Apparently, no one actually wants to talk about climate change, so it’s time for some psychological mumbo jumbo
(Washington Post) If you want to understand why it is that on a planet wracked by climate change, people still don’t talk much about climate change, then this may be the key: They’re people.
Or, more specifically, they’re evolved social mammals who are acutely attuned to how they are perceived by the other evolved social mammals around them — and reasonably so, because those perceptions greatly influence their own lives.
Such is the upshot of new research on why people “self-silence†when it comes to climate change, just published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology by Nathaniel Geiger and Janet Swim of Penn State University. In a nutshell, Geiger and Swim find that people are often afraid to talk about climate change with their peers because they wrongly think those peers are more doubtful about climate change than they actually are. This incorrect perception — which the authors dub “pluralistic ignorance†— then makes people fear that others will think they’re less competent, and thus, view them with less respect, if they bring up the subject or talk about it.
Or, it could be that most people just really don’t give a rats as about the subject.
It has been said that friends should not discuss religion or politics, and perhaps that’s why people aren’t discussing
global warmingclimate change: it’s both religion and politics.Dana of course for some it is also science
Scientists are predicting 2016 to be another’s record breaker the third one in a row
Is there nothing The Pause can not do ?
most people (Americans?) also don’t really care a Rat’s ass about anything other than their narcissistic selves
I usually self-silence because most people don’t know sh!t about AGW science yet many think they are experts because they listen to the crap that Al Gore and the newspapers spew. I’ll talk about to people that I think are rational but even then it goes bad sometimes. Like my intelligent friend who is a solar energy engineer. The first thing out of his mouth when the topic came up were that people who don’t believe in AGW and the 97% are “flat-earthers”. Which shows both that he doesn’t understand the concept of flat-earthers and consensus, and he can only make political arguments about a scientific topic.
“Scientists are predicting…” Well, when you control the data you can make anything happen (wink wink). But anyway John, are these the same clowns whose earlier predictions went spectacularly wrong?
Spectacularly wrong ???
You mean those who predicted imminent global cooling ??
We are about to have our 3rd in a row hottest year since accurate records have been kept
The Sun is not doing this, the Sun is in ifact a bit cooler now than in 1960
Why do you think the temps are going up if not from CO2?
Anytime you have cult-like followers on one side of a political argument, discussion is largely fruitless. How can you discuss religion with a devout Christian when there is no evidence to support any of its tenets? It’s belief against reason. Same applies to many cult of personality politicians like Stumpy Trump, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.
When Deniers claim that the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of AGW is fraudulent or forged, there is no common ground for discussion.
John wrote:
Is that not their right?
The vast majority of us do not care if you buy a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Dolt — are they even still making the Dolt? — and have absolutely no problems with you installing solar panels or windmills (as long as those things don’t ruin their view). If that’s what you want to do, go for it.
You start encountering resistance when you try to force other people to do things that they might not choose to do, or try to take food off their tables.
And then, when people see the warmists not personally doing the things they say are important, the things they wish to use the power of government to coerce others into doing, all they see is massive hypocrisy on the part of the warmists.
Our host has noted how infrequently the warmists behave as though tey believe what they are saying, and I’ve pointed out that y’all would be more effective if you’d lead by example, but the truth is that you are already leading by example: every time someone like Al Gore or Paul Krugman says one thing but does another, they have led by example, just not in the direction they say we should go.