Making People Consider Their Legacy Is The Secret To Making People Care About Hotcoldwetdry

More psychological claptrap from the Cult of Climastrology, as explained by two youngsters

Here’s the secret to making people care about climate change
Make them think about their legacy.

Here’s a depressing statistic if you’re worried about climate change: 63 percent of Americans say they’re concerned about the issue, but only 47 percent think the government should do anything about it.

That divide, known as the “attitude-behavior” gap, isn’t all that uncommon. And activists and politicians have tried all kinds of strategies to address it. They’ve appealed to people’s better nature (“Help save the children!”) and to their self-interest (“You’ll get a tax write-off!”).

Each of these methods can work under certain conditions, but both have their limitations. What if there were a way to combine the best aspects of each — to use an appeal that simultaneously targets self-interest and our desire to help others in need? Our research suggests a promising way to do just that — by encouraging people to consider their own future legacy.

It’s so easy! Why haven’t Warmists been doing this? Oh, right, they have been. For 25+ years they’ve trotted out this position, that we need to Do Something in order to protect the future.

Philosophers, religious figures, and others have long recognized the role that a desire to be remembered positively can play in motivating beneficence and kindness toward others. These self-serving desires are often harnessed to great effect in politics; our research suggests that their reach could be much wider with a little creativity and effort.

Unfortunately for these researchers, a goodly chunk of people will think “my kids and future generations will think I’m an idiot for Doing Something about anthropogenic climate change, damaging the economy, increasing the cost of living, and putting massive restrictions on their lives, all for an issue which was never proven scientifically.”

This dovetails nicely with the recent pushes on how to Make People Care in other ways, because providing actual facts has been a loser, because the facts are less than reality, and all the future DOOmmongering has failed.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “Making People Consider Their Legacy Is The Secret To Making People Care About Hotcoldwetdry”

  1. Typical lefty hysteria.

    1. Never once says Trump was wrong about anything he said.

    2. Implies Flamboyantly gay guys are unfit for public office. If consistency were a virtue among leftists, he should be supporting Trump on this basis alone.

    3. Implies hair coloring, teeth whitening, and makeup are unusual for people on TV and ignores that ALL of the other candidates (except Bernie) are doing the same thing.

    4. Implies deferments are a shameful act, but never criticized Bill Clinton for outright Dodging the draft.

    5. It doesn’t take a phobia for any health conscious person to refrain from touching thousands of unwashed strange human hands during cold and flu season. This is basic 7th grade health.

  2. Jeffery says:

    …my kids and future generations will think I’m an idiot for doing something about anthropogenic climate change, damaging the economy, increasing the cost of living, and putting massive restrictions on their lives, all for an issue which was never proven scientifically.

    NOT doing something will damage the economy, increase the cost of living, and put massive restrictions on their lives, if they even have lives.

    If we don’t do something our great great grandchildren will talk about the evil conservatives who helped flood the great cities, caused World Wars III, IV and V and led extremist Islam to dominate the 4.7 billion people left on Earth. As a culture we may be able to adapt to 2C warming, but not 4 or 6C.

    And you know better than to type:

    was never proven scientifically

    No issue is ever proven scientifically. For any particular issue, let’s call it a theory, evidence accumulates that either supports or doesn’t support the theory. In the case of man-made global warming the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. We can say with confidence that the Earth is warming from man’s burning of fossil fuels. Only the willfully ignorant maintain that the current bout of rapid global warming is not man-made.

    massive restrictions on their lives

    The far, far right crazies always whine about massive restrictions. What restrictions in this case? Obtaining your electricity from solar and wind power? Cleaner air? Less coastal flooding?

    It was predictable and predicted that the Denier crowd would change their story as the evidence unfolded. Now the latest faux concern is for the working classes. This would ring truer if at anytime previously the conservative movement had shown even a miniscule amount of concern for the poor or working classes.

  3. Dana says:

    If 63% are concerned about global warming climate change, but only 47% want the government to do anything about it, you are left with several possibilities:

    1 – People aren’t so concerned about it that they are willing to pay to do anything about it;
    2 – People who might be concerned about it and actually are willing to live poorer to help change it do not have any confidence that the government could do anything effective to make such changes;
    3 – People who might be concerned about it don’t believe that it’s any of the government’s business to do anything about it; or
    4 – People who are concerned about it and might be willing, in the future, to pay to help stop it simply don’t believe that they can afford to pay higher taxes or utility bills now to do anything about it.

    There’s a fifth possibility, of course: people who are otherwise concerned about global warming climate change don’t see the advocates making any personal sacrifices, making any effort to do anything about what they claim is an oh-so-serious problem, and are influenced to believe that if the advocates don’t appear to take their message seriously, why should us common folks have to pony up?

    The best, most effective thing that the global warming climate change advocates could do is to show that they are taking themselves seriously, and making sacrifices themselves. They need to lead by example.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact.

  5. Dana says:

    Chicken Little Jeffrey claims that the sky is falling!

    NOT doing something will damage the economy, increase the cost of living, and put massive restrictions on their lives, if they even have lives.

    If we don’t do something our great great grandchildren will talk about the evil conservatives who helped flood the great cities, caused World Wars III, IV and V and led extremist Islam to dominate the 4.7 billion people left on Earth. As a culture we may be able to adapt to 2C warming, but not 4 or 6C.

    If I could embed youtubes here, I’d pick the one of the crazy guy on the bicycle from the first Friday the 13th movie, saying, “You’re doomed! You’re all doomed!” P’raps our esteemed host will do it for me.

    The trouble with Jeffrey’s argument is that he has missed the point: if 63% are worried about global warming climate change, but only 47% want the government to do something about it, then his problem is democracy, his problem is that in our democratic representative republic, a majority don’t want the government to do anything about it, for whatever reasons they have.

    Lead by example, Jeffrey, and document for us what you have done.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    “It has to be CO2, we can’t think of anything else!”

    Because shut up!

  7. Jeffery says:

    Lead by example, Jeffery, and document for us what you have done.

    No thanks. That’s always a loser bet, Chicken Little dana. I suspect, with my small, energy-efficient house powered mostly by renewable electricity and my local lifestyle, that my carbon footprint is half yours. But that is irrelevant isn’t it? In your mind, and admitted by William, unless someone eliminates all fossil-fuel use they are still an energy hypocrite, and Deniers are right not to make an effort.

    But this is the objective of those of your ilk that are never interested in honest debate but only interested in “winning” an argument using various debate tactics and logical fallacies. You smear your debate opponents rather than debate.

    Your argument is “Unless you can prove that you are perfect, I win!”

    This sort of argument may work on your fellow cementheads that comment here, but not rational folk.

    drowningpuppies typed:

    “It has to be CO2, we can’t think of anything else!”

    Actually, a number of “anything else’s” have been thought of, e.g., solar, Milankovich cycle, cosmic rays, decreased volcanism, decreased albedo, massive changes in ocean currents, etc, but discarded as causes from lack of evidence. The evidence strongly supports CO2. Denier Skeptic “scientists” have been working for at least a decade to find even a shred of evidence to falsify the current theory of global warming and keep shooting blanks.

    Do you have evidence to support your “anything else”, which so far consists of natural magic?

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    What “evidence”? You keep harping on that but have not produced.

  9. Dana says:

    Jeffrey chickens out:

    Lead by example, Jeffery, and document for us what you have done.

    No thanks. That’s always a loser bet, Chicken Little dana. I suspect, with my small, energy-efficient house powered mostly by renewable electricity and my local lifestyle, that my carbon footprint is half yours. But that is irrelevant isn’t it? In your mind, and admitted by William, unless someone eliminates all fossil-fuel use they are still an energy hypocrite, and Deniers are right not to make an effort.

    And where have I said that?

    I’ve already told you what I do, buying and using more efficient appliances and light bulbs, along with reducing my heating oil usage by installing a wood stove, but I’ve also noted that I have done those things for the benefit of my family’s personal economy, not because I care about global warming climate change. I insulated the walls when we remodeled the kitchen and had the walls open not due to global warming climate change, but to improve the house and save some heating costs. And I’ve pointed out that I was able to do the things I have done because I’m well off enough to do so — though not wealthy by any measure — and because it was my free choice to do so.

    I also drive a four-wheel drive F-150, not exactly the most fuel efficient vehicle out there, not because I want to burn more fuel, but because, for my career, that’s the vehicle I need.

    I’m interested in what you have done. When you say that you suspect that your “small, energy-efficient house powered mostly by renewable electricity and my local lifestyle, that my carbon footprint is half yours,” I will not criticize you at all. Rather, I applaud you at least attempting to lead by example, but also think that attempting to lead by example requires you to tell us what the example is. None of us here know you, none of us have seen your “with my small, energy-efficient house powered mostly by renewable electricity,” so none of us could have known if your carbon footprint is reduced or not. And I applaud your freedom to be able to take those decisions.

    But that, you see, is the rub: while I — and, I would guess, most people here — absolutely support your freedom to try to live the lifestyle you say is right, you are supporting government measures which would effectively deny the rest of us the freedom to live as we wish.

    But this is the objective of those of your ilk that are never interested in honest debate but only interested in “winning” an argument using various debate tactics and logical fallacies. You smear your debate opponents rather than debate.

    Your argument is “Unless you can prove that you are perfect, I win!”

    This is where you have assumed something, and gotten it wrong. It has been a while, but I have noted here that at least a few “warmist” celebrities, Ed Begley being one, have actually tried to practice what they preach, but that they are very much in the minority. Most of Hollywood does the opposite, adding more and more opulent celebrity awards shows, so they can all be chauffeured there in their gas-guzzling limousines. Very few people could make their “carbon footprint” zero, but I have absolutely no problem with those who try to reduce theirs, and I don’t criticize them for it.

    I have absolutely no problem with you trying to persuade me to live my life differently, to reduce my carbon footprint; I do have a problem with you wanting to use the power of government to force me to comply.

  10. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Read the latest IPCC report. Note too that some of the evidence is a century old – the absorption spectrum of CO2, for example.

    Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
    Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere now than 100 yrs ago?
    Is the Earth warming (including the land masses, atmosphere and oceans)?
    Has it been shown that locally high concentrations of CO2 retain more heat than lower concentrations of CO2?
    Is the stratosphere cooling?
    Is there less of the radiation wavelengths absorbed by CO2 measured in the stratosphere?
    Is there a more plausible hypothesis?

    The answer to all the questions but the last is YES. In fact, it would be surprising if the Earth were not warming. Do you have a more plausible mechanism for why the Earth is warming.

    What evidence would convince you?

    Thanks.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    And no I am not going to post my utility bills for you. It’s none of your business. Even if I were living off the grid you wouldn’t change your “reasoned” position on global warming would you? Of course you wouldn’t. It’s not an honest argument on your part, but just as I said, an ad hominem attack in disguise. I assume you’ve reached your untenable scientific position by evaluating evidence that you find lacking. Or more likely, you deny the evidence because you don’t like anybody telling you what to do!

    The Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. Unless we slow the amount of CO2 added and allow the CO2 levels to drop, in a few centuries the Earth will warm 6-8C (worst case scenario). No, this will not impact your nor my numbered days on this planet.

    Your argument seems to be with government not me. What are your biggest fears with transitioning to non-fossil fuel energy production?

  12. jl says:

    “What evidence would convince you.” Well, ground based data that covers more than 50% of the globe so the other 50% isn’t guessed at. Evidence that hasn’t been “adjusted”. Evidence of warming. Evidence that warming, no matter what the cause, would be dangerous to humans. The last one is key, because the climate data change deniers have absolutely no evidence to support it, other than “the sky is falling!”

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    The answer to all the questions but the last is YES. In fact, it would be surprising if the Earth were not warming.

    And the question that to be answered is:

    So what?

  14. Jeffery says:

    So what?

    So the Earth is warming from CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Duh.

  15. drowningpuppies says:

    Once again slowly.

    No direct scientific proof or data (none, nyet, nada) has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is simply assumed to be a “fact”.

  16. Jeffery says:

    dp typed:

    No direct scientific proof blah blah blah

    Please describe the direct scientific proof you seek.

    Thanks.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5327 access attempts in the last 7 days.