Climate Change Personalities: Which one are you?


We’ve observed many different types of people arguing the toss over climate change. Here is our summary of the major personality types. Which one are you?


The Un-Invested

The Un-invested are in the earlier stages of life and so have the most to lose. It is they that will be around to clear up the mess in 50 years, and they have life expectancies of up to 100 years to ensure that the problem gives them continued headaches.  The Un-Invested are not afraid of change and are not afraid to rebel against some aspects of traditional society, and so they fully support radical green measures. Having not yet acquired expensive cars and mortgages means that they are not at risk from the eco-tax-man anyway.  Al Gore is cool and climate change deniers are conservative fascists.

The Un-Invested are most often found on university campuses or lounging in Starbucks.

The Worrier

The Worrier puts climate change high up on a list which includes skin cancer, interest rate rises and unwashed foreigners. They are awfully concerned and share these concerns with people at cocktail parties, particularly since their beachside holiday home may loose its value due to rising sea-levels.

 Worriers are proud of their energy efficient light bulbs, but air-travel offsets are terribly expensive and they do find it difficult to read train timetables. Sports cars are environmentally unsound, but 4×4s are the only safe means of transporting the children to school. Worriers don’t worry nearly enough about the supporting science, which is very complicated but must be correct because Prince Charles said so.

Worriers are most often found in suburban settings applying heavy-duty pesticides to their roses.

The Denier

Climate change is not happening. It’s a liberal conspiracy brought about by people who are jealous of the Deniers wealth and affluence.  It’s easy to see that there are a thousand reasons why we a not responsible for climate change - what about all those cows and volcanoes? How can humankind have the slightest impact on our planet when our population only doubles every 50 years and we only emit 27 squillion tons of greenhouse gasses each year? Even if manmade climate change were true, the Denier is only responsible for a tiny part of it and it is anyway somebody else’s problem. The Un-Invested can sort it as a thank you for paying all those school fees.

Deniers are most often found in golf clubs, BMW dealerships or on once unspoilt tropical islands.

continued below

The Believer

It’s happening. There are reports everywhere. The world is going to end. There are some pesky doubters, but they are only trying to protect their 4×4s and large houses. Unfortunately, despite their low energy light bulbs and rather chilly living rooms the Believer hasn’t yet been very successful at reducing their Co2 emissions - one does still have a life to lead and most green options are terribly inconvenient.

Believers tend to be city dwellers but can be found anywhere.

The Eco-Warrior

Eco-Warriors are hard core to the point of lunacy and lead no compromise low carbon, fat free, vegetarian , energy saving ecologically sound lifestyles. En Eco-Warrior would rather walk 100 miles over broken glass than travel the same distance in a car. Eco-Warriors vote for political parties that always loose, smoke roll-up cigarettes and have cool names which usually end with a y, such as Swampy, Manky or Stinky.

Eco-Warriors can be found in places where deniers, worriers and believers would never go.

The Scientist

The Scientist is smart, well educated and enjoys a good argument. Climate change is the perfect tool with which to demonstrate their superior powers of intellect and debate. Some scientists are sceptical of other scientists who believe that Co2 causes global warming, and will tirelessly question the research results. Other scientists are sceptical of those scientists who are sceptical of other scientists. Usually a scientist will simply choose a position on the debate for fun, in order to annoy Believers or Deniers.

Scientists have been known to reduce Believers to tears and have been seen having bloody fights with Deniers at parties. It is impossible to win an argument with a Scientist since the discussion is always reduced to sub-atomic physics, of which most people, including many Scientists themselves have no clue as to what they are talking about.

Scientists can be found anywhere that believers and deniers hang out, but are recognisable by their difference in dress sense.

The Ignorer

The Ignorer hasn’t really considered the subject, although they did once hear something about that Al Gore chap when they accidentally watched the news last week. They anyway have far more important things to worry about. But climate change won’t really affect [insert country of residence] anyway, will it? Isn’t it just a problem for people without cars? Ignorers have more credit cards than most people and double the number of shoes.

Ignorers can often be found driving a large 4×4 along a bus lane whilst simultaneously discussing life style options on their cell-phones.

The Pragmatist

The Pragmatist understands the risks imposed by climate change, but is wise to the way that the world works and knows that humankind will get several things wrong before they get anything right. Usually at great expense, so it’s often better just to leave it alone anyway. The pragmatist takes every opportunity to be green - but only when it saves money at the same time, or at least when it doesn’t cost too much.

Pragmatists are most often found in bars or at home writing for climate change websites.

Subtext

Light heartedness aside, there is a rather more serious issue at stake here. The point which we have tried to illustrate with this article is that for the majority of people (but not all) their position on the climate change issue is determined by their circumstances rather than by any logical thought process.

One of the original aims of TalkClimateChange is to deepen the debate and the general level of understanding on the topic. By doing this we can break down some of the prejudices referenced above and ensure that mankind makes a proper response to this issue.

What’s your view?

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Guest post: Climate Change - Science or Religion?
Why recycling rubbish is often rubbish

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

HaHa! Put me down as a believer..

You forgot to mention the glowarmers. These people have an almost religious belief that humans are the cause of climate change.

Glowarmers will always reject, usually without ever reading, any scientific study that shows natural causes for some of the changes in climate. Glowarmers will also dismiss any one who believes that climate change may in fact be a natural phenominon.

It is impossible to win an argument with a glowarmer because no matter how much scientific evidence you can present that any portion of the climate change is most likely caused by natural forces and not humans, they will always say you are wrong.

Many glowarmers are not well versed in the science of climate change. As such, they will refuse to even discuss the science and will usually fall back to the same failed arguments such as “there’s a consensus” or “That scientist must be funded by big oil.”

Then there is the extremist. These people are almost as bad as the glowarmers. The biggest difference is no one is quite sure if they actually believe what they are say. Most of these type have something to gain from man made climate change being real. Al Gore is a prime example of an extremist. He stands to make millions from his movie and selling his bogus carbon offsets. If climate change is a natural phenominon, people will not buy his movie or his carbon offsets.

The final category is the alarmist. The alarmist is perhapse the most interesting. They have a tendency to blame any extreme weather event on man made climate change. The most recent being the California wildfires. WHat they don’t like to say is that California burns almost every year and there have been several recorded wildfires that were much worse then this years.

Alarmists usually make some of the most outrageous claims about the coming disasters from man made climate change, even though there may be no scientific basis for their claims. A prime example of this came from Bill McGuire in the UK Guardian this past summer (Northern hemisphere summer) Bill McGuire made the claim that because of man made climat change there will be an increase in eathquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions. No where can anyone find any scientific study which shows this may happen.

On the other side of the debate, you have those who believe climate change is real, but that it is a naturally occuring phenominon. I really don’t have a name for these people, which I am one. These people usually have read the scientific studies and formed an opinion based on the scientific evidence rather then what a politician or the news has told us.

And what about us who are all for global warming?

I want too see Antarctica bloom. I dream of coconut palm trees in Alaska and a Greenland that actually is green; covered by deep forests rather than 3 km useless dead -60°C ice. I want life to prosper on the planet. I want global warming NOW! End this ice age catastrophy already! If emitting CO2 doesn’t help, why then we better find something else that does.

The Con-Man: These are the people who stand to make, or are making, a lot of money out of this. They broker carbon credits and publish articles and/or give public talks about the dangers of global warming. Whereas the AGW crowd are really worried about scientists who are being paid by big business to lie about the dangers of global warming, the Con-Men are the real money trail.

Name, besides displacement, one aspect of global warming that man will have to contend with in which it will not be successful. We can pump water from anywhere if we have too, and odds are that the amount of fresh water will increase with global warming. Crops will grow for longer, and faster with a CO2 enriched atmosphere, as for floods, we have been dealing with floods for centuries and if I am not mistaken flooding is a good thing from an ecological perspective most of the time.

What some people will have to change thier traditional life style? That is it? A few specious will die out? Man has been killing other Specious for centuries now, lets get over it. We would do better with land management tactics if that is the problem.

Don’t get me wrong I want to preserve the little critters, and have wilderness as well.

Heck I want a better energy source then oil/fossil fuels ( i.e. Nuclear ) but people seem to freak out about that as well. rather then people getting excited about what we can build as a large population of people who have a lot of stuff that creates better human existance they want us to go back to simpler times, hate to say it but siimpler times bit rocks. Thats why our Parents and Grand Parents and thier Grand Parents worked hard to make it a better world for humans.

I suppose I am a Global Warming Cheerleader because if all we have to contend with is a few more floods and natural disasters, most of which kill VERY few people, then what is really the problem? I am sick of the news reporting on what is wrong with Global Warming, why can’t they talk about what is good? Life goes on, I would be more worried if the world was getting cooler not warmer, People live in Las Vegas and hate to say it, ITS REALLY WARM THERE. At least 5 to 10 Degrees Celsius warmer then where I live, and they do it just fine.

In addition to the comments here, I’ve had a few emails as well with a whole host of additional types. We’ll publish a version 2 sometime in the future.

As usual, Phil, a timely comment, illustrating both genius and irrelevance, and a good way to keep things light.

Hmmm. This wasn’t where I was trying to post . . .

>>To even consider than pathetic little man and his machines can influence the global climate is to give ourselves powers that we do not have.

Wouldn’t you have said the same thing about flying once? Or going to the moon? Do you really think that putting billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere can have no effect?

So in the last eighteen months people have decided that we are destroying the planet! The problem I have is who do i listen to? I don’t trust anothers opinion and to be honest, and this may seem extreme to some, but what do i care anyway? Yes I will do my bit as i always have done simply because i believe in treating the planet as right as i can and not because blair or brown told me to. I am a minion and will never have an impact on what china or the states do.
climate change to me is the new christianity seeping in to human kind, a new reigion. I am no conspiracy theorist but isn’t it just a bit coincidential that the angry mob starts ranting about our moraless society and suddenly and quite out of nowhere this cult of the climate change start to attenpt to make world peace through climate change and how we are destroying our habitat?

No where has anyone asked why climate change is such a problem? people care more about climate change as the incovenience to human life through flood or fire than they do to the existence of polar bears. All they are essentially talking about is the continuation of he human species and not the cute creatures. I think polar bears (amongst other species) are great and I do not wish them to become extict but if they have the inability to be able to evolve quickly to new surroundings then so what? They will become like all the other billions of species that have become extict because they fail to evolve to new surroundings. No body praises foxes for that reason…they just hunt them. No body praises rats, they consider them pests instead.

There are suddenly too many people telling me I must belive in this and to an extent I do, but I fed up with it being rammed down my throat like a new religion. after all there are a lot of people who believe that god exists still so who am i to trust anyones opinion?

Type your comment here. WONDERFUL