Eine neue Studie ergab, dass Fehlinformationen über den Klimawandel die Wahrnehmung des wissenschaftlichen Konsenses durch die Menschen verringern können, was wiederum dazu neigt, den Menschen mit Menschenerwehr gegen den Klimawandel zu glauben und die öffentliche Unterstützung für Handlungen zu verringern.
New evidence for the Gateway (mis)Belief Model: Perceived consensus shapes climate beliefs
12 Kommentare
It’s reinforcing mankind’s penchant for laziness and unwillingness to change.
[Doubt is their product.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product) Tried and trusted playbook for the shitheads of the world.
Consensus means absolutely nothing in the realm of actual science
Trying to „get people to believe things“ is the antithesis as well.
The likelihood something is true is based on the survival of the hypothesis while trying to disprove it
Propaganda and misinformation works. News at 11.
I Am the Great I Am, I’m about to bring all of humanity together and create a whole new earth that is perfect where nobody dies and everyone loves each other perfectly. ask me anything about the universe and i have an answer for you
Pay money to the government that is so good at wasting it, and I swear the earth’s temperature will change. Keep paying us, we are helping the environment, pay more money. If you want your planet to live, you will pay us. Pay us more money. More.
It’s almost like that’s been their entire point for decades now.
Bit late to the game on this one, the anti climate change movement is stronger than it has ever been
A little bit weird and unnecessarily cluttered title. Thing A causes Thing B, which in turn causes Thing B. Maybe because english isn’t my first language, sorry in advance
It’s naturally that when people are told the truth about climate that some of them will become more skeptical about doomsday prophecies of green tech busybodies.
For example the fact that global cooling was the mainstream story until 1980s has been almost completely written out of history books, even though it was corroborated by both [CIA ](http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/environment/potentialtrends.pdf)and [NOAA ](https://web.archive.org/web/20170307185156/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf#page=5)at the time.
I hate how we talk about climate science.
The way we talk about it allows for misinformation. We act like there’s this magic box and the climate deniers can then find “just one thing” to prove it wrong. Truth is:
1) there are several models that help us predict the future.
2) None of these models are right or perfect because that’s not how you evaluate a model. A model exists to all you to make predictions and to see various scenarios play out as you adjust parameters.
3) All models have certain strengths and weaknesses.
Nonetheless, they all directionally point to the same place: a warming planet.
All that being said, it’s probably too much to ask of people to understand the words “model & “parameter” in the context In climate change.
These revelations never used to be part of the American lexicon, till just here lately. Who all of a sudden turned them loose on society? Are we getting too educated for our own good?