Claim: Psychology Will Save Us from Climate Change

The Thinker by Rodin, original photo by Andrew Horne, modified, public domain source Wikimedia,_Rodin.jpg
The Thinker by Rodin, original photo by Andrew Horne, modified, public domain source Wikimedia,_Rodin.jpg

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Can psychology help manipulate people into accepting climate alarmism, and adjusting their personal lifestyles? According to The Conversation, the answer might be yes – but people have to believe and trust the information they are given.

The Paris agreement on climate change calls for a global responsibility to cooperate. As we are often reminded, we urgently and drastically need to limit our use of one shared resource – fossil fuels – and its effect on another – the climate. But how realistic is this goal, both for national leaders and for us? Well, psychology may hold some answers.

Psychologists and economists have long explored the conflict between short-term individual and long-term collective interests when dealing with shared resources. Think of the commons dilemma: the scenario in which a field for grazing cattle works well when everyone cooperates by sticking to one cow each, but which leads to the so-called “tragedy of the commons” if more selfish drives take over.

It is useful to think about overuse of fossil fuels and its effect on the climate as a similar dilemma. If we were to think of this from a purely economic perspective, we would likely act selfishly. But psychological research should make us more optimistic about cooperation.

Social beings

We don’t identify and act just as individuals but as members of social groups. We may belong to a family, a community, a nation and the planet, and behave in ways that benefit the group rather than the individual. A shared group identity (such as identifying yourself as a member of your nation or the local school community) can increase cooperation, especially if we believe that group shares our values about the environment. If you strongly identify with your community you don’t need an incentive to cooperate.

But at what level should this shared identity be emphasised? Emphasising national identity can prevent cooperation between nations, by increasing competition between them. However, this can be used to an advantage, since nations care about their reputation. So perhaps they could compete to be better than others at meeting climate change goals?

… Big decisions could be facilitated by many of the psychological processes we have described, that focus on global identity, long-term gain rather than short-term loss, intergroup competition and reputation, rewards, shared norms, providing sufficient and clear information, and instilling trust and transparency.

Read more:

Trust is a huge issue with the climate movement. All the wild predictions which have failed, the sometimes hysterical refusal to release raw data, the often opaque manipulation of data, the shouting down of criticism rather than engagement, the name calling, the threats – not exactly a trust building exercise.

Then of course there is the bizarre refusal on the part of most greens, to embrace options which might actually reduce CO2, such as nuclear power – which in my opinion raises legitimate concerns, that greens care less about CO2, than they care about their political objectives.

There is also the question of whether increased cooperation is actually a good idea. Cooperation might sound warm and fuzzy, but cooperation can be the opposite of freedom. The more people feel compelled to cooperate, to act in a certain way, the less freedom they have to make their own decisions. It doesn’t matter whether that “cooperation” is enforced by fear of consequences, or through more subtle manipulations, such as messages which promote shame, guilt, and peer pressure – either way, people subject to this kind of manipulation lose some of their freedom. Extreme cooperation is sometimes necessary, when society is imperilled by a threat of military invasion, or other imminent disaster; But history is full of stories of societies whose liberty was overturned, when cooperation went too far, when the people traded freedom for unity.

As the famous author Terry Pratchett once wrote, “Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Robertson
February 26, 2016 1:11 pm

Propaganda works, if you would only believe.
Psychiatric care is certainly called for, but as that whole industry seems simpatico with Climatology, I guess we will have to revert to the time favoured solution.
Banishment of the fools and bandits who endanger your community.
What is the “Conversation” Talk amongst yourselves?

Reply to  John Robertson
February 26, 2016 5:11 pm

“Psychology may hold some answers…Emphasizing national identity…can be used to advantage, since nations care about their reputation.”
Oh brother! Another one of the hive’s urgent calls for a better agit-prop, where the manipulative, we-depend-on-the-stupidity-of-the-American-people detail of the hive’s latest, con-job brainstorm is openly discussed within earshot of us coolie-trash, despised nobodies who are the very target of our betters’ proposed scam. So weren’t our Philosopher-King wannabes ever taught not to talk in front of us servants?
But back to our betters’ brainstorm. So the hive’s “big plan” is for a bunch of brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, make-a-greenwashed-buck, one-percenter types to urge on us despised hoi-polloi the virtues of a “national reputation” in matters of carbon-reduction, even as they, themselves, ostentatiously rub our plebeian noses in their own carbon-glutton, private-jet, jet-set lifestyles. And, naturally, we can expect our betters’ paeans to the glories of the low-carbon lifestyle (for us proto-serfs, of course, not them) to be rolled out in a co-ordinated, PR flurry of robotic, flim-flam high-fives and huzzahs from the usual “suspects”: the MSM stooges; the Hollywood air-heads; the brainwashed, snot-nosed, spoiled-brat, useful-idiot, massively-indebted college-kids, poised to join the ranks of the unemployed; and the ivory tower’s cringing, servile, butt-kissing sell-out bunch of grant-seeking, goof-off trough-suckers, indifferent to the plight of the kids, they are screwing over.
And so the above post’s Gaia-hustle du jour, with it’s steaming load of cognitive-dissonance crapola (is this another one of Aaron McCright’s cretinous, great ideas?) is, then, supposed to whip up, in us useless-eater peons, who do all the work, our competitive juices so that we are, then, in turn, willing to commit national economic suicide (our betters spared any sacrifice, it goes without saying) for the sake of Gaia-freak braggin’ rights and the title “World’s Biggest Dumb-Ass Sucker Nation”. Did I get that last little detail right there, hive-bozos? So what could possibly go wrong with this little hive-plot? I mean, like, the hive’s doom-butts are getting dumb and dumber, by the day.
But our betters have a point, after a fashion–“Psychology may hold some answers”. And, indeed, if the hive’s Gruber-clones are to succeed in their hellish, dork-genic designs, then they most certainly do need to use “psychology”. For psychological “mind-fracking” is the only way for our betters to bamboozle us expendable-herdlings into enlisting, in mass, for “cannon-fodder” service in their ever-morphing, power-and-control, rip-off crusades.
And in that regard, there actually is one psychological approach that will unfailingly–you have my personal guarantee!–turn around the fortunes of the hive’s currently-sputtering quest for the parasite-friendly, neo-feudal, hell-on-earth dystopia of their dreams. And I am speaking–as you already must have guessed, dear reader–of the psychological “tool” known as LEADERSHIP!!!LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON-FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!! That’s the ticket hive-heroes!
Curious, isn’t it, how the one psychological tack that would really work–exemplary leadership–is also the very one rejected out of hand by our betters, even as they theatrically flog their carbon-reduction puffery. Tells all you need to know about these big-shot grifters and their little eco-racket.

Reply to  mike
February 27, 2016 5:21 am

you’ve hit the nail on the head. the self-serving, self-righteous hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Gore, Obama and DiCaprio speaks volumes.
They remind me of the preacher who tells the congregation to abstain from sex, so that he can get it on with the congregation behind everyone’s back.
They remind me of the dinner guest that tells everyone they should eat less and watch their weight, while he piles the food high on his plate.
It is all about fear and greed. They are greedy. They want privilege above all others. Andy now having gained privilege they fear losing it. They preach that we should do with less, so they can have more. We should take only a small piece of pie, leaving them the lions share.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  mike
February 27, 2016 7:06 pm

I rarely … If ever do this but,,
+10 thumbs ups.

Reply to  John Robertson
February 27, 2016 6:23 am

Ad men have been “going deep” using psychological manipulation since the early 1950’s. Basic unconscious human needs for security, peer acceptance, sexuality, and status are their tools. The blunt instrument used most commonly these days is FEAR, so over-used that as a society we now have a collective case of “adrenal fatigue.” Millions of people changed their diet away from traditional fatty foods that made them feel full, substituting processed “carbage,” only to be told 40 years later it was all a mistake, eggs and bacon were OK anyway. A hundred “threats” like this have turned out to be lies–including CAGW. The predictions beginning 30 years ago that the sky was falling have not come true–so are now being mentally filed with asteroid strikes and invasions by zombies as things that are a waste of time to worry about. Simply put, the carefully crafted illusion has fallen apart, and its agenda is crumbling before our eyes. OUR job is to call out EVERY LAST SHRED of this nonsense when we see it.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 27, 2016 9:13 am

You are referring to Vance Packard’s books, which too few are familiar with these days since they were published in the 50s and 60s. Because I do so much research into how education globally is using this same cybernetic/ behavioral sciences model, his work is on my radar.
We are also both quite scared of what Kenneth Boulding had in mind as systems thinking. The Conversation is telling us that it is the internalized model of reality, literally brain-based, student-centered learning, that education is targeting for transformation for political purposes. Precisely what I warned of in my first book Credentialed to destroy and have documented thoroughly for its sequel coming out next year.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 27, 2016 4:01 pm

Hmmmm. The first thought that came into my mind when I read your post is perhaps they shift to fearing a Trump POTUS.

Reply to  John Robertson
February 27, 2016 9:22 am

The entire plan to use psychology via K-12 education and media sound bytes is laid out here.
Since that post was written a ‘Bicameral, Bipartisan’ Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act remodeling American education dramatically. The psychology the Conversation writes about comes into formative assessments of what students will do in novel situations where there is no single correct answer where students get measured by what “higher order concepts” they use to analyze the situation. It is what the statute means by ‘higher order thinking skills and understanding’ and it must be assessed at least annually through middle school. Less interest once the mind ceases to be as malleable.
No one is asking permission and all this is designed to be out of sight or hiding behind words that parents falsely assume has the Websters dictionary meaning. Why do you think I call my blog the Invisible Serfs Collar?
What is unknown or misunderstood is hard to oppose effectively in time.
Australia, like virtually every other country, is also pushing HOTS through formative assessments. They are also known as assessments for learning. They are not ‘tests’ in any historic meaning of the term.

Reply to  Robin
February 27, 2016 7:46 pm

… pirated from Son of Kandide:
” Kandide, however, was still considering what he had heard J.J. telling Blefry and his cognitive gestation period had elapsed, giving birth to a question that he spontaneously outblurted: “Are you a mad scientist?!”
“Perish the thought!” said Big Jay with a loud chuckle, “I’m merely and angry one.”
“But I just heard J.J. telling Blefry that he was planning to destroy the human race!”
“Oh, no, no!” said Big Jay. “That’s quite untrue! We love the human race! J.J. especially, right J.J.? Destroying the human race would be suicidal- insane! On the other hand, if one can facilitate the process of natural rejection, one could make the world so much more congenial for Homo sapiens.”
“But I just heard J.J. say he wanted to destroy them! I heard it!”
“I understand,” said Big Jay. “but you have misunderstood. J.J. was talking about an entirely different species. You have to have a proper understanding of what is human and what merely mimics its appearance in order to parasitise it.”
“So what do you call human?” asked Kandide.
“A human being is an organism whose distinguishing characteristic and basic tool of survival is a mind capable of receiving, integrating and storing information which corresponds one to one with reality and whose actions further his own life as a human being.”
“So doesn’t everyone do that?”
“Everyone is born with the capacity, but most are deliberately crippled by their parents before they can learn to think. Face it, people are manufactured by unskilled labor. The only individual who can maintain a machine properly is the person who understands it so well he could build it himself. If you let a monkey drive your car, you can expect, in very short order, to transform that car into a wreck. A wreck is not a car because it doesn’t do any of the things a car does. If a mind, designed to abstract truth from observation, is no longer capable of doing the things a mind does then it is no longer a mind.”
“So what are you, some kind of racist?”

Rob Morrow
February 26, 2016 1:12 pm

The thought police have arrived.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 26, 2016 3:15 pm

The thought police have been here for way too long already and not just with regards to the global warming campaign.

Reply to  eyesonu
February 26, 2016 7:14 pm

They are already in the schools and universities. Just look at how they’re treating any speech they disagree with on campuses around Western countries.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 26, 2016 3:30 pm

This reminds me of the old saying about how Communists negotiate. “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”
The leftist psychologists seem to be saying. “I know there is global warming. If you disagree psychologists will manipulate you until you agree and cooperate.”

Reply to  Leonard Lane
February 26, 2016 6:14 pm

I’m actually more reminded of Stalin’s practice of declaring enemies insane and having them committed

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 26, 2016 4:08 pm

UNEP, COP21, Paris Events
Dec.4, 2015
Time, 13:15-14:45
Topic Education
“Education is a key vector to prepare societies for global changes, plays a central role in achieving SDGs and putting in place a global agreement on climate change.”
STGs probably Sustainable Development Goals.
Scroll down:

Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 4:10 pm

Should be SDGs Sustainable Development Goals.

Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 5:37 pm

COP21, Paris, Events, Dec.2015
Side Event
Topic: Psychology, Activity
‘Climate change psychology and the potential of non-formal climate change education’
Speaker: George Marshall (COIN)

Phil R
Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 6:24 pm

“Education is a key vector…”
My wife works for a pest control company and, to them, vectors are disease-carrying pests such as mosquitoes, ticks, rats, etc.

Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 7:05 pm

Yale Climate Change Connections, May 14, 2013
‘What Makes Climate Communicator George Marshall Tick?’
George Marshall (COIN)

Phil R
Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 7:34 pm

Thanks for the link. I’m sitting here Pondering what to say, but that was too bizarre. I had a low opinion of psychology already, but WTF? Then I got to the section headed,

What Journalists Should Do

I used to think they should just do their job, but he thinks they should be on board spreading the “climate change” dogma.

Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 7:43 pm

Phil R February 26, 2016 at 6:24 pm says:

“Education is a key vector…”
My wife works for a pest control company and, to them, vectors are disease-carrying pests such as mosquitoes, ticks, rats, etc.

Phil, you are correct. ‘Vector’ is the wrong word. ‘Factor’ is the correct one.
vec•tor ‘vektər’ noun
noun: vector; plural noun: vectors
1. 1. Mathematics Physics
a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.
o Mathematics
a matrix with one row or one column.
o a course to be taken by an aircraft.
o Computing
denoting a type of graphical representation using straight lines to construct the outlines of objects.
modifier noun: vector
2. 2. an organism, typically a biting insect or tick, that transmits a disease or parasite from one animal or plant to another.
o Genetics
a bacteriophage or plasmid that transfers genetic material into a cell, or from one bacterium to another.
verb: vector; 3rd person present: vectors; past tense: vectored; past participle: vectored; gerund or present participle: vectoring
1. 1. direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point
fac•tor ˈfaktər/ noun
noun: factor; plural noun: factors
1. 1. a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.
“his legal problems were not a factor in his decision”
o Biology
a gene that determines a hereditary characteristic.
“the Rhesus factor”
2. 2. a number or quantity that when multiplied with another produces a given number or expression.
o Mathematics
a number or algebraic expression by which another is exactly divisible.
3. 3. Physiology
any of a number of substances in the blood, mostly identified by numerals, which are involved in coagulation.
4. 4. a business agent; a merchant buying and selling on commission.
o a company that buys a manufacturer’s invoices at a discount and takes responsibility for collecting the payments due on them.
o archaic
an agent, deputy, or representative.
verb: factor; 3rd person present: factors; past tense: factored; past participle: factored; gerund or present participle: factoring
1. 1. Mathematics
another term for factorize.
2. 2. sell (one’s receivable debts) to a factor.

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 5:27 am : Barbara you will enjoy Mark Steyn

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 26, 2016 5:47 pm

There’s a self-styled Hari Seldon amongst them.

Reply to  PiperPaul
February 26, 2016 6:36 pm

Heinleins’ Foundation trilogy was a favourite of mine.
If I remember correctly, even Hari Seldons grand plan fell apart when an unpredictable variable came along.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Felflames
February 26, 2016 6:43 pm

Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, not Heinlein.

February 26, 2016 1:12 pm

As for “global identity”… how’s the U N doing?

Bruce Cobb
February 26, 2016 1:16 pm

How do you get people to believe lies, and do things which aren’t in their best interest? By pretending that it’s “just science” and that “all (or most) scientists are in agreement”. Joseph Goebbels understood the art of using mass psychology.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 26, 2016 2:30 pm

A good example of qualifiers used today to encourage psychological support for just about every product on the shelves is that it’s “clinically proven”, often without so much as a reference to the study – if any had actually occurred.

February 26, 2016 1:20 pm

Start the shock treatments. Then do more surveys and publish.

Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 1:21 pm

Claim: Psychology Will Save Us from Climate Change

Hmmm…. Well, in one sense, the psychology was used to produce the “scare” so I suppose exposing the psychology used (as it is used by propaganda) could save us from the ACGP (Anthropomorphic Climate Global Propaganda).

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 1:23 pm

(Of course, that might make it tough on used car salesmen.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 2:00 pm

Wow. The egotistical stupidity is breathtaking.
(Gunga Din…there’s a reason people view climate activists with about the same degree of loathing they do used car salesmen.)
“So perhaps they could compete to be better than others at meeting climate change goals?”
They have conditioned us for decades that it’s politically incorrect to “compete to win”-everyone gets a trophy today…remember? And that every one and every thing is “equal”-no one is “better than others” at
“However, this can be used to an advantage, since nations care about their reputation”
They DO? All THEY have done is tear down ANY sense of patriotism, or reputation of good, moral, upstanding people that US Citizens used to have. THEY couldn’t give a rats behind about the reputation of this country or they wouldn’t be trying to sell it out all the time.
“We don’t identify and act just as individuals but as members of social groups. We may belong to a family, a community, a nation and the planet, and behave in ways that benefit the group rather than the individual. A shared group identity (such as identifying yourself as a member of your nation or the local school community) can increase cooperation, especially if we believe that group shares our values about the environment. If you strongly identify with your community you don’t need an incentive to cooperate.”
Shared identity CAN increase cooperation….but it is not an automatic result, even if you believe that group shares our values. If you do NOT “strongly identify” with your community, then you most surely DO need an incentive to cooperate, and still may NOT cooperate.
THEY have conditioned us for decades to believe in “class warfare”. That rich people hate and extort poor people and THAT undermined a sense of “community”. They speak of skeptics as if they are war criminals, greedy, insane, conspiracy theorists who do NOT share their values about the environment…which has undermined a sense of “community”. They have attacked religions, political opponents, moral values they disagree with, and other scientists they don’t agree with. That has undermined a sense of community. They call anyone a racist any time they choose to…whether that person truly is one or not…which tears communities apart. These are NOT the people who should be talking about ways to unite people….ever.
I think that this discussion at The Conversation is one of the most hilarious, pathetic, unreal, completely oblivious ones I have ever seen, and it is taking place among some of the most obviously cognitively biased people on the planet. Someone should study social scientists for a living. Or at least sheer entertainment value.

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 3:22 pm

You make many good points that a majority (I suppose) of us here already know. Thank you for saying it.

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 27, 2016 6:41 pm

Climate Change was an exercise in Mass Psychology, as you suggest. Since the first wave failed, they’re doubling down on it.

February 26, 2016 1:33 pm

Don’t tread on me.

Tom Halla
February 26, 2016 1:35 pm

Perhaps better evidence…no, the goal is to get people to comply with the groupthink regardless of evidence. It does start to resemble what the old Soviet Union got to be–where no one really believed the basic operating theory, but the intelligensia benefited from that theory.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2016 6:29 am

Global Warming is unique as a “cause,” because you don’t have to DO anything but feel superior because you wring your hands, Earnestly Concerned. And buy the squiggly dim light bulbs. Have you noticed no one, anywhere, is discouraging the rampaging sales in the US of large, V-8 pickup trucks? I don’t even hear anyone dissing SUV’s anymore. Gas here is down to $1.81 a gallon, and that’s with 45 cents’ tax! Frankly, the only people still gassing about “carbon footprint” are twits, and they sound very “last century.” The moment is OVER, folks–this hissing and spitting is just the post-game pity party of the losers.

John Robertson
February 26, 2016 1:36 pm

“The information they are given”.
Yup no concept that people might have the wisdom to check out the validity of this “gift” from our parasitic friends.
I wonder how Brad Keyes is making out in his mockery of these “science communicators”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John Robertson
February 26, 2016 2:19 pm

“The information they are given”.

The internet has made it so much easier to control “the information” that is given. No need to do a “recall” of past published on paper data. Just change the data at the web address. (And trust that few know about such things as “TheWayBackMachine”. )

Bill Illis
February 26, 2016 1:39 pm

It has already been nothing but propaganda for nearly 30 years now.
Some people have bought into the line, others not.
But science is not psychology or propaganda. It is strictly non-emotional, and non-propaganda. It is proof of concept with data and facts and inherent non-conflict-of-interest.
Psychology has not saved us from climate change. It has just made climate science move away from what science was all about it in the first place.
Somehow, they just think that the right “communications message” will get everyone on-board. No, you need to do some actual science to get everyone on-board.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bill Illis
February 26, 2016 2:09 pm

It is a bit ridiculous that the tryranizers have had all the mainstream press, all the governments and civil servants, all the universities and scientific intstitutes, all the major foundations, all the real cash to bury skeptics in 100’s of thousands of papers on imminent disaster, and even the best mind bending that Madison Avenue has to offer and they can’t win this battle. It would have been over in a week if even one of them could have shown that rising CO2 was doing what they’ve been agonizing over.
The trouble with their program is they can’t refrain from revealing what the real agenda is. When the dreaded pause began to grind them down, they abandoned the science and are now trying to coerce, threaten and make it against the law to disagree! They have adopted Stephen Schneider’s admonition that they have to lie, exaggerate and cook up certainty for the cause and this appears to work against them. They have all become students of Alinsky.
And Jan Kozak’s “Not a shot was fired” his how to book on using parliament and democratic tools for converting a country to communism (it works, Kozak did just that in Czechoslovakia). This book is now available on Amazon for about 3 dollars – probably must reading in Ivy League colleges.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 26, 2016 6:19 pm

The problem is that they have no desire to “win the battle”. Doing so would cause massive suffering, and they would lose not only a lot personally, but all of the advantages that they have gained. We see it already in Britain. The wind farm dependency started endangering the grid, and it was less than a month after the first big scare that they started investing in massive diesel generators. It’s just a matter of time before their policies crack under their own weight, and already people are getting more and more skeptical of the “Catastrophic” part of CAGW

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 27, 2016 6:18 pm

It takes a long time for ideas to percolate to the public. The Greeks knew the earth was round and had figured out climate zones and variation by latitude 900 years ago. Yet it took hundreds of years for it to become publicly accepted and taught.
With the education system currently pushing “Carbon Pollution”, it will take a long time for science to recover.
Hat tip to Mosher in a discussion with Willis from May last year. Kudos to both in that very interesting post:

1. Geography and climate
It has long been assumed that climate is largely controlled by location or geography. In the sixth century BC, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras recognised the sphericity of the Earth and the dominance of latitude in explaining climate variation (Sanderson 1999). Two centuries later Aristotle expanded on Pythagoras’s foundation and introduced five climate zones, ranging from tropical to northern frigid. It is not coincidental that in the early 20th century German scientist Koeppen also used 5 climate zones in his classification, identified with the letters A-E.
If you didn’t see the thread and the detailed discussion by Mosh and Willis, it is worth revisiting:

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 26, 2016 8:53 pm

They are running out of time. They got close. If they just could have figured out how to put money in people’s pockets, just enough, they could have pulled it off. They were getting close. If they had institutionalized CO2 as a pollutant, they would have been able to make high carbon users pay. Think class action lawsuits for people who live next to carbon dioxide producing zones being paid by people who produce the carbon dioxide. A lovely trial lawyers association dream.
8 more years of the program will pull it off though.
Big election in America.

Reply to  Bill Illis
February 27, 2016 6:31 am

Show us the evidence! Barring that, no one’s getting “on board” with anything! People have been tuning this out for years already, and that’s the smart ones. The less education never cared to begin with.

February 26, 2016 1:41 pm

Warmistas can see ‘The End’ sign coming up and are moving towards the exits.

Harry Passfield
February 26, 2016 1:45 pm

The desperate warmists know that they have planned to build their Utopian world on the quicksand of their incredible theory, but they don’t mind, they expect us to live in it – with all the consequences that follow.
In all conflicts, it is Psy-Ops who get the call to help make the difference. And the bigger the lies they can tell, all the better – for their Masters (sorry: Faculty Deans). But when it all goes tits up, they are the expendables. I hope the likes of Lew know this.

Mark from the Midwest
February 26, 2016 1:52 pm

Psychology, with the exception of some of the work on cognition, learning and memory, is pretty much a joke. Experimental Psychology is a bigger joke, it has no central theory and is just a mish-mash of small sample studies, that often contradict one another.
The whole of knowledge which underlies motivation, and stimulates people to act, has not progressed past the philosophical dilemma of “I do A” which gets me to “B” which gets me to “C” and so on, until you resolve the basic cause of action. When they crack that nut I’ll start giving some due.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
February 27, 2016 6:42 pm

Motivation versus manipulation.
Politicians (and a lot of others) manipulate people rather than motivate them.
Marketing creates demand where no demand previously existed. Do they motivate people into buying the product or do they manipulate them? They likely don’t care. You can’t argue with success. Correctness doesn’t enter the equation.

February 26, 2016 2:10 pm

Scott Wilmot Bennett
Reply to  kokoda
February 26, 2016 6:46 pm

Don’t forget the classic:

“De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da”
Poets, priests and poiticians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no one’s jamming their transmission
‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you (The Police)

Fly over Bob
February 26, 2016 2:13 pm

Soooo! To Climate Quackery, Psychobabblery is being added.

February 26, 2016 2:14 pm

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. – Abraham Lincoln

America is tired of being lied to. There’s a good chance the The Donald will be the next president. link Why? The population has figured out that they can’t trust either the Republicans or the Democrats. They’ve figured out that Congress doesn’t care what they think.
Propaganda is propaganda and manipulation is manipulation. People are fed up with that crap and, IMHO, it could badly backfire on the CAGW alarmists. All that’s necessary is to create an association between CAGW and the establishment in the minds of the citizens.
What will President Trump do? Here’s a clue:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. link

Tom Judd
Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2016 7:05 pm

‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.’
I don’t think that’s true. I personally think the West is doing it to itself. But, just for fun, if you make that claim to anybody and they don’t believe it explain to them who Maurice Strong was, and then tell them that Strong passed away recently at his penthouse apartment in …
… Beijing.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 10:49 pm

Strong passed away recently at his penthouse apartment in … … Beijing.

Say what?! Actually, he passed away in Ottawa. His obituary indicates that he was living in an old folks home called Rockcliffe Residence.
He did have a penthouse in Beijing where he was a professor at Peking University.
Strong was tangled up in the Oil-for-Food scandal. He was never charged but he did decamp to Beijing. He had an explanation for a check for nearly a million dollars that he is reported to have received from someone who was convicted. text of wsj article I think it is important to note that the WSJ was able to run the headline “The U.N.’s Man of Mystery Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?” without getting sued.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 5:31 am

he was living in an old folks home called Rockcliffe Residence.
then why was he not handed over to the US authorities? Park was in jail for his part in the Oil for Food program. Strong was wanted by the US authorities in connection with this. The million dollar check was made out to him. So why wasn’t Strong handed over?

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 6:09 am

ferdberple says:
February 27, 2016 at 5:31 am
… So why wasn’t Strong handed over?

The US government has to apply to the Canadian government to extradite someone. Then the person has the right to appeal to the courts. As far as I can tell, none of that has happened.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 8:20 am

It’s important to note that the nearly million dollar check he received originated with Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister of Iraq. I may be wrong (I guess I was with Strong’s place of death*) but I believe that lucrative check was unearthed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As number two to Kofi Anan, Strong was in an undeniable position to do favors for Saddam.
*Any controversy concerning Strong’s place of death may be due to the fact that, as a vampire, he had the ability to shape-shift.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 11:15 am

Tom Judd says:
February 27, 2016 at 8:20 am
… lucrative check was unearthed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

According to this article you are probably right. What a complicated, festering cesspool. Saddam made Al Capone look like an amateur.

Reply to  commieBob
February 26, 2016 8:27 pm

Thanks Commie Bob
I had never seen Trumps e-view on CAGW.
I heard he thinks it’s BS but I didn’t know why.
A big buzz these days about the accuracy of
I chuckle and wonder if this was put out to scare people about the reality of a President Trump.
Nonetheless if he actually wins that’s less than a year to go for full unfettered climate hysteria.
I wonder when the money will move en masses back to fossils like coal. Japan just committed to several coal fired plants
The wind is shifting.

February 26, 2016 2:19 pm

It’s more Sociology than Psychology IMO. Carl Marx & his collective ideas, is considered one of the founding fathers of that subjective study.

February 26, 2016 2:27 pm

The only potential role for psychology is a study on how stupendously overblown claims by the IPCC and alarmist scientists gained any traction at all, never mind turn political leaders and the media into blithering idiots.
You want to study climate, fine. Have fun. You want to act like biblical level prophets, keep it to yourself or take a long drive off a short pier.

February 26, 2016 2:32 pm

Why not….Obama hired a bunch up behavioral psychologists to direct his campaign……
How to trick them into it…..

February 26, 2016 2:35 pm

The thing is… we have to watch ourselves, fellow goats.
I mean it: perhaps this site attracts the more oblique counter-culture voices of AGW skepticism and downright refutation along with a whole bunch of us that are kind of on the fence, but we simply have to be careful not to step into the traps that the popular, populus and herd-thinking majority have placed among our feet.
As Terry Pratchet‘s quote says, “pulling together is the tyranny of the masses; free people pull in many directions”. Paraphrased. But also true.
One thing is nearly certain: so far there’s been nothing bad as the result of increased CO₂ levels. Deserts are being encroached by increasingly green margins. They’re retaining more water. Logged forest recovery rates are increasing. Average forest mass accumulation rate is modestly increasing. Perhaps only weakly correlated, but world grain output is also increasing not just absolute, but per hectare. Could be the seeds. CO₂ is part of it.
And one other thing is just as certain: a whole lot of people have been ‘educated’ to be greenies and ‘eco-warriors’; our children have been endlessly indoctrinated to save the planet … for themselves and their children. While this kind of puts them at odds with their parents, it does at least have them thinking ‘good thoughs’, which perhaps someday will collectivize as informed and weighted voting assessments.
But this same group also has a lot of political influence, and there are potentially giant juicy piles of sin-taxes that could be imposed by the majority on everyone. Because in goverment (and not necessarily by The Government, but by any and all people who take part in governing others), the flow of great piles of money is hugely attractive. People will change their religions if there’s a carrot big enough in the process.
In this, I again pitch: we must watch ourselves. It is too easy to bombastically say things that are not only unconvincing (in arguments, over dinner, in conversations, and so on), but that upon being said then antagonize or estrange the listeners to whatever-all is being coughed forth. I personally have been trying hard over the last 10 years to learn as much as possible about both ‘our’ side and the ‘mainstream pitch’. And not just to respond with canned soundbites, maxims, sharpened darts and pointed piques, but with quiet rich determinism.
Watching our own footsteps is actually rather more important than “winning battles” and losing the war. We’re rather startlingly outnumbered, rather alarmingly outgunned, and most vexingly psychologically undermined by the very institutions that one might nominally hope would actively try to serve the whole public without propagandizing.
Keep reminding our opponents that our smaller number is not a sign of being collectively wrong. Our opposing position is not evidence of acquired insanity. Our skepticism is the very root of scientific discourse, and that the will of the people may be overwhelming, but that without actual evidence – taking collective punitive action may well poison more wells than clear bramble around them.
Lastly, my most recent approach seems to be working best: to assure the listener(s) that while I harbor deep skepticism about the alarm level proposed by rising-CO₂-is-bad advocates, we are all in partnership as stewards of our planet, to see that this remarkable resource is not sullied for us or our future kin. That our partnership of rational assessment has few proposed solutions that are as conservative and rational as implementing a new round of widespread nuclear power development, of funding research into radical methods of vehicular travel electric storage, and so on.
This usually washes away the vituperious “how can you be SO stupid!” rhetoric.
Because they’ve leaving a LOT of landmines for us to step on.

Reply to  GoatGuy
February 26, 2016 2:56 pm

Near as I can tell She is trying to kill us off.
We build shelters, and She knocks them down.
It seems She takes a maniacal enjoyment in Her power.
I do luv a challenge.

Gunga Din
Reply to  u.k(us)
February 26, 2016 3:33 pm

Substitute “We” for “She” and I think you’ve got a handle on the lever.
The “We”‘s lever, whatever it is made of, has always been crafted to shift the “Us” in their direction.

Reply to  GoatGuy
February 26, 2016 8:57 pm

A thoughtful post.
Makes me pause versus the desire to go for the throat.
With such a knee jerk combative atmosphere is it definitely worth acknowledging common ground where found while engaging in debate.

Reply to  GoatGuy
February 27, 2016 6:47 pm


Walt D.
February 26, 2016 2:59 pm

You will never get people to be alarmed by a change in temperature of the same order that your head experiences when you bend down to tie your shoe laces.
We have no experience to suggest that a 1 degree C warming would be anything other than beneficial.
However, a sharp temperature drop, which would occur if we entered into a mini ice age, has well documented catastrophic consequences.

William Astley
February 26, 2016 3:01 pm

We need a psychiatrist not a psychologist. This fiasco (largest and most costly scientific fraud in the history of science) is not going to end well.
Patient: My foot is sore.
Doctor: Why?
Patient: I keep hitting it with a hammer.
Doctor: Stop hitting it with a hammer.
There is no CAGW problem to solve. There is no anthropogenic CO2 emission problem to solve. The developed countries have wasted two trillion dollars on green scams that do not work (significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2) emissions.
All of the developed and developing countries are deeply in debt and spending more than they take in taxes. There are now weekly articles in the Economist magazine discussing the debt crisis and alluding to a possible economic collapse. All countries have run out of money to spend on green scams that do not work.
There are more than a dozen observations that support the assertion that the entire IPCC scientific basis is incorrect, a scam.
The majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 no less than 66% is due to natural causes rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is significant mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a lifetime in the atmosphere of less than 20 years not 200 years and 25% forever as per the idiotic IPCC Bern model of sources and sinks which has created to create a problem.
The majority of the temperature rise (no less than around 90%) in the last 150 years is due to solar cycle changes rather than atmospheric CO2.

Reply to  William Astley
February 27, 2016 2:26 am

“There is no CAGW problem to solve. There is no anthropogenic CO2 emission problem to solve. The developed countries have wasted two trillion dollars on green scams that do not work (significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2) emissions.”
Amen brother, amen. Preach it!
The demonstrated fact that CO2 does not do what the con-men of the left claim is obvious and was from the beginning. It is time to move on to a new green scam. I wonder what they will pick next time.
As an aside, I really did burst out laughing the first time I heard of “global warming” back in the 80s. I had seen graphs of temperature reconstructions during the “new ice age scare” and those graphs still give a fellow the willies for the future. We are not headed towards growing date palms in Alaska. I had also studied physics and thermodynamics enough to know that the “greenhouse” metaphor was wildly off the mark.
Today I make a prediction. GMOs will kill far more people than “global warming” ever will. (unless the sun blows up and we get really warm)

Reply to  markstoval
February 27, 2016 2:30 am

Dear Moderators,
Could you point me towards a list of words that I should not use here. I hate to cause you moderators any additional work by using words that cause a comment to go to moderation and then you have to do extra work. Looking back at my post, I guess I should have known about “sc@m” but I forgot. (I am getting a little older these days)
A list to refer to every once in a while might reduce the moderators burden a bit.
[sorry, we can’t reveal the list -mod]

Reply to  markstoval
February 28, 2016 1:16 pm

Note that while a site can add specific words to a small list of their own, WordPress has a large hidden and dynamic list that the site owner can not see.
I have had my own comment at my own site go to moderation… with no idea why.
Yes, it is a bother. Then again, it mostly works, is free, and takes no maintenance.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
February 29, 2016 11:24 am

“Yes, it is a bother. Then again, it mostly works, is free, and takes no maintenance.”
I realized when I read this that the sentence can be applied to many things associated w being good.

Ian Macdonald
February 26, 2016 3:01 pm

Well, just as there are no chemical-free substances, there is NOTHING we do that is not a product of psychology. That is the greatest challenge to understanding psychology; that the only instrument we have to evaluate it with.. is the same one that experiences it.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
February 26, 2016 3:33 pm

I always enjoy the rhetorical question: “When does a thought become a chemical?”

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
February 26, 2016 3:59 pm

Never heard that one.
I’ll bet the forest didn’t either.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
February 26, 2016 4:40 pm

Or, why is a mouse when it spins?

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
February 26, 2016 10:11 pm

Because a cordless mouse can’t spin, Dave.

February 26, 2016 3:06 pm

“As the famous author Terry Pratchett once wrote, ‘Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.’.”
Keep talking like that and you are going to get the Richard’s upset again.

February 26, 2016 3:13 pm

The AGW propagandists will not be successful at pushing their narrative, because free speech is alive and well, at least in the United States, and reality does not match the claims and predictions of those who promote human-caused global warming/climate change.
I suppose the True Believers don’t see this psychological effort as propaganda, since they believe they are correct on the issue and are just educating the uneducated public. They think they are doing us a favor, by trying to manipulate our thought process in a certain direction.
But it won’t work. The only way they could succeed is if they managed to silence the opposition, but in this case the opposition will not be silenced. Can’t be silenced.

February 26, 2016 3:16 pm

Mind over matter.
If we do not mind, then it does not matter.
Ha ha Fun on Friday! 😉 THBBFT

February 26, 2016 3:17 pm

How many psychologists does it take to change a light-bulb?…..only one, but the light-bulb has to want to change.
How many psychologists does it take to change the weather?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Caleb
February 26, 2016 3:38 pm

“As many as can bought to convince us that what we see out the window isn’t real.” ?

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 3:50 pm

Maybe. But weather has a way of breaking the glass and coming in the window. It is to real to be ignored.
We need psychologists who can really change the weather. I want to see them out there shaking their finger at the sky.

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 5:53 pm

Caleb – Can they be holding something metallic when they do it? 🙂

Robert of Ottawa
February 26, 2016 3:31 pm

Mind control! Yes, we need Soma. I know, let’s make marijuana compulsory!

February 26, 2016 3:32 pm

Psychologists have no such power over the masses. If they did, they could stop ISIS and Al Qaida by explaining the facts of their peaceful religion to them.
The only purpose of this claim is to discredit skeptics by implying that they are psychologically damaged and in need of help. Skips the facts of the argument quite nicely.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 26, 2016 4:14 pm

“The only purpose of this claim is to discredit skeptics by implying that they are psychologically damaged and in need of help.”
This must mean that I’m not, right ?
Well, that’s a relief.

February 26, 2016 3:40 pm

The only relevance I can see in this article from The Conversation is related to my Point #7 below:
“7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.”
For example:
The current Excess Winter Mortality Rate equals about 100,000 deaths per year in the USA, up to 50,000 in the UK and several million worldwide, even in warm climates. These are HUGE numbers; furthermore there is no significant Excess Summer Mortality Rate.
But why is it that northern regions like Scandinavia and Canada have the lowest Excess Winter Mortality Rates? In large part this is because we have adapted to cold weather far better than those living in warmer climates.
Adaptation is the KEY to surviving both global warming and especially global cooling and that depends upon one’s attitude – we Northerners have adjusted our housing and our lifestyles to accommodate cold weather extremes.
A few more thoughts below – climate heresy now, but conventional wisdom in 10 to 20 years.
Best to all, Allan
Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 26, 2016 9:54 pm

Allan MacRae,
Agree 100% with points 1 – 10, with the possible exception of #6; it’s a prediction, so time will tell. The others are spot on.
dbstealey, Planet Earth, February 26, 2016 ☺

Reply to  dbstealey
February 27, 2016 5:19 am

Thank you db.
Regarding my Point #6 above:
I hope to be wrong about global cooling, because humanity suffers greatly in a cooling world. The current Excess Winter Mortality Rate equals about 100,000 deaths per year in the USA, up to 50,000 in the UK and several million worldwide, even in warm climates. There is no significant Excess Summer Mortality Rate.
Challenge Question: When will global cooling start?
In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.
We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.
Ladies and germs – faites vos jeux!
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 27, 2016 11:39 am

yeah- excess winter deaths in tropical regions is a clue that seasonal variations in mortality are not necessarily driven by temperature, eh?
these numbers are used as talking points and the details of what are the actual causes really matter if the goal is understanding rather than propaganda.
the proximal cause of the mortality indicates, to me, that old folks who are on their last legs tend to croak during major holiday seasons.
pinning the blame on temperature requires a lot of elaboration and unsubstantiated assertions.

Reply to  gnomish
March 2, 2016 2:10 am

Gnomish- I disagree with your hypothesis – read our paper and also the Lancet study referred to therein.
Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
February 26, 2016 3:42 pm

DO we really need to add psychobabble to the climate equation? Good grief.

Gunga Din
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
February 26, 2016 3:58 pm

“Psychobabble”? Don’t you mean “Pscichobabble”? The blending of science and language to produce the systematizing of error?

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 7:49 pm

Look at this pendant and repeat after me:
O wa ta doof us I am
O wa ta flim flam scam
Get wida program Sam
O scam I am I am

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 26, 2016 9:58 pm

Like Mr. Natural pranking Flakey Foont? ☺
(Too much like inside baseball? Sorry…)

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 27, 2016 11:40 am

i have those, db- and the furry freak bros.
oh wa tagoo…

Reply to  Gunga Din
February 27, 2016 4:05 pm


Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 28, 2016 1:23 pm

Shouldn’t that be “psiam”?

Reasonable Skeptic
February 26, 2016 3:43 pm

The real answer is so much easier. People on the right perceive uncertainty while the people on the left perceive certainty. This is why it is a political debate not a scientific debate.

Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
February 27, 2016 5:53 am

People on the right perceive uncertainty while the people on the left perceive certainty.
Interesting perspective. young adults are certain their parents are wrong. as they mature they begin to suspect otherwise.

Reply to  ferdberple
February 27, 2016 6:13 am

” Interesting perspective. young adults are certain their parents are wrong. as they mature they begin to suspect otherwise.”
That statement is not always true. Some parents are totally devoid of rational thought, love or compassion towards their children. Further, the families are totally dysfunctional and can be capricious in nature with the rules changing as the situation warrants for the exclusive benefit of one or both parents. Some see their children as little slaves and not much else. Others either by work or by extension of government largess use them for economic gain. In the US the first child abuse case was tried under cruelty to animals.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
February 28, 2016 1:34 pm

Or… “The people that perceive uncertainty are from Missouri (“The Show Me State”) while the people that perceive certainty are from the sheepfolds.”?
To question what is presented, is not a bad trait. To swallow whatever is presented without question, is a bad trait.

February 26, 2016 3:54 pm

Climate change simply put is about radical mass population depopulation while the climate crowd feasts we the unaware face starvation.

Patrick PEAKE
February 26, 2016 4:23 pm

Propagander works. Here in Aus we have an epidemic of anxiety amongst our school children that hinders their social and educational development. I’m sure that being told that everything they enjoy is killing the planet and all the wild animals is a contributing factor. Patrick

Reply to  Patrick PEAKE
February 26, 2016 7:59 pm

Now you know why the children are upset.
Also check out the Australian banks that have pledged to fund renewables at UNEP Finance Initiative/UNEPFI website., and follow the links to the Members list. Includes all countries that have pledged.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Barbara
February 26, 2016 11:45 pm

A pledge is one thing. Fronting up with the money is another.

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 6:00 am

Fronting up with the money is another.
it will be foreign aid funds diverted to climate. Canada will pledge billions to the climate fund. The funds will be given under the stipulation they are used to buy climate services from Canadian firms. Those firms will co-incidentally be the ones that made the largest political contributions during the past election.
The countries receiving the funds will of course deduct a 20-50% administrative fee, which will be deposited in Swiss banks and then moved to untraceable offshore trust funds to the accounts of whichever corrupt despot is current holding the reigns of power in some poorer than dirt 3rd world country.

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 11:54 am

Patrick, the money has already been part of the Canadian financing of renewables. Have not checked other countries.
Banks, insurance and pension funds are and have been sources of funding for renewables in Canada for several years.
UNEPFI was established at the UN Rio Conference in 1992.
Australia has several listed.

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 1:00 pm

UNEP, Est.1972, & 40th Anniversary
UNEP Executive Directors Past & Present
Photos & short biographies:

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 1:40 pm

UNEP, NGO Accreditation , 212 Groups
Greenpeace International
Climate Action Network

February 26, 2016 4:44 pm

As a practicing psychologist I recoiled a bit at “shared identity”, “collective interests”, and the “tragedy of the commons” reference. There is a branch of academic psychology that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Progressive Left and this is their kind of language. These are the people who come up with “micro-aggressions” and other such nonsense.
I will always challenge such as these to spend a week with me in the trenches of some of South Florida’s toughest neighborhoods, and learn what is really oppressing people, and perhaps be amazed at how many do in fact pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty through hard work and effort, something that is apparently anathema to those who believe that such can only be saved by being rescued.
The “Tragedy of the Commons” worldview all but denies agency to individuals who fall under the ‘oppressed’ categories, and this could not be more wrong-headed. Don’t get me wrong, their path is often very difficult, but at the end of that path, those who succeed are far stronger morally, emotionally, and common-sense-wise than many of those who did not have to struggle so hard to achieve personal independence.
>”… Big decisions could be facilitated by many of the psychological processes we have described, that focus on global identity, long-term gain rather than short-term loss, intergroup competition and reputation, rewards, shared norms, providing sufficient and clear information, and instilling trust and transparency.
All top-down stuff: they will decide the reputation, distribute the awards, establish the norms, etc. This is how dependency was created in the first place.
Bottom line: if the boy who cried wolf kept on crying wolf long after the townspeople had given up on him, they’re suggesting that the crowds will come back if they could only find a more knowledgeable communicator to stand there crying wolf instead of the shepherd.

Reply to  Notanist
February 26, 2016 4:59 pm

Hey man, I did not see any trigger warnings ahead of your post.
Hows about a little heads-up next time, yo?

Tom Judd
Reply to  Notanist
February 26, 2016 6:52 pm

Well said, sir. I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who endeavors to use psychology in an attempt to manipulate and control another is the one who is truly deluded. The greatest use of psychology is to set one free. Without our autonomy we are nothing.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 11:24 pm

Not just deluded, but sick in the head. Sociopaths.

February 26, 2016 4:48 pm

We’ve reached Peak CAGW, and the Warmunists are becoming painfully aware of it.comment image

Reply to  catweazle666
February 26, 2016 5:03 pm

and more here (but please grab a bottle of scotch or such before you click)

Reply to  catweazle666
February 26, 2016 8:58 pm

I didn’t know Gaia was a plus size model.

Reply to  knutesea
February 26, 2016 9:33 pm

Yeah, she’s a little more ample than what I had in mind, but hey, you wouldn’t want an anorexic twiggy model. I think Mother Nature looks more like the Statue of Liberty, but without the spikey crown.

Reply to  catweazle666
February 27, 2016 8:23 am

Great cartoon!

February 26, 2016 4:48 pm

Enough Prozac lathered upon the body politic guarantees results in any
form the shrinks desire. AGW? “Take two and call me in the morning”.

Chris Hanley
February 26, 2016 4:54 pm

The general public don’t believe the climate hysterics’ propaganda because they don’t believe it themselves:

February 26, 2016 4:55 pm

This institutionalized nincompoopery is beginning to really wear on my nerves.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 27, 2016 8:27 am


William Astley
February 26, 2016 4:57 pm

Our current individual set of beliefs (everyone including the cult of CAGW) concerning ‘climate change’ is dependent on what has been issued in the mass media, what has been stated by bellwether special individuals who we believe are knowledgeable and/or trust worthy, what we personally know about the scientific facts (paleo climatic record, mechanisms, analysis, peer reviewed papers, and so on), and what has happen recently to planetary temperature.
Change the scenario and then try to imagine how people including yourself, view ‘climate change’.
The planet has started to abruptly cool, due to the interruption to the solar cycle.
There is record sea ice both hemispheres and there is record cold temperatures in both winter and summer. There is a significant increase in extreme weather events.
There is public panic as the drop in planetary temperature is impossible based on what has been stated as fact by 97% of the scientific community for the last 20 years.
What would the politicians’ reaction be to an explained significant drop in planetary temperature?
What would the media response be to an explained drop in planetary temperature?
The corollary to the abrupt drop in planetary temperature is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 which explains why there was 18 years of no warming at a time when anthropogenic CO2 emissions where maximum and why there are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa.
How does the public response to current weather reports which unequivocally support the assertion the entire scientific basis of the IPCC ‘scientific’ reports was incorrect?
The implications is that the scientific community is corrupt or the scientific community is incompetent, and/or the scientific community is susceptible to a weird group think phenomena.
A group will follow the flow, a group will support the politically correct paradigm which has been set in the distance past regardless of the evidence/analysis (new or old) which supports the assertion that the most favored paradigm/theory is incorrect, to keep their jobs and to avoid being labeled a denier.
Now imagine the same above scenario at a time when there is a sever economic crisis which is forcing a painful unpopular (see Argentina current protests for an example of what to expect) cut in government services.
The left no longer have any reason to support spending trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and regardless the planet is cooling, there is no cooling climate change problem, not a global warming change problem.

February 26, 2016 5:00 pm

Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them. Psychiatrists collect the rent.

Reply to  AJB
February 26, 2016 5:25 pm

I think I’m in stage 2, so what is the rent anyway ?

michael hart
Reply to  u.k(us)
February 26, 2016 5:53 pm

You can’t afford the rent. Climate scientists have it too expensive to even heat the place.

Reply to  u.k(us)
February 26, 2016 6:31 pm

Going rate appears to be around £10,000 per year for five years, presumably all paid in up front. 🙂

Reply to  u.k(us)
February 26, 2016 6:47 pm

If I recant does it lower the charges ?
I realize recantation can be a slippery slope, but just how far can I sell my soul to avoid any of the monetary charges ?
My grand-children might want to know, too.

Reply to  u.k(us)
February 27, 2016 7:15 am

Sorry- No Vacancy!

February 26, 2016 5:40 pm

Climate Psychology Alliance. Allergic to cold: Double steel washered polished brass, three per leaf, unscrewed …

Tom Judd
Reply to  AJB
February 26, 2016 6:40 pm

Wow, that’s a woman I wanna’ have a good night out on the town with – Not.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 8:45 pm

Wow .. I couldn’t handle more than 2 minutes. And those were old people she was talking too …. “the intrusion of western culture …. blah blah … violence comes from being outside nature …
She’s a keeper.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 9:37 pm

For some reason such allegedly educated intelligent people can’t accept that being a human and doing what humans do including the more advanced activities, is actually a perfectly natural and very impressive thing. Like it or not humans rule because the planet’s life systems evolved us to be exactly as we are.
Being at odds with that does not make you smart, nor worth listening to dribble-on such pitiful verbal riffs water melon dopes.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 11:31 pm

I would like to know how so many people are apparently so ignorant of the weather and history to think that “dramatic climate change” is actually occurring?
One possibility is that they are people who have never actually paid any serious attention to such things, and so can easily tell themselves that everything that happens is truly unusual and dramatic, rather than just more of what has always occurred.
They look so earnest sitting there.
I wonder how they will react if and when they realize they are not the smart people in the room, but rather are the dupes?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 27, 2016 5:58 pm

They look like an older group. Observationally, I notice that the old may be susceptible to the doom and gloom of an empathetic speaker. Perhaps it taps into the twinkle in the eye that the old feel for the toddlers. Restated, I have no proof, just anecdotal observation.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 1:06 pm

Which raises the question, where’s her keeper?

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 27, 2016 3:57 pm

She has a talent. I tried to view it again. She has this swarmy skill of emotionally hooking you to her stories of pain then lowers the boom of why it’s so. Somewhere in her life she learned that she could be rewarded for that talent. I probably spent too much time watching it but people are rarely boring.
The skillset reminded me of the same approach many social justice warriors use.

February 26, 2016 5:50 pm

Honesty wins. Manipulation is never honest. Manipulators will never have my respect, much less my trust.

Tom Judd
February 26, 2016 6:38 pm

Anybody who actually knows anything about psychology knows that you can’t get somebody to do something they absolutely do not want to do. And, if someone actually feels a compelling need to try and get another to do something they don’t wanna’ do maybe they should delve into psychology, not in a futile effort at underhanded coercion of another, but to understand why they find it necessary to be such a goddam control freak. The idea that life can be peachy creamy if other people would just do what one wants is the height of immaturity. Those who think so should be given the most useful therapeutic advice science can provide: “Grow up.”

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 26, 2016 6:43 pm

Emphasising the concept of global citizenship is a way to defeat the dead ends and false gods of nationalism and racism. The nation-based concept of pointless perpetual war as some kind of ‘stimulus’ for the economy is a sick lie.
The threat from CAGW is the great dependence is has on ignorance, the division of society into us/them factions and the sheltering of information by elites that seek to rule by fiat.
The education of children to think of themselves as the friends of the planet, not its destroyers is imperative. This does not require that they simultaneously be huddled into competing factions defined by the politics of the 1800’s.
Too many people fear that cooperating as a human family is somehow going to inevitably lead to rule by a despotic elite, as if that doesn’t already happen within a single nation state. Unanswerable and corrupt power centres already control nations so ‘nationalism’ is no cure at all. We are all in this together.
Just because some corrupt groups would like to grab control of everything doesn’t mean we have to allow them to do so. As long as such groups are able to organise and operate internationally, national responses will fail to stay their hands. As soon as nation states start to cooperate as one to oppose them, they are de facto operating as a super-state for the mutual benefit of all. A nation state is nothing more than a super-province. Why is the author so afraid of binding international political solutions?
Powerful nation states complaining about how real international cooperation is bad, are usually saying it will undermine some of their veto powers. They fear the democracy of the masses may not align with their hegemonic intentions. They are correct.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 26, 2016 10:07 pm

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad,
Exactly right.
BTW, do you have any extra airline miles you aren’t using?…

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 27, 2016 7:11 pm

Hooray for globalism . . it will save us from the globalists ; )

Steve O
February 26, 2016 6:57 pm

Immaturity and Hypocrisy… When the two biggest face men of the “CO2 is toxic” movement, Obama and Gore, have carbon footprints bigger than most villages and towns world wide it is difficult to believe that they believe their own message. They need Joe Goebels as their cheer leader… and it still won’t work.

February 26, 2016 7:31 pm

With the likes of Lewendowsky and his student J Cook on their team……….
I really don’t see them making much headway.!

anna v
February 26, 2016 7:40 pm

It is the way the jihadists dominate their part of the world with a horror society. It is called “brainwashing”. The younger you catch them the more effective. They start from infants.

Eugene WR Gallun
February 26, 2016 8:14 pm

The lunatics are running the asylum and are determined to make everybody as crazy as they are.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
February 26, 2016 9:02 pm

Are the beds soft?
The women warm and friendly?
Can I read books?
Is there a garden?
Can I wear different color socks in the summer?
Can my friends all come and get what they want too?

Walt D.
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
February 27, 2016 5:23 am

I think what you are seeing is a temper tantrum from childish people.

Reply to  Walt D.
February 27, 2016 6:08 pm

The social justice meme is
YOU do not possess the value system to understand our vision for the future.
I’ve heard it in person several times. It’s effective because it makes my blood boil. Knocks me off my feet a tad. Takes my power away. I’m not sure why it upsets me so much so I have work to do.

February 26, 2016 9:45 pm

No, it’s all run by Nurse Ratched.

M Seward
February 26, 2016 9:56 pm

I once heard about a ‘guess the number of jelly beans in the jar’ competition. There were (lets say) 1345 jelly beans in the jar. Punters to took their guesses ranged from say 150 to 10,000. The mean value of all the guesses was something like 1343.2.
What does that tell you about the value of the large data sample vs the psychology of the various guesses?
Who gives a rats about the psychology? It tells us nothing.
Lies,damned lies and statistics. And then there is psychology the plodding drongo who always brings up the rear.

February 27, 2016 3:27 am

“It is useful to think about overuse of fossil fuels and its effect on the climate as a similar dilemma”
Useful to whom?

February 27, 2016 5:14 am

The beed’s Red Button would probably go into instant NGO affiliated activist overload so hardly practical. But wondering how entertaining it would be to have Clive James and young Stephan the Ideationist in a talk show setting for an hour or so. The soap opera nature of it all is fast becoming free entertainment of its own accord. Daily comic strip at the Guardian; free access for all. A game of click bait monopoly broad enough to keep psycho-babble artists in business for years. Not to mention the advertising revenue.

February 27, 2016 5:16 am

I just saw the following on a climate alarmist site. Won’t mention the name, but what is wrong with this?
“…is giving away a sweepstakes ticket for a 5 day stay in St Maartans for each $25 donation to a charity until Jan. 7th. So give $50 to Climate Talk Radio and you and your honey could be enjoying that Island that you will help save from Climate Change.”
First off, I guess if you take a barf-boat to St. Martin’s island, you might be classified as having a proportionally sized carbon footprint. More to the point, the likely psychological urge for risky behavior, like gambling, is clearly not off-the-table for the likes of climate alarmists.

Walt D.
February 27, 2016 5:21 am

The real question to ask is who is out of touch with reality.Seems like it is the psychologist themselves who are suffering from psychosis.Or to paraphrase Einstein – the definition of insanity is publishing the same nonsense over and over again and expecting a different reaction.

February 27, 2016 5:31 am

And the CAGW say I have a mental illness for being a denier. A sure sign of a sick society to believe in something that isn’t true. Eventually, the US will have to have re education camps, for the good of society! for the good of the children! for the good of the planet! for the good of the collective! we have to save the dear leader! The cause of bringing us together is bigger than the issue. Come on comrades! Unite!
What a load of propaganda. Its still a war against a capitalist society. Its Communism sworn enemy.

February 27, 2016 6:44 am

Why can’t these climate activists prove man made climate change is actually happening in video form, since I’d like to see what it actually looks like when it happens, or is happening.

February 27, 2016 7:03 am

Climate change causes damage to professions and professional integrity.

February 27, 2016 9:38 am

Climaphobia. The fear or hate of climate change. Resistance is bigoted.

johann wundersamer
February 27, 2016 10:36 pm

‘indian reservation convenience’; search for sugar, alkoholische

February 27, 2016 10:57 pm

I really enjoyed reading this post. I agree with most of your ideas, especially with the word „manipulation”. I saw so much manipulation in this field called „climate change” – from politicians, from different sides of scientists, from the media…. Even COP21 can enter this category, in my opinion, since the people at the conference didn’t took into discussion one of the most important factors in climate change – the oceans.

March 3, 2016 4:21 am

What if man-made climate advocates would have been living for the last six thousand years? Can you imagine?
Exodus 9:23 Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And the Lord rained down hail on the land of Egypt. (NASB)
The headlines in the, “Man-Made Climate Change Egyptian Times,” would have been, Man-Made CO2 emissions caused disaster in Egypt.
Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, (NASB)
I can hear the man-made climate changers shouting “Made-Made CO2 emissions caused a heat wave, resulting in massive destruction.”
James 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that is would not rain, and it did not rain for three years and six months.(NASB)
Man-made climate advocates more than likely would have called is a drought caused by man-made CO2 emissions.
It is easy to understand how those who do not believe in God could buy into the theory that man has the power to control the weather, however, it is an enigma wrapped in a puzzle as to how those who claim to be Christians can believe that man can control the climate.

March 4, 2016 9:07 am

The Conversation has pulled this article.
If you follow the link you get a message:
“This piece has been taken down.
If you have any questions about the piece, please contact us.”

%d bloggers like this: