Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change””

I always find these amusing, because Warmists can’t convince themselves enough of the reality of human caused Hotcoldwetdry to make them change their own behavior

Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

If there weren’t such a stark divide between American conservatives and almost everyone else on the question of the existence and importance of climate change — a divide that can approach 40 points on some polling questions — the political situation would be very different. So if any progress on climate change is going to be made through the American political system — apart from executive orders by Democratic presidents — it is going to have to somehow involve convincing a lot of conservatives that yes, climate change is a threat to civilization.

How do you do that? The answer has more to do with psychology than politics.

The practice of tailoring a political message to a particular group is commonplace, of course. But the climate activist community has broadly failed to understand just how differently conservatives and liberals see the world on certain issues, and, as a result, just how radically different messages targeting conservatives should look.

Well, that makes sense, since the entire issue is about politics, not science

It’s worth pointing out, of course, that for many conservatives (and liberals), the current debate about climate change isn’t really about competing piles of evidence or about facts at all — it’s about identity. Climate change has come to serve as shorthand for which side you’re on, and conservatives tend to be deeply averse to what climate crusaders represent (or what they think they represent). “The thing most likely to make it hard to sway somebody is that you’re trying to sway them,” said Kahan.

No, it’s about the lack of evidence to prove that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by anthropogenic forces, primarily from greenhouse gases, and an understanding that the push by Warmists is all about enforcing a Progressive government on everyone.

In a larger context, social scientists have shown in laboratory settings that there are ways to discuss climate change that nudge conservatives toward recognizing the issue. Research is proceeding along a few different tracks. One of them involves moral foundations theory, a hot idea in political psychology that basically argues that people holding different political beliefs arrive at those beliefs because they have different moral values (even if there’s plenty of overlap). Liberals tend to be more moved by the idea of innocent people being harmed than conservatives, for example, while conservatives are more likely to react to notions of disgust (some of the conservative rhetoric over immigration reflects this difference).

This is why these leftist buffoons are getting religious leaders (ones who are Left leaning, mind you) to ignore things that the Bible actually says and push Hotcoldwetdry.

So how would this translate to a real-world message? “What you need to do is put the system first,” said Feygina. “Instead of saying, ‘Let’s deal with climate change, let’s be pro-environmental, let’s protect the oceans,’ what you need to do is come in and say, ‘If we want to preserve our system, if we want to be patriotic, if we want our children to have the life that we have, then we have to take these actions that allow us to maintain those things that we care about.’” The starting point can’t be about averting catastrophe, in other words — it has to be about pride in the current system and the need to maintain it.

Of course, since the answer is “more and more Big Government, imbued with Progressive ideals and policies, more and more taxation, and more and more restrictions on our freedoms both personally and in the private sector”, that won’t fly, either.

You want to convince me that AGW is real? Practice what you preach. I’m sure everyone who reads these posts over the years might be tired of that meme, but, it is a very basic premise. If Warmists aren’t willing to make substantive changes in their lives, why should anyone believe in what they’re selling?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Here We Go: Yet Another “How To Convince Skeptics On “Climate Change”””

  1. John says:

    Teach like it or not everyone’s behavior is changing snd yes it is because of government intervention
    YOU are using energy more efficiently
    YOU are using energy coming from renewable sources

    • John says:

      Teach like it or not your own lifestyle is changing and yes it is because of BIG GOVERNMENT
      You are using energy more efficiently
      You are using more energy coming from renewables

  2. Umoris says:

    Thanks for the good writeup. It in reality was a enjoyment
    account it. Look advanced to more delivered agreeable from you!
    By the way, how could we keep in touch?

  3. He waits for the officers to approach and shoots one with a pistol hidden from sight in the face.
    Miguel Cotto and Sergio Martinez will fight in New York on Saturday
    night at 9 p. He brains with a pistol two cops who pull him over.

  4. jl says:

    John- the most efficient energy is still fossil fuels. It’s the cheapest. It works all the time. There’s a lot of it. Ect., ect

  5. Jeffery says:

    “You want to convince me that AGW is real? Practice what you preach.”

    So you admit you can’t be persuaded by the facts. If the facts don’t support the Theory of AGW why would you be willing to be convinced by what others do? That makes no sense. On top of that, you’re a liar. If every liberal quit using all fossil fuels, you’d still be shilling for the Koch’s.

  6. Hoss says:

    “So you admit you can’t be persuaded by the facts”

    If we saw some we might be persuaded. All’s we’ve seen is a bunch of bullshit from shills making money hand over fist off of the charade (and academics who have bee caught making shit up, stifling dissent, and generally not sharing this “damning” data). It’s so bad you lefties had to re-brand just a few short years into the hoax. And yes, if the situation is so dire (Gore warned that we would be past the point of no return in five years, 20 years ago…not long after the global cooling rage), why do all the leftist celebrities you boot-lick live like they’ve never heard of global warming, er, climate change. Kind of like how Michael Moore rails about how unions are so great, but refuses to hire them for his productions. Bullshit much? Jeffy, you are what Stalin labeled a “useful idiot.”

  7. Jeffery says:


    The Earth is warming because of CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. Those are the facts in just one sentence!

    The rest you whine about is just more right-wing masturbation. Hossy, you are what we label an idiot.

  8. Jay says:

    Aside from the question of whether AGW is real, just considering the politics of it, the writer of the original article starts out with some intelligent statements: Conservatives and liberals view political issues differently. Arguments that are convincing to liberals are not necessarily convincing to conservatives. All quite true. And then he runs off the rails with silly stereotypes about conservatives. Liberals don’t have more concern for harm to the innocent than conservatives. The difference is in the proposed solutions to such problems. And it’s absurd to say — you see this more clearly if you read the original article — that conservatives are more concerned about upholding “the system” than liberals. It is surely just the opposite: Liberals want to uphold and expand the policies of our present government, while conservatives want to see radical change. The writer clearly wants to push the old liberal stereotype that conservatives slavishly follow authority and tradition. But in an era when the government is increasingly liberal, they are forced to say that conservatives are such slaves to authority that they have become dangerous anti-government fanatics, and that conservatives are so devoted to tradition that they want to change a broad range of established policies.

  9. david7134 says:

    Sorry, you are still wrong about the CO2 connection and warming. Try answering some questions about your religion and we might all be able to gain insight. Especially how losing our freedom and increased taxes make the earth cooler. By the way, I like the weather right now.

  10. Robert Arvanitis says:

    We can’t cover everything in sound-bites, but I offer two crucial issues for any climate debate:
    1. Climate is a chaotic system. In simplest terms, that means it is unstable and non-linear; small changes can have outsized effects and sudden reversals prevail.
    2. We must consider the costs against the present value of highly uncertain future benefits, discounting the latter at appropriate (risky) rates.

    Here’s the schema I use for the enviros who grasp so greedily at the levers of power:

    • Is there global warming?
    o Well, coming off an ice age, duh — some.

    • Is it man-made?
    o Some, not all.

    • What are our alternatives?
    o In part, slow or stop it.
    o In part, adapt to it.
    o In all cases, admit we don’t know nearly enough.
    o Understand that with chaotic systems, we are just as likely to exacerbate as to ameliorate. E.g. Are we trapping heat or in fact raising the albedo?!

    • What are the costs and benefits? (This is what kills the left. No price is too great for their crusade, nothing must stop their seizure of power.)
    o Full accounting of current costs, not just direct, but indirect and knock-on effects.
    o PLUS the deleterious social and psychological effects of ever-growing government intrusion. This is really bad but regrettably diffuse and under recognized.
    o Appropriately high discount rates for highly uncertain future benefits.
    o As the math soon makes it clear, it’s far better to increase our wealth, and then fix any adverse results in future, rather than impoverish ourselves AND THE FUTURE, today.
    o Recognize the current poor in the world deserve to live better, and not be kept in squalor for the mere chance at improving the future

    On that last point — if you’d read this far, invest another ten minutes in a terrific video by Hans Rosling:

  11. Saturday morning links

    Remember this good vid? It’s not about the nail! What’s a Grandma Pie? And Where Can You Find One? How to improve your memory Is this the baseball glove of the future? 5 simple ways to “age-proof” your body before it starts breaking down A gal

  12. Richard says:

    The problem is that there is still some controversy over what the facts are and the actions of the warmist community imply that they do not really believe the facts. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio both have huge carbon footprints. They have probably flown almost as much in the last year as I have flown ever, and they have the gall to tell me to produce less carbon. They act like reducing carbon footprints is only for others, so why should I take them seriously?

Bad Behavior has blocked 9710 access attempts in the last 7 days.