I'll also add that some people feel they are more "savvy" than the "general public". This is actually quite funny in that these people believe they can sort through an issue like climate change just using their own intellect (unlike their uneducated neighbor).
What they fail to realize (or perhaps some do realize) is that they actually know very little about climate science and are instead relying on the knowledge and "authority" of those who do (or appear to). That's why something like a "consensus" about climate change is so important as is demeaning those who think differently and question both the consensus and the authority.
Yes, it's through the psychological concept of subjective validation. A general population of people can be convinced something is real if they are lead to believe that they can do something about it or if it has personal meaning to them. It is used as a form of cognitive bias in which an idea is discarded as wrong if it does not agree with a common idea(l). Subjective validation is also the essential element of any successful cold reading done by astrologers, palm readers, tarot readers, mediums, and the like.
nuclear power generation is an example of a subject that everyone seems to fear. how many people have been killed by leaking reactor radiation? of the over 400 working nuclear reactors in the world, how many have failed? two. this is within the last 27 years. how many people have died from starvation? car wrecks? poorly prescribed meds? food poisoning? just within the last ten years? the list goes on. the numbers are in the tens of millions. howe many have died since 1946 in reactor accidents , due to radiation leaks? less than one thousand. yet the press hammered negative images of reactor safety all of the time. the numbers all all well documented.
They can prove it independently. NASA records show that global average temperature has risen by 0.5-0.6 Celsius since 1880 (Yes! 1880! Not 1980!) That's over 130 years and pretty much the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Since then there has been 2 natural El Nino events. The most recent one (1997-1998) caused a 1 degree Celsius spike in average global temperatures. Without that natural event there would be ZERO warming since 1880. Alarmists here can't do simple math so it might be helpful to them if you could help them out. Feel free to use this answer at your own pleasure. :-)
There is a limit to how much CO2 can warm the planet. They don't seem to understand this either. Here's something that might help : http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-tec... although many have tried to refute this.
Remember this : "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink it!"
Like Sagebrush says, just keep repeating the lie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Predict a catastrophe. If the predicted date of the catastrophic event comes and goes just pick another date in the future. Repeat. If someone presents you with facts from reality tell them that they are lying. Tell them it takes 15 years to establish a trend. When the trend lasts for 15 years tell them it takes 30 years to establish a trend. When a trend last for 30 years (like the sea level decreasing in San Francisco since the mid 1980's) tell them that you can't make future predictions based off a trend.
"The recent rise in temperature is unprecedented."
"There will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010" ----2005
"There will be 50 million climate refugees by 2020" ----2010
"There will be 150 million climate refugees by 2050" ----2009
"Within a few years children just aren't going to know what snow is" ----2000
"Man made global warming is causing the sea levels to rise"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2000"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2013"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2016"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2020"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2030"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2040"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2050"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2060"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2070"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2080"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2090"
"The Arctic will be ice free by the year 2100"
Yes, it is possible......but it calls for honest disclosure.
The climategate email scandal, the hockey-stick scandal, data-cooking.....to name a few.....have damaged the credibility of what we hear from some climate "scientists'.
Unfortunately, the ethical scientist is tainted by the relative few rotten apples in the climate science community.
The climate science community needs to clean its own house by giving the boot to those who have dishonored the integrity of their field.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. Hitler and PT Barnum and Barack Obama had good luck with that theory.
The not too-deep subtext of Jungle Jim's spot-on answer is that the question could stand rephrasing with the "public of at least average intelligence and knowledge" replacing "general public." To quote that most estimable role model, Abraham Lincoln, you "can fool some of the people all the time." Such as those who believe the 100 different and contradictory fossil fuel industry anti-science fables debunked here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... Speaking of which, Sagebrush once again trots out here his favorite role model, Joseph Goebbels. Probably the repeated trotting-out reflects the repeated ineffectiveness of his trying to emulate someone with a larger brain capacity than that of a lizard.
To the recommend-rephrased question, I would answer yes. Most even less savvy members of the public are readily convinced, without needing to prove it by testing it on themselves, that a mere 500 parts per million solution of cyanide is unsafe to drink glasses of despite the trace level concentration of a substance that is healthy to consume in lower amounts.
The general public can't prove diddley-squat independently. Yet they still believe many things on faith.
Yes it is standard political action, divert attention away from your failures, it happens all the time.
Scare the public to gain greater control and influence.
Remember you only have to last two terms of office if the country falls apart after that well you will be okay.
REGARDLESS of whether or not climate change is in fact real - do you think it's possible to convince the general population that we need to act upon it? Is it possible to convince billions of people to believe in something that can't be proven from their backyard? And might not affect them within their remaining lifetime? Is this within the capacity of the human species as we know it?
Yes it is a tried and proven formula.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda.
Historically, this has been proven time and time again.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln
Like Iraq's WMD?
Or the BS about Obama's death panels?
