They aren’t the reasons I would use, but, hey, some of them actually make sense. Here’s the Washington Post’s hyper-alarmist, Chris Mooney
The 7 psychological reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change
You may have noticed: We can’t act on climate change. Granted, very devoted people are in Lima, Peru, right now, trying to change that. But inaction has been the norm on this issue, especially in the United States.
Nothing says “we need to act on climate change right friggin’ now!!!!!!!!! like 12000 people taking fossil fueled flights all the way to Lima, eh?
When a gigantic threat is staring you in the face, and you can’t act upon it, it’s safe to assume there’s some sort of mental blockage happening. So what’s the hangup? That’s what a new report from ecoAmerica and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University’s Earth Institute — entitled Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Change Communication – seeks to help us better understand.
Here we go (I’ll leave it to you to hit the link for the full info)
- Psychological Distance. “People have a hard time thinking about — or acting on — things and events that are perceived as far in the future, physically distant, happening to other people, or involving uncertainty,” (and Warmists tend to push their cult as things that are going to happen 50-100 years from now, usually because their prognostications for things that will happen now fail. Hence the reason they’ve come up with “extreme weather”)
- Finite Pool of Worry. People, adds the new report, “are able to worry about only so much at any given point.” (doesn’t seem like Warmists are too worried about their own carbon footprints, eh? Just those of Other People)
- Emotional Numbing. On a related note, we simply can get overloaded emotionally, especially by people constantly trying to make us feel fear and alarm. (90% of Warmist communication is meant to make us feel fear and alarm)
- Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning. People also have a tendency to “seek out or absorb only the information that matches their mental model, confirming what they already believe to be true,” (funny thing is, Warmists still fail to follow through and put their beliefs into practice)
- Defaults. We’re also terribly biased in favor of the status quo, of doing things the way they’ve always been done. (silly us for not wanting to destroy our modern lifestyles for a phony political issue)
- Discounting. Economists have long noted that when you introduce a time element into considerations, people value money differently. (they’re positing that people discount the dire, fear-mongering prognostications because this will happen in the future)
- Ideology. Finally, researchers have increasingly focused on ideology itself as a psychological phenomenon. After all, political beliefs are deeply felt and highly emotional, and yet we rarely even know why a certain conclusion feels so right to us, even as another person can feel just as strongly about the opposite view. (Warmists rarely know why, they can rarely explain their positions, they just regurgitate talking points)
Interesting choices. I would certainly add
- Why would I take action when Warmists won’t in their own lives?
- Why should we take action when 95% of computer models have failed?
- Why should we destroy economies and hand over our liberty based on junk science, emotionally based arguments, and disingenuous data?
