Climate Change Alarmism Fails on its Own Terms, By James Reed
One of the rhetorical strategies of the mainstream media and academics, has been to promote the idea of a "climate emergency," "global boiling," "global burning," "climate collapse, "and the like. These terms appear in the UN pronouncements reports as well as academic papers on climate change. Newspapers have issued instructions to journalists to use such alarmist language over more objective neutral reporting. The idea was to scare people into compliance, a typical Leftist strategy.
However, a report by USC's Understanding America Study (UAS), has found that the scare tactic language does not work, and people are not motivated by this to change their behaviour, regarding carbon emissions. What seems to have occurred here is that people have been numbed by this language and have shut off; this is a physiological response to excess stress stimuli. And, it is a good thing too, as the use of fear tactics, as seen in the Covid mandates, usually leads to social disaster with the acceptance of destructive policies.
"A report released Monday by USC's Understanding America Study (UAS) suggests the use of hyperbolic terms to describe global warming has no effect on people's perceptions of the urgency of climate change.
The study notes that climate crusaders like the UK's Guardian newspaper have officially opted for expressions like "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" in an attempt to raise concern and convey urgency, yet it would seem that such efforts are in vain.
"Instead of 'climate change' the preferred terms are 'climate emergency, crisis or breakdown' and 'global heating' is favoured over 'global warming,' although the original terms are not banned," the Guardian stated in 2019 on announcing updates to its official in-house style guide.
In April of that same year, a team of advertising consultants from SPARK Neuro published the results of a study suggesting that the expressions "global warming" and "climate change" do not frighten people enough, whereas a shift in vocabulary to "climate crisis" or "environmental collapse" seemed to produce a significantly stronger emotional response.
The expression "climate crisis," for instance, got "a 60 percent greater emotional response from listeners" than "climate change," the study found.
In its research, SPARK Neuro measured physiological data such as brain activity and palm sweat to quantify people's emotional reactions to stimuli.
The team fixed electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the heads of 120 volunteers to gauge the electrical activity coming from their brains.
At the same time, a webcam monitored their facial expressions and sensors on their fingers recorded the sweat produced by heightened emotion
Of six different options, "global warming" and "climate change" performed the worst, beaten handily by "climate crisis," "environmental destruction," "weather destabilization," and "environmental collapse."
The CEO of SPARK Neuro, Spencer Gerrol, said that "global warming" and "climate change" are both neutral phrases with nothing "inherently negative or positive" about the words themselves, which could help explain why they elicit such a feeble emotional response.
Furthermore, both global warming and climate change are "incredibly worn out," Gerrol said, and no longer produce the reaction they might have once.
Findings from the new USC study would now suggest that the contrary is true, namely, that people react more strongly to the terms "global warming" and "climate change" than to their more histrionic counterparts."
Comments