Inside the mind of a climate denier

Paul Pollard writes: Re. “Why understanding John Howard’s climate cognition is important” (yesterday).  Tristan Edis made some penetrating points on global warming denialism. It is well known that people see most readily, and dislike most strongly, in others the features that they themselves strongly possess. They also unconsciously judge others by their own standards. Thus when denialists criticise concern on global warming as a religion, as they often do (rather than see it as a rational response to a serious pollution problem), what they are saying is that they themselves approach issues essentially as matters of ideological belief, not as practical non-ideological problems.

Thus denialism is overwhelmingly a highly ideological, right-wing stance. This non-practical approach is exemplified by Howard’s illogical stance on technological progress and warming, which Tristan Edis explored. Given this ideological, closed-mind situation, I wonder if engineers will convince them. What might do the trick is if a list of absolutely top right-wing figures, in Australia and globally, previously sceptical or uncommitted, came out and said they were now convinced it was an urgent problem and went round arguing this case. It would of course take a lot of courage to do this. I can’t think of the “right” people at the moment, but this sort of personal change of position of leading figures has often led to change in the past, not least because they provide “cover” for others.

Les Heimann writes: Howard’s way “… addressing global warming is being opposed to economic development”. That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it? Capitalism’s approach to anything that gets in the way of making a buck. John Howard, Tony Abbott and the list goes on. Why do so many people turn their backs on common sense? We are a herd animal. We are not individual bulls roaming and grazing cows in a group. We, the human race, are a family. As a family we are more like elephants, and we should behave that way, looking after those who can’t, caring for our young and working together for survival.

Together, not as capitalist bulls. Together means ensuring our survival and yes, yes, yes — climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Instead we accept the notion of ensuring our herd dies off in the future so some of us can get fat now. Those capitalists hiding as climate deniers are dishonest. Politicians who espouse climate denial for political purposes are worse. They are disgusting lone bulls, and they should be quietly removed to some remote back paddock before they do any more harm.

I want my grandchildren to live.

Savage attack

David Siebert writes: Re. “Rundle: real ideas, at least from the Left, in pollie-free Q&A” (yesterday). Rundle’s comments re Savage on Q&A, “Greer fired a salvo for the critical response  … this well-meaning but gormless American liberal could barely follow the argument”, are perplexing. Is this the same Dan Savage I’ve listened to? He has to be one the best speakers I’ve heard in while. He held court at the Opera House for an hour and had everyone in the palm of his hand. Gormless is not a word I’d use for the guy. Nor is the description “daffy American progressivism”. I would go as far as saying that’s pretty rude. And seriously, there are more than a few times we all get a brain ache when trying to follow Greer of late. A point on which I’ll agree is the need for a more balanced panel, with someone to give Savage, Rosin and Greer some food for thought. Hitchens really didn’t dent them.