"The normalcy bias refers to an extreme mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and also its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
It’s what makes people stand and stare at an incoming tsunami instead of running. The most heart-breaking example I have seen was in a comic book called ‘When the wind blows’. The old lady and gentleman getting ready for the nuclear holocaust by pottering about filling a few pans of water and getting a bed made under a sloping door, as if it were an air-raid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Wind_Blows_(graphic_novel)
"The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur."
This is certainly what their arguments are based on. Whether they believe this argument or not, I’m not sure. But we’ve all seen how often deniers argue ‘nothing came of acid rain, ozone depletion, Y2k, global cooling, etc.’. They constantly argue that because disasters have not occurred, they cannot occur. Of course in these cases they argue the threat never existed when in reality we simply addressed each of these problems and actively prevented the disaster from occurring. The problem with averting disaster enough times I suppose is that people grow accustomed to it and take it for granted that we will continue to avert it. Or they assume the warnings were just ‘alarmism’ and conclude that warnings of potential disaster are always ‘alarmist’.
"People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation."
Once again, a perfect description of AGW deniers.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
No i think people deny climate change because if everyone were to admit it it would mean they would have acknowledged that they were contributing to it and therefore would have to change their behaviour. Its just selfish greed, if they deny it even exists then they can carry on their selfish, greedy and wasteful lives without having anything on their conscience
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
They’ve just been lied to so often by politicians they think "why is this any different"
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
the media forgets about de-forestation, desertification, habitat pollution and general loss of habitats across the globe (including oceanic habitats) -
that is far too political and ‘costly’ for them to consider
when it comes to ‘climate change’ however - it is still not proven on a global scale - and most aspects are a pile of BS
(not including climate change on a regional level - due to the above reasons -ie forest removal - that is not included in the big picture)
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I would say no because I dont believe that man made climate change. We had an ice age many years ago before man had really done much and the world sorted its self out so i just think whatever will be will be. Plus us and america stopping doing what we have done for years wont change a thing as when you look at places such as china, japan and other big industrial countries they are thousands of times worse. I recently visited Cairo and and over the top of the whole city is a cloud of smog.
Basically i think that if its not us the world will sort itself, if it is us then its already gone too far for us to do a thing!
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
"The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur."
This is certainly what their arguments are based on. Whether they believe this argument or not, I’m not sure. But we’ve all seen how often deniers argue ‘nothing came of acid rain, ozone depletion, Y2k, global cooling, etc.’. They constantly argue that because disasters have not occurred, they cannot occur. Of course in these cases they argue the threat never existed when in reality we simply addressed each of these problems and actively prevented the disaster from occurring. The problem with averting disaster enough times I suppose is that people grow accustomed to it and take it for granted that we will continue to avert it. Or they assume the warnings were just ‘alarmism’ and conclude that warnings of potential disaster are always ‘alarmist’.
"People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation."
Once again, a perfect description of AGW deniers.
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Yes. That can be the only Answer. It is easier to deny.
Unfortunately there are hundreds of thousands of "new homeless" in the U.S. that have never been ‘without’, and now have nothing. We are not hearing their voice because they are unrepresented, and feel lower than a snake’s belly and are trying to stay alive. They cannot play around on the computer. They would never have believed their lifestyle would come to an end. Charge it! When people tried to warn them of runaway spending, ARM mortgages, playing the Market. Those who gave warnings about this were shunned and ignored. There was name calling, accusations of not being patriotic…common theme here ? this is the same.
References :
History
February 25th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
yes. You see it all the time right here. The earth is very big and has always had changing climate, so people can’t believe that we are making a difference in the earth and that the climate is changing in a way that has no precedent.
This is precisely the argument that denialists are using when they compare those concerned about AGW to Chicken Little.
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Some of the answers here provide examples of this bias, such as "Mystical Mamba". She acknowledges the ecological disasters, but denies the inevitable changes. I prefer the more commonly used name of "denial".
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
There are the hard core deniers that do it for profit [being paid or with links to endangered industries], and those for whom it has become a crusade or ideology, the ones who think all people who even mention the environment need shooting. Think they are beyond ‘normalcy bias’.
Otherwise yep a lot of that fits with a bulk of deniers.
References :