• 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

A

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
61,636
Reaction score
38,779
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 
Last edited:

:lamo

"did Nied the strong and unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet...."

First, Maurice Strong created the Global Warming agenda.

He did that when he organized the first "climate" conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

There, in the opening statement to the conference attendees he laid out the plan for economic control of the West, Agenda 21, and the realignment of power throughout the Earth.


Since then, when someone raises a hand to question the science has been conducted, or more critically, the prescribed mitigation, they are summarily attacked.

If you are a Climate Scientists, or affiliated organization, you can get on the gravy train, or, be cut off and starve, depending on what kind of results you bring to the table.

Climate Change has abandoned the Scientific Method. The whole agenda seeks to take control of the lives of all humans on Earth, demands the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and encourages punitive responses directed at anyone who gets in the way of it's objectives.

Given these facts, is it really that difficult to understand why people question what is going on?
 

The science behind climate change has been going on since the late 19th century. The first climate models came out in the 1960s. And it is not part of an agenda to control the west, just like evolutionary biology is not part of an agenda to make us all godless immoral heathens, and vaccines are not part of an agenda to make all our kids autistic and dependent on big government.

Scientists who support this even include the ones work for Exxon mobile or the trump administration. It is not a conspiracy about scientists just trying to make some money.

Really, we can try to address it with only free market solutions if you like. This is crazy.
 
Then immediately in walks a science denying conservative that's never studied climate science a day in his life to tell us it's all an international liberal conspiracy.

You are 100% correct in what you said, ataraxia. I've long since abandoned trying to reason with these people as they've abandoned reason long ago. I think the core of it is the death of respect for knowledge and expertise. Science is complicated so it's hard for the scientifically illiterate to understand, and if they can't understand it they have to defer to the experts in those fields. If however you don't understand enough about science to even understand what being an expert in a scientific field means, you're not going to respect the consensus. These people think scientists just make up things and that it's all squabbling about opinions like it's politics. They've never taken even a day of their lives to seriously study the science and objectively clear evidence.

Ultimately, it's not worth even engaging these people as it just makes them more entrenched as they see it as a politicial issue and not a scientific one. It's about as productive as arguing with young earth creationists or flat earthers. The best you can do is just continue supporting science and let the deniers slowly fade away like the flat earthers did. The good news is even most deniers admit the earth is warming now (HUGE progress!) they've just shifted their argument to be that mankind could never, ever und any circumstance effect the environment because Jesus is protecting it or something.
 

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.
 

Seeing as how you've never spent a day in your life studying climate science your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant. If you'd like to prove your thesis that it's all a big liberal hoax, publish papers in the field proving it and collect your Nobel prize and unbelievable fame.

That's how science works, it's not based on the politicial opinions of uneducated random jerkoffs on the internet who cherry pick to suit their pre-determined agenda. So what's stopping you?
 
ocean515 said:
Going on since the 19th Century? What does that mean? The first climate models came out in the 1960's? Which ones?
Click to expand...

That’s all in the textbooks.

Any standard textbook on the subject can help answer your questions. Have you read them?

Do you believe in any other science? Or is it just this particular topic? Why?
 
ataraxia said:
That’s all in the textbooks.

Any standard textbook on the subject can help answer your questions. Have you read them?

Do you believe in any other science? Or is it just this particular topic? Why?
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of most sciences. Absolutely.

I'm not a fan of junk science. I want science to be fully applied, questions answered, doubts raised and addressed.

Climate Science is not science. It is agenda.

No legitimate scientific effort crushes fellow scientists who question the results.

No legitimate scientific effort throws out the Scientific Method to protect it's claimed results.

If science believes it has found a cure for cancer, do you want scientists who question the results silenced?
 
ataraxia said:
I know. I could not have planned a better exhibit A for my argument if I had tried! :lol:
Click to expand...

Interacting with these people usually goes like this:

Person A: It's been proven that the earth is spherical, here's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that's the case for you to examine and all of the scientists in related fields agree with 99.99% consensus.

Science denier: I'm not going to look through all that science and mathy bull****! I found a blog from Dr. Crazypants in Belgium that claims its all just an illusion by aliens. So ha! Suck it liberals!
 

Bold claims.

Too afraid to address me directly?

You prove my point.

That's the problem with the agenda of Climate Change. And you've laid it out perfectly.
 
ocean515 said:
Bold claims.

Too afraid to address me directly?

You prove my point.

That's the problem with the agenda of Climate Change. And you've laid it out perfectly.
Click to expand...

I did address you directly. Time to put up or shut up. Publish your papers in the field proving its all bull****, collect your Nobel prize. What's stopping you? Why would you not want vast amounts of money and fame? Shut those liberal scientists up once and for all!
 
ataraxia said:
I know. I could not have planned a better exhibit A for my argument if I had tried! :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL

Actually, what you did is prove exactly the point I was making

But as a well indoctrinated climate change acolyte, you have no ability to know that.

Why do you think climate change as an issue is sinking in importance?

Can't possibly imagin an effort that has been more promoted, nor better funded.

Yet, on the list of important issues, it's not in the top 5.
 
Perhaps if it wasn't for your other Leftist stances, people might take you more seriously. As it is, you're being guided by a ideology of failure.
 
Climate change is a magic trick. Magic uses science and technology to defy the laws of science. One aspect of the trick is connected to the extra funding that has gone into climate science. There are more resources observing weather and climate, therefore more data can be seen, thereby creating an illusion of a larger variety of climate change.

Here is an experiment you can do at home, to get the same affect. Go to a large shopping mall and count the women with red hair, for one day. The next week, to simulate the increase funding for climate change, gather four friends and together spread out and count the women with red hair at the same mall. I bet you will count more. Does contain more redhead with more people means there is a sudden epidemic of redheads? This higher count on the second week, does not mean there were more redheads and/or more types of redheads, the second week. It only means you had more resources to make a more accurate count. In both cases, good science could have been done. Bit in the end more sources means a higher and more accurate count and nuance of variety.

In 1960 the first weather satellite was launched. Now there are over 600 for earth observations. Now we can see remote places, such as the middle of oceans, where there were never any sensors. These remote locations now can be counted as part of average global temperature, like never before. One is not limited to large cities and extreme weather locations, as was the case before 1960. Almost every news station now owns or has access to live Doppler radar. There are more eyes in the sky, with the scare causing even more amateurs to participate in data gathering; cell phone video. This is then spun, to mean more change, to complete the magic trick.

When thunderstorms are coming, I like to look at the radar and see who is getting the worse rain and when it will hit me. This fascination allows me to be aware of more detail beyond my own eyes and personal location. Before radar, this data would have gone unnoticed. The Radar makes it seem like more is now happening. It was alway there, even before i saw it for myself.

If we cut the funding to climate change science, I bet the earth would appear to heal itself. Luckily, Trump is pro-business and pro high paying science jobs. This industry has a vested interest to keep up the hype and need for services. I can see this need for this, but not the need for many of the shady spin off business like carbon credits.
 
Last edited:

Sure. One of the ways science advances is by finding new ways of looking at things, and looking at them more and more closely. If we had not invented microscopes, we would never have seen bacteria either. That doesn’t mean bacteria do not exist and we need to get rid of all microscopes so we don’t see them and then cut funding to microbiologists because they are just sucking on the government teat. Not seeing things does not make them go away.

I can’t believe I have to argue this with an adult.
 
WCH said:
Perhaps if it wasn't for your other Leftist stances, people might take you more seriously. As it is, you're being guided by a ideology of failure.
Click to expand...

Another example of how for climate deniers this is not about the facts.

Climate change science is just the facts. What you do with them is still an entirely open question. It does not necessarily have to mean big government intervention.

If you knew that climate change science could be addressed purely by the free market, with no government intervention or regulations, and it would not affect any jobs, would you be more open to those facts?
 
My main concern is the damage the concept of Human caused global warming
can inflict on our confidence in Science, and the Scientific process.
By passing off untested speculation as Science, we tarnish actual credibility of real Science.
The reality of the IPCC's flavor of AGW, is that there is no empirical data,
or laboratory experiments that support the catastrophic predictions.
What empirical data that does exists, only supports that added CO2 can cause minor warming,
but not as much as that assumed by the models.
 

I think it is being dealt with by the free market but, I doubt your side will be satisfied without big government using it as a reason. to tax the crap out of us. After all your side has hysterically put a time limit on our very existence.
 

The models all vary in their risk assessment, but all agree that it’s high enough that it needs to be taken very seriously. It’s a little bit like how it’s difficult to predict how much smoking will increase a particular individuals risk for cancer or emphysema . But it is high enough that most authorities would strongly recommend they stop.

It does not mean that risk assessment is not scientific or incorrect.
 
WCH said:
I think it is being dealt with by the free market but, I doubt your side will be satisfied without big government using it as a reason. to tax the crap out of us. After all your side has hysterically put a time limit on our very existence.
Click to expand...

So just for the sake of argument: let’s assume there is a way that we can guarantee doing this without taxing the crap out of you or using any big government. Would climate change science seem more scientific to you then?

I am pretty sure you guys are denying the science because you’re just afraid of what it might mean, not because it is not good science. To make any sound decisions, we have to agree on basic facts. You can’t deny the facts just because of you are afraid of what it might mean.

If you are that afraid of big government or taxes, I would be open to discussions, negotiations, and compromises on other ways to approach this. What we are doing right now is not working. But it’s hard to argue with someone who questions overwhelming facts just because they’re afraid of what it might mean. they are denying reality altogether, and I think you can see how it becomes very difficult to have any meaningful conversation at that point.
 
Last edited:
If you tell humans that a volcanic eruption will change the climate by releasing massive amounts of gas, they will probably believe you. After all, Volcanos are big and dangerous, so obviously they cause problems. But tell the same humans that their own massive production and emission of gasses will change the climate, and suddenly that is much more difficult for them to accept. Perhaps it has to do with not wanting to accept responsibility? In any case, it is troubling. It does not truly require any great scientific thought to understand the issue. If you alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere you will alter the climate. This process has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so, aided by human contributions. No one knows exactly how this will affect our Earth and its climate. Only that it will, and that we had best be prepared.
 
WCH said:
I think it is being dealt with by the free market but, I doubt your side will be satisfied without big government using it as a reason. to tax the crap out of us. After all your side has hysterically put a time limit on our very existence.
Click to expand...

How can something that doesn't exist be dealt with by the free market? What mechanisms in the free market are fighting climate change? Be specific.

What drives someone to believe that humans can't effect the environment and that changing the chemical content of the atmosphere has no effect at all?
 

Actually, it's a scientific argument, not politics, and you're just parading your ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…