• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

Call me in 12 years when I'm relaxing at the beach soaking up the sun and the great views.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
I think its the negative of freedom of speech, not that I would change it. But it allows people to spread harmful lies. Also, Fox news has created a generation of people that think facts are up for opinion or belief, and that they can just search for things they want to hear and ignore all the rest. And republican politicians enable this behavior because they use it to get elected. They play up the same BS that Fox news sells to enrich themselves.

And the internet just allow anybody to spread garbage and propaganda all over the place. Already having a population of people not exposed to opinions, religions and lifestyles other than their own, living in little bubbles, that garbage can easily be reinforced while people blow smoke up each other's asses
Click to expand...

More pompous arrogance and unearned condescension. In this forum it is generally the skeptics who post data and research results. The orthodox AGW believers generally reply with ad hominems, as in this thread.

As for "living in little bubbles," I lived outside the US for 18 years in 7 different countries, and visited 30-40 more. How about you?
 
Jack Hays said:
More pompous arrogance and unearned condescension. In this forum it is generally the skeptics who post data and research results. The orthodox AGW believers generally reply with ad hominems, as in this thread.

As for "living in little bubbles," I lived outside the US for 18 years in 7 different countries, and visited 30-40 more. How about you?
Click to expand...

More dumb, pathetic right wing deflections and personal attacks with absolutely nothing of substance.

But then again, talking to a climate change denier, so there is not going to be any rational, honest, or factual post from you
 
Sampson Simpson said:
More dumb, pathetic right wing deflections and personal attacks with absolutely nothing of substance.

But then again, talking to a climate change denier, so there is not going to be any rational, honest, or factual post from you
Click to expand...

I see you are offended by the truth. Good. Maybe the exposure will do you good. You need to get out of your little bubble. Maybe read a little too.
 
ataraxia said:
Anything not accurate in it?
Click to expand...

You are talking to someone who just spread inaccurate bull**** over the internet. Probably works for the oil companies paid to troll around spreading lies on forums
 
Jack Hays said:
I see you are offended by the truth. Good. Maybe the exposure will do you good. You need to get out of your little bubble. Maybe read a little too.
Click to expand...

The article I have linked in The OP suggests that personal insults do not change anyone’s mind, and may only serve to entrench them even further. More facts and figures are no use either, apparently.

It recommends you have to try to find the real underlying reason they are being so stubborn, closed minded, and unreasonable. For example, it suggests that when talking to conservatives about climate denial, one underlying thing that bugs them is that they are worried if they admit that the science is true, then there is necessarily going to be increased taxes and more government. So they deny the science altogether. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. So the way to approach them is not to give them more facts and science, but to try to addressing their concerns about government and taxes.

I am not sure what is underlying Jack’s problems with this mainstream science. He denies caring about taxes or big government, and tells me that he really thinks there is a problem with the science. I am sure there has to be something else underneath all this that’s bugging him. Maybe he took a class once in environmental science and hated the professor. Just so flagrantly denying the overwhelming science is just too odd for it to make any sense.

Something else has to be underlying all this. Until that’s acknowledged and addressed, no more appeal to further science or facts is going to help, I am pretty sure.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
You are talking to someone who just spread inaccurate bull**** over the internet. Probably works for the oil companies paid to troll around spreading lies on forums
Click to expand...

Hmmm... interesting. That might be yet another explanation.
 
ataraxia said:
The article I have linked in The OP suggests that personal insults do not change anyone’s mind, and may only serve to entrench them even further. More facts and figures are no use either, apparently.

It recommends you have to try to find the real underlying reason they are being so stubborn, closed minded, and unreasonable. For example, it suggests that when talking to conservatives about climate denial, one underlying thing that bugs them is that they are worried if they admit that the science is true, then there is necessarily going to be increased taxes and more government. So they deny the science altogether. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. So the way to approach them is not to give them more facts and science, but to try to addressing their concerns about government and taxes.

I am not sure what is underlying Jack’s problems with this mainstream science. He denies caring about taxes or big government, and tells me that he really thinks there is a problem with the science. I am sure there has to be something else underneath all this that’s bugging him. Maybe he took a class once in environmental science and hated the professor. Just so flagrantly denying the overwhelming science is just too odd for it to make any sense.

Something else has to be underlying all this. Until that’s acknowledged and addressed, no more appeal to further science or facts is going to help, I am pretty sure.
Click to expand...

Given that you obviously know to a very high level of confidence that this global warming thing is very very bad for the world how come you can't answer my challenge and take my $100?

$100 easy give away. My money to you.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
You are talking to someone who just spread inaccurate bull**** over the internet. Probably works for the oil companies paid to troll around spreading lies on forums
Click to expand...

Have you ever come across any advert for people to do such a job?
 
ataraxia said:
The article I have linked in The OP suggests that personal insults do not change anyone’s mind, and may only serve to entrench them even further. More facts and figures are no use either, apparently.

It recommends you have to try to find the real underlying reason they are being so stubborn, closed minded, and unreasonable. For example, it suggests that when talking to conservatives about climate denial, one underlying thing that bugs them is that they are worried if they admit that the science is true, then there is necessarily going to be increased taxes and more government. So they deny the science altogether. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. So the way to approach them is not to give them more facts and science, but to try to addressing their concerns about government and taxes.

I am not sure what is underlying Jack’s problems with this mainstream science. He denies caring about taxes or big government, and tells me that he really thinks there is a problem with the science. I am sure there has to be something else underneath all this that’s bugging him. Maybe he took a class once in environmental science and hated the professor. Just so flagrantly denying the overwhelming science is just too odd for it to make any sense.

Something else has to be underlying all this. Until that’s acknowledged and addressed, no more appeal to further science or facts is going to help, I am pretty sure.
Click to expand...

The all-time high score for presumption and unearned condescension.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given that you obviously know to a very high level of confidence that this global warming thing is very very bad for the world how come you can't answer my challenge and take my $100?

$100 easy give away. My money to you.
Click to expand...

This is a little like a smoker telling his doctor that unless he can tell him exactly what is going to happen to the right upper quadrant of his upper lobe of his lung, he will dismiss his warnings that he’s going to get cancer and die if he keeps up the smoking.

It’s a silly game. I am sure you think it’s very clever. It’s not.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes I know. He says that consensus of scientists is not a good way to determine what is established Science. I!ask what he thinks then is good way to determine what is good science, and he says it’s his personal judgment as a layperson. It’s very odd, and one of the reasons I am starting to suspect climate deniers’ position on this is not about science or facts. I have no choice but to conclude that there are deep Psychological/sociological issues at play here. Hence the OP article I referenced.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "established Science." There is only science.
Good science is persuasive to a rational observer. Bad science is not.
Your "I have no choice . . . " BS only reflects your lack of imagination and inability to deal with intellectual diversity.
 
ataraxia said:
This is a little like a smoker telling his doctor that unless he can tell him exactly what is going to happen to the right upper quadrant of his upper lobe of his lung, he will dismiss his warnings that he’s going to get cancer and die if he keeps up the smoking.

It’s a silly game. I am sure you think it’s very clever. It’s not.
Click to expand...

No.

The claim is that there is going to be massive bad things, billions of refugees, large areas uninhabitable.

Well, where? What will cause this? Anywhere in the world where something is actually likely, not even inevitable but just likely, to be bad. Tell me.

Should be very easy.
 
Jack Hays said:
All of it.
Click to expand...

I wrote “He says that consensus of scientists is not a good way to determine what is established Science”. So now you are saying this is incorrec? Then Please enlighten us and make it more accurate. It was my impression of our conversation. Please correct it then if I made a mistake, and please accept my apologies.
 
Tim the plumber said:

No.

The claim is that there is going to be massive bad things, billions of refugees, large areas uninhabitable.

Well, where? What will cause this? Anywhere in the world where something is actually likely, not even inevitable but just likely, to be bad. Tell me.

Should be very easy.
Click to expand...

The scientists working for the trump administration Have recently put out very detailed reports of the estimated economic impact of climate change . I am sure you can read it as well as the rest of us. It provides some pretty devastating forecasts.

I thought you were talking about the “single traffic light in a single cross-section” challenge you had offered us earlier.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no such thing as "established Science." There is only science.
Good science is persuasive to a rational observer. Bad science is not.
Your "I have no choice . . . " BS only reflects your lack of imagination and inability to deal with intellectual diversity.
Click to expand...

No, there is cutting edge science, things which are not clear yet and not fully accepted by the consensus of scientists working in that field. I am thinking of things like string theory. But those are not considered established science or things you can really use for engineering, public or fiscal policy, or other things that we use established science for.

Do you really not know this stuff? It’s pretty basic stuff. Or are you being purposely obtuse and difficult?
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers.
Click to expand...

That first sentence gets you ignored immediately.

Nobody here has ever denied that the climate exists nor that it changes :roll:
 
ocean515 said:
Going on since the 19th Century? What does that mean? The first climate models came out in the 1960's? Which ones?

The issue of "Climate Change", as proven over and over, is about control and money.

That's it.

The science is just paid for frosting to use as a weapon against anyone who dares get in the way.

Maurice Strong, and the UN Agenda 21 mapped that out.
Click to expand...

The warning flags were raised 30 years ago when we were told by our governments that the debate on climate change was over . What debate ? Do you ever remember any debate on this ?

We were presented with a fait accompli which daren't be questioned. A new secular faith was born where red flags were exchanged for green ones when the wall came down

Do you think the timing for this was a coincidence ? Do you ever see environmental protesters outside Chinese embassies ?

Nuff said :wink:
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
The warning flags were raised 30 years ago when we were told the debate on climate change was over . What debate ? Do you ever remember any debate on this ?

We were presented with a fait accompli which daren't be questioned. A new secular faith was born where red flags were exchanged for green ones when the wall came down

Do you think the timing for this was a coincidence ? Do you ever see environmental protesters outside Chinese embassies ?

Nuff said :wink:
Click to expand...

All anyone has to do to get the complete picture and objective of the movement, is to read the opening statement from it's creator, delivered at the first environmental summit he had the UN organize in Rio, in 1992.

Opening Statement
 
flogger said:
The warning flags were raised 30 years ago when we were told by our governments that the debate on climate change was over . What debate ? Do you ever remember any debate on this ?

We were presented with a fait accompli which daren't be questioned. A new secular faith was born where red flags were exchanged for green ones when the wall came down
Click to expand...

Yes. The hard work was done over several decades by many scientists collaborating all over the world. There was a lot of debate. There was a lot of discussion and numerous international conferences, by numerous specialists who had spent lifetimes and entire careers studying this stuff and working in it.

But now the debate is over. I’m so sorry. The evidence is overwhelming. It is time to educate the public. That’s a crucial next step. Science is not a popular democracy nor some kind of political platform where every Joe Schmoe off the street gets to have an opinion and keep the debate going on the facts with the entire scientific community. Science does tend to have a hard edge to it like that, and that is one important way where it is different than politics. Yes sometimes it feels like communist tyranny. Just ask any science student around exam time.


“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Isaac Asimov
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
No, there is cutting edge science, things which are not clear yet and not fully accepted by the consensus of scientists working in that field. I am thinking of things like string theory. But those are not considered established science or things you can really use for engineering, public or fiscal policy, or other things that we use established science for.

Do you really not know this stuff? It’s pretty basic stuff. Or are you being purposely obtuse and difficult?
Click to expand...

You're the one who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of familiarity with the issues. Engineering is not science.
 
We can still have political debates on what to do about the scientific facts. But it is silly at this point to keep debating the facts.

I think many conservatives, even if subconsciously, are trying to deny the facts because they think it’s going to necessarily mean big government intervention or more taxes. But that’s not true at all. There are many other ways or combinations of ways this issue can be addressed. But to try to figure them out in a way that everyone is reasonably happy with, we have to start with a foundation of established facts and leads to some reasonable outcomes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom