The question here is “why are news reporters publishing propaganda?” Of course, it doesn’t tend to stick, because Doing Something may be popular in theory, but, not practice, especially when real world issue intrude
Study finds climate change reporting can momentarily change minds
Accurate climate change reporting has the power to change minds if only for a moment, a new experimental study suggests.
“It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it,” said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at the Ohio State University, before adding that even accurate reporting “recedes from people’s frame of reference very quickly.”
Gains were also made regardless of political identity as the study demonstrated both Democrats and Republicans could be positively persuaded by accurate reporting.
But, are they actually accurate? I mentioned the new Climate Shift Index Wednesday, and already Bloomberg is pimping it to claim weather is now climate because it’s hot.
During the first wave, participants read reports that reflected scientific consensus on issues involving climate change before moving on to the second and third waves, where they read either a scientific article with counter points, an opinion article or a piece unrelated to the top.
After each wave, researchers asked participants whether they believed humans caused climate change, if the government should act through policy changes and how they viewed renewable energy.
“Not only did science reporting change people’s factual understanding, it also moved their political preferences,” Wood continued. “It made them think that climate change was a pressing government concern that government should do more about.”
You can bet they were carefully crafted to elicit the opinion they wanted, and left out the policies that would cost Americans money while taking away their freedom and life choices.
Yet the study showed that positive changes in opinion faded and suggested opinion articles skeptical of climate consensus negated progress in some cases.
“What we found suggests that people need to hear the same accurate messages about climate change again and again. If they only hear it once, it recedes very quickly,” Wood said.
In other words, they’re very upset that people might read stuff that refutes the cult propaganda, and they really, really want that stuff banned. Personally, I’d also say it fades because people really only care about doing something in their own lives in theory, and, again, that real life is just more important.
When were they not?
The collective media, old and new, decided a long time ago that their power is too important to the future to let it just sit there on a shelf. If I had to look for a date, I would pin it on the night Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. The media never forgave themselves for not doing all they could to put her over the top. It was then that they started a daily campaign to use their platforms to push their agenda instead of report the news and to silence anyone with opposing views from using their platforms. But this trend certainly predates Hillary.
Our 33 MPG car driving host wrote:
It’s pretty simple: people want ‘something done’ about
global warmingclimatechangeemergency, but they want any sacrifices to be made by other people, not by themselves.Science reporting has always been troubling. The target audience is usually not equipped to understand the nuances and the reporters are not much better. Scientists tend to be notoriously inept at communicating with reporters and non-scientists. It’s a situation perfect for propagandists and charlatans.
“Such-and-such doubles the risk of cancer!”… from 1 case in 1000 to 2 cases in 1000.
It’s a fact that atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing. It’s a fact that the mean global surface temperature is increasing. It’s a fact that the heat content of the oceans is increasing. It’s a fact that atmospheric CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation.
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
Translation: you rubes jus’ ain’t smart enough to realize what we-all is saying!
Perhaps, just perhaps, those “scientists (who are) notoriously inept at communicating with reporters and non-scientists” ought to realize that they haven’t been telling us just what the results of their research are, but have been trying to tell us what we must do to avoid doom, even though they give us little evidence that they are doing any of these things themselves.
Some choose to dismiss the science because they strenuously disagree with the implications.
The Earth is warming as a result of CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. There is no scientific reason to expect the warming to slow or stop.
And there’s no cause-effect evidence that it’s CO2 doing the warming, either. There’s a correlation, but as of yet no causation has been demonstrated
I began my last comment, “Our 33 MPG car driving host wrote”. Now, while I’m not certain that the distinguished Mr Teach is getting precisely 33 miles per gallon, he has stated numbers close to that before, which I do not recall precisely, at least on a recent trip to the Garden State.
Think what that means: it means that our esteemed host mocks the warmunists and their plans, he is actually doing something about it, choosing to drive a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle. I don’t know if he chose what he drives specifically for the fuel economy, or had more important, other reasons for his choices. That’s kind of like me: I erected a wind-and-solar-powered clothes dryer not to save on sparktricity, but because my darling bride — of 43 years, 1 month and 4 days — likes the smell of the bedding when dried on the clothesline, but that nevertheless does save electricity. I don’t use the air conditioner when she’s not at home, not to save money, but because I prefer a house with the windows and porch doors open for the fresh air. (The critters like that, too, not having to get me to let them in and out.) Nevertheless, I am saving electricity.
When we pull vegetables out of the garden, we are saving on all of the fossil fuel that accompanies buying them at the grocery store.
I get it: so many of the warmunists have to use their AC all the time during warm weather, because they live in poor circulation apartments, or even high rises in which the windows can’t be opened. The only things they can grow for themselves are marijuana plants. And there’s certainly no room for a clothesline. But at some point, the mostly urbanized warmunists need to recognize that they are more of the problem than we rednecked country folks.
Neither the fecund typist Mr Teach nor Mr Dana know how others live their own lives.
My suburban son grows vegetables and has fruit and nut trees in his back yard. He eats crappie, bass, bluegill and walleye that he catches. He supports efforts to combat global warming. My other suburban son does the same but also grows marijuana!!
It’s admirable that Mr Dana doesn’t use his air-conditioning during those “mild” KY summers. It’s also admirable that the retired Mr Dana grows all his own food. Kudos! He seems to advocate that everyone should retire on temperate acres and transition back to the early 1900s. Unfortunately not everyone can live without working. Some poor people live in hot, brick tenements in cities. Sad but true.
Rather than being defensive about recommendations regarding global warming (which they consider a hoax/scam) perhaps we can be collegial. Has anyone been blaming rednecked country folks for global warming or have the anti-science cultists become snowflakes?
Once again you confuse being anti cult with being anti science. It’s your team that believes men can become women, can menstruate, can be “birthing people”, believe pre natal humans are somehow not people yet you have the balls to call others who doubt made up unprovable pseudo science “deniers”. To quote Gretta the retarded cultist “How dare you!”
CarolAnn,
So you feel the existence of trans persons invalidates the theory of AGW?? That doesn’t make sense.
Why does the existence of trans people pain conservatives so? Why do you care so much?
Because there is no such thing as a “trans person”. There are male humans and female humans. That’s the science. Follow it! Trying to force society into accepting a lie is not only Soviet style programming but immoral on all levels. Therefore, I do not feel “the existence of trans persons invalidates the theory of AGW” because there is no such thing. There’s also no such thing as provable AGW which is why you artists of disinformation needed to change it to “climate change”.
Don’t believe me? Force them to take a DNA test to prove their sex. If you want to be called “she” pass the DNA test and we will. But if there’s an “X” in there forever shut your pie hole. Fair enough?
If your commie state can force 200 million citizens to take a fake untested “vaccine” surly it can force 200,000 faggots to comply to a DNA test.
jeff,
Trans people are psychotic and their desire to change into another sex is delusional. Society should not feed a delusion and we really don’t care what their issue is, we just don’t feel they require excessive rights.
The term for your bullshit is called moral narcissism.
Jeff,
You demonstrate such pathos for less fortunate people, yet almost every policy you endorse and defend makes the lives of these poor folks much harder.
His “pathos” for the less fortunate is nothing but virtue signaling. His entire leftist cult from the Soviets to the Nazi’s to the nuDemocrats have spent the last century marching to power over the dead bodies of poor and working men, women and children. Hundreds of millions dead, all in the name of “equity”. Hundred of millions of unborn ripped from the womb in the name of “choice”. Millions today toil in African heat digging rare earth elements for their mythical EV’s, millions die in slave labor in the Middle East as they support Islam, millions die in labor camps in China as they abuse the Yugurs. Even in our own BLUE cities thousands are murdered each year because of leftist policies and neglect even as they strip the rest of us of our rights. They have no pathos only single minded desire for total one party power and the cruelty and hate that goes along with that cult.
Piss on them.
FJB
Our madcap Missourian wrote:
People would be a lot happier if they did!
No, I don’t grow “all” of our food; just some.
It is sad, but, in my many studies for my poor site, I have noted the costs of rent in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, $1,195 a month for this dump in the combat zone:
Come out to eastern Kentucky, and you can buy a whole lot better for a lot less money! I’ll bet the same is true in the Show Me State.
You guys do realize that whether or not you or your kids grow your own food or don’t use your electricity is irrelevant. The food is still planted, harvested and shipped to your supermarket. The electricity is still generated for your use. Whether or not you avail yourselves of these things they must go on since should your crops fail or are not enough to sustain you and should the wind not blow and the sun not shine you can still keep your food fresh and your heat on.
Stating stupid things like jerkoff joe does about “ending fossil fuels” is just a lie. A big fukin lie. First we still have 300 million gas powered vehicles on the road (at least). What are we supposed to do with them? Second, such a radical transition in such a short period would be like a nuclear war and crash all our systems, logistics and infrastructure over night. The devastation and death would put “Biblical proportions” to shame.
Sadly, there is never a compromise with cultists or communists and when they are one in the same it’s impossible. So they will keep pushing this fabricated story and passing stupid self defeating laws and mandates until something goes *SNAP*. Then they’ll blame it on Trump.
FJB