A recent post of mine (on the new American Psychological Association report on climate change behavior) got hijacked by climate change deniers -- who are unfortunately an aggressive and nasty-mouthed lot -- so as a psychotherapist and ecotherapist, I'm becoming curious about the psychology behind the virulence.
Why are these folks so desperate and frantic to dispute the current scientific consensus, which includes psychologists as well as climate change scientists? While I agree with them that a scientific consensus doesn't mean that all those scientists are right, surely it would be prudent to listen to what they have to say, based on their most current studies? And if you disagree, why the need to scream and foam at the mouth?
What the deniers don't seem to realize (or are paid not to realize) is that if they're right and they persuade us to do nothing about climate disruption, the consequences of this mistake would be truly horrendous for everyone, including themselves, their children and grandchildren. If they're wrong, however, and -- miracle of miracles -- we actually do something to mitigate climate disruption, we have a chance of becoming alternative energy leaders rather than the Neanderthal left-behinds... solar moguls rather than petroleum beggars.
Another benefit of getting off fossil fuels: we won't have to pay for expensive wars in fossil-fuel rich areas. Right now, the countries that still have fossil fuels, including Russia, are beginning to flex their muscles against the fossil-fuel-importing nations like the US. Doesn't it make sense to get off our "addiction to oil" (George W. Bush's term) even if a few of us aren't fully convinced that that will help mitigate climate disruption?
So psychologically I'm curious: why are the climate change deniers so upset, so shrill, so fearful, loud and angry at those who agree with the international scientific consensus? What's the psychology behind the screaming? What are the deniers afraid of?
Perhaps the fear is really political rather than scientific or even psychological. Some conservatives appear to believe that the concern about climate change is a liberal plot -- because that's what their political leaders have told them. And why are these political leaders putting out disinformation on climate change and health care reform right now? I'm afraid it comes down to politics and the corporations who pay the politicians' bills. The true fear may be that if reforms happen, the insurance and fossil fuel industries will lose money.
If the Republicans and other conservatives can't come up with some constructive issues that are worth fighting for (as opposed to just fighting against every scientific or progressive proposal), the party is well and truly bankrupt.
"So psychologically I'm curious: why are the climate change deniers so upset, so shrill, so fearful, loud and angry at those who agree with the international scientific consensus? What's the psychology behind the screaming? What are the deniers afraid of?"
The denier argument is more of a psychological one, than a factual one. In fact, I think they know they are wrong because they constantly misstate information and cherrypick information. One can not do this selective process continuously without being aware of it. They really do not care what climate change will bring about because they very likely will not see it in their immediate lives, as it really affects developing countries with vulnerable populations most immediately. Selfishness is core to conservatism.
If climate scientists are right and, of course, they are because co2 is a proven greenhouse gas, then the whole philosophy of conservatism is questioned. Consumption may not be the highest good. Exercising our own liberties may impose on the liberties of others. We may be all in this as a collective. But needless to say the dust and soot from Chinese factories darkens the skies as far away as Seattle. So it is a given that we are in this all together. When it is demonstrated that a green economy can create good jobs and we can still prosper, then conservatives may quit dismissing the facts.
Also, both smart businesses and the military are coming to realize that, as Herman Daly once said, "The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment." Nature provides many "free" services to both business and the rest of society, and we put those services at risk when we overextract, pollute etc. We want those good services to continue, so we need an ethic of conserving -- water, fossil fuels, clean air, predictable temperatures, plants, animals, etc. Many conservative Christian communities are also waking up to the necessity of "Creation Care" -- taking care of the beautiful world God has given to all of us.
We all do not all share this quality of easily dismissing facts and injecting our own opinions as a substitute for scientists, but conservatives are more casual with it than many. They can question Natural Selection theory based on biblical principles and then they can question whether the health reform bill will lead to pulling the plug on grandma. It is all the same. I feel that they just do not put the same value on information. Information to them just serves ideological purposes and does not have value in itself. Anyway, we can probably ignore climate change for a few more years and get used to the erratic weather patterns until it becomes commonplace. But our relationship to the truthfulness of information we present is important.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_insights_of_paul_ehrlich.php
I'm not anti-AGW but the environmentalist position on this is just textbook "Groupthink".
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
I find if very hard to accept that every criticism, every dissenting voice contrary to the environmentalist position is inspired by corporate infamy or political jealousy. Science just doesn't work this way so all I can reasonably do is doubt the science.
lff
Overpopulation and starvation are still problems.
Not sure what point you are trying to make? It would be really nice if this were scare-tactics from some conspiracy. But no one stands to gain if AGW folks are right. And everyone loses.
Seems like the conspiracy folks would have to look to Big Oil and Dirty Coal to find anyone who benefits. and they would benefit from having a bunch of people try to discredit, or deny, global warming, while also saying it is impossible to replace the toxic fuels. But that would never happen. America is too smart for that.
Tom
Haven't you been berating others here for "selection bias" in the data they use to support their arguments. I mean really! Copper and energy prices between 2007 and 2008! You conveniently cropped your data set to miss the over 50% plunge in the prices of both of these commodities to levels not seen since 2006.
In any case Simon repeatedly asked Ehrlich and Holdren to try again. They always refused - essentially they got it wrong twice.
I'm not worried about an environmentalist conspiracy. As I said I am worried about environmentalist "Groupthink". Your use of "selection bias" in "rationalizing" the environmentalist failure to accurately predict commodity prices are two important indicators of Groupthink.
You can complete a trio of symptoms by just "stereotyping" me as a "denier".
The actual data:
http://i28.tinypic.com/wwho49.png
Judge for yourself.
You don't get it. The accepted science is that AGW is real and now.
You, as a denier, need to provide some REAL science to counter it.
I predict
You must think you are on a denier site, where you can post some para-science and hy-uck it up with all your similarly "educated" buddies.
Not claiming Huffington post is peer reviewed, but the caliber of most commenters is typically enlightened by education and reason.
Tom
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
"Average temperatures of waters at the oceans’ surface in July were the highest ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. The agency said the average sea surface temperature was 1.06 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 61.5 degrees. Though July was unusually cool in some areas, like the eastern United States, analysts at the NOAA Climate Data Center said the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.03 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, the fifth warmest since worldwide record keeping began in 1880. The agency also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third lowest on record, after 2007 and 2006."
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=513&Itemid=1
The origins of "fried fish's" attitude is in our culture. Schools and parents praise the child's meager effort, to save his self esteem. But true self esteem comes from gaining capability.
Reporters don't get science courses or any discipline besides how to write. They are trained to be 'fair' and 'balanced'; any oddball opinion of a well-spoken poseur is as good as the findings of a person who works every day doing science with real data and other scientists.
"The Ignorant can judge as well as the Experts" has gained ascendancy. Fed by 'think tanks' supporting the commercial goals of an industry, it's only a quick slide to "Lies are as good as Truth" in order to "present both sides".
Opinions in the absence of knowledge or data are taking over television "news". I personally know two talking heads, mis-presented as experts in their field. Both are well spoken, telegenic, and self-confident as they purvey b***t. Makes me suspicious of everyone I see on TV.
Science is NOT democratic. The purpose of research is to find ONE answer that best satisfies the data. Science IS Authority. And you, "fried fish", need to do a lot more work before you know enough to make a judgement. Get over it.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
Lindzen:
"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale. "
The dominant force in control of the Earth's climate is the Sun.
Those are the people who stand to gain the most from global warming hysteria. Their Cap and Trade schemes will dwarf anything big oil has ever earned.
Unless you denounce Cap and Trade you have no moral standing in accusing AGW skeptics of having an agenda.
What is your evidence for this? What new conspiracy theory combines Goldman Sachs, financial institutions and community organizers? The people who stand to benefit from the status quo are big oil and other polluters.
Not sure what all your other crazy talk is about.
I've got to ask though - are you a birther?
All that I denounce is proud ignorance. When I refute a denier claim, it shouldn't reappear two messages later. When facts are presented, they should be respected. When the future of the habitable planet is at stake, a little hysteria is an appropriate response. At this point in history, ignorance isn't cute, it is deadly to my children's future.
Tom
PS - there is a better solution than cap and trade. Check out www.capanddividend.org/?q=readfirst
This will lead to pricing manipulations- just like 5 dollar gasoline last year just so they can take that 50 million dollar bonuses home.
Bankers will make more money from this than oil companies ever did.
This has a potential of becoming so big and profitable for bankers that they will use their influence in government to suppress green technologies just to keep the gravy train going. Banker's greed has no equal and knows no morals.
So, you are replacing one status quo with another- potentially more powerful and persistent.
No I'm not a birther- not that it has anything to do with subject at hand.
Read my comments below (different message). I explain exactly why the parallels between the deniers and the birthers are real, and they are frightening.
This is the world we live in. Rational conversation is not possible when your interlocutor is immune to facts.
It is sad. The best case is those with fact immunity get ignored. But media and social relativity say every voice must be heard (which is OK) and has EQUAL value. But a trained scientist (who has spent 10 years studying his or her specialty, plus a lifetime of PASSIONATE pursuit of their subject matter) trumps the layman every time. That is what gets lost, and all the sudden we have death panels and birthers and deniers and they are somehow credible.
It is not how democracy works. It may appear to be democracy, but it is the tyranny of the terminally ignorant. Policy based on this foundation has not choice but to be deeply flawed.
Tom
arrhenius was wrong!!
http://www.physorg.com/print168791411.html
A direct quote from your link.
For crying out loud fumes/richard2, do you really think that we don't read your links?
You just can't make this stuff up.
To many people pull some crazy claim from the past and then say it was the environmentalist's fault.
But when you look at it, a crazy person made a claim. Then the people who want to deny reality say this was the mainstream argument.
Usually false.
Tom
Tim Flannery made these claims (Australian of the Year 2007(?)):
"In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”"
Basically the fear of the undiscovered country.
Sorry, just had to use a Star Trek reference.
FEAR OF CHANGE!
The claim that temps have stabilized is a lie. That's where the anger comes from.
When you post lies, whether through dishonesty, or ignorance, I get angry.
Those who claim otherwise, especially after having the truth pointed out to them, are deceivers. Which is evil
www.realclimate.org
Or look at any site which posts the actual average annual temperature. The data doesn't lie. Only the deniers do that.
Tom
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
And looking at it again I see that 1999 and 2000 were slightly below the +2C trend line. So let's just say not a single year this century is below the +2C trend line.
Tom
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2894
He seems quite reasonable. Hardly a "shrill, loud, Neanderthal". But maybe Linda can offer him some free Ecotherapy just to be on the safe side.
Oh, in anticipation of some of the juvenile insults I see below, I'll just say by way of disclosure that I am an AGW skeptic, not a "birther", voted for Obama, not paid by Oil Companies ... have a nice day!
"Oh this global wahming wigamawol. It is just so vewy tiahwing, don't you know? Weally, it is just so bahwing." (waves perfumed hanky in front of face and looks bored)
Gee. Sorry that facts seem to have you so bored. Time to switch the chanel.
Good Cahmedy is veva bahwing.