An academic group of climate communication shameless propagandists from Yale Communication program on climate change Recent school of professional public indoctrination and manipulation Surveying. They then “analyzed” the results of their subjective questions and concluded that they were so smart that they needed to gesticulate more and shout louder.
These findings indicate that it is important to communicate these Five key facts about climate change: scientists agree, it’s real, it’s because of us, it’s bad, And have hope.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
My comments on this masturbation “study” are as follows:
The mystery of American concern
What do Americans really want to know about climate change? The inquiry, set out by a group of academics in a recent survey, appears important on the surface. Yet it turns into a story that unintentionally demonstrates deep confusion and hints at staged alarmism about our environmental future. Revealing that the majority accept global warming is real and caused by humans will give “researchers” an orgasm, but the devil, as always, is in the details – or lack thereof their remains.
Skim the surface of the investigation
These findings expose a painful truth (for the “researchers”): only a small fraction, one in five, believe their contrived story that more than 90% of climate scientists is said to agree on human-caused global warming. It’s a statistic that gets tossed around like a symbol of consensus, but underneath it lies an untouchable sea of skepticism and unanswered questions.
The researcher’s method? They asked Americans what they would ask a climate expert, of course assuming that such conversations would be enlightening. It demonstrates the obedience of “researchers” to the cult of credulism. This approach is as silly and idealistic as asking a child what they would ask an astronaut; the fickleness outweighs the weight of the questions.
Respondents were asked: “If you had the opportunity to talk to an expert on global warming, which of the following questions would you ask?” They were then given a list of 13 potential questions to choose from. Next, respondents are asked to choose one questions they care about most.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
Cataloging confusion or organized ignorance?
The survey organized questions into four categories: evidence, causes, impacts and solutions. In the ‘evidence’ section we find queries from the troubled “Is global warming really happening?” to the notable question “Is global warming a hoax?” It was not a scientific investigation but a probe of public gullibility.
- Evidence includes three questions about the existence of global warming: “Is global warming really happening?” “How do you know that global warming is happening?” and “Is global warming a hoax?”
- reason addresses two questions about the main causes of global warming: “What causes global warming?” and “How do you know that global warming is caused primarily by human activity and not by natural changes in the environment?”
- Impact addresses three questions about the harmful effects of global warming: “What harmful effects will global warming cause?” “Is global warming harmful to humans?” and “When will global warming start harming humans?”
- Solutions includes five questions about actions needed to reduce global warming: “What can the United States do to reduce global warming?” “What can I do to reduce global warming?” “How much will it cost the United States to reduce global warming?” “What can countries around the world do to reduce global warming?” and “Is there still time to reduce global warming or is it too late?”
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
The “cause” category teeters between blaming human activity and natural environmental change. This dichotomy serves less to illuminate and more to confuse, framing the complex interaction of factors as a simple either/or scenario.
In the ‘impact’ section, questions such as “What harm will global warming cause?” and “When will it start harming people?” reflects a sensationalist tone – more fear-mongering than truth-seeking.
Questions about ‘solutions’ reveal a tone of desperation, from national action to individual action. It reads like a script from a disaster movie where the characters are trying to prevent an apocalypse created in a Hollywood studio rather than based on a rigorous scientific investigation.
Demographics and their discontent
The study also delved into demographics, revealing the expected divide: educated, urban Democratic respondents leaned toward proactive questions, while rural respondents rural, less educated, Republican Party questioned the basic reality of climate change. This is not a purely academic department; it is a clear illustration of the ideological echo chambers that are shaping public discourse on climate.
The topics people will ask about will vary across demographic and political groups. Groups most likely to ask about solutions include liberal Democrats (71%), moderate/conservative Democrats (59%), those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (55%), and urban population (53%). Conversely, the groups most likely to question the evidence include conservative Republicans (37%), rural residents (28%), liberal/moderate Republicans (28% ), people with a high school education or less (27%), and people. those earning less than $50,000 per year (27%). Additionally, compared to the general U.S. population, liberal/moderate Republicans (18%) and Independents (17%) were more likely to ask about the impact, and Conservative Republicans (33%) were more likely to ask about the cause.
The Six Americas: More division than unity
Dividing Americans into groups ranging from Wary to Denial may be academically convenient but socially divisive. It caricatures public perception to the extremes of panic or indifference, ignoring the nuanced foundation where skepticism thrives on scrutiny rather than dismissive denial.
Themes also vary across the Six Americas of Global Warming. The majority of Vigilants (82%) and about half of Worriers (53%) would ask for solutions, while fewer of Cautious (26%), Relaxed (10%), Doubtful (12%) ) and Ignore ( 3%) will do the same. In contrast, the latter four segments mostly want to ask about the causes of global warming or the evidence that it is happening (about half or more of these segments will ask about one of these two topics). Compared to the general U.S. population, Waivers (50%) are more likely to ask for evidence, followed by Disengagers (40%), Doubtful (30%), and Cautious (28%) . Additionally, Doubters (35%) are more likely to ask about the cause than the general U.S. population, followed by Cautious People (28%) and Deniers (28%). Concerned people (16%) are more likely than the general U.S. population to ask about the impact of global warming.
Top Queries: Reflect discrepancies or misinformation?
Most common questions—”Is it too late to reduce global warming?” and “Is Global Warming a Hoax?”—serve as accompaniment to a narrative of doom and skepticism. They reflect not a genuine quest for knowledge but the success of polarizing narratives that have penetrated public consciousness.
End with a word of contempt
This survey, while intended to shed light on public curiosity, unintentionally obscured any real debate. Not only does it highlight concern about climate issues, but it also highlights a deep disorientation in the American psyche, fed by dramatic headlines and apocalyptic predictions.
The real question is not what Americans want to know about climate change but why they are asking these questions in the first place. It is not a search for truth. Does it expose the consequences of being caught in the crossfire of fear, propaganda and political manipulation? The American public’s engagement with climate change seems less about understanding the future of the planet and more about navigating a maze of confusing rhetoric.
Overall, these questions are less about climate science and more about the climate in our national discourse.
H/T muttered McGirk
Related
