By Robert Bradley Jr. — February 7, 2023
“And this is where Richard Lyons (and others) are arguing and winning the intellectual debate, while the alarmists who believe in Cognitive Dissonance are stuck in… at odds with their own perceptions.”
Sometimes a rebuttal on social media is too good not to commemorate. This relates to a post on “Cognitive Dissonance” regarding the 49-minute Apple Podcast, “Hidden Brain: When you need it to come true.” Its summary states:
When we desperately want something, it can be difficult to spot the warning signs that others can clearly see. This week, we revisit a favorite episode from 2021, bringing you two stories about how easy it is to believe a false reality — even when the facts don’t prove them. I.
The end result (see below) is because of us know Since climate science has been resolved and ruled as a crisis (ahem), psychological explanations are needed to understand why so many of us (silent majority?) do not suffer and claim ask a change of modern life (like crying Peter Kalmus).
Susan KrumdieckDirector of Research, Islands Center for Net Zero, interpret “When You Need It To Come True” is as follows:
Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon that we in the Energy Transition need to understand and develop ways to deal with ourselves and others.
The first major disagreement occurred 40 years ago when the belief that scientific observations warned of environmental harm would cause the change needed. I still want it to be true. But I look at the data and the evidence to determine what is most likely to happen. And then I investigate how changes might work and how different people play a role.
Purposeful questions about assumptions are needed. Questioning common assumptions about what can and can’t be done in what time frame means you’re awake to the truth.
Stories of people who believe that alien guardians will come to save them from the destruction of the earth should be of interest.
that I comment:
I consider ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ to be a matter of climate alarmism and forced energy transition. Wasteful, useless – and unnecessary ‘climate anxiety’ thinking.
But my one previous comment was a real takedown. stated Richard Lyon of Lyon Energy Futures Ltd.:
Thank you, Susan. One of the first warnings 40 years ago was from renowned climate disaster researcher Paul Ehrlich that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue vapor by 1989”.
Since then, we have been deeply moved by warnings that the oceans would “die like Lake Erie in 1980” (Ehrlich, 1970), that there would be a new Ice Age in 10 years (NASA, 1971) ), that Britain would cease operations. would exist by the year 2000 (Ehrlich, 1971), that “the trend of cooling will not end” (New York Times, 1978), that the Maldives will be “completely underwater in 30 years (1989), that Snowfall in the UK will be a thing of the past (University of East Anglia, 2000), that Britain will be “Siberia” by 2025 (Pentagon, 2004), that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013/2014 /2016/2018 (Gore, US Navy, NASA), etc
What you note is that “warnings” 40 years ago are more accurately labeled as false predictions generated by observed climate models as not up to the task.
That is creating serious cognitive dissonance in an industry that depends on the hypothesis that there is a climate crisis, and is most evident in the prevalence of what Lakatos proposes to be. “Additional theory” in his account of pseudoscience – “theory to explain failure of theory”
Hooray… And here we are as Richard Lyons (and others) are arguing and winning the intellectual debate, while the alarmists believe in the growing dissonance of perception. trapped in… their own cognitive dissonance. To Susan Krumdieck, who believes in climate alarms. Examine your premises instead of trying to find psychological explanations for the world’s failure to heed the climate alarm. Start with time series data for each extreme weather, as well as satellite data on global warming.
Optimistic climatewhoever?
Related
