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?
This is a false premise. It will take everyone, not just progressives, but also Deniers.
This is a false premise. Failed according to serial Denier Roy Spencer. The Earth is warming and it will continue.
The Earth continues to warm from CO2 we continue to add to the atmosphere. There is absolutely no reason, none, zip, nada to think the conversion to renewable energy sources will “destroy economies”. There is no reason to think that obtaining electricity from solar, nuclear or wind power instead of coal will result in people “hand(ing) over liberty”. These are two of the more disingenuous Denier claims.
Movements based on truth always have to have people willing to lead others.
That is the problem. The fact that Warmists won’t act on their own beliefs shows they don’t believe in what they are saying.
Of course, the issue is the cause of the change in climate. Now Jeffery will say “what are the causes of warming?” but that assumes that we know everything that affects weather and climate. It is clear we do not, but that won’t stop people like Jeffery from believing that we do.
Tell that to Spain, Germany, and even England whose economies and plight of the middle and lower class have taken massive hits because trying to sell the “renewable” theme.
(And by the way, the mere name “renewable” is scientifically inaccurate. So we have Warmists who claim to be science oriented using terms that are not scientifically accurate. Of course, we have seen that Warmists are willing to lie in the past, so the strategy of lying is not new to them.)
Your premise isn’t true. Your statement isn’t true either. But Deniers lie.
The cause of the current rapid warming is well known to all but Deniers.
Typical Denier falsehood. Real economists predicted the European double dip recession based on the fiscal austerity enacted there.
You lose. You’re reduced to a silly semantic argument.
What the science tells us clearly is that the Earth is warming from CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere. Deniers deny these facts for ideological reasons. This is dishonest on your part but not particularly heinous compared to much of what cons believe. Why do you lie about the science when your argument is ideological and political? Mr. Teach summed up the actual Denier arguments:
And those arguments are unsupported and unsupportable.
The premise is true. Time and time again we have seen people who actually believe in something act on their beliefs. Warmists don’t act because in their hearts, they know they are full of manure.
Scientists are Deniers?
Except the economies crashed before the austerity efforts Jeffery. You and facts really have trouble meeting, don’t you?
Truth is simply semantic? Notice that you really don’t address the lie that people like you tell.
Project much?
Of course you do. After all, you are the one who must think that their wife is delusional.
Except for the fact they are supported by truth and facts, you would be right. Alas, you have failed….
….. as a;ways.
The Earth has warmed and continues to warm from the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. There is not one shred of evidence to refute that. Of course Deniers such as you are not interested in discussing science or evidence.
By all means share your evidence that switching to renewable energy sources will “destroy economies” or result in you “hand(ing) over your liberty.”