An academic group of climate communicators shameless propagandists from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication Professional School of Public Manipulation and Indoctrination recently conducted a survey. Then they “analyzed” the results of their subjective questions and concluded they are very smart, that they need to gesticulate more, and scream louder.
These findings indicate that it is vital to communicate thefive key facts about climate change:scientists agree, it’s real, it’s us, it’s bad,andthere’s hope.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
My commentary on this masturbatory “study” follows:
The Enigma of American Concern
What do Americans really want to know about climate change? The inquiry, as posed by a cadre of academics in a recent survey, might seem significant on its surface. Yet, it spirals into a narrative that inadvertently showcases a profound confusion and a hint of orchestrated alarmism about our environmental future. The revelation that a majority accept global warming as both real and human-caused should give the “researchers” org*sms, but the devil, as always, is in the details—or the lack thereof.
Skimming the Surface of Inquiry
The findings expose a painful, (for the “researchers”) truth: only a meager fraction, one in five, believe their orchestrated narrative that over 90% of climate scientists allegedly agree on human-caused global warming. It’s a statistic thrown around like a badge of consensus, yet beneath it lies a sea of untouched skepticism and unanswered questions.
The researchers’ methodology? They asked Americans what they would query a climate expert, assuming, of course, that such exchanges would yield enlightenment. It demonstrates the “researchers” obeisance to the cult of credentialism. This approach is as silly and idealistic as asking a child what they would ask an astronaut; the whimsy outstrips 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 like to ask?” Then, they were provided a list of 13 potential questions to choose from. Next, respondents were asked to choose theonequestion they were most interested in.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/See AlsoMarried to WHO? - Chapter 2 - Aquamarineazure - Toaru Kagaku no RailgunThe 18th-Century Baron Who Lent His Name to Munchausen SyndromeOpinion | Why Republicans Keep Falling for Trump’s Lies (Published 2022)New York Times NYT Spelling Bee Answers and Solution for April 19, 2024
Cataloging Confusion or Curated Ignorance?
The survey sorted inquiries into four categories: evidence, causes, impacts, and solutions. Under ‘evidence,’ we find queries from the existentially troubled “Is global warming really happening?” to the dramatically charged “Is global warming a hoax?” It’s less a scientific inquiry, more a probe into public gullibility.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ask-an-expert/
- Evidenceincludes 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?”
- Causesrefers to two questions about the primary causes of global warming: “What causes global warming?” and “How do you know that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, not natural changes in the environment?”
- Impactsrefers to three questions about the harms from global warming: “What harm will global warming cause?” “Will global warming harm people?” and “When will global warming begin to harm people?”
- Solutionsincludes five questions about the 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 would it cost the United States to reduce global warming?” “What can the nations of the world do to reduce global warming?” and “Is there still time to reduce global warming, or is it too late?”
The ’causes’ category teeters between blaming human activities and natural environmental changes. This dichotomy serves less to enlighten and more to muddle, framing a complex interplay of factors as a simple either/or scenario.
In the ‘impacts’ section, questions like “What harm will global warming cause?” and “When will it begin to harm people?” reflect a sensationalist tone—fearmongering rather than fact-seeking.
The ‘solutions’ inquiries betray a tone of desperation, ranging from national to individual actions. It reads like a script from a disaster movie where the characters are scrambling to avert an apocalypse crafted in a Hollywood studio rather than one based on rigorous scientific inquiry.
Demographics and Their Discontents
The study also delves into demographics, revealing expected divides: urban, educated, Democratic respondents lean towards proactive queries, while rural, less-educated, Republican respondents question the foundational reality of climate change. This isn’t a mere academic division; it’s a stark illustration of the ideological echo chambers shaping public discourse on climate.
The topics people would ask about differ across demographic and political groups. The groups most likely to ask about solutions include liberal Democrats (71%), moderate/conservative Democrats (59%), people with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (55%), and urban residents (53%). By contrast, the groups most likely to ask questions about evidence include conservative Republicans (37%), rural residents (28%), liberal/moderate Republicans (28%), people with high school or less education (27%), and people who earn less than $50,000 annually (27%). Additionally, compared to the general U.S. population, liberal/moderate Republicans (18%) and Independents (17%) are more likely to ask about impacts, and conservative Republicans (33%) are more likely to ask about causes.
The Six Americas: Dividing More Than Uniting
The segmentation of Americans into categories from the Alarmed to the Dismissive might be academically convenient but socially divisive. It caricatures public perception into extremes of panic or apathy, neglecting the nuanced middle ground where skepticism thrives on rigorous scrutiny, not dismissive denial.
Topics also vary across Global Warming’s Six Americas. A large majority of the Alarmed (82%) and about half of the Concerned (53%) would ask about solutions, while fewer of the Cautious (26%), Disengaged (10%), Doubtful (12%), and Dismissive (3%) would do so. Conversely, these latter four segments most want to ask about either the causes of global warming or evidence that it is happening (about half or more of these segments would ask about either of these topics). Compared with the general U.S. population, the Dismissive (50%) are more likely to ask about the evidence, followed by the Disengaged (40%), Doubtful (30%), and Cautious (28%). Also, the Doubtful (35%) are more likely than the general U.S. population to ask about causes, followed by the Cautious (28%) and Dismissive (28%). The Concerned (16%) are more likely than the general U.S. population to ask about the impacts from global warming.
Top Queries: A Reflection of Divergence or Disinformation?
The most popular questions—”Is it too late to reduce global warming?” and “Is global warming a hoax?”—serve as bookends to the narrative of doom and skepticism. They reflect not a genuine quest for knowledge but rather the success of polarizing narratives that have infiltrated public consciousness.
Concluding with a Hint of Disdain
This survey, while aiming to shed light on public curiosity, unwittingly obscures any genuine debate. It highlights not just an interest in climate issues but a profound disorientation within the American psyche, fed by a diet of dramatic headlines and apocalyptic forecasts.
The real question isn’t 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. It exposes the result of being caught in a crossfire of fear, propaganda, and political manipulation? The American public’s engagement with climate change appears less about understanding the planet’s future and more about navigating a maze of alarmist rhetoric.
In the grand scheme of things, these questions are less about climate science and more about the climate of our national discourse.
The “study” can be found here.
H/T Mumbles McGirk
4.6 11 votes
Article Rating
Related
<!-.-direct patriot after content-->
