Why some still "DENY" and others "FAIL TO ACT"

[sidd]

Re: evolution of money

David Graeber in "Debt" is worth reading. As is Piketty.

[Sigmetnow]

Sou on "Tom Harris, Free Speech and Disinformation"
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/05/tom-harris-free-speech-and.html

And the linked cartoon from the comments:

[Martin Gisser]

Examining the growing gap between models for a 2°C warming, and real life.

The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit.
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change

The BECCS thing isn't that unrealistic - if you choose to do it the stone age way, using biochar and a 180° turn of current agriculture from a CO2 source to CO2 sink. I call it anthropogenic BECCS.

Alas, that's not quite inspiring in the dominant techno-fetishist world view: Tell any engineer about biochar - even sugar-coat it e.g. with visions of wood-gas fuelled micro turbines producing electricity for serious (i.e. seriously non-ridicu-lousy) hybrid vehicles producing char to be sequestered via compost in improved soil - no chance: It's no glamorous rocket science, thus not worth thinking about. (Yuck!  it involves playing with dirt!)

"If you’re serious about 2°C, the rates of change are so significant that it begs the way we see the world. That’s what people aren’t prepared to embrace," says Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research. "Essentially you’d have to start asking questions about our current society and how we develop and grow."

-- http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees

So, we are meanwhile beyond the psycho-philosophical problems of denial and non-action. We need a whole new culture. A new countercultural mass movent like that of the 60s/70s - only bigger and more serious.

Not carbon negative, no bodhisattva. Not carbon negative, no sangha.

Actually, this is not an either-or (tertium non datur) imperative to everybody: The Anthropo-BECCS thing should be realized by a complementary culture in symbiosis with old city culture. Most people need to stay in mega cities (finitude of biosphere). This complementary culture would be ca. 1 billion carbon negative (mostly) self-sufficient small scale farmers feeding (and perhaps inspiring) the city folks.

That's my Frankensteinian plan to save the planet. And the only reason why I'm interested in psychology and philosophy: What we need is anthropo-engineering, not geo-engineering!

[Sigmetnow]

The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure

The world’s largest privately-held coal company has a long history of attacking climate science. Now it is working to change the conversation from a climate crisis to one of global poverty – with coal as the solution

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/19/the-truth-behind-peabodys-campaign-to-rebrand-coal-as-a-poverty-cure

[Sigmetnow]

An Atlanta, Georgia, TV station investigates a secret meeting of state legislators and industry lobbyists with ALEC, the "educational charity" which drafts industry-friendly laws for the legislators to pass.
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/05/21/investigators-legislators-and-corporate-lobbyists-meet-in-secret-at-georgia-resort/27695105/

[Sigmetnow]

Rebuttal to Vox article I posted in #649 above, about the feasibility of limiting global warming to 2°C.

The feasibility of meeting the 2 C warming limit

Analysts always impose their ideas of what is possible on which policies and technologies are analyzed, but as I’ll argue in the next chapter, with few exceptions it is very difficult to predict years in advance what is feasible and what isn’t.    People also usually underestimate the rate and scope of change that can occur with determined effort, and this bias is reinforced by the use of models that ignore important effects (like increasing returns to scale and other sources of path dependence), and include rigidities that don’t exist in the real economy (like assuming that individual and institutional decision making will be just like that in the past, even in a future that is drastically different).[1]   For all these reasons, it is a mistake to rely too heavily on models of economic systems to constrain our thinking about the future. 

http://www.koomey.com/post/119106731153

[Sigmetnow]

Follow-up on the group involved in my comment #637 above:

"Seven Nobel Laureates" Behind Climate Contrarian Bjorn Lomborg's Think Tank Are Not All They Seem, Or Even All Alive

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/26/seven-nobel-laureates-behind-climate-contrarian-bjorn-lomborg

[Martin Gisser]

Lomborg is such a ridicu-lousy liar. It is depressing how Very Serious People can take him serious.

The "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is not to be confused with the real Nobel Prize. One of the few seriously scientific laureates was John Nash (died May 23 in accident), and he got it for his PhD thesis - one of his smaller contributions to mathematics.

[Sigmetnow]

‘It’s Shameful': Scientists Slam Ted Cruz For Dodging Climate Question After Texas Floods

According to the Center for Responsible Politics, the oil and gas industry is the number two donor to Cruz’s presidential campaign so far, trailing only general Republican and conservative interest groups.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/31/3664206/ted-cruz-climate-change-texas-floods/

[Sigmetnow]

Sou on:  The perversity of deniers - and the "pause" that never was with Tom Peterson
(regarding some responses to the latest paper correcting sea temperature data).

The piece includes a link to a TedX talk from Dr Tom Peterson on "What is Science: How it Differs from Art, Law and Quackery"

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html

[Laurent]

Climate sceptic researcher investigated over funding from fossil fuel firms
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/cclimate-sceptic-researcher-willie-soon-investigated-funding-fossil-fuel-firms

[Sigmetnow]

The Weather Channel Confronts Republicans on Climate Change

On Wednesday, the Weather Channel launched a dramatic campaign it says is intended to help shift the climate change conversation from science to solutions.

The series of short videos, called Climate 25, is surprisingly political for a venue like the Weather Channel, and most are aimed at making the case for urgent action from a conservative, Republican angle. Among the featured speakers are U.S. Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby (Ret.); Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs who served as secretary of the treasury under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009; and Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever. At one point, Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator under George W. Bush, addresses Republicans directly, saying, “It’s our issue.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/12/the_weather_channel_s_new_video_series_on_climate_change_features_25_stark.html

[Anne]

This is really interesting and depressing but not altogether astonishing: people tend respond to factual questions about the Arctic in accordance with their political beliefs.
Snippage

Hamilton asked five key questions about the Poles. How would you respond?
Which of the following three statements do you think is more accurate? Over the past few years, the ice on the Arctic Ocean in late summer – covers less area than it did 30 years ago; declined but then recovered to about the same area it had 30 years ago; or covers more area than it did 30 years ago.
If the Arctic region becomes warmer in the future, do you think that will have – no effects on the weather where you live; minor effects on the weather where you live; or major effects on the weather where you live?
Which of the following possible changes would, if it happened, do the most to raise sea levels? – melting of land ice in Greenland and the Antarctic; melting of glaciers in the Himalaya and Alaska; or melting of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean.
Which of these best describes the North Pole? – ice a few feet or yards thick, floating over a deep ocean; ice more than a mile thick, over land; or a mainly rocky, mountainous landscape.
Which of these best describes the South Pole? – ice a few feet or yards thick, floating over a deep ocean; ice more than a mile thick, over land; or a mainly rocky, mountainous landscape.
Responses to climate-linked factual questions, such as whether Arctic sea ice area has declined compared with 30 years ago, were politicized as if we were asking for climate-change opinions. Political divisions are less apparent with factual questions that do not infer climate change, such as whether the melting of Greenland and Antarctic land ice, or of Arctic sea ice, could potentially do the most to raise sea levels.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-survey-reveals-polarized-perceptions-polar.html#jCp

[Sigmetnow]

A Psychologist Explains Why People Don't Care About Climate Change

VICE: Why do you think journalism on climate change has been ineffective in convincing the public about the urgency of the problem?

Per Espen Stoknes: Studies have shown that over 80 percent of newspaper articles on IPCC climate change reports have used the catastrophe framing. Also, many journalists have extensively quoted active deniers to give "both" sides a voice, a practice which creates a "false balance."

Thus, today, global warming is the biggest story that has never been told. Recently I think we've seen a change in coverage, for instance in The Guardian. The main shift is to telling stories about the people making the change happen; focusing on opportunities, solutions, and true green growth. From psychology, we know that the best mix to create engagement and creativity is a [ratio] of one to three in negative to positive stories. My own research has resulted in four main groups of narratives that are and need to be told: a) green growth opportunities, b) better quality of life, i.e. what does a low-carbon society look like? c) the ethical stewardship story, and finally, d) stories on re-wilding and the resilience of nature. The more people start believing we can create a better society with lower emissions, the sooner they can start taking action.

http://www.vice.com/read/a-psychologist-explains-why-people-dont-really-give-a-shit-about-climate-change-608

[Buddy]

The "deniers" will break down in mass........just as you see the breakdown over the confederate flag now.  It wasn't that the flag was any less reprehensible over the last 50 years....it's just that common sense seems to always strike at the same time.

People like Joe Bastardi, Sean Hannity, FOX News in general, George Will.....and others will talk all they want.....until that point in time that "the dam breaks."  The same thing happened with the financial crisis.

When the tide goes out....everybody eventually finds out who isn't wearing a bathing suit.  And that time is fast approaching.  By next summer or fall....there will be a LOT of people bailing out of the denier camp.

[Sigmetnow]

Interactive presentation compares the different drivers (volcanoes, the sun, GHG, etc.) of global temperature rise since 1880, to show your denier friends. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[ritter]

Interactive presentation compares the different drivers (volcanoes, the sun, GHG, etc.) of global temperature rise since 1880, to show your denier friends. 
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

That's pretty cool!

[Michael Hauber]

I like this ex-denier's story on how he came to be a believer on climate change.

[Sigmetnow]

The New York Times is increasingly using the term “denier” to describe people who are skeptical of man-made global warming.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/22/ny-times-using-denier-to-describe-global-warming-skeptics/

[Sigmetnow]

Excerpt from "The Influence Machine: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Corporate Capture of American Life"

Big business declares war on science: The secret story of the Chamber of Commerce’s battle against the environment, global warming action.
Driven by a fervor for profit and an anti-government frenzy, the Chamber is a fighting force for the 1 percent.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/28/big_business_declares_war_on_science_the_secret_story_of_the_chamber_of_commerces_battle_against_the_environment_global_warming_action/

[Laurent]

The BBC is in a fog of groupthink and can’t see how biased it is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11703758/The-BBC-is-in-a-fog-of-groupthink-and-cant-see-how-biased-it-is.html

Published in "The telegraph" which was until recently a nest for deniers...isn't it ? I am not following that thoroughly anyway !

[Sigmetnow]

Says something when MSNBC, and ABC's talk show "The View" are top scorers for fact-checking the candidates' statements on climate change.    But at least the topic is being discussed!

Media Matters study: How The Media Is Covering U.S. Presidential Candidates
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/01/study-how-the-media-is-covering-presidential-ca/204176


And compare the response to Obama's first big climate speech in July 2013.  (Need to scroll down past the 50 or so comments to see the original article.)

Sunday News Shows Ignored Obama’s Climate Plan But Late-Night Comics Picked Up The Slack
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/01/2236101/infographic-sunday-news-shows-ignored-obamas-climate-plan-but-late-night-comics-picked-up-the-slack/

[AbruptSLR]

ExxonMobil has been well aware of climate change risks since the 1980's but still actively lobbied to deceive the public on this risk:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/08/climate-deception-dossiers-expose-oil-industry-lobbying/

[Sigmetnow]

Interview with Espen Stoknes.

How Can We Make People Care About Climate Change?

Rather than something distant, communicators need to make climate change feel like something that is near, personal, and urgent. Rather than doom, we need to emphasize the opportunities that the crisis affords us.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_can_we_make_people_care_about_climate_change/2892/

[Sigmetnow]

.

[Sigmetnow]

How To Talk To A 5-Year-Old About Climate Change
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679159/talking-to-kids-about-climate-change/

[Sigmetnow]

Deniers love their sunspots!

No, the Earth Is Not Heading for a “Mini Ice Age”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html

[Sigmetnow]

New study finds it's not a 97% consensus on global warming.  It's 99.99%.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong

[Laurent]

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

[Sigmetnow]

Texas' Climate Stubbornness Takes an Increasingly Big Toll
As weather extremes like flooding batter Texas, its refusal to prepare for an even more volatile climate leaves residents at risk, experts say.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15072015/texas-climate-change-global-warming-stubbornness-takes-increasingly-big-toll-floods-extreme-weather

[Sigmetnow]

A liberal take on why Republicans lambast the government program that funded Solyndra -- a program not only making a profit, but on track to make at least another $5 Billion.  But you won't hear about that from them.

What You’ve Heard About Solyndra Is One Big Republican Lie

It leaves me to wonder if, for righties, the real problem with this program is not about any failures, but instead they actually hate its mere existence. This program not only supports green energy and new innovative technology, but they are also giving funding to nuclear plants and big corporations like NRG, which is one of the largest energy companies in the country. But the real problem for Conservatives is that NRG and some of these other companies have donated substantial amounts of money to politicians….politicians like Barack Obama.

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/11/youve-heard-solyndra-one-big-republican-lie/

[Sigmetnow]

Here's why Ed Begley, Jr. did not Deny or Fail To Act.

Ed Begley Jr., the greenest guy around
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2311

[Sigmetnow]

No, It's Not Your Opinion.  You're Just Wrong.

An opinion is a preference for or judgment of something. My favorite color is black. I think mint tastes awful. Doctor Who is the best television show. These are all opinions. They may be unique to me alone or massively shared across the general population but they all have one thing in common; they cannot be verified outside the fact that I believe them.

There’s nothing wrong with an opinion on those things. The problem comes from people whose opinions are actually misconceptions. If you think vaccines cause autism you are expressing something factually wrong, not an opinion. The fact that you may still believe that vaccines cause autism does not move your misconception into the realm of valid opinion. Nor does the fact that many other share this opinion give it any more validity.

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752

[Sigmetnow]

John Cook discusses conspiracy theories about his Skeptical Science website.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-theories-Skeptical-Science.html

[AbruptSLR]

Currently, the effort to fight climate change is somewhat like mankind's situation after the fall of the "Tower of Babel", in that everyone thinks primarily of themselves and people have difficulty thinking about and talking to others.  The linked reference examines both the current situation of public awareness of the risks of climate change, and that improving global education (focused on the developing world) is key to fighting climate change:

Tien Ming Lee, Ezra M. Markowitz, Peter D. Howe, Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz (2015), "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2728


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2728.html


http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2728.epdf?referrer_access_token=hTOrNNfjRxJjca9nOKrVwdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Or-clRRbEu5cFTFXf8JpSQ6tB3yFhorpbUdemqUv9kjdculFWFj2tgF-e8RAun7YPczoCDu2und7WVNvdQVW9MwzhnBjIpKehvEVtWS-PnwxmlGcxQteuQfSqTfLxBJfKeWYZwHjCA45CfhjKF_M75qFia0OVJQ-PqHEivR7WHyLtetzX2qKE0MWNV_e0QVW1L-rznIXP4o8BWuqBX-YXyFozU-heT9GMyQIm4FiNY9iE515HgAldauumodWP__1Gxxlj4LF3TEQ4jgSE55iSdpeJDkZGogWlpkiwdYYFHuZM0EOFUWOLM6_0Q0r_Ya0k%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com



Abstract: "Climate change is a threat to human societies and natural ecosystems, yet public opinion research finds that public awareness and concern vary greatly. Here, using an unprecedented survey of 119 countries, we determine the relative influence of socio-demographic characteristics, geography, perceived well-being, and beliefs on public climate change awareness and risk perceptions at national scales. Worldwide, educational attainment is the single strongest predictor of climate change awareness. Understanding the anthropogenic cause of climate change is the strongest predictor of climate change risk perceptions, particularly in Latin America and Europe, whereas perception of local temperature change is the strongest predictor in many African and Asian countries. However, other key factors associated with public awareness and risk perceptions highlight the need to develop tailored climate communication strategies for individual nations. The results suggest that improving basic education, climate literacy, and public understanding of the local dimensions of climate change are vital to public engagement and support for climate action.socio-demographic characteristics, geography, perceived well-being, and beliefs on public climate change awareness and risk perceptions at national scales. Worldwide, educational attainment is the single strongest predictor of climate change awareness. Understanding the anthropogenic cause of climate change is the strongest predictor of climate change risk perceptions, particularly in Latin America and Europe, whereas perception of local temperature change is the strongest predictor in many African and Asian countries. However, other key factors associated with public awareness and risk perceptions highlight the need to develop tailored climate communication strategies for individual nations. The results suggest that improving basic education, climate literacy, and public understanding of the local dimensions of climate change are vital to public engagement and support for climate action."

See also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/27/these-are-the-factors-that-affect-how-people-feel-about-climate-change-and-whether-they-even-know-it-exists/
Extract: "40 percent of adults on Earth have never heard of climate change."

[Sigmetnow]

The scratchy, black and white effect nicely reflects their backwards-thinking statements.

Clinton spoofs GOP's 'mad scientists'

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is out with a new video panning the Republican presidential field as “mad scientists” who deny the effects of climate change.

The new spot centers on the use of the phrase “I’m not a scientist” by Republican candidates when discussing climate change.

“Faced with the threat of climate change, Republicans repeat one chilling phrase: I am not a scientist,” the spot says, before running down instances where former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), and Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) all said the line.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249309-clinton-spoofs-gops-mad-scientists

[Sigmetnow]

.

[Shared Humanity]

The Wall Street Journal...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unsettling-anti-science-certitude-on-global-warming-1438300982

Read it and weep.

[Sigmetnow]

The Wall Street Journal...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unsettling-anti-science-certitude-on-global-warming-1438300982

Read it and weep.

The WSJ is known to be stupid when it comes to climate science. 

Results show that The Wall Street Journal was least likely to discuss the impacts of and threat posed by climate change and most likely to include negative efficacy information and use conflict and negative economic framing when discussing actions to address climate change.

http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/07/29/0963662515595348.abstract?rss=1


P.S.: If someone can't get to the WSJ article but really wants to see it, here is, apparently, another link to the article:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1508/S00012/the-unsettling-anti-science-certitude-on-global-warming.htm

[Sigmetnow]

Energy Files: Documents reveal UK govt frustration with climate sceptic pressure

UK government officials from the energy ministry and Met Office have been bombarded by an apparently co-ordinated and proactive attack on climate science from sceptics within the government, including members of the sceptic group the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) according to documents revealed after an Energydesk Freedom of Information request.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/08/05/energy-files-documents-uk-govt-frustration-with-attack-by-climate-sceptics/

[Sigmetnow]

Coal Billionaire Gives Big Boost To Jeb Bush
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/07/3689120/jeb-bush-superpac-coal-billionaire/

[Gonzo]

I agree with this thread.
MANY are failing to act, and we need them to act now.

Livestock farming is one of, if not, THE biggest greenhouse gas.
For decades Westerners were the cow, sheep, and pig eaters.
Now everyone is getting on the bandwagon.
America and Europe has BY FAR the biggest factory farm methane production in the world, but now ... a billion people in China, and elsewhere ... are trying to catch up.
The methane coming from livestock farming alone is FAR FAR more than you humans will EVER be able to offset.

If you want to help the world, you literally have no choice, but to stop taking about CO2 ... and to  stop eating meat.

Methane (from livestock) is 25 times the warming power of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if you see a chart showing 50ppm of methane, and 500 ppm of CO2, the methane looks marginal by weight/mass/volume. However, the heating power of methane molecules to the atmosphere is 25 times MORE than CO2. It lasts only 7 years, before it degrades into CO2, but then it is CO2, and 7 years of heating have occurred, releasing more methane from the permafrost.
Meat eaters are destroying the world, and you will never, ever, get around this argument.
i have heard it all before. You are the cause of global warming, but meat eaters are too cowardly to admit it.
If everyone stopped eating big animals (eat your chickens and sardines if you must), there would not be a single problem in climate change or water shortages coming to you all soon.

(Gonzo -- 35 years as a vegetarian, near-vegan ... stronger, fitter, faster, smarter)

[Sigmetnow]

Wow -- New York Times really blew it this time.

Media Experts Blast New York Times Over Glowing Profile Of Koch Brothers

The New York Times published a fawning front-page profile of the Koch brothers last Friday. The article never mentions their efforts to secure unfettered fossil fuel consumption, which would destroy humanity’s livable climate. It was quickly criticized by leading experts as “poor journalism” and “gullible.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/04/3686673/new-york-times-gullible-puff-piece-on-kochs/

[OldLeatherneck]

Another Dumb "Congress-Critter" from Texas



I'm ashamed to admit that my state continues to elect such ignorant buffoons and that they rise to power in important committees.  This is the same Joe Barton that apologized to British Petroleum, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  He actually felt that the media was treating BP unfairly.

[Buddy]

As someone who lived in Fort Worth, TX and Dallas for several years....I still don't "get it."  There are some REALLY nice folks in Texas (especially Fort Worth).  But WHY in the world....DO they elect some of the dumb ass folks they do....is beyond me.

Barton is easily one of the worst.  Truly incredible.  And "we" are supposed to be "intelligent life."  I know there is intelligent life in the universe somewhere.  But it isn't on earth.....and it CERTAINLY isn't in Texas....

[Sigmetnow]

With all the effort Germany is putting into renewables, I was surprised to see this.

Opinion: Climate change has arrived in Central Europe

It's been hot in Germany, really hot. Newspapers are full of tips on how to endure temperatures of over 40 degrees Celsius (105F): avoid strenuous physical activity, stay in the shade and drink lots of fluids. The dome of Berlin's Reichstag building was closed several times last week to avoid exposing tourists to the melting heat in the glass construction. In the state of Baden-Württemberg, highway police have repeatedly asked motorists to adhere to the heat-related speed limit of 80 kilometers per hour (50 mph). Old highway lanes made of concrete can literally buckle to form ramps similar to jumps on a ski slope. In Potsdam's Park Sanssouci, trees dating to the days of the 18th-century Prussian King Frederick the Great are endangered by the heat.

But no one is speaking of climate change. Most people in Germany view it as a problem elsewhere, like in Africa, where desertification and hunger have led to war and the exodus of inhabitants, or in Poland, where the ice is melting away. Central Europeans have done relatively well when it comes to the greenhouse effect. It is still widely believed that one extreme weather phenomenon does not prove that the climate has changed. ...

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-climate-change-has-arrived-in-central-europe/a-18637340

[Sigmetnow]

Australian Psychological Society "Disturbed" By Climate Denialist Group's "Misleading" Newspaper Advert

Australia’s peak body representing psychologists has attacked a climate science denial group for a prominent advert taken out in a major national newspaper.

The Australian Psychological Society (APS) says the advert from a little-known group “misuses psychology-based arguments” to “mislead the public” on the science of climate change.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/11/australian-psychological-society-disturbed-climate-denialist-group-s-misleading-newspaper-advert

[Sigmetnow]

5 Ways To Convince People To Actually Do Something About Climate Change

In a sense, anyone who isn't acting on climate is probably in a little bit of denial. It's easy to rationalize non-action: What difference does it really make if one person decides to drive or not to recycle? But if we don't take simple everyday actions, it might also mean that we're less likely to support broader climate policy. Stoknes talks about the problem of cognitive dissonance—if you're not acting green, you tend to automatically adjust your beliefs to justify your behavior.
...
...Instead of talking about disaster—the framing that Stoknes says 80% of news stories on climate use—activists could talk about insurance. If humans hate to hear about losses, talk about how those losses can be prevented through action now; how can we protect the economy and national security from climate mayhem? While a message of doom doesn't inspire people to act, a focus on solutions could.

Messages can also focus on personal and more immediate opportunities. New bike paths don't have to be framed as a climate solution, but could be touted as a way to get healthier and look sexier. Solar panels—now becoming popular with Tea Partiers—can be framed as "free-market energy" rather than a way to reduce pollution.
...
Peer pressure is a powerful thing. In a classic study, researchers tested putting a sign in a hotel room that said 75% of guests in that room had reused their towels. Reuse rose dramatically—even though a similar sign, asking people to reuse their towels to save water, had little effect. Humans want to be like those around us.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3049540/5-ways-to-convince-people-to-actually-do-something-about-climate-change

[Sigmetnow]

Snapping into a clean energy future: Think you could do it?

“How difficult is it going to be to switch from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy economy?” asked a gentleman from the audience. I paused and took a deep breath.

I was giving a lecture about climate change at a retirement community, and I’d been thinking about my own parents ever since I’d stepped through the front door earlier. Situated a couple hours north of Los Angeles, the “retirement village,” as they called it, was immaculate. It resembled a glamorous apartment hotel with Spanish architecture, wide foyers and grounds that were landscaped with drought-tolerant plants for the California climate. As I was escorted to the lecture hall, I noticed a few residents peacefully walking dogs.

I took a second breath and began my answer. “My parents would love it here.” A hundred puzzled faces looked up at me, wondering what this comment about my parents had to do with the global energy economy. “When I talk with them about moving out of their burdensome three-bedroom home, they tell me that if they could just snap their fingers and be here right now,” I said, waving my arm high while making a grand snapping gesture, “they’d simply do it immediately. But, they find the idea of the transition utterly unbearable. So they’re stuck. Heels dug in, entrenched, immobile, paralyzed.”

While I was talking, an image popped, unwelcome, into my mind’s eye. I saw my parents’ fine china, stacked in a dusty credenza, untouched for 47-plus years. “They don’t want to go through their belongings and make choices,” I said. “They’re afraid of the amount of hard work.”

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2323

[Tor Bejnar]

Thanks for this, Sigmetnow.