People who deny climate change are broken

[iNow]

Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

[Iggy]

I'm not sure anyone really denies climate change -- unless you mean anthropogenic?

[iNow]

Sure.

[Moontanman]

Most people don't understand the ideas behind it enough to really know one way or another. I would think a scientist who didn't believe in human caused global weather change would be suspect, if my limited understanding of it is even close to correct...

 

I have read some interesting "ideas" that human caused weather change could be preventing us from sliding into another glacial age. Something about the current arrangement of continents favor intermittent ice ages and we are over due or something like that.

 

Anyway you look at it polar bears are toast....

[ewmon]

Most of the people I've run into who deny anthropogenic GW are old people (senior citizens, etc), and compared to us (especially the young ones among us), senior citizens have already lived most of their lives, and this fact combines with GW to produce three negative feelings.

#1 - What they've done their entire lives (drive ICE cars to work, stores, hospitals, vacations, etc) is now redefined as "bad",

#2 - They have little desire to change the status quo for themselves (because they'll be dead soon), and

#3 - They live on a fixed income and have precious little discretionary funds to throw at the problem.

[Ophiolite]

Interesting. I realise you are not stereotyping, but simply commenting on what you have observed. Here is a counter position.

 

I am an old person. I have no difficulty reconciling my actions past and present with what those actions should have been and should be. Guilt, or the desire to avoid guilt, would not impact on my actions or opinions in this matter.

 

I have enromous desire to change the staus quo because my children and grandchild will not, I hope, be dead soon and my great-great-great grandchildren aren't even born yet. Moreover I would not feel properly secure in regard to the protection of the human race till we had at least colonies in three or four other planetary systems.

 

In the present economic climate very few peopl have many discretionary funds. Old peopl can however use their politcal nouse or any other skills or contacts developed over their lifetime to agitate for government intervention.

 

 

Further, I've heard young people argue that they don't see why they should pay for the problems created by their parents; that science is always getting things wrong, so they probably got this wrong too; that this is just a huge conspiracy; etc.

 

 

To address inow's original question. I think the answer is a definite no. I can conceive that a specialist in some aspect of climatology could have formed a maverick opinion they believed to be validated by the facts as they interpreted them that would rule out a significant anthropogenic element in global warming. There position, right or wrong, would be based upon sound application of scientific principles.

 

do most GW deniers fall into this category. Absolutely not.

[CaptainPanic]

Who cares whether climate change is true or not? At the gas station, a liter of gasoline costs 1.80 euro, and despite the crisis the oil prices are only going up. I can only imagine what will happen to energy prices if the economy will ever fix itself again.

 

The whole climate debate is being overtaken left and right by the reality of increasing costs of fossil energy vs. decreasing costs of sustainable energy.

I refuse to believe that it's going to be much longer until wind turbines, electric cars and other sustainable sources of energy are simply cheaper. In some sunny countries, solar panels (without subsidy) already have a reasonable payback time.

 

Btw, I do think that the climate is changing (it's warming up), but I am no climate scientist. The debate has become so political that I prefer to stay away from it.

[swansont]

I haven't read the book (yet), but Chris Mooney's latest (“The Republican Brain”) would seem to on topic here. From the summaries I've seen, some people value certitude more highly than accuracy, and are resistant to facts that challenge their position. Challenging them just reinforces their belief.

[zapatos]

Who cares whether climate change is true or not?

Potentially anyone who is affected by it.

 

Specifically:

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9127576/Entire-nation-of-Kiribati-to-be-relocated-over-rising-sea-level-threat.html

[Phi for All]

Who cares whether climate change is true or not? At the gas station, a liter of gasoline costs 1.80 euro, and despite the crisis the oil prices are only going up. I can only imagine what will happen to energy prices if the economy will ever fix itself again.

Sorry to be off-topic here, but if my calculations correct, with the current exchange rate of about 1.5 dollars to 1 euro, isn't that $10.22 per gallon?! We're at $4/gallon here in Denver. If we went to 2/3 of what you're paying, I can guarantee the screams for hybrids and full-electric cars would keep you up at night over there. And you're right, at that point it wouldn't matter if fossil fuel emissions were affecting the climate.

[iNow]

I haven't read the book (yet), but Chris Mooney's latest (“The Republican Brain”) would seem to on topic here. From the summaries I've seen, some people value certitude more highly than accuracy, and are resistant to facts that challenge their position. Challenging them just reinforces their belief.

I've had many times similar thoughts. So many self-described "conservatives" or "republicans" appear "broken" in the same ways... I'm reminded of Colbert's "truthiness."

 

Either way, it's like facts don't matter. It's painful. In fact, I think you and/or Chad recently shared an article framed as an Obituary for facts. It was great, and touched on similar themes.

[Dekan]

I have read some interesting "ideas" that human caused weather change could be preventing us from sliding into another glacial age. Something about the current arrangement of continents favor intermittent ice ages and we are over due or something like that.

 

That's a valuable point. Our anthropogenic global warming will stop any more Ice Ages.

 

These Ice Ages have been disrupting life on Earth far too much recently. Ever since the Pleistocene started, the Earth has suffered violent climate changes. Which made the Earth swing through one ice-age after another. And every ice-age had a disastrous effect on life on Earth, especially on higher species. The highest species, Man, had a tough time surviving the last glaciation. But survive he did, and now he's not going to have his future, or the future of advanced life, threatened by any more global glaciations.

 

The threat is being removed by Man's invention of Industrial Civilisation. Such civilisation produces a huge outpouring of CO2 into the atmosphere. This heat-retaining gas fortifies the atmosphere, and makes it resist any future global cooling. So our climate will stabilise, at a good intermediate temperature. Favourable to the development, and future progress, of life. No more Ice Ages!

 

So shouldn't we give thanks to Man, who has come to the rescue of Earth, by his anthropogenic Global Warming?

[CaptainPanic]

Sorry to be off-topic here, but if my calculations correct, with the current exchange rate of about 1.5 dollars to 1 euro, isn't that $10.22 per gallon?! We're at $4/gallon here in Denver. If we went to 2/3 of what you're paying, I can guarantee the screams for hybrids and full-electric cars would keep you up at night over there. And you're right, at that point it wouldn't matter if fossil fuel emissions were affecting the climate.

Well, the dollar isn't that low compared to the euro... with the current exchange rate it would be more like $ 9.00/gallon. Still, pretty expensive. And yes, the result is that cars in Europe (or should I say cars designed in Europe) are more efficient and smaller, and we don't seem to have the same need for pick ups . And yes, there's a lot of screaming going on. So, we might be near the tipping point.

 

But yeah, that's off topic and possibly worth its own thread. Let's go back on topic:

 

Potentially anyone who is affected by it.

 

Specifically:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9127576/Entire-nation-of-Kiribati-to-be-relocated-over-rising-sea-level-threat.html

Ah, yes. They care. Good point.

 

My point was that for most of us, the climate (change) is simply not the #1 priority. Money is our #1. But if your entire country is about to be swallowed be an ocean, then the climate (change) is definitely the #1 priority.

 

So, because of the high fossil energy prices, I believe that the majority of the world will soon enough start adopting sustainable energy at a larger scale. And that will happen with or without climate change... climate change is simply irrelevant for this transition.

 

However, as you correctly point out, people in Kiribati (as well as Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives) wouldn't care about the economy, they just want to keep their feet dry, and would be looking at quite different measures... measures which are a direct result of the state of the climate. Unfortunately they can only hope that our economic priorities will lead to sustainable solutions before they lose their entire country.

 

And even further back on topic (all the way to the OP):

 

People who deny climate change are broken

I am not sure, actually. Why should people trust some government funded scientists who say that the entire world should change all its habits? Governments are known to be the puppets of lobbyists... the big question here is obviously which lobbyists? Big Oil, or Greenpeace? I understand if there are a few people who get it wrong. (Btw, the correct answer is obviously Big Oil, who are economically the biggest in the world, and can fund the biggest lobby.)

 

Ignoring my earlier point that climate change is being overtaken by ridiculously expensive fossil energy... I think the responsibility for taking care of our climate is with governments and the companies that use lots of energy, not individual voters. It's like with the acid rain. Who cares whether people still deny it (some do). Governments forced the oil and energy companies to remove sulphur from the fuel (gasoline/diesel) or from the smoke (coal plants). And that's it. It's done now.

 

What I cannot understand is that there are people who should take responsibility, but don't. Or worse: People who deliberately create a lobby to deny and mislead, when they know better. They are really broken. I think we call that a "psychopath".

[doG]

IMO climate change should be undeniable to everyone. Those that have their head in the sand probably are broken while the uneducated that don't understand the picture are probably just uneducated. The only thing that's really debatable about climate change is the amount that man contributes to a natural cycle the planet already goes through. IMO we'd be better if we worried more about the pollution that contributes to this problem instead of worrying about the result.

Edited May 2, 2012 by doG

[iNow]

Does this maybe get back to the idea of forming strong conclusions based on limited or flawed information, though? I am definitely thinking more about those that deny it with vigor and certainty more than those who are simply unsure.

[swansont]

I just noticed that this is in the psych section. What is the definition of "broken" we are using here? How can a large fraction of the population be defined as being broken, when it's used in this pejorative sense of aberrant thinking?

 

I recently had a chance to chat with Mark Hoofnagle (denialism blog) and Mooney's book came up; Mark raised the point that the "Democrat brain" response to data may have been an illusion of not asking the right questions. i.e. that everyone has areas in which they the hold belief above empirical data and will exhibit denialism, and it's not just a "Republican" brain issue. I think he may have a point.

[iNow]

Of course. These comments are referring to tendencies, not absolutes. I also appreciate the broken is ambiguous, and not terribly useful here.

 

Where I find myself disheartened is how people form conclusions and make decisions about how the world works. Yes, climate change is a complex topic, but it's not terribly difficult to learn more and grasp how our behaviors have a serious influence on the planet. Yet, people go with "gut feel" and essentially trust sources of information that are notoriously spun, unsupported, and downright dishonest.

 

During the first few years this became a major point of dialog... like back in the late 80s and early 90s... I can appreciate better how folks may be on the fence, or even feel that it's not happening. They simply didn't have access to the information needed to form a conclusion, and so they did trust their gut.

 

But, come on... it's 2012, people. This has been studied, shared, and explained from practically every angle. There are articles, videos, even easy to read graphics that help the lay person comprehend the issue... And yet none of that is enough. We find our populations acceptance of the issue actually DECREASING with time. The liars are winning.

 

Aren't the members of our population who let them... broken in some significant way?

[iNow]

Disgusting. These billboards are actually going up right now.

 

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/05/04/the-heartland-institute-sinks-to-a-new-low

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

The moderators have discussed the initial premise of two recent threads "people who believe X are broken" - whilst this has engendered discussion, the debate has been, and will continue to be tainted by the personal attack inherent in the title of the thread.

Rule One of SFN is as follows

1. Be civil.
a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.
b. Avoid the use of vulgar language.
c. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.
d. Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting.

Describing a portion of the SFN community as 'broken' because of their beliefs (whether scientific, politcal, cultural, or religious) is insulting and a slur.

Rule Four of SFN is as follows

4. The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

This form of post is potentially "poisoning the well" - in which an ad hominem characterisation of the opposition is part of the opening statement.

Both threads contain important questions which SFN must debate - but the consensus is that this form of opening gambit is more likely to be divisive than discursive. Any further threads opened using this format will be locked immediately and other sanctions may follow. Please do not derail the thread further by discussing this mod note.

[michel123456]

Most of the people I've run into who deny anthropogenic GW are old people (senior citizens, etc), and compared to us (especially the young ones among us), senior citizens have already lived most of their lives, and this fact combines with GW to produce three negative feelings.

#1 - What they've done their entire lives (drive ICE cars to work, stores, hospitals, vacations, etc) is now redefined as "bad",

#2 - They have little desire to change the status quo for themselves (because they'll be dead soon), and

#3 - They live on a fixed income and have precious little discretionary funds to throw at the problem.

 

I don't know if you have strong references for that or if it comes from your personnal observation, but it seems correct to me.

 

i'd add some other points on why seniors are more sceptics:

#4 - they have more experience, they don't believe a word coming from someone fallen from the last rain(1)

#5 - they evidently know it is a huge political issue first and a tiny scientific one afterwards.

#6 - GW has been described as the apocalypse as soon as the fifties, seniors haven't seen the apocalypse coming yet.

#7 - Those of the seniors who have read some history know that in antiquity the sea level was higher than today (2), at a time when no industrialization existed.

#8 - those same seniors might know about the little ice age that happened around year 1600 which was evidently not a result of human activities. So they know that climate can change for (so far) unknown reasons.

#9 - the seniors may have visited some museum and admired displays with remains of elephants and other tropical features in today's temperate regions, showing by evidence that climate has completely changed in the past for (so far) unknown reasons.

#10 - seniors may be aware that humans are very (very) small compared to Mother Nature. There is an arrogant dream of Mankind to compete the forces of nature, but we are very far from it. Seniors may think that anthropogenic GW is only another arrogant dream where humans have to protect the Earth while at the contrary it is the Earth that plays the game and may get rid of these annoying creatures at any time she whishes. In fact we don't have to protect nature, we have to protect ourselves against nature.

 

(1) free translation of the French "né de la dernière pluie"

(2)Archaeological indicators of relative sea-level changes in the Attico-Cycladic massif: preliminary resultsBAIKA, K. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece vol. XLII/II-2008

Edited May 5, 2012 by michel123456

[iNow]

The broken part comes in for me when these folks continue to believe their flawed preconception even when every specific criticism they have is addressed handily.

[swansont]

The broken part comes in for me when these folks continue to believe their flawed preconception even when every specific criticism they have is addressed handily.

 

And the issue is that you have to show that denial is a condition specific to this group, and not humans as a whole. Because if it's a general condition, it's not abnormal. So, good luck with that.

[iNow]

I understand your sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion. All I would need to show is that the tendency for this type of denial is stronger and/or more common in one group than in the another... Not that it exists solely in one of those groups and is absent from the other, and not that it is merely a human trait.

 

Rage is a human trait, too. That doesn't mean we don't see it manifest in some groups more often or easily than in others.

Edited May 5, 2012 by iNow

[anotherfilthyape]

1.what ya mean by broken?

 

2.It is obviously something negative and it has no bearing on the subject because it would be an ad hominem argument so this thread is a waste of time

 

3.Anthropogenic climate change is a fact but the fact that people have a bias not to accept it is not something to be discussed on "psychiatry and psychology" but on "politics".

[iNow]

Broken is not, by definition, negative. Part of what makes these conversations interesting is that it can mean different things to different people.

 

Ad hominem is not a factor here. Nobody is saying, "because deniers are broken, they are wrong." Your assertion is misplaced, and you appear not to properly understand how the ad hominem fallacy is applied in practice.

 

People's mental biases and resistance to facts is very much an issue of psychiatry and psychology. Human minds are the source of the issue, so that is where study is most properly conducted. Why would you suggest otherwise?

Edited May 5, 2012 by iNow