Study’s authors cite United Nations and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as ultimate authority on issue of climate change.
A truly bizarre study by psychologists from the University of Geneva in Switzerland is looking at ways to “inoculate” the public against what they call “climate disinformation.” The study — “Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries” — was published on November 30 in Nature Human Behaviour.
The authors look to diagnose what is causing what they term “(anti)science belief formation,” and present strategies to combat the disbelief of the supposed “settled” science of climate change induced by mankind.
The study’s abstract makes dubious claims about the climate change debate.
“Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse,” the study declares.
Perhaps it’s because the “settled” science that the authors refer to is questioned by so many reputable scientists, including Nobel Prize-winner John Clauser, Princeton physicist Will Happer, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, and dozens of others.
The study’s authors purport to have “experimentally investigated” psychological factors across 12 nations looking for reasons why some have rejected the notion of anthropogenic climate change and the alleged “scientific consensus” that the Earth is doomed by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
“For instance, these messages can take the form of an unfounded questioning of the scientific consensus or an overestimation of the socio-financial burden of climate policies,” said Tobia Spampatti, a PhD student and research assistant in the Consumer Decision and Sustainable Behavior Lab and one of the study’s authors.
The study’s authors believe that, instead of simply trusting the words of climate-zealot scientists, people tend to trust their own intuition when looking at the doom-and-gloom climate change claims.
“As individuals, we do not process scientific messages as neutral receivers of information, but by weighing them up against our prior beliefs, desired outcomes, emotional ties and socio-cultural and ideological backgrounds. Depending on the configuration of these psychological factors, anti-scientific beliefs can be amplified and become resistant to correction,” Spampatti said.
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.
