Michael O'Sullivan
When I wrote last week about Vice President Harris’s clever (and misleading) statement linking the pursuit of diversified energy sources to weaning ourselves away from foreign oil dependence, I suspected there was more to the story. I just didn't stumble upon the evidence until I saw a headline citing a recent study documented in a research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For the uninitiated, PNAS is a well-known scientific journal that is trusted by many, but not everyone.
The title of the research article is: The impact of a system-endorsed framework on climate awareness and environmental action in the United States and beyond. I know, sounds exciting. But I bought it and read it so you don't have to.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether people were more likely to engage in climate action if they were first exposed to “patriotic” and “system-approved” messages. My Spider-Man senses are already tingling because there's a premise embedded in this purpose that just doesn't feel right.
In their study, they didn't want to know whether people would be affected by to some extent Messaging (this sounds like objective science). them start with a specific message – it means someone Wondering whether that particular message will have the desired effect. This sounds like an agenda.
So let's consider the inciting incident of such a story. The authors point out that concern for the planet alone will not inspire enough people to make the sacrifices necessary to avert a so-called catastrophe. It seems that many of us, like the poor R2 unit, have a bad motive. So we need something else. Something more heartfelt. Something that really moved us.
As it turns out, this is the status quo. In America, we care deeply about protecting our way of life. We should – that's a good way to do it. In fact, the authors argue that the status quo prevents many from taking action. Their version of so-called saving the planet requires changes that affect the way we live, and we would naturally resist such changes – especially if we don't believe the cause is real. so someone A plan was hatched to use our defenses against us. They tested their ideas through this study.
This is what they do. They presented participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that linked environmental themes to happiness and life in America. it ends with Let's keep America the way it should be. shrewd.
After viewing the “Information,” participants answered questions about the severity of climate change and what should be done about it—from higher taxes to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group only read a random paragraph great expectationsanswered the same question.
Now for the exciting conclusion:
In a nationally representative U.S. sample, we find that systemically endorsed change interventions successfully increase beliefs about climate change on both the liberal left and the conservative right; support for pro-environmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media. Will.
Sound Orwellian? I thought so too.
It's probably no coincidence that the study was published on September 9, a day before the presidential debate. Kudos to the Harris team for picking it up and incorporating it so quickly, unless they had an advance copy, as it was accepted by PNAS in June.
I have a lot to say about the study itself and how the principles of advocacy were used to build “information.” But few of us are truly innocent of such accusations, even for honorable purposes. Still, the mission of such information is not to win based on logic. In the words of a research article:
We tested an experimental manipulation derived from system legitimacy theory, in which pro-environmental initiatives are viewed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American “way of life.”
It is objectively clear from the text that someone is trying to manipulate us. Someone wants us to hear something that will make us agree with what they want.
If the real purpose is to protect our way of life, then the environment is a consideration. But the main factor in today’s world is affordable, reliable energy – without it, everything stops. if we really want to Keep America the way it should bethen everything starts with energy. The only proven solution at this time From cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. In the United States, we have enough resources to sustain our way of life over the long term. At least until someone perfects a dilithium crystal.
This so-called scientific study is not about protecting our way of life. But it certainly provides the basis for a series of new announcements.
Coming to an event near you.
Michael O'Sullivan is Project Director and Chief Operating Officer blue energy countrya nonprofit dedicated to educating young people about energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and advocate for smart energy choices.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and provided via RealClearWire.
Relevant
