Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to New Zealand Academic David Hall, climate deniers actually accept the climate crisis on some level, but can’t face reality.
Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real
David HallSenior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology
October 9, 2019 5.56am AEDTWhy do people still think climate change isn’t real?
At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.…
Negating reality
Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna were the great chroniclers of denial. Sigmund described this negation of reality as an active mental process, as “a way of taking cognisance of what is repressed”. This fleeting comprehension is what distinguishes denial from ignorance, misunderstanding or sheer disbelief. Climate change denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending oneself against it.Contemporary social psychologists tend to talk about this in terms of “motivated reasoning”. Because the facts of climate science are in conflict with people’s existing beliefs and values, they reason around the facts.
When this happens – as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt memorably put it – they aren’t reasoning in the careful manner of a judge who impartially weighs up all the evidence. Instead, they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct. This is why brow-beating deniers with further climate science is unlikely to succeed: their faculty of reason is motivated to defend itself from revising its beliefs.
…
Undoing denial
In sum, denial is repressed knowledge. For climate change, this repression occurs at both the psychological level and social level, with the latter providing fodder for the former. This is a dismal scenario, but it shines some light on the way forward.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763
What is this awful reality we are supposed to be trying to escape?
If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.
Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.
Suggestions that climate skeptics can’t cope with the societal adjustments which would be required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions are lazy intellectual absurdities.
In what universe would this not be expected?
It’s extremely well known that the field of psychology has a stratospheric liberal bias/views. Psychologists know and acknowledge this too.
http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
At the 2nd link, scroll down to: 2) A statistically impossible lack of diversity
https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-post-partisan-social-psychology
“I submit to you that the underrepresentation of conservatives in social psychology, by a factor of several hundred, is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering.”
I am curious: When you use that x-ray image of Mikey Mann’s noggin at the top of the article, do you need to pay any sort of royalty or fee?
That’s not Mann. That X-ray clearly shows the presence of a brain.
LMFAO – WINNER OF THE THREAD!
Sounds like psychobabble to me.
Both the phrase, “climate denier”, and the phrase, “climate skeptic”, are made of straw, because there exists neither a “climate denier” nor a “climate skeptic”.
This is misuse of language to propagate a personal feeling, left in the obscurity of the descriptive phrases, yet seething, undefined in a clear way, within individuals using these fake, meaningless, composition-deficient words.
Who … “denies” … climate?
Who is … “skeptical” … that climate exists?
A climate denier would be somebody who denied the existence of climate.
A climate skeptic would be somebody who doubted the existence of climate.
Why are such stupid phrases that clearly foul up language allowed to go unchecked?
“Climate Deniers” are the 97% (sic) believers who think that not only is the climate completely static but that we have the power to control and maintain it thus.
Now that really is delusional.
From the article: “Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?
At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong.”
First of all there is climate change and then there is human-caused climate change. The Earth’s climate constantly changes. It has done so since the beginning of time. Anyone who denies that is seriously misinformed.
But there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, thus skeptics deny the human-caused climate crisis because there is no evidence for it. It’s as simple as that.
The author claims there is evidence of human-caused climate change, and no doubt probably thinks there is evidence, but if he were tasked with supplying evidence that humans are causing the climate to change he couldn’t find any.
That’s why skeptics are skeptical about human-caused climate change.
It has nothing to do with psychology or ideology. It has everything to do with common sense and facts. Just the facts please. Keep the speculation to yourself.
Skeptics know the difference between facts and speculation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people, like this author, who can’t tell the difference.
There is also zero reason to think that humans are in any capacity able to change to climate to order, which is the other part of when the line of reasoning espoused by these jackasses would logically entail.
On top of that, there is no evidence that anything is or will change for the worse, and ample evidence that the mantra they endlessly recite of “solving the climate” by “tackling climate change” and returning the weather and climate regimes of the planet to those that prevailed several hundred years ago, would be not just catastrophic but positively nightmarish, when one considers economic conditions and energy supplies and growing condition that are in no way able to support the continued existence of the most of the billions of people currently inhabiting the Earth.
I am getting really sick of idiots who think they are smart.
Not to mention sociopathic lunatics who imagine themselves good or moral human beings.
Fixing the Problem of Liberal Bias in Social Psychology
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-problem-of-liberal-bias-in-social-psychology/
Social psychology is so biased and broken, that one can consider much of the research in certain fields…………like this one, to be just a sampling of how biased the psychologists doing the work are.
The author claims that those who aren’t totally invested in alarmism are also in denial of democracy – of course without providing any evidence, however the reality is that it is the alarmists that are calling for the suspension of democracy because of their perception that governments are failing them or that the people aren’t embracing their lunacy.
Eric, you seem to be missing the text book example of psychological projection going on here, when you say:
“What is this awful reality we are supposed to be trying to escape?
If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.
Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.
Suggestions that climate skeptics can’t cope with the societal adjustments which would be required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions are lazy intellectual absurdities.”
When I was reading through the comment from Hall, I also immediately thought of the case of nuclear energy and the inexplicable intransigence of warmistas to embrace or advocate for increased usage of nuclear power.
But I was thinking of it terms of the, to me, glaringly obvious psychological projection by Hall.
It is especially fascinating to me when someone like Hall (and Lewandowsky before him) pulls out the ole’ street corner psychology texts to perform psychoanalysis on those with whom he differs.
I see no trace of any reason to suspect he has any greater knowledge or insight into matters of scientific philosophy, let alone any specific field relating to an understanding of the earth or atmosphere, than he does regarding any topic in brain science or psychology.
We have all been over this ground too many times for it to need to be elaborated on in detail, except to point out the obvious: Everything he says is 100% true of the alarmists and warmistas, and not true whatsoever of people trained in or doing actual science, or even of anyone with their head merely screwed on right.
Figures it is from “The Conversation”, that bastion of free speech that has an enunciated policy of disallowing any actual conversation.
We have reached positively stupefying levels of sophistry from these clowns.
I find myself wavering occasionally into something resembling pity at times.
But then they open their lying and hateful yaps again and reveal what it is they hope to achieve, and how they would deal with any who oppose them, and my resolve is once more called to mind.
Nicholas, we can try to guess what is happening inside their heads, obviously I have my own ideas, but we don’t actually know what is happening in their minds.
So I’m usually content with pointing out the logical absurdity of their public statements, to limit the harm they might cause by defusing their credibility.
Yes, and I was not meaning to criticize or contradict your view on his commentary.
Certainly we have similar opinions of the credibility of such people.
For some reason I find it galling on a more pervasive and insidious level.
In any case, thank you for posting this.
I always enjoy your posts.
He lost me at psychodynamic theory and repressed memories.
If you want a statistic, 97% of psychologists think that Freud was full of crap and should not be taken seriously.
This was published in The Conversation, naturally.
Right now I’m facing reality. A very untypical early Oct blizzard.
Can they point to anyone who thinks climate change isn’t real?
They always frame it this way, “climate change deniers”, which is a complete strawman. I deny that there is any evidence of catastrophic global climate change caused by humans. They don’t get to frame what I think.
The only person I’ve ever known is Michael Mann; the man who’s Hocky-Stick graph is flat for all of history until the industrial revolution happened. This man denies that the temperatures ever changed throughout history.
There is a segment of society (I was talking with such for two hours earlier today) who don’t understand my skepticism.
“You deny Climate Change?”
“No, the climate always changes.”
“Then you deny that humanity has caused warming?”
“No, mankind has created air conditioners and automobiles which both convert energy to heat among many others.”
“Well, then, what do you deny?”
“The idea that there is a global catastrophe requiring a globally administered solution. We humans are quite creative without government control. If CO2 is proven to be a cause of global warming, nuclear power generates none and being safe these days is environmentally responsible. If, instead it is proven CO2 lags climate rather than leading it and we have no control whatever, then nuclear power would provide the power for all the needed air conditioners. If on the other hand the global cooling advocates who see an ice age approaching, nuclear power would provide all the power needed for electric heat.”
“But nuclear power kills.”
… it was 2 hours like this.
“But what if you’re wrong? Humanity becomes extinct.”
I would steer the conversation to the truths such a person doesn’t want to accept – the biggest one being the “cures” they support for the imaginary “crisis” of CO2 driven “climate change” will be worse by far than the imaginary “climate change” they fear.
Or you can just start asking that person “inconvenient” questions – What are you wearing? What is it made of? How were those materials produced/grown/harvested/transported/manufactured? What did you eat today? Where did that food come from? How was it produced, grown, harvested, transported, butchered, kept cool enough to avoid spoilage? Where do you live? How was your dwelling constructed? Out of what materials? How were those materials mined, excavated, grown, harvested, transported, poured, cut,? How was the building site excavated and the dwelling erected? How do you heat your dwelling? Where does the fuel to accomplish that come from? How do you keep the lights on, you appliances and computers and TVs operating? Where does the electricity come from? How was the electricity generated, and what fuels were used for that?
Or the big “summary” question – How long would you live without food, clothing, housing, transport, heat, etc.?
What if you fail to sacrifice a human every day? The Sun would refuse to rise.
Humanity becomes extinct.
(Aztec religion)
There is nothing more attractive and persuasive than an arrogant jackass. What a great sales pitch!
I think I’ll drop all my most deeply held beliefs and regard for the truth, and try to give in to liars and tyrants that only want to create a beautiful Utopia For Us All.
I must bow down in my innocent ignorance and fear of the awful truth to this wisdom…for questioning the Climate Crisis only because 1.) there is no increase in extreme weather. 2.) the only 2 falsifiable predictions (temperature forecasts and tropical hot spot) are falsified. 3.) None of the proposed remedies come within 90% of fixing the problem as described. 4.) Emissions are certain to increase substantially bc/o Asia’s growth. 4.) All the Alarmist’s remedies require the demise of Free Enterprise and US Sovereignty without reducing CO2. 5.) Replacing Fossil fuels will require around 25,000 nuclear plants…or the equivalent and NOBODY is discussing mobilization at anywhere near this scale. 6.) None of the scores of scary predictions, whose expiration dates have come and gone already, were within a light year of being accurate.
Nothing about this fraud-scam story fits together…EXCEPT that it is a bold broadly financed political strategy, where the truth doesn’t matter, to advance Authoritarian International Socialism (aka Globalism).
Warmers want to exercise power. They legitimize their power grab first with existential threat. They ask you to pay more taxes, stop using plastics, … Initially small things but their demands expand when they can force you and others to do what they want. This is a slippery road to totalitarianism, oligarchy.
Always makes me laugh when I see New Zealand and academic in the same sentence. Reminds me of a student studying “political science” (WTF?) somewhere in Wellington who complained the seats at The Beehive (Parliament building) were too small for her ample frame. She lobbied the house to have extra sized seats installed. Not sure how far that went. Clearly she seemed to be one of the “entitled” generation.
I just did a fact check:
Nope, no climate crisis, just hype about benign warming.
What is Extinction Rebellion exactly rebelling against?
Prosperity, long life, happiness, people, civilization…you know, all the bad stuff.
Well – I will within the next year or two I will have the opportunity to present my view on climate change in a very official manner – over and over.
My local District Council (Waikato) is updating its District Plan: the rules by which subdivisions and new builds are consented. This next version will have a new chapter on “hazards”. This has been driven by the common perception of climate change and its impact (“all bad”).
I trained in Earth Science with a focus on sedimentary geology at Masters level. Seeing more potential in geotechnical I brushed up on this and have practiced as a private consulting Engineering Geologist over the last 18 years, conducting geotechnical investigations which are a requirement for consents.
The new chapter in the rules concentrates primarily on building floor height in relation to their expected increase in high rainfall events and sea level rise. But get this: the geotechnical professional has to calculate this with a projection out to 2120. Yikes!
They don’t tell us what the increases will be and (supposedly) leave it to us. OKaaay – you’ll get mine chaps. My expectation will be sea level rise will tick along at the conservative rate of 3 mm/yr., giving us a full century to adapt to 300 mm. New Zealand houses have a design life of 50 years, though last much longer.
Now – how will they respond to my reports? These people are usually planners trained in the social science departments of universities. You get no medals in guessing where their environmental leanings bend. Bring it on guys and girls. You are going to have to give me real numbers and real statistics. I will respond in kind. NZ’s tide gauge record is tatty to say the least. We are a tectonic country, so readings range from – 3 mm/yr to + 10 mm/yr. GPS datum points have only just been included.
Rainfall records are better. I put together a chart representing 110 years of data from 4 stations in our district recently. No trend up or down in annual rainfall. I haven’t done extreme rain yet but I bet my boots that the most extreme will be somewhere back in the history – not over the last 15 years. Besides, extreme cloudbursts are very localised and usually miss a rain gauge. I was born in the district and have farmed here for 50 yrs.
There are public consultations within the plan change process. I am going to attend one to say “give us some real data”. “Put a tide gauge and GPS station in Raglan Harbour”. There is no such devise on any of the District’s coastline.
Geotechnical Engineering is not a black and white discipline. There are many uncertainties, as there are in climate. The flagship engineering registry in NZ – with whom I am a member – states quite clearly that informed opinion based on training and experience plays a very important part in engineering decision-making and must be respected. That’s the first quote I will present to these bureaucrats if they resist my work. Then I will be asking for the data on which they make their projections. Could be fun.
M
Surely one can also be ‘in denial about the denial’ and ‘in denial about the ‘in denial about the denial” and so on. Denial all the way down.
Someone here remarked I thought De Nial was a river somewhere…
bonbon,
That claim won’t hold water.
Clyde Spencer October 10, 2019 at 5:04 pm
bonbon, [how] that claim … hold[s] water:
– I was standing by the nile when I saw that lady smile:
The Nile Song
by Pink Floyd
LYRICS
I was standing by the Nile
When I saw the lady smile.
I would take her out for a while,
For a while.
Oh, my tears wept like a child.
How her golden hair was blowing wild.
Then she spread her wings to fly,
For to fly.
Soaring high above the breezes,
Going always where she pleases.
She will make it to the islands in the sun.
I will follow in her shadow
As I watch her from my window.
One day I will catch her eye.
She is calling from the deep,
Summoning my soul to endless sleep.
She is bound to drag me down,
Drag me down.
Source: Musixmatch
Songwriters: ROGER WATERS
The Nile Song lyrics © Hampshire House
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNRYViUAi-3uvA3RaPDTBJZMedtdYQ%3A1571402817867&ei=QbSpXbvHNNaKk74P5Jm5gAI&q=I+was+standing+by+the+nile+when+I+saw+that+lady+smile&oq=I+was+standing+by+the+nile+when+I+saw+that+lady+smile&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
David Hall: Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology.
Right there is the clue to why the Climate Alarmists are in trouble. A none scientist, is rolled out to suggest those who do not worship at the alter of the imaginary man made climate religion are ignoring science?
I have yet to met anyone, who denies climate change. I have met fewer and fewer people who think there is a climate emergency of any kind. I have noticed the media and the world NGOs are working flat out to project a climate scare story, for what reason only they can answer.
Meanwhile here in the world of climate realists, we all enjoy a quiet confidence born out of scientific awareness. That calm awareness allows us to sleep soundly at night. I would recommend all climate anxious people listen to real scientists, not some Political philosopher based in NZ.
NB I have great regard for NZ scientists. I would remind everyone Rutherford was a New Zealander.
He was born in NZ to Scottish parents.
David Hall wrote
I wonder how many “denialists” he spoke with to come to this conclusion. Maybe a guy down the pub who had a thing or two to say.
Classic projection. It is the “climate crisis” believers that are in denial, refusing to accept that their pet “crisis” is pure propaganda and that they were gullible enough to be duped by it, despite the “facts” being in contradiction to all the dire predictions about the consequences of not reducing harmless (and in fact, beneficial) CO2 emissions. Now where is my honorary “psych” degree?
I think Mark Twain covered this very succinctly when he said.
” It is easier to fool someone, than to convince them they have been fooled”.
The Professor of Politics might like to reflect on that timeless observation….
A copy of a Greta look alike face would be appropriate on this Amazon shirt offer.
https://www.amazon.com/Twain-Quote-Easier-People-T-Shirt/dp/B07PM3M71L
The good Doctor has surely been seeing a shrink, you know, on the Freudian couch.
Result is the lead cat-scan .
Look Mum, I shrunk the Denier!
“climate deniers actually accept the climate crisis on some level”
I don’t.
Andrew
Me neither. A “climate crisis” would, in the first place, involve global COOLING, not global warming. It also wouldn’t be anything driven by human activities, but by natural, unstoppable forces.
Not only isn’t “global warming” (aka “climate change (TM)”) a “crisis,” it’s actually good news. The alternative, declining temperatures heading toward re-glaciation, is infinitely scarier, and legitimately so. The dupes forget that we are in a mere “inter-glacial” period within what is otherwise an ice age, after all.
I accept it as a stunt and use it to gauge others by their use of it.