I am not attributing differences in opinion to mental illness or cognitive impairment. Nor am I using my expertise in psychology to explain climate. I am using my expertise in memory and psychology to illustrate that differences among people's approaches to climate change are related to imagination, goal orientation and identity consistency.

I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change. The natural disasters experienced in the past have been transient. We can't imagine our environment not bouncing back. Although experiencing devastation through traumatic or near death experiences does impact one's approach to the future. A survey conducted by the Institute for Future found that individuals who have had a brush with mortality are more likely to imagine and plan for distant future events. http://www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/IFTF_TheAmericanFutureGap_Survey_SR-1948.pdf

Contrary to what people are saying on this post, there is a very small percentage of climate scientists who believe that climate change is NOT related to human activity. A review of peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is likely due to human activity. Sadly, polarisation of politics and the media have divided people over accepting or denying climate science and scientific methods in general.

The sun can and does affect the climate. And like now, when in a traditional waning (since the mid-seventies, NASA) phase we can expect cooling or even an ice age! The real inconvenient and adroitly avoided or ignored truth!

So genius why is it as hot as it is and why are we deep in a huge nationwide unprecedented drought!?

Not record upon record heat wave and even in 2017 the second hottest year on record during a La Nina event! What, no El Nino to somehow blame? AS USUAL, GENIUS.

Even so, the usual coal-fired dunderheads keep on inventing reasons to continue with coal-fired power, and for numerous reasons i.e., it's not party policy, or even if we did stop burning coal we would affect very little!?

[ Except maybe my possibly undeclared or covertly hidden, in some family trust or disreputable tax haven? Dividend stream?]

Not so, given the minute we reindustrialise this nation and turn the economic ship around with seriously cheaper MSR thorium based energy!?

The rest of the world will know they have to follow suit, with the possible 2 cents per KwH, to remain in the game we call the global economy.

A good businessman knows when it's time to cut the losses and get out. We here may not be able to affect climate change much at first, but we can turbocharge our economy reinstate our manufacturing sector and drought-proof this wide brown land! VERY DOABLE!

Now, even the most hardened sceptic can hardly argue against that but the less intelligent will, even as every bit of reality is ignored in the air-conditioned armchair comfort that separates the coal-fired devotees from the literal reality!
Alan B.

"Contrary to what people are saying on this post, there is a very small percentage of climate scientists who believe that climate change is NOT related to human activity. A review of peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is likely due to human activity."

The problem is that 'climate scientists' are not real scientists because their beliefs stifle observation, thinking and testing. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Science advances only by debate. Peer review doesn't work because the supposed majority agree with each other and block the real scientists who disagree. As usual 97% of published scientists are wrong, and it's up to the very few to achieve progress.

Yes, we can and have adapted if the change was very gradual and over possibly thousands of years but not when it's as explosive as current granny killing climate change where record heat waves tumble like nine pins in a bowling alley.

And in temporal terms, that's what is currently upon us with little or no time to adapt.

Perhaps given a few million years we could develop gills and return to the oceans from whence we allegedly came or in the case of bovine whales and or their cousins, dolphins, returned?

There is some evidence of similar rapid temperature around 90 million years ago, due to unprecedented volcanic activity and a quite massive yet comparative rise in ambient global temperature!?

And where just 2C was enough to melt the permafrost, releasing millions of tons of formerly frozen methane which then combined with the record levels of CO2 to raise average ambient temperatures by a total of 5C.

5C being enough to turn the UK into a windswept salt laden desert where nothing grew. Similar or worse conditions prevailed elsewhere and just prevented pant life from re-establishing, meaning the herbivores died out starved and when no more, the opportunistic omnivores and carnivores followed suit.

And all the in the paleogeological record (an open book) as all life very nearly destroyed? For those with eyes to read!

And remember, nothing of any worth is achieved or accomplished by shooting the messenger!
Alan B.

Dumbed down academia. No wonder Donald wants to drain the swamp. Really and they call this the enlightened age.

97% of scientists DO NOT agree that global warming is man-made. That percentage of people is made up of all sorts off odds and sods who are making money out of the scam; and most of them are not scientists; and, there is merely a CONSENSUS, which is not scientific proof. They all agree with with the ruse. There are no 'peer-reviewed’ findings. That's just another one of the lies put about by the rent-seekers. The only science involved is junk science, which has tarnished the good name of honest scientists for ever.