did more than anyone to put climate change on the > agenda, suggested the analogy of loaded dice. Imagine, he and his > associates suggested, representing the probabilities of a hot, average or > cold summer by historical standards as a die with two faces painted red, > two white and two blue. By the early 21st century, they predicted, it would > be as if four of the faces were red, one white and one blue. Hot summers > would become much more frequent, but there would still be cold summers now > and then. > > And so it has proved. As documented in a new paper by Dr. Hansen and > others, cold summers by historical standards still happen, but rarely, > while hot summers have in fact become roughly twice as prevalent. And 9 of > the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. > > But that’s not all: really extreme high temperatures, the kind of thing > that used to happen very rarely in the past, have now become fairly common. > Think of it as rolling two sixes, which happens less than 3 percent of the > time with fair dice, but more often when the dice are loaded. And this > rising incidence of extreme events, reflecting the same variability of > weather that can obscure the reality of climate change, means that the > costs of climate change aren’t a distant prospect, decades in the future. > On the contrary, they’re already here, even though so far global > temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical > norms, a small fraction of their eventual rise if we don’t act. > > The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already > sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could > cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world’s > breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events > have happened before, but they’re much more likely now than they used to > be. > > Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there > will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate > blogger, has coined the term > “Dust-Bowlification<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/>” > for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly > productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this > phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be > the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next > few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will > come later. > > And here it comes. > > Will the current drought finally lead to serious climate action? History > isn’t encouraging. The deniers will surely keep on denying, especially > because conceding at this point that the science they’ve trashed was right > all along would be to admit their own culpability for the looming disaster. > And the public is all too likely to lose interest again the next time the > die comes up white or blue. > > But let’s hope that this time is different. For large-scale damage from > climate change is no longer a disaster waiting to happen. It’s happening > now. > > -- > > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
