What makes climate change deniers tick?

[Clint r]

Copied from castanet news service.


Photo: UBC Okanagan
Nicholas Johansen - May 26 10:00 am
A UBC Okanagan professor is interested in what makes a climate change skeptic tick.

Greg Garrard, a professor of sustainability, has partnered with academics at four universities around the world to investigate how climate change skeptics differ across different countries, and where this skepticism comes from.

"Studies show they tend to be older, wealthy, white men for the most part, so there's kind of sociological studies that have been done but no one's really ever before engaged with what they've been writing," said Garrard. "No one's been really taking them seriously as writers and that's what we decided to do."

He says in the United Kingdom, skeptics portray themselves as heretics, because all the main political parties agree with the climate change science, while in America, skeptics seem to portray climate change as a hoax.

"It's portrayed as this group of liberal scientists trying to con the American people," Garrard said. "That obviously reflects the very different place of climate science in American politics."

He says by studying this group of people, Garrard and his colleagues can break down certain stereotypes.

"We're supposed be suspicious of stereotypes - stereotypes of women, stereotypes of gay men, or whatever, but no one seems to question stereotypes of conservatives," Garrard said. "I think that that's a mistake. Stereotypes are bad for our thinking no matter what they're stereotypes of."

He says his larger goal is to challenge the divide between the right and the left when it comes to polarizing issues like climate change.

The panel discussion between Garrard and four other international academics takes place on June 7 at 6 p.m. at the Kelowna Art Gallery.

Each speaker will give a 10-minute summary of what they have found while researching their particular country.

They plan to eventually turn their research into a book.

"It's about understanding, we want to understand climate skepticism better," Garrard said. "We're not trying to change anyone's minds, we're just trying to understand how things look from their perspective."

 

[Whole in the Water]

Interesting. I would say the sterotypes of the climate change deniers I have met and the ones on this forum is true to this research (i.e . "Studies show they tend to be older, wealthy, white men for the most part.")

I would add one more stereotype to this research, those that work directly in the oil industry or those that service the oil industry. Kinda speaks a lot about the motives of many of these deniers doesn't it.

 

[Sharphooks]

There's also a HUGE amount of anti-human induced climate change propaganda on the conservative TV and radio broadcasts, much of it financed by the Koch Brothers and other repositories of "Dark Money".

The people who listen to this propaganda and buy into the Global Warming conspiracy theories all have one thing in common: a stunning lack of intellectual curiousity. They take the propaganda at face value (despite scientific data drawing starkly contrary conclusions) because they are either too lazy or too narrow in their World View to get off their arses and take the time and energy to investigate the "other side" of the issue, make a balanced consideration of the hype on both sides of the coin, and draw their own balanced conclusion.

They should be forced to attend an Exxon shareholder meeting. Do they honestly think that a upper level manager in the petro -chemical industry doesn't muse about human-induced climate change and the effect it will have on their long-term business prospects?

 

[Clint r]

Here's a follow up copied from castanets news service:

They did a poll on climate change deniers and this is what they came up with. Keep in mind this poll is local and we have a huge amount of Fort Mac refugees here in the Okanagan so I'm not sure how representative the numbers truly are.

Big response from skeptics
Photo: Getty Images
Nicholas Johansen - May 28 8:32 am
While the many Castanet readers agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, the most vocal appear to be on the side of skepticism.

A Castanet poll found 46.7 per cent of respondents agreed that "climate change is science," while 32 per cent felt those skeptical of climate change should be taken seriously.

The poll was in response to a UBC Okanagan professor who is hosting a discussion on his research on climate change skeptics throughout the world.

While the poll results suggested more people agree with climate science, the comments section skewed to those who felt man-made climate change is a grand conspiracy.

"Climate Change - the biggest single hoax (scam), in the history of mankind," wrote 'Tove Tyler.' "The climate on this planet has been constantly changing since the beginning of time. It will do so til the end of time."

"Climate change in current terms is a myth promoted by the likes of Al Gore and his cronies," wrote 'Gerry.' "It's a money-making machine for a few rich people and all governments worldwide. Real climate change is a natural phenomena, it's been going on forever."

Others were vocal about the value of the scientific method.

"There is no question of 'belief' because it isn't based on faith," wrote 'Matt.' "I acknowledge climate change because I've carefully gone through many different scholarly publications and observed the data for myself. I trust scientific consensus in the same way I trust the technology that is allowing me to type this."

Others appeared to take pride in their willingness to reject the science.

"I am going to keep to a 50 per cent cow diet, drive my hummer and not recycle. What are you hippies going to do about it?" wrote 'Men K.'

 

[OldBlackDog]

George Carlin Once to White Bourgeois Liberals: Stop Trying to Save the Planet

Photo Credit: Mitch Hell/Flickr

Yesterday was George Carlin's birthday. He would have been 78.

As longtime Newsweek correspondent Jamie Reno wisely observed, "George Carlin is still dead, and still the funniest man in America."

So to honor the late, great comedian—nay, social critic—here is Carlin's brutally funny take on environmentalism:


We're so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I'm tired of this ****. I'm tired of f***ing Earth Day. I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages. And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam…The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed.And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' Plastic… asshole.

 

[Clint r]

Hahaha. That's pretty funny. Not as funny as a guy who believes what a comedian says over the voice of nearly the entire worldwide scientific community, but still pretty funny.

 

[ericl]

I know a denier. Not real smart. Thinks he is always right; can't ever admit he is wrong - if pressed hard, turns it into a funny story like OBD's above. It's really a 5 second debate. George Carlin got paid to say stupid stuff as above.
Scientists are liberals, liberals are bad, so all their ideas are bad too. That's what it's come to. Problem is, denier, what if you are wrong? My grandkids or their grandkids all die. None of us will be around to see who is right. Plenty of evidence though. At some point the deniers become immoral at the best.

 

[Dave H]

Here's an opinion by Ray Grigg, a local writer I like.

The difference between "skeptics" and "deniers".

“Skeptics are inclined to examine claims one by one, weigh evidence carefully, attempt objectivity, and willingly follow where the facts lead. As personalities they tend to be secure, open, adventurous and relatively immune to threat. Skepticism is normal and common, an essential attribute of adults, a guiding principle of science and tends to be the operating mechanism of people who are found on the “progressive” side of the political and ideological spectrum.”

“In contrast, deniers are inclined to weigh information with a “confirmation bias” that prejudges on the basis of a tradition, intention or belief system. They change their minds more reluctantly than skeptics and tend to be closed, cautious and insecure outside the realm of the familiar. Deniers tend to be found on the more “conservative” side of the political and ideological spectrum. Generally, however, they are simply well-intentioned people who are doing what they believe is right. But this is where the psychology gets more complicated”.

“Deniers tend to think of themselves as “courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people”. They are most likely to be found in circumstances where science must be taken on trust. Thus, deniers are usually associated with issues such as global climate change, evolution or tobacco use and other issues in which the supporting evidence cannot be easily, immediately and tangibly demonstrated. For deniers, the trust issue gets entangled with their inclination to perceive scientists, doctors and technical experts as arrogant, elitist or alien.”

“Such a response is understandable in a world that is becoming more technical and complicated. People feel a loss of control. They want to reclaim the personal power that seems to be slipping away from them. A culture of individuality that has traditionally attempted to control the forces of nature can be expected to respond with frustration and anger when climate scientists point out we are losing this struggle by unleashing forces beyond our abilities to manage. Deniers take this threat personally.”

“Deniers also tend to be controllers. They also tend to have a larger than normal sense of their own importance and are inclined to be suspicious and intolerant of criticism and different opinions.

While everyone needs some sense of control and self esteem in their lives, we all must concede to our limitations and dispensability. The world will not end with the loss of any one of us and we have no basis for believing that it should function according to our individual conception of it. Controllers don't like to be controlled or feel like they are being controlled. Indeed, they may react perversely to any authoritative information.”

“Psychologists also note the “innumerate” problem, the inability of some people to grasp concepts such as probability. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Not every evolutionary change benefits the species. Although the average surface temperature on the planet is going up, climate change doesn't mean that every place is going to get warmer. General trends cannot be deduced from isolated examples. Anecdotes and personal experience are colored by subjectivity. The scientific method necessarily discredits such individual perception and helps to create the impression among deniers that scientists are elitists whose ideas diminish the importance of individuals and the validity of their awareness. So, in defense of their own experience, credibility and self-respect, deniers strike out against science, its theories an its practitioners. Regardless, denial is a common first response to things we don't want to happen.”

“Guilt is another important consideration that motivates deniers. Anthropogenic climate change means that we are all implicated in an unprecedented travesty against our planet's ecology, the ultimate consequences of which are expected to be disruptive, destructive and dire. The damage to our human reputation and dignity would be correspondingly disastrous.

A squabbling, greedy, warring, destructive and irresponsible species is not the image we want of ourselves. Denial is a protective reflex against the discomfort of this censure and its ensuing guilt.”

“Deniers believe that if they can't change the evidence inundating us then they will deny its validity by using sometimes complex and ingenious rationalizations.

So, what does the psychology of denial ultimately mean?

Perhaps that we are a complex and ingenious species perfectly capable of undoing ourselves because of that complexity and ingenuity.”



Take care.

 

[Clint r]

Awsome.

 

[papalorge]

Instead of referring to it as "climate change" which is a pretty broad term, maybe it should have been labeled something like "world wide pollution crisis that has an effect on all eco systems" but I guess that doesn't seem to have the same ring to it. I feel that if you give people more to think about it can be easier to reason with them.
No one can deny that the amount of pollution in to our air, soil and water isn't having a major adverse affect on the planet. Just look at the smog in any city, is that natural? I don't think the planet did that on it's own duhhh.....

 

[seadna]

Actually a good bit of what Carlin said is true. The planet will survive even if humans don't. The truth about man induced climate change is that we are making it far more difficult for us to survive and for us to survive the way we would like to. As we see another summer of warming weather, warming oceans and increasing ocean acidity, ask yourself how much longer we will be able to fish for salmon and shellfish in the Pacific Northwest. I'm already working on the assumption that a great proportion of my time will be spent fishing for pelagic species and that at some point many of the species we take for granted today will collapse due to increasing ocean acidity and a dependence on shellfish and krill lower in the food chain. The earth - it will still be here. It just won't be the way I'd wish it were or how it would be if many weren't dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[agentaqua]

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for ********-Busting and Critical Thinking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

 

[ericl]

I guess my response to the truth about the Planet surviving is yeah, so what? Not an excuse to do nothing. Where do you draw the line about right & wrong? I think a good start is to ensure that those who are thoughtless, careless A-holes get called-out for what they are.

 

[agentaqua]

Scientists Slowly Reintroducing Small Group Of Normal, Well-Adjusted Humans Into Society
http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-slowly-reintroducing-small-group-normal-52632

 

[Clint r]

 

[agentaqua]

Actually a good bit of what Carlin said is true. The planet will survive even if humans don't...

What Would Happen If Humans Suddenly Disappeared From The Planet?
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-humans-suddenly-disappeared-from-planet/

 

[GLG]

What if it was all in our heads?

 

[ziggy]

Wow this thread is getting a little Mein Kampfy.

 

[Whole in the Water]

What do you mean by saying this?

 

[Cougar Gold]

I believe climate changes.
I don't believe in wasteful pollution.
I also don't believe in carbon taxes that drive up the cost of being warm and fed. Carbon taxes and carbon trading just line the pockets of the wealthy and make things more expensive for the average guy.
I believe that most people who tell us that we can control the climate don't make any personal sacrifices to reduce their own carbon footprint. Lots of telling others what to do.
I believe the best thing we can do to save the world is starve the middle eastern countries by becoming energy independent and refusing to do business with them.
I plan to continue to keep my home warm, drive my 4 wheel drive pickup, use my powerboat, eat beef, chicken and fish and go on vacation.
I also plan on using less carbon than all the politicians, elites and Hollywood types who call me a denier.