The fact that we all strive to reduce psychologically inconsistent thoughts  is a well-researched phenomenon. When we hold two conflicting thoughts in our heads we feel an overwhelming desire to reduce this conflict. This desire can be a powerful driver in the way we behave. Most of us are aware at some level that if we took the threat of climate change seriously we would need to completely change our routines and the way we behave. Flying off on holiday would be out of the question. Swimming pools would be a past luxury. Most of us would need to give up our cars and become vegetarians. The list can be extended almost endlessly. Very often, subconsciously, we try to reduce troubling and inconvenient facts by minimizing, ignoring or even by denying them. Could this be why we hardly talk about climate change even in the face of increasingly frequent extreme weather events and obvious signs that it is occurring now?

This subject needs to be openly talked about between us and in the press. The seriousness of global warming makes it a necessity.  Only when this happens will politicians have the space and incentive to act on our behalf. But before this can happen we need to be aware of the reason why we avoid talking about this subject – this graph tries to illustrate the harmful dynamic that could be responsible for it.

The fact that we all strive to reduce psychologically inconsistent thoughts  is a well-researched phenomenon. When we hold two conflicting thoughts in our heads we feel an overwhelming desire to reduce this conflict. This desire can be a powerful driver in the way we behave. Most of us are aware at some level that if we took the threat of climate change seriously we would need to completely change our routines and the way we behave. Flying off on holiday would be out of the question. Swimming pools would be a past luxury. Most of us would need to give up our cars and become vegetarians. The list can be extended almost endlessly. Very often, subconsciously, we try to reduce troubling and inconvenient facts by minimizing, ignoring or even by denying them. Could this be why we hardly talk about climate change even in the face of increasingly frequent extreme weather events and obvious signs that it is occurring now?

This subject needs to be openly talked about between us and in the press. The seriousness of global warming makes it a necessity.  Only when this happens will politicians have the space and incentive to act on our behalf. But before this can happen we need to be aware of the reason why we avoid talking about this subject – this graph tries to illustrate the harmful dynamic that could be responsible for it.

From Fig.1 Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes/Maria Elena Figueroa et al (2002) paper 

This common archetype of systems that include relapse or recidivism allows exploration of the unintended effects of increasing upstream capacity and swamping downstream capacity. The increase in the relapse rate eventually returns to swamp upstream capacity as well. A social welfare example, based on a TANF case study, from How Small System Dynamics Models Can Help the Policy Process. N. Ghaffarzadegan, J. Lyneis, GP Richardson. System Dynamics Review 27,1 (2011) 22-44 abstract Conference version at http://bit.ly/HlxtZj

Counterfactual views are claims or beliefs that are contrary to established facts. Such views can be extremely harmful.  An example would be the false claims made by climate-change-deniers. This simple graph of two self-reinforcing loops illustrates that there are circumstances where such false beliefs strengthen once a sufficiently large number have accepted them. The mechanism, well documented by research in cognitive psychology, is frequent repetition, which makes such false messages appear ever more familiar and to take on an air of factual truth.

An effective leverage point would be for newspapers and TV station simply to deny to authors that want to spread counterfactual views access to their platforms.  Whilst everybody has the right to express their opinion, does anybody have the right to invent their own facts in an attempt to undermine general well-being?

From Fig.1 Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes/Maria Elena Figueroa et al (2002) paper 

Delusions, false theories and ideas about the world, can be dangerous when acted upon.  I would count as delusional beliefs, belief in 'creationism', 'market fundamentalism' and also the belief that 'climate change is not anthropogenic'.

The CLD seeks to illustrate the dynamic that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to disabuse holders of fanatical beliefs by simply using rational arguments and facts. The professor of psychology, Jerry Kroth, said that delusions can be seen as an incipient mental illness. He also said that 'repression' and 'denial' are by-products of delusions. It seems that rational arguments are useless when facts are simply denied: the dynamic shows that trying to refute a strongly held irrational belief merely strengthens it.