• 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

Threegoofs said:
Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually studies this for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?
Click to expand...
They have, but their ability to continue to receive grants, is based on their finding higher levels of CO2 sensitivity.
It is all within the predicted range.
 
Threegoofs said:
Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually studies this for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?
Click to expand...


longview said:
They have, but their ability to continue to receive grants, is based on their finding higher levels of CO2 sensitivity.
It is all within the predicted range.
Click to expand...

Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually issues grants for these things for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?
 
Threegoofs said:
Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually issues grants for these things for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?
Click to expand...
How do you know they have not?
The entire scientific academic community benefits from the extra monies flowing in from all the climate change grants.
No one's morals are being compromised, by saying things like,
"We find that a global total SLR exceeding 2 m by 2100 lies within the 90% uncertainty bounds for a high emission scenario."
because the statement is technically correct within the many boundary conditions defined.
And as a bonus, it keeps the money flowing!
 
Threegoofs said:
Have you ever wondered why not one scientist who actually issues grants for these things for a living hasn’t come upon this critical information?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy ideation is a sign of an addled mind.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]The Thermageddonites are “studying” us. Be afraid – be very afraid[/h][FONT=&quot]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley My attention has recently been drawn to the existence of a truly repellent pseudo-academic entity – the “Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism” at Chalmers “University” in Gothenborg, Sweden. The impropaganda image below disgraces its homepage: The political ideology of this shonky “university”, as if the hate-filled name of…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=1]The Conversation Bans Thought[/h]Posted on 17 Sep 19 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 47 Comments
The Conversation has signed up to something called Covering Climate Now – a special week of climate change coverage, supported by more than 170 media outlets who are disturbed by the fact that no-one in the media is talking about climate change. They’ve started off with a bang today with this article by digital editor … C
 
The logical end of the OP thesis.

[h=2]“Punitive Political Psychiatry” Coming To Germany? Leading Journal Defines Climate Science Dissent A Psychological Disorder[/h]By P Gosselin on 11. October 2019
Germany may be soon re-introducing a dark period where political opponents are simply declared mentally ill by the state and forcibly hospitalized for “treatment”.

Image: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975​
A case for psychotherapy
In a recent paper dubbed “The Denial of the Apocalypse – Dealing with the Climate Crisis from the Perspective of Existential Psychotherapy” appearing in the German Das Psychotherapeutenjournal (The Psychotherapist Journal), author Fabian Chmielewski explains which “denial processes are effective and what the psychotherapists could and should concretely do about it”.
Panic over climate change is normal
According to Chmielewski, a psychologist with a practice in Hattingen, being in panic about the rapidly approaching climate apocalypse is in fact rational behavior, while having doubts and remaining calm about it is abnormal and thus needs to be addressed.
The journal’s editorial, written by Hans Schindler, comments that although Chmielewski’s paper is contentious, it is “a suitable impetus for the necessary debate about the socio-political responsibility of our professional group and for the discussion about the possibilities – and limits – of engagement in our roles as psychotherapists and citizens.”
Leading journal in Germany
Das Psychotherapeutenjournal is not just some crackpot publication that gets little attention in Germany, rather it is indeed the organ of the Bavarian State Chamber of Psychological Psychotherapists.
The journal is co-financed by the membership fees of the other German state chambers and sent throughout Germany. It is the central organ of a corporation under public law, which represents the profession of psychotherapists by law.
Concrete psychotherapeutic ‘interventions’
The abstract of Fabian Chmielewski paper:
A broad consensus of serious research warns of the scenario of a soon inevitable spiral of man-made climate change. Nevertheless, both large sections of the population and decision-makers do not seem to be adequately interested in the impending destruction of the world as we know it. The gloomy prophecies of climate scientists are played down or even denied, the necessary climate policy steps are not taken. The article looks at these phenomena from the perspective of existential psychotherapy and tries to point out possible causes and mechanisms of this repression as well as to derive concrete psychotherapeutic ‘interventions’. It also argues for the active participation of psychotherapists in health campaigns against this widespread “existential neurosis”.
​
Chmielewski claims that the “Fridays for Future” strikes and demonstrations are the clearest and most media-effective indication of the impending doomsday scenario, and calls for the implementation of the drastic climate policy measures demanded by science and that both doctors and psychologists warn of the health consequences of climate change and give it top priority. Here, he suggests, panic is the psychologically appropriate response.
Top human health priority
Chmielewski notes that at its annual general meeting, the Marburger Bund (association of physicians) demands: “Stopping climate change caused by humans and its consequences for human health must also be given absolute priority in health policy action”.
“Existential threat”
In the paper, Chmielewski writes that in recent times, various psychologists and psychotherapists have marked climate change as an “existential threat” (Psychologists for Future, 2019). . . .


 
Massive disinformation campaign from fossil fuel companies and other powerful economic interests is a big reason for climate denialism and that we are running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

"Walker outlined a vision of a comprehensive, international campaign to change public opinion on the climate crisis by casting doubt on the scientific research, presenting it as unreliable when the overwhelming majority of scientists had reached consensus.

The communications plan involved finding sympathetic scientists, identifying thinktanks to fund that would produce helpful reports, and working through supposed grassroots groups to hold debates questioning the consensus on global heating, along with a constant flow of media briefings manufacturing uncertainty.

The plan sounded much like a 1960s PR campaign devised by the tobacco industry to delay controls by questioning the science showing that smoking killed. Some of the people involved were in fact tobacco campaign veterans."

How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science | Environment | The Guardian
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Massive disinformation campaign from fossil fuel companies and other powerful economic interests is a big reason for climate denialism and that we are running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

"Walker outlined a vision of a comprehensive, international campaign to change public opinion on the climate crisis by casting doubt on the scientific research, presenting it as unreliable when the overwhelming majority of scientists had reached consensus.

The communications plan involved finding sympathetic scientists, identifying thinktanks to fund that would produce helpful reports, and working through supposed grassroots groups to hold debates questioning the consensus on global heating, along with a constant flow of media briefings manufacturing uncertainty.

The plan sounded much like a 1960s PR campaign devised by the tobacco industry to delay controls by questioning the science showing that smoking killed. Some of the people involved were in fact tobacco campaign veterans."

How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science | Environment | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Of course . . . a giant worldwide conspiracy! :roll::lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course . . . a giant worldwide conspiracy! :roll::lamo
Click to expand...

Not really. Very small stuff (fossil fuel companies, right-wing think-tanks and a few tame scientists) compared to the enormous conspiracy (every government in the world, every national and international scientific organisation in the world, 1,000s of scientists) imagined by the deniers! :roll::lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
Not really. Very small stuff (fossil fuel companies, right-wing think-tanks and a few tame scientists) compared to the enormous conspiracy (every government in the world, every national and international scientific organisation in the world, 1,000s of scientists) imagined by the deniers! :roll::lamo
Click to expand...

Where have you seen this conspiracy alleged?
 
Jack Hays said:
Where have you seen this conspiracy alleged?
Click to expand...

Every day, on this forum and elsewhere, there is someone who claims that the consensus position on AGW is the product of some sort of government conspiracy to hide the "real" science. That the scientists are just producing the results they've been paid to produce. That data are being furtively changed to support AGW. This would, of course, require a conspiracy of epic proportions!
 
Surface Detail said:
Every day, on this forum and elsewhere, there is someone who claims that the consensus position on AGW is the product of some sort of government conspiracy to hide the "real" science. That the scientists are just producing the results they've been paid to produce. That data are being furtively changed to support AGW. This would, of course, require a conspiracy of epic proportions!
Click to expand...

Data alteration actually requires no conspiracy at all.
 
Surface Detail said:
So tell us, Jack: Why do you think every single national and international scientific organisation in the world supports the consensus opinion that AGW is real and dangerous?
Click to expand...

1. Political indifference among most scientists. They don't care about such declarations.
2. Careerism among some.
3. Groupthink.
4. Go along to get along.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. Political indifference among most scientists. They don't care about such declarations.
2. Careerism among some.
3. Groupthink.
4. Go along to get along.
Click to expand...

So you think that every single national and international scientific organisation in the world is (for some bizarre reason) espousing a scientific opinion that is completely at odds with its membership and that they are all OK with that? Do you really think that is credible?
 
Surface Detail said:
So you think that every single national and international scientific organisation in the world is (for some bizarre reason) espousing a scientific opinion that is completely at odds with its membership and that they are all OK with that? Do you really think that is credible?
Click to expand...

I have no idea to what extent their declarations do or do not reflect their members' views.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no idea to what extent their declarations do or do not reflect their members' views.
Click to expand...

That is what you are implying. The idea that the pro-AGW consensus stance of all those organisations for some reason doesn't reflect that of their membership is conspiracy theory territory.
 
Surface Detail said:
That is what you are implying. The idea that the pro-AGW consensus stance of all those organisations for some reason doesn't reflect that of their membership is conspiracy theory territory.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you fall short again. You only asked why all the organizations have declared the same on AGW, not what their members believe. The latter is unknowable.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you fall short again. You only asked why all the organizations have declared the same on AGW, not what their members believe. The latter is unknowable.
Click to expand...

Only to a conspiracy theorist. A rational person would reasonably assume that the views of each organisation as a whole reflected those of its membership.
 
ataraxia said:
I have been very puzzled at the rhetoric and arguments of climate deniers. It has seemed really odd how readily, for example, they deny the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, but jump all over a Manhattan real estate guy’s Declaration that it’s all just a Chinese hoax. No amount of evidence seems to be enough. They either deny it, or twist it, or just grasp at any crazy website or charlatan they can find who may have an opposing opinion. It just seems so disconnected from reality and reason.

It did not make sense, until I saw this article about why otherwise rational people can become climate change deniers, young earth creationists, believe in ESP and UFO abduction stories, deny modern medicine and think they can treat their rececently diagnosed cancer with all-natural herbal teas and yoga, become an anti-vaxxer, etc...

It’s a psychological optical illusion: when scientific facts are so unfamiliar, so uncomfortable, so against one’s view of what the world is like or should be, that it becomes preposterous to accept it. So they start to see their skepticism as being smart. The science, so readily accepted in other areas, becomes a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or give their kids autism or something. It’s not A matter of presenting even more evidence, or being more logical or rational. This is not about facts or logic.

Great article on the psychology of such science-denial:

Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost Life

I think the way to try to convince these folks is not to keep presenting more evidence for climate change. It’s not about the evidence. Clearly no amount of evidence is going to change their mind. The thing that bothers them is probably that if true, it is going to involve government intervention and spending. Or that they might lose their jobs. If they are convinced that’s what it’s going to necessarily involve, they are going to keep denying it. Maybe if they are reassured that the free-market may be able to address these issues, or that new and more jobs will be created, they will not deny the issues themselves so much anymore. Of course, then there is the fear of change that we will have to contend with.

But at least this may be a blueprint for how to debate these folks. Because it is clear than trying to convince them just based on evidence and rationality is a losing proposition. You will just go against a brick wall and come back with a concussion. Because it’s not about that.
Click to expand...

so fear and cowardliness, got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom