# What makes a warning effective or ineffective (i.e., climate change) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773 "2017-07-21T02:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/1 "2017-07-21T02:12:08Z")
The example that comes to mind at the moment is climate change, although any other topic works as well (and I don’t want this thread to be about climate change – that’s just one out of 100 things.) Oftentimes, whether a warning is effective or not has nothing to do with whether it is factually true or not – it can be 100% factually true and people may still disregard it. In the instance of climate change, it is not as if a visualization approach hasn’t been tried – there have been computer-generated images showing flooded cities, eye-catching banners and posters created to depict climate change consequences, etc. Movies have been filmed. YouTube videos have been made. Books have been published. It’s not as if the warning hasn’t been repeatedly given – climate-change activists have been blaring the message about climate change for decades. That’s just one example. Same applies for many other things – maybe certain diseases, or texting and driving, or potential/imminent enemy attack, or history repeating itself etc. – and yet at a certain point, a boy-cried-wolf effect sets in _even if the boy was telling the truth every time._ So what does a warning message have to involve, in order to take root? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/2 "2017-07-21T02:51:37Z")
Immediacy - animals (including humans) are conditioned to spot the threat right in front of them. Something with consequences that won’t be seen for years is a low priority. Proximity - who in the U.S. cared about Zika or Ebola when they were limited to Africa? Cost/risk ratio - how much time and effort will it cost me to address this thing? Try convincing a coal miner that global warming is a more serious problem to him than unemployment. Emotional impact - Even that probably has little long-term effect, although it is a good way to get your attention. Inability to deny - I can’t think of a more elegant way to say this, but basically, you don’t listen to warnings about driving under the influence because you don’t think you’re drunk; you don’t lock your doors because of course there’s no crime in your neighborhood; you haven’t made out a will because you won’t die for a long time, etc. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/3 "2017-07-21T03:13:56Z")
The solution should be simple, like not drinking and driving, bringing along a designated driver, or calling a taxi. If your solution involves remaking all of society and going up against entrenched sectors of power it’s probably not gonna go so well. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/4 "2017-07-21T03:45:28Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > So what does a warning message have to involve, in order to take root? Sexiness. When it starts affecting attractive people, it’ll be taken seriously, whether the threat is actually serious or not. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/5 "2017-07-21T03:45:49Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Immediacy - animals (including humans) are conditioned to spot the threat right in front of them. Something with consequences that won’t be seen for years is a low priority. > > Proximity - who in the U.S. cared about Zika or Ebola when they were limited to Africa? > > Cost/risk ratio - how much time and effort will it cost me to address this thing? Try convincing a coal miner that global warming is a more serious problem to him than unemployment. > > Emotional impact - Even that probably has little long-term effect, although it is a good way to get your attention. > > Inability to deny - I can’t think of a more elegant way to say this, but basically, you don’t listen to warnings about driving under the influence because you don’t think you’re drunk; you don’t lock your doors because of course there’s no crime in your neighborhood; you haven’t made out a will because you won’t die for a long time, etc. Nailed it in one. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/6 "2017-07-21T06:16:53Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > Nailed it in one. Indeed. Home run on first pitch. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/7 "2017-07-21T06:55:21Z")
I’m not sure that I’m convinced that the warning hasn’t “taken root”, at least in some corners of the country and globe. [Zach, a DNC staffer, is convinced he is going to die from climate change](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8). He seems to be heeding the warning. [Gallup: Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US](http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/8 "2017-07-21T07:19:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not sure that I’m convinced that the warning hasn’t “taken root”, at least in some corners of the country and globe. [Zach, a DNC staffer, is convinced he is going to die from climate change](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8). He seems to be heeding the warning. Oh no, not Zach! NOT ZACH!! Zach, the sweetest, kindest kid I know? Sure he’s a little naive and easily manipulated, but he’s a really sweet kid. Now you’re telling me the libtarding libtards have corrupted him too? Well sir, they have gone too far! Soon they shall feel the wrath of my cane upon their backs! > [@](#): > > [Gallup: Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US](http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx) In all seriousness, this isn’t a bad thing, since climate change is, you know, a real concern. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/9 "2017-07-21T10:17:26Z")
Well in part past warnings about one subject would impact future warnings. Seems to me all the hysteria and false warnings of the past makes any sane person disregard all future warnings. For example the AlGore Inconvenient Truth movie of 10 years ago was complete bullshit. Then the fiction movie (forget the title and actors) of global warming having massive effects in one day was another fantasy story. Seriously why would any sane person take future warnings serious once seeing both of those ? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/10 "2017-07-21T11:29:16Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > For example the AlGore Inconvenient Truth movie of 10 years ago was complete bullshit. Then the fiction movie (forget the title and actors) of global warming having massive effects in one day was another fantasy story. Seriously why would any sane person take future warnings serious once seeing both of those ? It is really underwelming to reach for a fiction movie (the Day After Tomorrow) to use as an example of a serious warning. As for the Al Gore movie, it also underminds any of your warnings when you ignore that even serious conservative scientists that did critizise his movie realized that the real complete bullshit came from the conservative critics that used deniers of science to smear Gore. > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. “Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/11 "2017-07-21T13:24:26Z")
Obviously part of what makes a warning ineffective is previous warnings of dire outcomes that didn’t pan out. Back in the 70s Paul Ehrlich warned of widespread famines throughout the world, including the developed world, if we didn’t radically reduce the population. During the 80s, AIDS was going to explode among heterosexuals. Back in the day, _Time_ and _Newsweek_ were [warning us about global cooling](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/). Now it’s global warming. Is that a fair comparison? Maybe not, but it is going to be made anyway. Perhaps it is true that “back then we were being sensationalist, but this time we mean it”. Or perhaps not. ‘You have to scare people in order to get them to move’ only works for a while. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/12 "2017-07-21T13:27:55Z")
What’s strange about the climate change debate is, the split is between “it’s 100% certain, so we must do something about it” and “it’s not 100% certain, so we don’t need to do anything.” I think we need to shift the debate towards “it’s a risk, so we should put _at least some_ effort into mitigating it.” Even the most optimistic people & organizations hedge their bets and make some preparations for the worst case outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/13 "2017-07-21T15:48:18Z")
“What makes a warning effective or ineffective” One of the big problems is the press. In the fight for advertising dollars and web clicks, there is a tendency for the press to promote stories in the most dramatic way. When those dramatic stories don’t pan out, people loose trust. Thus we hear the common argument from conservatives “Climate change? Weren’t they predicting a second Ice Age just a few years back?” Not realizing that the Ice Age story was promoted by a few quacks on the fringe and Climate Change has been studied by thousands who are all in consensus. But because of the way the news is reported, both stories are given equal weight. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/14 "2017-07-21T15:52:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is really underwelming to reach for a fiction movie (the Day After Tomorrow) to use as an example of a serious warning. Point taken. However it is a part of the hysteria and portrayal in the large media landscape. Therefore many see that and it becomes a part of the overall blur of past warnings. I am willing to bet that many now could not separate the two movies in their heads. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/15 "2017-07-21T16:09:04Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > Point taken. > > However it is a part of the hysteria and portrayal in the large media landscape. Therefore many see that and it becomes a part of the overall blur of past warnings. I am willing to bet that many now could not separate the two movies in their heads. And besides deniers of science, the group scientists deride most is the media landscape that gets it wrong. One gpod case is the one pointed by Shodan. Once again the old and discredited chestnut point of some media outlets in the past ignoring that the majority of scientists predicted warming was coming with an increase of CO2. But instead preferring to consult the few researchers who got it wrong. (They had a good reason, but they overestimated the cooling effects of contamination). I have a hunch that back then the fossil fuel scientists had already warned their bosses about the danger and pressed the media to report on cooling so the warming expected would not be minded. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/16 "2017-07-21T16:14:40Z")
There’s also personal helplessness at anything one can do singly or together thanks to democratic institutions. In the olden days a community would build a town wall or flood the fields either because a faraway King said so, or the community elders agreed: even by the Second World War there was no room for individual decision, everyone was overwhelmed, and even the overt leaders were led along by chance and sequence. And now, what can a free person do ? There are just two options, every 4 years vote for Dolt A who denies any problem or Dolt B who will form a study group with expenses, OR you can send money to interested pressure groups who may or may not do something useful with it. Extra-legal action ? Most people aren’t ever that interested, and accept that revolutions only benefit the revolutionary leaders, as was designed. So faced with extinction people just say, '_That’s a damned shame_." ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/17 "2017-07-21T16:32:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have a hunch that back then the fossil fuel scientists had already warned their bosses about the danger and pressed the media to report on cooling so the warming expected would not be minded. That’s one of the wilder conspiracy theories I’ve heard lately. Did you read about this somewhere, or come up with it on your own? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/18 "2017-07-21T16:47:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s one of the wilder conspiracy theories I’ve heard lately. Did you read about this somewhere, or come up with it on your own? Does the line “ **I** have a **hunch** ” is too obscure? So yes, I do come with things on my own, but with historical support. > [@](#): > > noun > noun: **hunch** ; plural noun: hunches > > ``` > 1. > a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than known facts. > "she was acting on a hunch" > synonyms: feeling, feeling in one's bones, guess, suspicion, impression, conjecture, inkling, idea, sense, notion, fancy, intuition, premonition, presentiment; More > > ``` So, not prepared to declare it a fact, but a very related item as to why there is a lot of misinformation about the issue in the mainstream media or a general avoidance of the same. The hints I got is that indeed back in the past reports have surfaced of fossil fuel scientists that did told their bosses where we were headed. > **[Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)** > > A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation > [@](#): > > Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. The only guess I make here is based on history, back then the big advertisers in media like Time and Newsweek included the big names in the fossil fuel industry. And today that is still an issue. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/19 "2017-07-21T20:15:37Z")
One of the biggest issues in a credible warning is the person issuing the warning. Environmentalists were trying to get people to get rid of fossil fuels for years before global warming was even thought of. So to many people it sounded awfully convenient that the solution to this horrible new problem was the exact agenda they had been pushing for decades. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773/20 "2017-07-21T20:45:46Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > One of the biggest issues in a credible warning is the person issuing the warning. Environmentalists were trying to get people to get rid of fossil fuels for years before global warming was even thought of. So to many people it sounded awfully convenient that the solution to this horrible new problem was the exact agenda they had been pushing for decades. That is precisely what Barry Bickmore, the conservative Republican scientist at BYU cited early as to how he approached this issue at the beginning. “Oh, there they go again, those silly environmentalists” He decided to take a look and found that that was not the reason in this case. > **[How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/)** > > I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, … [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-a-warning-effective-or-ineffective-i-e-climate-change/791773.md?page=2)