Logic versus Emotion
Fundamentally, there are two types of thinking – logical and emotional. I also believe there is a third – intuitional which for the most part is deficient in evidence and thus is mostly emotional in its construct. In nearly all studies it is shown that 90% of the average person’s decision-making is based on emotional thought.
It has been said that we may be persuaded by reason, but we are usually moved by emotion. Thus those that say, your feelings do not usurp or take precedence over my facts, may be logically correct yet emotionally quite mistaken. While we endeavor to use logic to persuade others, the emotional argument is typically the victor. This is characteristically the same with imagination winning over reality. For example, many are afraid of the dark, yet the dark is not truly scary, but one’s imagination within the darkness can very well be.
American writer and lecturer, Dale Carnegie who created and advanced courses in self-improvement and interpersonal skills once said, “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.” I certainly do not exempt myself from Carnegie’s character portrayal, yet I am willing to put my reputation on the line and vanity aside to illustrate and prove that people are making a whole-scale error in conceding and surrendering to the political influence and fallacy of anthropogenic climate change.
We generally think we make decisions based on logic, but, again, this is certainly not the case. Studies suggest that when a person agrees with a position they think it is logical or rational, yet if they disagree with a position or matter, it is usually on the basis of an emotional appeal. While I do believe that there is emotional intelligence, without supporting evidence, reason, and logic, it is mere sentiment.
While I endeavor to furnish logic and reason in my arguments against the theory of climate change, I was, in point of fact, motivated to enter into the world of fanatical environmentalism exclusively by emotion. As I have repeated, it was in 2003, when I read a speech by Dr. Michael Crichton who was a prolific author, filmmaker, and television producer. In a speech to the San Francisco Club, he said of the environmental movement which shamelessly banned DDT throughout the world and has subsequently killed millions of people, “We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.”
Most people do not know that malaria was prevalent in the USA and southern Canada until the years 1947 through 1951 – it was eradicated through the use of DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). So here the environmental movement abolished something that likely saved their very own lives and ensuing generations while letting the impoverished suffer and die – especially in the third-world or developing countries. If you need proof and logic for this, I link an article from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) page. How is your emotional appeal on that now?
This example is very much ubiquitous to the fears and terrors promoted by politicians and bureaucrats as well as activist scientists in their concentrated campaign to promote the theory of anthropogenic climate change. They terrify the public, not the least of which are children and the youth who end up in therapy or counseling assuming their very futures are in dire jeopardy and endangerment.
The decision by many to support the eco-politician and their ilk then becomes solely an emotional decision.
I suppose the lesson in using the logical versus the emotional argument is that I am often mistaken in my approach to persuading others that human-induced climate change is merely a political, not a physical battle. Perhaps I need to be much more like the advocates who, play on people’s emotions and without any concrete substantiation say anthropogenic climate change will have absolutely catastrophic consequences on the world. Many other scientists say, if human-generated climate change is real, it may induce beneficial changes to the earth – because it’s cold and that in fact kills much more readily than any extra heat.
There is little doubt that the political activists of climate use the “Appeal to Ignorance” argument to advance their cause. They understand that humans are emotional people, yet most lack the will and propensity to fully study the true science of climate, changing or not.