More rending of garments.
There’s a lot of bad science papers out there, but this may be a hall of famer.
nature human behavior presents:
Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
It is clearly written by “social science” “researchers” whose knowledge of the underlying subject matter is on a level of grade school indoctrination. Well…high school these days. Here is the abstract, emphasis mine.
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors—scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions—to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants’ climate change beliefs (δ = −0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = −0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = −0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = −0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.
That stupid public discourse and all those knuckle-dragging morons who dare, actually dare to doubt our sacred SETTLED SCIENCE®
The paper gives the standard party line, citing the IPPCC, Orekes, and Lewandosky, about sacred truths and evil disinformation.
The sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unequivocally declared that climate change is real and that humans are driving it1,2. Whereas 97–99% of climate scientists agree about the human causation of climate change3,4,5, one third of the global population doubts or denies its anthropogenic roots6,7,8. This can be traced back to half a century of disinformation by the climate change countermovement, comprising fossil fuel corporations and their front groups, scientists-for-hire and lobbied politicians, who have contested climate science and are now delaying necessary climate mitigation actions9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. This multi-million-dollar public relations effort18,19,20,21,22 operates mainly via popular communication avenues3,23,24, such as traditional25,26,27 and social media28,29,30, to shape climate discourse and political decision-making17,29. Their claims take up legitimate concerns that people express—such as high costs or uncertain efficacy of climate action—but qualify as disinformation because these concerns are intentionally distorted and amplified into misleading claims31,32 such as bad-faith questioning of the scientific consensus33, overemphasizing the socio-financial burden of climate mitigation policies14,34 and scaremongering citizens into inaction through climate doomism14. Unfortunately, climate disinformation can be more persuasive than scientifically accurate information35,36,37,38 (see also ref. 39).
So, with no understanding of how scientific skepticism actually functions, the authors then launch into their assertions about how and why people think they do.
People process scientific messages not as neutral information processors but rather by weighing the messages against their prior convictions40,41,42,43,44,45, against desired outcomes46,47,48,49, against affective associations50,51 and through the lens of their sociocultural and ideological contexts52,53,54,55 (see reviews in refs. 56,57,58,59,60). When these psychological factors are misaligned with scientific information about climate change, antiscience beliefs fester39,61 and become resistant to correction57. Two recent reviews offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on how (dis)information and (anti)science beliefs hinge on different communicational bases and psychological drivers. Philipp-Muller and colleagues61 identified the different communicational bases on which (anti)science beliefs can build: the sources of scientific messages, the scientific messages themselves, the recipients of the scientific messages and the recipients’ epistemic style. In parallel, Ecker and colleagues57 grouped the psychological drivers influencing (dis)information belief formation and revision into cognitive and socio-affective drivers, depending on the psychological pathways they act on to facilitate or hinder belief formation and updating. Overall, both analyses affirmed that people’s capacity and motivation to process information and disinformation—(dis)information henceforth—is conditional to the (mis)alignment of scientific information about climate change with specific communicational and/or psychological factors57,61.
Here we adapt these factors to construct a comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating (Table 1). In this framework, the processing of scientific (dis)information is mapped onto its core communicational bases61: sources, messages and recipients. These communicational bases are the entry points62 where different psychological factors can influence (anti)science belief formation and updating through cognitive or socio-affective pathways57.
Table 1 Comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
Core communicational bases | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sources of scientific messages | Scientific messages themselves | Recipients of scientific messages | |||
Psychological drivers | Cognitive pathway | Driver | Consideration of scientific sources | Match/mismatch with prior beliefs | (Lack of) analytical thinking and/or deliberation |
Proposed intervention | Scientific consensus inoculation | Transparent communication inoculation | Accuracy inoculation | ||
Socio-affective pathway | Driver | Trust in scientific sources | Match/mismatch with moral convictions | Emotional state during message processing | |
Proposed intervention | Trust inoculation | Moralization inoculation | Positive emotions inoculation |
- The table shows the interplay between the communicational bases and psychological drivers of (anti)science belief formation and updating, and the theory-based psychological inoculations designed to address each entry point. Note that the boundaries between the cognitive and socio-affective pathways are permeable, and the effects of most interventions meant to address one pathway will very probably spill out to the other pathway of scientific (dis)information processing. For example, we consider the transparent communication inoculation to act on the cognitive driver ‘match/mismatch with prior beliefs’; however, its effects can spill over towards the socio-affective driver ‘trust in scientific sources’112,113.
Wandering through the citations scattered throughout this paper will probably spawn a future post or two from me, but there’s plenty here for multiple PhD’s is someone wants to research the construction of alternate realities based on academic nonsense as well as the crossover subject of institutional capture.
Comedy writers or jargon generators couldn’t do better. Put down your coffee before reading the next quote box.
In summary, here we integrated previous analyses into a comprehensive framework of the communicational and psychological factors influencing (anti)science belief formation and updating. On the basis of this integrated, theory-driven perspective, we introduce a set of broad-spectrum psychological inoculations to protect against climate disinformation that act on each of the identified entry points and pathways:
- A scientific consensus inoculation explaining that among climate scientists there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change
- A trust inoculation making salient the trustworthiness of IPCC scientists in terms of climate change science and mitigation actions
- A transparent communication inoculation addressing the pros and cons of climate mitigation action
- A moralization inoculation creating a stronger link between climate mitigation actions and the diversity of moral convictions
- An accuracy inoculation reorienting participants towards judging incoming information by its factual accuracy
- A positive emotions inoculation eliciting positive emotions towards climate mitigation actions
Table 2 Text of the six inoculations
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
Cognitive inoculation | Socio-affective inoculation |
---|---|
Scientific consensus inoculation | Trust inoculation |
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC, the most comprehensive review on the scientific agreement behind climate change and climate action, found that among thousands of climate scientists with the highest degrees of expertise ‘there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change’. Studies have shown that the consensus about anthropogenic climate change among expert scientists ranges from 97% to 99%. IPCC scientists from all cultural backgrounds and nations stated in the report that ‘It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and they are in agreement that urgent climate action is needed for a better planet and society. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC is the most authoritative scientific body in the world assessing the knowledge about climate change and climate action and that the majority of citizens of multiple countries trust scientists. Climate scientists have the highest degrees of expertise and are committed to open and transparent review by other scientists and governments around the world, and value rigorous and balanced scientific information above all else. IPCC scientists come from all cultural backgrounds and nations, to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise in their work and to ensure an objective and complete assessment of the scientific evidence about climate change, to recommend actions and policies for a better planet and society. |
Transparent communication inoculation | Moralization inoculation |
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists are open about the fact that climate actions will require substantial funding and a significant overhaul of our way of life to keep our planet livable. They also disclosed that there is some uncertainty about if and how these climate actions may reduce our quality of life, but they still concluded with confidence that limiting irreversible climate-induced risks with climate action is less risky than not acting at all. Acting is hard, they admit, but it is through these scientifically supported actions that we can protect our planet, reduce inequality, and generate sustainable growth. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists provide valuable and authoritative advice about actions that our communities and nations must take to responsibly keep our planet livable for us and for future generations. As citizens of this earth, we have a moral responsibility to protect our homeland and our community from climate-induced risks and harms, and to stop defiling our pristine natural environment. Through these scientifically supported actions, we can protect our planet, create a more just and fair society with decent living conditions for everyone, and generate sustainable growth beneficial for us, our nations, the world, and generations to come. |
Accuracy inoculation | Positive emotions inoculation |
When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that it is important to be able to accurately recognize these misinformation to avoid being influenced by them. One good strategy to distinguish between good and bad information is to ask yourself: ‘do I think this information is accurately describing the state of the science of climate change? Is this information not at all accurate, not very accurate, somewhat accurate, or very accurate?’. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, think about this accuracy question to get in the right frame of mind. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that climate actions are vital actions that will keep our planet livable for the next generation. Actions such as eating delicious and healthy meals with a lower carbon footprint or taking a bike ride instead of getting stuck in traffic are scientifically supported ways to make you happier and more fulfilled in your daily life. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, imagine the positive changes you can create with climate action, and think about how good you will feel when doing so. |
Here’s the kicker. This is their table of disinformation, most of which is true.
Table 3 The 20 climate disinformation statements and their coding
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
Coding | Disinformation tweet |
---|---|
Science_1 | As more wind and solar are added they raise electricity prices and destabilize electric grids. Because they are part-time unreliable weather dependent sources. We want full-time electricity. Not part-time like third world countries. All for silly expensive net zero. CA pays more. |
Science_2 | The current exceptional warming and cooling your seeing is due to the location of the Jet Stream. It’s become very wavy due to the lack of Solar Energy going into the Oceans and nothing to do with Man Made CO2 |
Science_3 | Today’s ‘global warming’ is estimated to be an otherwise unmeasurable 0.4°C (0.72°F) over the 1979-2000 average… despite 50% of all manmade emissions. No 2022 weather event was unprecedented or can be blamed on CO2 emissions. |
Science_4 | This is a portrait of climate fraud, posturing as the saviours of the world. They are a breed of crooks, getting rich by ripping off gullible western nations. The UN led climate hoax has been running since 1988. They want us to believe a pack of lies about earth’s climate. |
Science_5 | Too often, academic reports on climate use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive. |
Science_6 | The climate hoax devised by the UN, supported by rich elitists is endorsed by our treacherous leaders is an attack on freedoms & rights. Climate cultism is a form of global self hatred. It aims to punish western nations by transferring huge reparations to the developing world. |
Science_7 | Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are ‘Mathematically Impossible’ |
Science_8 | Lots of links of studies of the Medieval Warm Period that climate science deniers (alarmists) want to pretend did not exist. Because there is no explanation for natural warming during this time. Studies point out temp was warmer back then, than now. |
Science_9 | According to global warming theory the poles should warm significantly if carbon dioxide is driving temperatures Just the opposite is occurring in the southern hemisphere. |
Science_10 | The evidence for manmade climate change is so thin they cannot debate it. They hide behind the lie of consensus. There is no room for consensus in science. The basis is a provable hypothesis. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves manmade CO2 is causing warming. |
Action_1 | At Climate Summit, Elites Chow Down on Gourmet Meats While Telling Us to Eat Bugs |
Action_2 | FACT CHECK Results of the Biden administration’s extreme climate agenda cutting emissions by 44% by 2030. Annual Jobs Lost: 1.2 MILLION. Lost Economic Growth: $7.7 TRILLION. Increase in Electric Bills: 23% Increase in Gas Prices: 2$ PER YEAR |
Action_3 | The war on ‘fossil fuels’ is absurd considering the vast fields of coal/oil/gas everywhere on earth. The mantle is brimming over with it. A United Nations bid for control, cash & power has led to an energy crisis that looms as the biggest self-inflicted disaster in human history. |
Action_4 | Death and privation caused by the lack of affordable energy caused by Green Energy policies will not affect the Elites at all. They want us to eat bugs, do a lot less as they carry on with their lives just as they are doing now. Climate scamsters. They should lead by example. |
Action_5 | You are lying. Fossil fuels gave us cheap energy for decades so billions live longer healthier happier lives. Many technologies like carbon capture, filters fuel additives etc reduces emissions. Banning fossil fuels is creating fuel poverty and harming people |
Action_6 | Energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet. |
Action_7 | Imagine sacrificing 500 high-paying coal jobs, ranging up to $60,000/yr, for the climate hoax. Even if you believe in the hoax, global emissions are up 5% from pre-pandemic levels — 90% because of China. Emissions from a single mine are insignificant. |
Action_8 | Europe’s transition to renewable energy and net zero carbon is not working, except to make life hard on average European citizens. |
Action_9 | Willfully-blind ignorance about the consequences of [the rush to green policies] – deep recessions, broken societies and millions more going hungry – doesn’t make them any less immoral. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bingo. |
Action_10 | Solar and wind are far more expensive than established reliable stable secure electricity from pure hydro coal gas nuclear. That’s why your shift to unreliable, unstable, expensive solar and wind; is devastating families; and exporting manufacturing jobs |
The rest of the article is, standard sociology focus group discussion masquerading as a useful statistical psychological analysis, some caterwauling about personality traits, especially conservative politics, frustration that their attempt at blatant indoctrination had a negligible effect.
In summation, they hope their fauxearch will lead to actual results if someone does a better job at indoctrinating or manipulating people.
While the psychological inoculations evaluated in this Registered Report were of limited efficacy, the framework proposed here can be helpful to systematize future psychological inoculation research to fight climate disinformation. It may generate new psychological inoculations, which can result in more systematic research192 on psychological inoculations, their moderators and climate-relevant outcomes. For example, one of the reviewers suggested developing a ‘pluralistic ignorance’ inoculation, whereby participants are made aware that most of their peers support climate mitigation action, and that awareness should increase support of climate action193,194. Many-labs and mega-studies approaches, promising recent frameworks for systematically creating and testing multiple interventions195,196,197 with large sample sizes that could help the detection of small intervention effects, can be applied to test sets of theory-guided psychological inoculation strategies against a validated set of climate disinformation statements, measuring climate-relevant outcomes and mapping the heterogeneity generated by model-identified individual differences. Such a combination could produce the next generation of psychological inoculations, which may yield better protection from climate disinformation.
Read the whole paper yourself and use it as more evidence for cutting off federal funds to universities.