Craverwarts and their grand statistical masquerade – Watt?

Ah, this is a stale genre study, “Let’s use it as a scientific emotional hand wave”. exist The impact of worry: Focus rather than positive emotions, driving climate actionismBechtoldt and Schermelleh-Engel provide us with a beautiful specimen of paper that brings joyful crying even the most devout fears. This is not science; it is a treatment verification conference masquerading as an empirical study.

Let's slice it, right?

1. The author swallows the narrative for ten years than IPCC

This article operates on an extraordinary premise: the global climate apocalypse is so imminent and serious that it is not only expected to be emotionally troubled, but also the most logical driving force of activism. The author cites IPCC, but it is shockingly – to go one step further. The IPCC at least pretends to be cautious, acknowledges uncertainty and discusses various potential situations. Not here! No, in this study, Climate disaster is an established, ubiquitous existential crisis.

Consider this exaggerated masterpiece:

“Climate change is fast.”

Ah, yes. So fast that global temperatures rise Another fan 1.2°C for more than a century. So fast that sea level rises at a rate of about 3 mm per year. One wonders how these authors managed to draft the paper when the paper obviously collapsed onto the wild Max wasteland.

Then we got:

“There has been aroused profound emotions in many people because of the threats it exists and the irreversible losses of climate change have been generated.”

Irreversible losses? It has happened? Like…all expected disasters that stubbornly refuse to achieve? The United Nations said in 1989 that by 2000, the entire country would be underwater. We are still waiting.

at the same time, There is a threat It's a good touch – very ignored by most people on the planet who have never been healthier, richer or safer. But why let reality interfere with the narrative?

2. The study relies on subjective mush, which is then used in statistics to pretend it's science

That's where it becomes interesting. This article is a case study of what happens when you take emotional self-report (read: survey filled out by a few people who sign online questionnaires), and then boost the statistics mixer to full strength. What do we get? The exquisite numerical basis of focus group psychology, dressed up as hard data.

See the basis of their analysis:

1. They invented new scales for Climate Action (CLAC). Because naturally, existing measurement methods are not Just right For their special doomsday framework.
2. They measure “climate concerns” by self-report. Of course, the well-known precise and objective approach.
3. They then insert these soft, swinging variables into the “continuous time-structural equation model”– This is the term “we did a lot of regressions to make the association look predictable.”

They even acknowledge their basic problems:

“Recent comments concluded that sentiment is always the most powerful predictor of climate action, but all of these correlations are based on relevant data.”

Yes! Related data! That thing Not a causal relationship.

This is the same logic, and it is found that ice cream consumption is highly correlated with shark attacks, and then it is concluded that sharks must be summoned by eating ice cream.

And, don't forget the best part:

“There are limited data on the link between activism itself and its impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”

So we don't even know if activism works, but let's analyze why people Feel Drive to do it! This is similar to studying why people like rain dance while acknowledging that we have no evidence that they affect the weather.

3. Worrying more will make you radical! Plus, activism makes you more worried!

The grand revelation of the paper is this amazing insight:

1. People who are more worried about climate change are more likely to become activists.
2. Being an activist will make you more worried.

Ah, self-sustaining climate anxiety hamster wheel! This is amazing news for psychologists, and for hope, for activists, the terrible news is hope, Make fixed They claim to be concerned about issues.

The author expresses it quite gracefully:

“If concerns are driven by climate action, which can exacerbate concerns, this could create a self-sustaining cycle that gradually consumes emotional resources.”

translate: Climate activism is an emotional pyramid scheme where everyone gets more stressed, no one solves any problems, and the cycle continues. At least a multi-level marketing scam provides you with an air fryer after recruiting ten people.

4. Positive feelings about climate change are directed at denialists, obviously

One of the most nonsense pieces in this article is the “positive emotions related to climate” section. You might think that hope, enthusiasm or motivation for climate change will help inspiring action. No! According to our brave researchers, a positive feeling about the climate means you are just in reject.

“The hope of positive emotional denials associated with climate rather than a stronger indicator of constructive hope.”

Translation: If you are not full of despair, you are obviously an ignorant fool, ignoring this problem.

this is true 1984 Double thinking. so Right Is the response to climate change a ruthless anxiety and concern? This is a great way to promote sustainable mental health. But hey, if more treatment courses are needed, at least it's a stimulus for psychologists!

And it gets better:

“Climate activism slightly predicts lower levels of positive emotions.”

Ah, so if you start to have some hope, activism will beat you. Because nothing says “effective movement” like the recruitment pipeline, it turns idealists into emotional fruit shells.

5. This study quietly acknowledges that climate activism is a side-held pursuit

Although they put their best efforts as a grand aristocratic movement representing People™, the actual participation rate tells a different story:

“Although climate issues are urgent, only a few people are actively involved in climate activities.”

Oops.

“…No more than 7% of the participants in the 14 climate activist behaviors endorsed.”

That's not very good. It turns out that most people (though there is an endless media fear movement) don’t see climate change as a reason to stick themselves to the highway or apply paint on the Mona Lisa.

In fact, what we have is a tiny group of self-selected physical activists who feel so stressed by the climate that their radicalism makes them even more stressed. Sounds very interesting!

Conclusion: Academic belly button masterpiece

This article is not science. This is a detailed emotional diary wrapped in statistical wire that gives it a grim fantasy. Its core message is that climate activism is driven by anxiety and causes more anxiety, while signs of hope and optimism denial. The study acknowledges that its entire type is based on the relevant fluff, but is cultivated anyway. It acknowledges that actual climate activism remains a niche hobby of a group of self-selected neurotic catastrophes.

So what is takeout? Avoid climate activities if you want to be a happier and hygienic person. If you want to be part of a painful cycle of self-continuation, keep going radical.

At the same time, the rest of the world will continue to live a normal life, waiting for the next generation of apocalyptic predictions, and also achieved amazing failures.

cheers!

H/T Jessica Weinkle

Related