Brains… BRAINS!!!

From the Movie "Young Frankenstein" 1974

From CNSNews.com – Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.

Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person’s understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs — including what they think about global warming.

“It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science.  So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

“Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.

In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.

“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

Read the entire piece here

=======================

The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ridiculae. Bookmark the permalink.

432 Responses to Brains… BRAINS!!!

  1. _Jim says:

    Is that Dr. Lakoff, as in ‘rhymes with’ …

    .
    .

  2. hunter says:

    Perhaps the good Dr. and his peers can come up with a solution to make sure those pesky deformed thinkers don’t get in their way in the future?

  3. rbateman says:

    Here brain, atta boy, sit. Now look at the pictures and tell daddy which one proves global warming:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
    -!!!!!!!!!!! !!!-
    Good boy, you picked Sacramento 5 ESE, which has the Kiss of Giss.

  4. Tim says:

    “Fact’s are not as important as beliefs”. That actually scares me. This is why Christian Scientists (the religious group) don’t go to medical doctors when their children are gravely ill.

  5. PB-in-AL says:

    Yes the liberals got a brain, Abby-something.

    “…whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs.” – Indeed, the religion of AGW as promoted by its high priest, Algore.

    As someone I know said once, “it is possible to have your mind so open you brains fall out.”

  6. Toto says:

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    At least he got this one thing right. Sad, but true.

  7. Harold Vance says:

    Isn’t this like saying that only liberals can detect phlogiston?

  8. Andrew says:

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’”

    Uh, excuse me but it seems they are a priori assuming that open minded people could not conclude from looking seriously at whether people are going to be harmed that they won’t be!

    What a crock. But unsurprising, as this kind of crap research by political hacks is common, for instance:

    http://brneurosci.org/nature.html

  9. Michael D Smith says:

    Another story indeed! That would make a very interesting post, Anthony. What made you change from advocate to [insert adjective here] – realist, seeker of truth, researcher…? What events transpired?

  10. If scientists who believe the theory of anthropogenic global warming actually produced some science according to scientific principles that have been respected for centuries, and also respected the house-rules of scientific journals that insist on peer-reviewing, then maybe those of us whose brains are wired to assess the facts without ideological accretions could begin to look at the AGW case.

  11. Steve Goddard says:

    After 30 years of being bombarded with disastrous predictions about global warming (drought, heat, no more snow, etc.) it is just about as cold and wet and snowy as it always was. Sea level isn’t rising significantly, hurricanes aren’t increasing, polar sea ice hasn’t changed and is right at normal.

    Lakoff confuses academia with intelligence. The lack of evidence for CAGW is overwhelming.

    “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach,”

  12. Only a professor of cognitive science could conclude that anyone who believes that AGW is a fraud must be a right-winger.

    The fact is, I know a fraud when I see one. Whether its a false scientific hypothesis or a false left-right political paradigm, a fraud is a fraud.

    This guy is a perfect example of what happens when you cut funding to mental health care.

  13. Duster says:

    Although I usually consider being open minded a good thing, but I also recall the line about being too open minded – anything can walk in.

    Lakoff’s research has previously been directed toward explaining why “conservatives” are so fearful and why “liberals” are so adventuresome and debonair. From what I have read of his research he seems to be engaged in an “affirmation of the consequent.”

  14. Henry chance says:

    More dishonest science. Take this fool either a brain or a hand full of test results and measure cognitive processing ability and in a blind test he couldn’t guess if they were a liberal or conservative.

    (I have both clinical psychology training and brain surgery experience)

    “reason is shaped by the body” False in 2 ways. In a physical sense, reason has no shape. In another sense, Behavior is shaped. Cognitive processing doesn’t conform to shape.
    Just a little sidbar on behavior. Capitialsim is a reward, reinforced behavior mechanism. If I work hard, it warms my body and lets me earn money and pay my utilities. In a welfare model, the people can have the state pay their bills and it rewards slothfullness.

  15. Dave F says:

    Yeah. Those dirty scrubs are just incapable of understanding. How long does this go on before AGW proponents break out an ‘Air Rwanda’ type of dehumanization process? This is the beginning, claiming that skeptics are just incapable of comprehension. I am sure there are some people who comment here, that are skeptical, yet have very good comprehension of the arguments.

    Of course, this is not the first time this argument has been advanced, albeit in different form:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

  16. Daniel says:

    haa haaa I was global warming activist in the 90’s too ;)

  17. Veronica (England) says:

    “facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs”?

    Well, cognitive dissonance can work on both sides, I would have thought, even though it sounds a bit post-normal.

    What if there was a left-wing, pinko bleeding-heart liberal who became a sceptic because she is a scientist and tends to try to understand the data rather than worry how she feels about global warming?

    Does that person smash the paradigm or should she be committed to a mental insitution for some kind of split personality disorder? I need to know!

  18. Wondering Aloud says:

    Hilarious.

    Projection. Has anyone ever met a liberal with an “open mind”?

  19. Somebody should have clued Lakoff in.

    We Own the word OPEN.

    1. We are the ones who link to our opponents sites
    2. We are the ones who think data and code should be shared.
    3. We are the ones who invite our opponents to TOP POST
    4. We are the ones who let anyone civil comment
    5. We are the ones who don’t care what most people think (consensus)
    6. We are the ones who refuse to say the science is settled.

    Hey Anthony, how open minded was Menne et al WRT to working with you?

    I studied lakoff a long time ago and for the most part I agree with him that the way we thing is structured by the metaphors we believe. The problem he has here is that he’d so closed minded that he can’t even see that he made a great argument for us easy.

  20. EJ says:

    Leave it to a soft scientist to back up the soft climate science!

  21. John F. Hultquist says:

    Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at

    What solar system did the author say he was from?

  22. Enneagram says:

    It all began in the 1960’s ….Those were the days my friend!…All that hemp and LSD made alchemy transformation possible, from conservatism to liberalism in just one single dosis. Just wonderful!

  23. manfredkintop says:

    “Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist.”

    GASP!

    as late as 2005, I was selling GHGV services…yet have never voted for a conservative candidate in any federal, provincial, or municipal election. I also don’t find Ann Coulter attractive.

    Go figure.

  24. Doc says:

    Questioning bad science makes me a close minded conservative then?

    Looking seriously at the science, it seems that more people will be harmed/disadvantaged by attempting to rectify purported AGW than if we let nature take its course. Wait, am I a liberal now???

  25. davidmhoffer says:

    There was a report on CNN (sorry can’t find the link anymore) showing that the average IQ of democrats was higher than that of republicans. I recall that they did their study on a University population, implying that most of the respondents would have been young adults.

    As I pointed out in the ensuing family quarrel, there is an old saying.

    “He who at the age of 20 is not a socialist has no heart. He who at the age of 50 still is, has no brain.”

    What the intellectual snobbery of Lakoff et al fail to come to grips with is that even average intelligence informed by experience trumps high intelligence every time. In brief, it takes someone of high intelligence to understand that, for example, communism is superior to capitalism in every way. Yet even the dim witted amongst us can observe that every implementation in history has failed.

    I imagine that if you took the IQ of the average victim of the Nigerian banking scam and compared it to the average, you would find out that to be truly suckered by complete bull, you have to be smart enough to think you can’t be conned.

    Not to mention that there are two kinds of liberals in my experience. There are the ones who believe in the cause, and there are the ones who believe they can proft from the cause. Mr Gore likely is an example of the latter.

  26. TerryS says:

    So what his research boils down to is that conservatives are closed minded and liberals are open minded.

    Of course, if you try to argue against his research then you are simply proving you are a close minded conservative whereas if you accept it you are proving you are open minded liberal.

  27. Robert E. Phelan says:

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    As a social scientist I am not surprised at all. Progressive liberals are a demonstration of the correctness of that statement. They perceive man as evil, ignorant, greedy and destructive and, by God, that’s what their research proves…. much as every extreme weather event, hot, cold, wet, dry, flood or driught proves AGW.

  28. Brian G Valentine says:

    Are we still having contact with Planet Berkeley?

  29. Bill Parsons says:

    George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.

    Hmm! This study could go a long way towards explaining why professor’s of cognitive science and linguistics tend to be somewhat rotund, myopic and balding, with a propensity for bow ties, rimless glasses and irrational theories espousing imminent “threats” to humanity from bizarre sources.

    I’d like to read more. Perhaps it would help me understand myself better!

  30. robert of ottawa says:

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    That’s certainly true for the AGWers.

  31. Skeptic Tank says:

    It’s SCIENCE!!

  32. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    How do we perceive the world when we’re well fed, latte sipping urbanites who have never experienced an iota is suffering or toiling the fields for generations?

  33. John Laidlaw says:

    Or, phrased another way, conservatives are closed-minded, liberals are gullible. You can phrase it any way you like, but in the end it comes down to bias and interpretation.

    For the record, I was also – back in the 90s – a global warming activist, until the phrases “the science is settled” and “the debate is over” were uttered. My science-trained brain rebelled at these, and the rest, as they say, is history.

  34. Charles. U. Farley says:

    Obviously suffering from a lakoff brains….

  35. Jim says:

    Maybe this numb nuts should look at the science instead of the social aspects of the situation!

  36. Stu Blumenstock says:

    Yes, yes! As usually, only progressives can ignore facts when coming to their conclusions, and still be considered thoughtful and logical!

    LOL!

  37. David says:

    He must have either started out very stupid or smoked a lot of that stuff they used to have in Berkeley, to think that there is a perfect correlation between political views and cognitive processes, and that all the logic is on one side. It’s a very short step from his stated views to deciding that his political opponents are incapable of reason and therefore should be denied the vote.
    Note that he calls himself a cognitive scientist, but his core discipline is linguistics, which is more accurately a branch of history.

  38. Antonio San says:

    OT: An interesting exchange between Andy Revkin and Joe Romm about the Barber “rotten ice” paper in climateprogress highlights my own doubts about chosing to report on the Beaufort sea at the end of summer…:
    Revkin writes:
    “The reason I didn’t write on Dave Barber’s paper when it came out (even though he was featured in our 2005 Discovery-Times “Arctic Rush” documentary and is a highly regarded scientist), is that I got a lot of pushback from a batch of Arctic Ocean ice specialists who immediately said that the Beaufort is a special case and cited various reasons to handle those findings cautiously. I may revisit and query Dr. Barber and them anew. That’s how I try to avoid what I call “whiplash journalism” (or blogging). Covering every paper can lead to real neck trauma when focused on the more complicated parts of climate science (even as the basics are clear). ”

    Winnipeg’s Barber is an alarmist and seems to stop at nothing to get his funding renewed. It is funny to read that Canadian scientists are muzzled and to see Barber’s stuff quickly published in a peer reviewed journal and featured all over the MSM.

    Now Revkin is thrown under the bus… not alarmist enough!

  39. wucash says:

    Wow… So I’m basically a mentally ill conservative, despite the fact I have more liberal beliefs.

    But whatever, let them spew this rubbish. If it damages their agenda then I’m ok with being a mentally ill conservative.

  40. b.poli says:

    Funny that these conservative hard hats believe they are open minded. They even don’t accept scepticism as a tool for new ideas. It looks a bit like sclerosis.

  41. bushy says:

    George Lakoff needs to take some time out with Hanson and company at the drug rehabilitation centre of their choice. Maybe then he could honestly dissect his own cognitive process. Oh by the way this bloke wants you on his team.http://bushynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Kumi-Naidoo_1596791c.jpg

  42. JN says:

    Cognitive dissonance keeps liberals from rejecting the hype.

  43. Lance says:

    What utter nonsense this is!
    “look seriously at the science”, liberals say…if only they did!

  44. ew-3 says:

    I do have to admit, we’re I to be in the market for a new brain, I’d prefer to buy a liberals, since it would have such low mileage on the odometer..

  45. Myron Mesecke says:

    “Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person’s understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs —”

    I guess liberals understanding of the world is to expect the government to take care of them instead of doing things for themselves.

  46. Mark Young says:

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

    This is just insulting.

    I’ve NEVER heard a conservative say that environmental regulations were “immoral and wrong”.

    I’ve certainly heard a lot of grousing about nonsensical, hysterical, or corrupt regulations. A prime one is the mandated use of reformulated gasoline, as an example, which is more costly, hard on engines, and does nothing to improve net air quality. Or mandating cfl’s without accounting for disposal of their mercury nor the real cost comparisons with incandescents.

    On the other hand, I know a lot of conservative folks who support regulation of pesticide use as well as release of contaminants into the water table or noxious chemicals into the air.

    Of course conservatives rightly understand that the free market is best, but they also understand that there’s certainly nothing wrong with using regulation for keeping polluters from poisoning us or their neighbors.

    What is wrong with these people? Will they say ANYTHING?

  47. Tenuc says:

    Another article which is 180 degrees away from what’s happening. I’ve been a socialist most of my life, and was a believed in CAGW until a couple of years ago. I’m a now sceptical denier of the link between climate and catastrophic warming and all it took was a few days examining the evidence, rather than just accepting the scare stories put out by the media.

    Cargo cult science, as practised by the IPCC cabal, has no place in the 21s century. The more they try to hide the facts from the public, the worst the situation becomes, and few people and few people will believe a word they say.

    We may be winning the CAGW battle, but need to be vigilant regarding the next scam they will perpetrate. Their ultimate aim remains to rule the people of the world through an unelected elitist world government.

  48. Chris in Ga says:

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.

    Which is why they don’t teach hard science at liberal arts colleges

  49. Jason Bair says:

    So in other words, I do not have the ability to view absurdity as fact? No thanks, I’ll keep my conservative brains intact.

  50. Gary says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    You know, there just might be something to this idea. The AWG crowd will swallow any scam that comes their way without giving it a thought. It seems to me that an “open mind” so often translates to an “empty head.”

  51. Mike D. says:

    Oh no! The eugenicists come out of the closet again!

    — Ahem, the skeptics are different from you and me, biologically. Why, they might as well be a different species. —

    What crapola! Nothing new, though. You’d think eugenics would have gone out of favor following Hitler’s excesses, but nope. Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution famously blurted out a few years ago that “black brains are wired differently.” PBS Newshour commentator Mark Shields announced a while back that “conservatives are genetically different from liberals.”

    Both were shamed into apologies. I wonder if Lakoff will apologize eventually. Eugenics is frowned upon these days as despicable junk science, but evidently Lakoff hasn’t gotten the memo. That or else he is a congenital idiot whose cognitive brain functions are all screwed up.

  52. JJ says:

    If professor Lakoff wishes to scientifically observe cognitive misfunction that results in politically based confirmation bias, he is going to need to apply for a grant to fund the purchase of a very crucial piece of reseach equipment evidently absent from his lab …

    … a mirror.

  53. Steve says:

    Obviously we all need to be packed off to the psycho ward and let those people do their job. Can I say psycho?

  54. Vuk etc says:

    You can see it here:

  55. davide says:

    social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs

    If you are a scientist, FACTS are the ONLY important thing, beliefs are nowhere in comparison.
    Does this mean that “social” and “science” are totally different and not to be mentioned in the same sentence? i always thought that the “soft” sciences are not really science, but just a way for socialists to gain the accolade of being called a scientist. Remember Maureen Lippman in the British Telecommunications advertisment ” you got an “”ology”! you’re a scientist!!”
    How a social scientist can actually use the scientific method of formulating a theory, and the testing it by experiment is totally beyond me, as an engineer. If you know how how to conduct an experiment in social science then please, enlighten me

  56. Bart says:

    George Lakoff, a.k.a., Abby Normal.

  57. Frank says:

    Consider the source – Lakoff is spouting pomo nonsense…

  58. Trevor says:

    And of course, among those who believe in global warming, that belief could not possibly be shaped by their beliefs that:

    1. capitalism is evil
    2. nature is good
    3. oil is bad
    4. government should have more power
    5. people should have less freedom
    6. mankind is a bunch of polluters
    7. we need government to protect us
    8. meat is unhealthy
    9. everyone should be vegetarians
    10. fewer humans on this planet would be a good thing

  59. D. King says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    http://tinyurl.com/4spnuz

  60. Alberta Slim says:

    Most of us were AGW believers years ago. WHY? Because we trusted science and scientists.
    The AGW theory seemed hard to believe. It did not seem possible that MAN could affect the world’s complex climate patterns.
    So, as more and more skeptical articles came out, the more, and more we became skeptical.
    Climategate opened the floodgates.
    Believers in real science were aghast that the IPCC and its staff of “scientists” would purposely create “junk” science for political reasons.
    And now George Lakoff, who claims to have an “open mind”, is 99.999% sure that the end of the world is nigh.
    If one has an open mind then NOTHING is 99.999% sure.
    What a completely illogical professor he is.
    He does qualify, though, as another preacher for the Church of Man-Made Global Warming.
    BTW, years ago the Pope declared that the Earth was the center of the Universe. If you were a skeptic, you were burned at the stake. That made all thse believers FEEL GOOD. Copernicus was so fearful of the Church, that he had his theory of the Earth and Planets revolving around the Sun withheld until 30 years after his death. The pope, also, was 99.999% sure that we lived in a geocentric universe.

  61. Brian G Valentine says:

    “Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist.”

    You’re right, I don’t believe it.

    I first heard of AGW in 1967, age 16, I was a sophomore in college; a professor of phys chem and historian of chemistry told me about an “obscure and ridiculous” argument of Arrhenius about “heating the atmosphere by burning fuel,” few people had heard of the notion at the time

    I never thought I would hear about it again, until 1971 when I learned that some people associated with Harvard were trying to “quantify” this, I wondered, why people would look at anything so preposterous

    In summary, it’s good to dispel this notion in people when they are young

  62. cbullitt says:

    Yeah, I saw this–almost as good as the flowers.
    Great choice with Marty Feldman.

  63. John Luft says:

    Funny…..a prof at probably the looniest university on the planet (the University of California-Berkeley) pretending to pontificate about reality. Too many acid hits, it appears.

  64. WillR says:

    Is this the silly season already??? :-)
    [snip]

  65. Kevin R. says:

    To put it in terms of Liberal and Conservative is to completely misrepresent the subject.

    He says “Liberals say: ‘Look seriously at the science…’ ” etc – actually, from what I’ve seen, most people just take it for granted that since the IPCC said there was a large probability that humans are affecting the climate then it must be true. That is about the extent of a lot of peoples thinking on the subject.

  66. Kazinski says:

    Lakoff has been pushing his theories on the Democrats for a few election cycles now. His theory is that unpopular policies that they want to shove down our throat are only unpopular because they aren’t using the right vocabulary to describe them.

  67. Andy Deady says:

    I am a geologist (some would say earth scientist but that’s way to 90’s for me) and a conservative.

    I understand the mechanisms by which our world formed and shapes itself constantly. This understanding was developed by learning, questioning and re-learning dat and information.

    My politics have no bearing over the way I form my cognitive arguments around what I know as science and by which is amply demonstrated in the rocks, minerals and fossils I have been privileged to study throughout the world we live and breathe in.

    Having read these last sentences, written peacefully and in a balanced way, I am quite happy now to call this bloke a raving nutter.

    Taxi for Lakoff!

  68. Royaul43 says:

    Maybe it’s the warmists that have “Abby Normal” brains!!!!

    Loved the movie!

  69. Caleb says:

    DSo I sense some hypocrisy here?

    Back when this fellow was a student, did he not sneer at any who didn’t deeply distrust and question authority?

    Now that he’s an “authority,” is he not sneering at those who question him?

    And this is open-minded?

  70. Butch says:

    Maybe some of the researchers spend too much time in the lab, at the computer, or reading other research papers, rather than spending their time in the natural environment.

  71. nc says:

    OT. Did Steve McIntyre take a holiday I see nothing happening over at CA for quite awhile. Hope there are no problems.

  72. TGBrown says:

    I think he might have a point, but he just got things mixed up a little. It should have read:

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because activists tend to feel that human beings are intrinsically bad for the planet,” Lakoff might have said.

    “And what they do is cherry pick the science to justify their hypothesis and then label it a scientific consensus,” Lakoff might have said.

    “On the other hand,” he could have added, “skeptics’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded” because they are willing to go wherever the data conclusively lead.”

    “Skeptics say, ‘Look seriously at the science and don’t just assume people are going to be harmed or the world is going to be harmed just because you think human beings are bad,’” Lakoff could have said.

  73. Greensleeves says:

    FTA: “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,”

    Oh man. That is TOO FUNNY.

    Only in the through-the-looking-glass world that is UC Berkeley could anyone make such a ridiculous statement and be completely serious about it.

  74. Phillip Bratby says:

    I think these people should look in the mirror. Don’t they realise that it is independent scientists that are sceptical of AGW?

  75. Greg says:

    Heh. Funny stuff. Interesting how he has no understanding of what liberals or conservatives believe. Must be due to his living in that ivory tower.

    I think a lot of us at one time were, if not advocates/activists, more sympathetic to the global warming warnings. Until Al Gore, and people like him, took over and kicked the science out the door.

    Then we came to realize how bad that science really is, and so on.

  76. netdr says:

    I started out a believer after seeing “An Inconvenient Truth” it was obvious after seeing the hockey stick and the graph showing CO2 and temperature going up and down together.

    I went to the web to get informed and found websites pointing out the fallacies in the movie and others defending the movie. In my opinion the websites showing the fallacies made their case better than the one’s defending the movie.

    It s about 2 1/2 years later and despite years of reading the true believers still haven’t provided answers to my questions. I have read books and hundred’s of articles and my doubts have gotten stronger.

    Example: The fact that CO2 came 800 years after the warming after the last ice age. The true believers do a verbal tap dance to say the CO2 amplified the warming. How do they know because it is a GHG and it was there. That is circular reasoning at it’s finest. No attempt is made to quantify the alleged amplification or to separate it from water vapor feedback because that is not how they think. The fact that the temperature goes down when CO2 is at it’s maximum makes me believe CO2 is a minor player.

    I have a technical education and obvious sloppy thinking makes me think there is an agenda somewhere. I have read the above argument in 20 or more “rebuttals” and cannot believe educated men wrote them.

  77. George Turner says:

    Darn those cognitive brain functions! Down with cognition!

    Oh, and cognition: 2 – of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.

    Yeah.

  78. Steve Goddard says:

    Academics also couldn’t understand why the public didn’t panic over the global cooling scare in the 1970s
    http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

    or when Paul Ehrlich warned that we were all going to starve to death by 1980. Why can’t we all be open-minded and delusional like liberal academics?

  79. Wayne Liston says:

    Aha! the twinge I felt in my brain at the statement “Scientists today said the drought was further proof of global warming as it was the worst in 114 years” (meaning it was even worse 114 years ago?) was due to a cognitive malfunction, not logical fallacy detection.

    What comfort to find that this first skeptical twinge in my conservative mind was due to a latent defect, for which I am presumably not responsible.

    But then, I had even misunderstood “conservative” to mean the personal responsibility to conserve beneficial physical, environmental, social and fiscal values.

    What a joy to be liberated to enforce other people to be open minded too!

  80. Gary P says:

    My own experiences suggest very much the opposite of what this paper is describing. I see the conservative as the deeper thinker who initially accepts a new idea or proposal and then asks, “If this is true, then what?”

    Proposal: Increases in CO2 will cause the earth to warm.
    Therefore: CO2 has continued to rise for the last ten years so…..the earth should have continued to warm

    Proposal: The Climate models are wonderful and can project 100 years out.
    Therefore: The models should agree with current measurements. WhatIsUpWith this big tropical mid-altitude hot spot in the models?
    Why is the humidity dropping above 300 mb?

    Proposals are not only rejected but are also accepted after asking, “Then what?”

    Proposal: The AGW scientists are a bunch of snake-oil salesmen
    Therefore: They will seek to hide the data and methods used.
    They will use ad-hominem attacks and call critics names
    They will attempt to silence critical papers
    They will have financial incentives to make alarming claims
    When their models fail to make accurate forecasts they will stop making forecasts to avoid embarrassment rather than ask for help to make improvements.

    The shallow thinker (liberal) seems to just accept statements and not think about them.
    Proposal: We must stop using fossil fuels because CO2 is a problem.
    “Oh. Okay. Hey, did you hear about Tiger Woods?”

  81. Michael says:

    Cognitive dissonance is the problem.

    OT
    “”Historically, low solar activity periods like the Dalton and Maunder Minima have been connected to cold winters in Europe. It seems very possible that the low solar activity forced areas of low pressures into a southern route or caused a negative Arctic Oscillation, AO, which in turn allowed cold air from the North Pole to flow across Europe. But can we obtain from real measurements that low solar activity really is able to do that?”

    A breakthrough in long range forecasting?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/03/-i-am-indebted-to.shtml

  82. harrywr2 says:

    “Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.”

    A 5 year old will believe that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are all real. Youth accepts a lot of falsehoods as truth.

    Maybe we need a study on what age did Liberal’s reject the notion of Santa Clause as compared to conservatives.

  83. Trevor says:

    “And what they (conservatives) try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,”

    What does it matter what the motivation is? If the science is debunked, it’s debunked. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter who proves it’s wrong, or what their motivation is, or what their cognitive processes are.

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’”

    Bullspit! Liberals say, “How can we take away people’s rights and freedoms and make them forever dependent on the government while simultaneously increasing our own power and wealth?” And the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was tailor-made to fit that bill.

    “On the other hand, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be ‘open-minded.’”

    “The debate is over” – Al Gore. Sound open-minded to you? Proponents of CAGW have been spouting this, or its equivalent, for years now, refusing to even consider the possibility that they are wrong. They cannot conceive of anything beyond carbon dioxide being the culprit behind the recent warming. Meanwhile, skeptics have come up with dozens of alternative explanations, none of which the warmists have conclusively disproved. And the one semi-realistic policy alternative that might stand a chance of reducing carbon emissions (nuclear energy), most warmists refuse to even consider. Where is the open-mindedness there, Georgie?

  84. mercurior says:

    sometimes to have a completely open mind means you cant stop any crap getting in..

    its interesting they bring in the idea of beleifs, in regards to non agw/climate change, but dont apply the same criteria to the climate change

  85. AJB says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    So “open-minded” their brains fall out.

  86. James the Simple says:

    Would that be the famous liberal open-mindedness that sees anyone opposing Obama’s healthcare plan as being a racist? One can’t just be in disagreement with the plan, or its costs, one must be against it because one hates black people or something.

    Of course, psychology and linguistics arent’ climate sciences anyway, so his opinions counts just as much as say, a railway engineer’s.

  87. He is quite correct cognitive brain function does prevent many from not accepting poor science, half truths and the sophistry of propaganda. This life long liberal, has never accepted if from any source and I have as much faith in the market as I do in unreliable models based on incomplete understandings of anything.

  88. jorgekafkazar says:

    I think his name is not spelled quite right…

  89. Mark says:

    Readers should do a search on George Lakoff and relativism. Then you will realize that there is no point in wasting your time and energy trying to reason with a relativist. They live inside a bubble. Most of us have to interact with the world around us and expect consistent results and responses to that interaction. Science, mathmatics, engineering, and technology all move forward without the relativists.

  90. mareeS says:

    Oh dear, poor Dr Lakoff, I think I’m seeing a need for a frontal lobotomy here. He will be much happier when he forgets about liberal cognotive processes and their threat to planet earth.

  91. Stu Blumenstock says:

    Here’s a study showing how “greenies” believe that by being “green,” it’s okay to be selfish in other things”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

    And the Guardian is hardly a right-of-center paper.

    Per progressives, Conservatives are never “green” (whatever that really means), so I guess this little bit of human thought processes should be owned by them, and them only.

  92. John Galt says:

    Since we can’t help it, does that qualify us for special protections and benefits under the law?

  93. erik sloneker says:

    More pandering to the intelligensia that want to control every aspect of our economy. The arguement for nationalized health care is exactly the same…(“they’re too stupid to realize how good this is for them”).

    I’m a hydogelolgist that spent 12 years in environmental consulting cleaning up all manner of polution problems. I’m also actively involved in prairie restoration projects here in the Midwest. I’ve spent most of my career working to improve and restore our natural environment.

    I also count myself among the skeptical camp because the CAGW science is specious. I wonder what Lakoff would say about me?

  94. John Luft says:

    There is a vast difference between being “open-minded” and suffering a head wound.

  95. hunter says:

    Hmmm….perhaps conservatives know taht apocalyptic cult predictions have a 0.000 % success rate?
    Perhaps conservatives are historically literate, and recall that popular obsessions with weather swing over time from cooling to warming and back.
    Perhaps conservatives are well versed and know that the truth is that large groups of people can become obsessed to the point of irrational fear or exuberance, and that education is not a protection against falling into this?
    Or perhaps Lakoff is a complete and utter jerk who puts together reactionary drivel and calls it ‘science’?

  96. Mark Young says:

    Bart (10:02:45) :

    Very nice!

    “Nice knockers!”

  97. KPO says:

    I hope the author will allow me a bit of leeway for some nuisance with his words.“…his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.” Yea it’s hard to think straight clawing at the crapper, especially after a prolonged dose of AGW – “The thinking man’s laxative.”

  98. Garry J says:

    I seem to remember there were five traits within this linked behavioural family. The first one, ‘Cognitive’ thought is actually healthy – relying upon our feelings, a need to be involved and often jumping at the chance to offer help. So let’s take it as a complement.

    On the other hand, (the second) ‘Cybernetic’ thought is inflexible, often authoritarian and stifles other people’s wisdom; (three) ‘Participative thought’ responding well to deliberately vague communication; (four) ‘Experiential’ often using manipulative tactics to test people’s values and integrity; and finally (five) ‘Conditioning’ – one directional brainwashing.

    Now which camp are the warmists from?

  99. Philip says:

    Unbelievable, absolutely masterful and totally insane. This week I’ve learned that sceptics are, to a person, right-wing religious fanatics, who are not only anti-science but our brains are pre-wired to make us oppose the global warming movement. What can you do except let the old jaw hit the ground and laugh out loud?

  100. Stephen Skinner says:

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.

    By that argument the pilot Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger who successfully landed a powerless flight 1549 in the Hudson must obviously be a Liberal and not a highly trained pilot with loads of experience.

  101. Joel says:

    When the Arctic ice mass decreased in 2007 I became concerned and began to believe the in the whole AGW thing as well. As a recently graduated Earth Science student, I tried to learn as much as I could about the SCIENCE, I found the most complete information about climate change on skeptical websites. A lot of pro AGW sites just said the same thing…The end is near, save the planet, be green, become a member..etc etc. I came at the problem with what I felt was a very open mind. At that time, I was naive to just how politically charged the debate already was. I feel the data that proves AGW is a dire concern is flawed because it has already been proven incorrect several times.

    I don’t feel that confronting a question, gathering information from several sources, and drawing conclusions on what I found has anything to do with politics, metaphors, or open and closed mindedness. Someone who tries to pin my logic on some kind of sociological connection is being condescending in my opinion.

  102. pat says:

    Lakoff is a far left political loon filled with crack pot theories, conspiracies, and “special knowledge”. He is an embarrassment to academia. A Chomsky want-to-be in an occupation that has not had any real science or scholastic thought since the 1800’s. A pretend occupation of no social worth.

  103. Mark says:

    As an ardent Liberal when I look at the science behind AGW I find it utterly lacking in credibility. I have no problem in placing my support behind many liberal initiatives and ideas. But when I look carefully at AGW I cannot help to see it for what it is…a fantasy of the ultra left designed to foist their minimalist vision of the world onto the rest of society.

  104. Hu Duck Xing says:

    Lakoff. Educated fool.

  105. Slabadang says:

    Lakoff hahahaha!
    Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
    I wonder what diagnos he gives.
    Lindzen
    Spencer
    Singer
    Pielke
    Ball
    Carter
    Armstrong
    McIntyre
    Mcitirick
    Christy

    The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]

  106. Robinson says:

    What about us slightly right of centre libertarians who think AGW is a complete load of bunk? Am I an outlier? His hypothesis fails, except of course in the US, where everything, even the material your socks are made of, is a left/right issue.

  107. Jryan says:

    Looking at Lakoff’s study in a different light, Lakoff is saying that Liberals are more gullible and less likely to question “science”…. that sounds about right.

  108. TimH says:

    Is cognitive assessment proof of cognitive ability? Obviously not. ; )

  109. Stu says:

    This tendency to want to separate believers and the skeptics into either conservative or liberal groupings displays a real ignorance about the current situation, imo. Maybe it was actually like that once, in the early days of the debate(?) – but too much has happened since then. You’re right Anthony- where does this research place people who once believed in AGW but subsequently changed their minds? If somebody stops believing in AGW (to whatever degree) do they automatically become a conservative? The author seems to be putting forth a picture of humans who can only ever be rigid in their beliefs. Luckily, people are always changing their minds about all kinds of things- that’s just normal human growth.

  110. Mitch H. says:

    I agree with Mark. A quick check around will show that Lakoff isn’t a scientist, he’s a linguist, and one who seems to have had a long, rather fruitless secondary career as a political activist – he apparently founded a failed “progressive think tank”.

    Actually, the current version of his Wiki page is pretty funny – he’s a heretical Chomskite, whom even crazy ol’ Noam has denounced as an ignorant know-nothing. Lakoff’s contribution to linguistics sounds like Jungian psychoanalysis with the serial numbers rubbed off and painted up in scientific rhetoric. Basically, he’s a witch doctor, and has spent his career selling the postmodern notion that people live in insular, linguistic isolates – like Aboriginal dreamtime.

    In short, he’s an absolutist relativist, and doesn’t recognize anything like objective science, or the possibility of honest debate, for that matter.

  111. Richard Sharpe says:

    jorgekafkazar (10:21:50) said:

    I think his name is not spelled quite right…

    [snip]

  112. 3x2 says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    Though I have yet to meet one who understands why CO2 may cause warming. Open minded here usually means huge gaps in understanding that allows any old rubbish to sound plausible.

  113. Robert E. Phelan says:

    davide (10:01:03) :

    I’ll refrain from criticizing engineering, which I know nothing about, if you’ll reciprocate.

  114. Jeff says:

    Lakoff would have to pay me to teach me. Because I’d have to pay someone else to help me unlearn his brainless attempt at reason. Seriously, his position is about as tenable as the mob’s in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail. “SO, if she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s made of wood…and therefore…she’s a witch! Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance; to claim reason and abandon it simultaneously.

  115. Mike Haseler says:

    When this guy looks at an ink blot heaven knows what he sees?

    Personally I see the mess left by some guy who still uses an old fashioned pen!

  116. Mohib says:

    A breakthrough in long range forecasting?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/03/-i-am-indebted-to.shtml

    I am indebted to Dr Jarl Ahlbeck, from Abo Akademi University, Finland, who contacted me about his fascinating new piece of research relating to this winters severe cold across much of Europe, and a possible link to the very low solar activity we have been experiencing.

    I am aware that there is a hugely varied readership of my blog; those who are very well informed about weather and climate, and others that have an interest in the subject but would struggle with some of the details contained in scientific papers. I have thus asked the author to summarize the main points of the research, and will include a link to the paper for those that feel brave enough to look into it themselves.

    Dr Ahlbeck writes:

    “Historically, low solar activity periods like the Dalton and Maunder Minima have been connected to cold winters in Europe. It seems very possible that the low solar activity forced areas of low pressures into a southern route or caused a negative Arctic Oscillation, AO, which in turn allowed cold air from the North Pole to flow across Europe. But can we obtain from real measurements that low solar activity really is able to do that?

    I found that the mechanism is statistically significant, but it is not very simple to prove. There is no direct statistical relationship saying that low solar activity always should cause a negative Arctic Oscillation (which caused cold air to push further south than normal). But if we consider a second natural parameter, the strength and direction of the stratospheric wind in the Tropics (the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation index, QBO) I found a very interesting result: During periods of low solar activity (few or no sunspots) an easterly QBO causes a negative AO, but a westerly QBO causes a positive AO.

    However, during low solar activity the easterly QBO causes a considerably stronger negative AO than the westerly QBO is able to cause a positive AO. Furthermore, easterly QBO is more common than westerly QBO during the Nordic Hemisphere winter.

    The conclusion of my work is clear. If the sun goes into a new Dalton and Maunder minimum, we can therefore expect extremely cold winters in North America, Europe and Russia – which is exactly what was experienced during both the Maunder minimum (1600’s) and the Dalton minimum (early 1800’s).”

    … article continues. The blog author writes this about himself

    “Hello, I’m Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. I’ve been interested in the weather and climate for as long as I can remember, and worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for more than ten years locally and at the international unit before joining the BBC in October 2007. Here I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people’s everyday lives.”

  117. Jim Turner says:

    How come people that believe in government control and regulation are called ‘liberals’?

    How come people that are so politically blinkered as to be unable to comprehend beliefs that differ from their own, and so must explain them as wicked or stupid, are called ‘professors’?

  118. Enneagram says:

    Professor Lakoff, it seems history shows the contrary, please see:
    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
    http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

  119. pathologist says:

    I always remind his sort of people that life is a sexually transmitted condition with 100% mortality. It helps put all these scares into perspective!

  120. pat says:

    Mitch, well said and all true.

  121. maz2 says:

    L’Earth Hour? Mais, Non.

    La France retreats, ala Napoleon, from Copenhagen.
    …-

    “France Abandons Plan for Carbon Tax

    PARIS — After months of political rancor and legal obstacles, the French government on Tuesday shelved its plan to introduce a tax on carbon emissions that had been a cornerstone of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s enviromental policy.

    Ministers and members of the governing UMP party said the tax would put French companies at a disadvantage to their European neighbors, most of whom do not pay anything similar.

    But analysts said the drubbing handed to the center-right government on Sunday in regional elections brought the U-turn from Mr. Sarkozy.

    Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister François Fillon said the country’s environmental policy needed to be “better coordinated with the European Union,” particularly so that French companies do not lose ground against their German counterparts.

    “It’s a big climb-down linked to the election — it’s political,” said Nicolas Bouzou, director of Asterès, a financial consultancy in Paris. “There was a lack of preparation and a lot of time and energy wasted by the government.”

    He said that by arguing that the measure needs to be supported by France’s European partners, the government is effectively burying the tax.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

  122. lowercasefred says:

    I’d be interested to know what this twit (Lakoff) says keeps liberals from acknowledging human nature.

    I don’t doubt his central thesis about the mass of people, left or right, but the following little pearl of wisdom:

    ***********
    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.
    ***********

    Is a screamer.

    Professor Lakoff is a poster boy for why Parker and Stone said, “We don’t like conservatives, but we f**kin hate liberals” and why millions of middle of the roaders agree.

  123. Andrew W says:

    The simple fact that there is a stark left-right divide over AGW, that the animosity is so high, and all the misrepresentation of the opposing view that has occurred, demonstrates that “that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs”

  124. R. de Haan says:

    Here is another “brain claim”, Just published:

    The case is made!
    By 2030 our economies can be CO2 free! No more us of fossil fuels or nuclear power.
    http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091026/100-renewables-2030-less-fossil-power-case-made

    Our Green Happy FUTURE will be based on 51% wind, 40% solar and 9% water and an electrical grid that’s able to cope with the power fluctuations at a cost of 100 billion dollar.

    No word about agriculture, no word about the petrol chemical industry that brings us clothing, fertilizers, glass, concrete, plastics, medicine, pet bottles, sterile packaging, wind mills, solar panels, batteries, electric cars, etc. etc.
    No world about cokes that allows us to produce steel!
    No word about fueling our aircraft.

    And you know what, it is much cheaper than using fossil fuels for the same period.

    All that Governments have to do is make the decision and go for it!

    No word about the shale gas revolution that delivers us energy at a price of $1MMBTU or below, depending on how close new supplies are to population centers that kills the entire economics behind their lunatic plan.

    They are idiots and they should be closed up in closed section of a mental institution for heavy cases, no windows, steel doors and obligatory straitjackets and ball gags.

    Together with Obama and his crowd, Al Gore, Pachauri and half the political elite that undermines our civilization.

  125. EW says:

    Gosh – Lakoff is re-heating that old “authoritarian” Adorno soup of the Frankfurt School again.
    Yes, yes, those who grew in the patriarchal families and even dared to love their parents are irreversibly psychologically damaged and on their way to become concentration camp wardens one day.
    Can’t have that, can we?

  126. Mike Ward says:

    Maybe the opposite is true. The agenders are just too “stoopid” to understand reality?

  127. Jimbo says:

    Here are left-leaning climate dissenters:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=B87E3AAD-802A-23AD-4FC0-8E02C7BB8284

    And here is Judith Curry known to be a believer in AGW:
    “If you go back to the 1930s and ’40s, you see a similar bump in the temperature records. That was the bump that some of those climate scientists were trying to get rid of [in the temperature data], but it was a real bump, and I think it was associated with these ocean oscillation” – Judith Curry head of Georgia Tech – School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
    http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/

  128. Steve in SC says:

    The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.

    How anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics could believe the global warming “science” defies the imagination.

  129. Jon Jewett says:

    I was born and raised a liberal Democrat. I believed Paul Ehrlich. I planned my day around listening to NPRs Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I am probably one of the four people in the western world that voted for Jimmy Carter TWICE. (The second time it was just Jimmy, Rosalind, Jimmy’s Mother and me!)

    First, I had a nagging feeling about liberals who would glorify Socialism/Communism. Advocates of those systems have murdered 10 to 20 times as many people as Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. I guess I’m old fashioned, but genocide is not excusable even if you are trying to make an omelet. http://www.conservapedia.com/Walter_Duranty

    Then I caught NPR lying to me in a consistent way over several weeks. It was propaganda. So….I started reading more history and alternate sources of current news.

    And the more I read, the more I found that I had been lied to. For example, my family came from California. (My Great Grandfather moved to the Santa Rosa area in 1849.) My mother hated Ronald Reagan because he closed the mental hospitals and put all of those unfortunate people on the street. (My aunt had problems and was one of those put out.) That caused the Homeless Problem. It was a cherished liberal shibboleth that Ronald Reagan was EVIL!

    Some five years ago, someone repeated that trope to me. In context, it made me think: RR hadn’t been Governor for some 30 years at that point. If it was so horrible, why hadn’t the Democrats fixed it?? So, doing a little research, I found that that the ACLU had won a “Land Mark Case” for the mentally disadvantaged. The bottom line was that if a person had a mental disability that was treatable with chemicals, you couldn’t keep them in a hospital. Since some 80% to 90% were treatable, the ACLU forced the state to push them out on the street. RR only closed empty hospitals!

    It is well that my mother passed on. It would have broken her heart to know that it was her support for liberal causes that put her sister on the street.

    Now, I try to determine if something is only an opinion or is it actually based in fact. As the liberals are quick to say: “Question authority” (Only not theirs!).

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  130. Dillon Allen says:

    Maybe well-respected members of the inner party can befriend each of us and eventually haul us in to be trained in doublethink with a machine attached to a dial so that our eyes can truly see 2+2=5.

    Wait, that could never happen, right? 1984 was more than 15 years ago.

    -Happy to be an Crimethink Person
    ++good to the WUWT team for all of your work getting the word out

  131. h.oldeboom says:

    Oh, I see. Environmentalists are equal to Übermensch. We all know the consequences.

  132. Dena says:

    Nothing is being said about what the real problem is. Many people have something called a mosaic mind. This means that the person divides their mind into an area for each subject. For that subject they apply a form of logic that only applies to that subject. The logic could be emotional or it could be real logic based on facts and history, This is how you can have a computer programmer that believes in global warming or that a genie will pop up and grant all their wishes.
    The rest of us try to use one system of logic that applies to all the things we deal with in life.
    Is a fragmented mind a more powerful mind or is it just schizophrenia.

  133. actuator says:

    Cognitively speaking, if we are 18 thousand years into an interglacial that typically lasts 15 to 20 thousand years pending a 100 thousand year ice age, then yes climate change is clearly a threat. But it ain’t global warming that’s going to be the problem in the long run. In fact, maybe we better slow down on the stuff that might cool us down no matter how insignificant.

  134. Tom T says:

    This guy must be a conservative then, because he clearly has never looked at the science of global warming.

  135. Pamela Gray says:

    It sounds like, the way the article has been written, that it is the liberal mind that is open to and able to ask probing questions about the science and it is the conservative that has a mind set to not question and instead, believe. Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?

  136. vboring says:

    I’m a liberal (well, a socialist, if I’m honest) engineer.

    I don’t see how that has anything to do with not trusting scientists who hide their data and methods from inspection.

  137. HankHenry says:

    Speaking of metaphors; isn’t “open-minded” a figure of speech sometimes meaning suggestible, unskeptical, or just plain gullible?

  138. Peter Melia says:

    “Reason is shaped by the body”, he says.
    OK.
    I think Arnold Swarznegger (may his tribe increase) was once “Mr Universe”…
    …whereas Steven Hawkings cannot, with all kindness be even considered as a candidate in such a contest.
    Who has the best brain?
    Who would present the best reasoned argument on just about anything?

  139. Wren says:

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
    ====
    Yes, people committed to an ideology will tend to deny or dismiss information that suggests the ideology is flawed.

    But this is nothing new.

  140. HeavyD says:

    The funny part is that most of the conservatives/ libertarians that I know are concerned about the enviroment. Emmission controls on vehicles, smokestacks, etc. are a good thing. Water and wastewater projects are important, and the quality standards of both of these has never been better. No one wants to live in/ breathe/ drink garbage.

    My big concern, and what I believe should be our focus, is plate tectonics. It is a settled science, and earthquakes can be really destructive. Couple that with the fact that Los Angeles will be in Alaska in a million years or so and we face some serious trouble. Where is the geologic Al Gore who can rescue us from this potential disaster? Congress, in conjunction with the worlds best scientists, should figure out a way to mitigate this catastrophe.

  141. Pat Moffitt says:

    “We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason … On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us.”
    Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1830 – Edinburgh Review.

  142. snopercod says:

    I think Evan Sayet explained the problem with liberals very eloquently. How Liberals Think

    “How can you possibly live in the freest country in the world and see only
    oppression? How can you live in the least imperial power in history and see us
    as the ultimate in imperialism? How can you live in the least-bigoted nation in
    history and see – as Joe Biden said – see racism in every dark shadow?

    The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right,
    and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

    There is no standard for truth, beauty, justice, or anything else amongst the
    modern liberal…

    Rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry.

    [Sayet explores why that is]

    …What I discovered is, the modern liberal looks back on – give me a number here – 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization and knows only one thing for
    sure: That none of the ideas that mankind has come up with – none of the
    religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms
    of government – none have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty,
    crime and injustice.

    So they’re convinced that since all these ideas of man have proved to be wrong,
    the real cause of war, poverty, crime and injustice must be found – can only be
    found – in the attempt to be right. See, if nobody ever thought they were right,
    what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight.
    If we didn’t fight, of course you wouldn’t go to war. Without war there’d be no
    poverty. Without poverty there would be no crime, without crime there’d be no
    injustice. It’s a utopian vision.

    And all that’s required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all facts,
    reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency – all the tools that you
    and I use in our attempt to be better people – to make the world more right by
    trying to be right – by siding with right, by recognizing right and moving
    towards it….What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate
    rational thought – the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right is to work
    always to prove that right isn’t right and to prove that wrong isn’t wrong – to
    bring about a philosophy – and you see this in John Lennon’s song, Imagine.
    Imagine there’s no countries – Not imagine there’s great countries – Not imagine
    ‘defeat the Nazis’ – Imagine no religions. Imagine a time when anything and
    everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there’s nothing
    left to kill or die for.

  143. Craig Moore says:

    Dr. Lackoff, tum podem extulit horridulum!

  144. Jon says:

    I am not a professor, but Lakoff’s presumption that man-made warming is 99.9999% proven and that disagreement with this theory belies a certain type of upbringing by an authoritarian father confirms my theory that liberal academics that accept every cocktail party theory as unassailable fact are without question victims of too early toilet training.

  145. ShrNfr says:

    Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

    No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

    One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”

    “Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”

    — Isaac Asimov

    ——–

    Global Warming Crowd: I believe that a divinity school dropout and a man who got C’s in business school is a profound climate scientist.

    ——–

    I think we have done a sufficient exposition on the brains of those who are open to the singularity of the naked assertion.

  146. James Sexton says:

    “liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    Funny, I’ve never met an open-minded liberal. That’s why, with a straight face, they’ll tell you that “climate change” will cause droughts and flooding all at the same time. Or, when they tell you they are absolutely sure there are no absolutes.

  147. Sean Peake says:

    A blown toke from a chronic inhaler.

  148. Wren says:

    Slabadang (10:44:05) :
    Lakoff hahahaha!
    Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
    I wonder what diagnos he gives.
    Lindzen
    Spencer
    Singer
    Pielke
    Ball
    Carter
    Armstrong
    McIntyre
    Mcitirick
    Christy

    The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]
    =====
    That’s not many people.

    Do any scientific societies of standing dismiss the threat of CAGW?

  149. As others have remarked, this guy says some fantastically stupid things. This one for a start:

    “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming.

    Clearly, no one can claim to be a scientist who says that. He has completely lost the plot. But, hey, this all comes out of his cranky ideas, such as the ‘embodied mind’. He doesn’t believe in the empirical scientific method, nor the possibility of falsification. He teaches that falsifiability can never be established by any reasonable method that does not rely on human bias. He teaches that logic and mathematics is completely subjective and exists only in the flesh, that its only foundation is ‘meat’.

    He teaches that liberals should change the way they use expressions so that they mean something different. For example, the concept of ‘tax relief’ should be semantically re-branded because it implies explicitly that taxes are something someone would want “relief” from.

    Yeah, well in his Orwellian New World Order, I’d certainly want relief from the monstrosities he’d foist on society. The more I read about this guy, the more dangerous he appears. His views are a cancer in our society

  150. Don E says:

    If this is a brain disorder wouldn’t skeptics be covered by ADA? In addition, skeptics cannot be discriminated against and must be provided special accommodations in jobs and all other activities in society. We must stand up for our rights!

  151. Nolo Contendere says:

    Conservatives (and scientists) think, liberals feel. Or in Lakoff’s terms, believe. Right at the moment I believe the professor is pretty darn funny.

  152. Enneagram says:

    Jim Turner (10:56:31) :

    How come people that believe in government control and regulation are called ‘liberals’?
    Liberalism and its ideas of government control, centralized economy, etc. predated Marxism:
    http://science.jrank.org/pages/8758/Communism-in-Europe-Karl-Marx-Origins-Modern-Communism.html

  153. savethesharks says:

    I find it amusing how “scholars” like Lakoff continually to try and make a it a partisan issue, which it should not be.

    It should be about finding the truth.

    Most people I talk to are a combination of the two [fiscally more conservative but socially more liberal]….and so they [we] are like….”who the hell is this guy talking about??

    Regardless, CAGW skeptics run the full range of political persuasions, so it is a moot point.

    Also, it would seem that this “study” is the big fat pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one.

    Sure there is cognitive dissonance on all sides. It is endemic to the human condition, unfortunately.

    However, it just so happens to be more manifest the on the “my mind is made up the science is settled – CAGW is real – we are all doomed” side of the debate!

    When I hear people like Lakoff spouting off academic nonsense like this [or at least the nonsense part is the partisan political part] I just have to laugh and say out loud:

    “How ——- stupid does he think we are??”

    I don’t like to see anyone’s personal demise….but I personally will enjoy with GREAT pleasure watching the washed-up, tired, dishonest CAGW house of cards collapse over the next few years.

    Next!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  154. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said:

    “…polar sea ice hasn’t changed and is right at normal.”

    Really Steve? And here we were all just debating the cause of the changes in arctic ice, with many AGW skeptics saying it is ALL the wind, and now, you’ve clarified it for us…there ARE no changes in polar ice! Wow, I guess decline in year-to-year arctic sea ice, where it hasn’t gone into a positive anomaly condition since 2004 is just an ilusion?

    Of course, we must remember that AGW skeptics do have different ways of looking at the world (perhaps due to their brains) :), and so they need to just keep reminding those who think AGWT might just be correct that “these are not the droids you’re looking for…” and “polar sea ice hasn’t changed and is right at normal…”

  155. JMANON says:

    I think they are just setting the scene for brainwashing/re-education of non-believers.
    You know, the sort of thing that happened in China and Iran. The softly softly approach of trying to “influence” thinking through propraganda has obviously failed and now they need to condition us more directly. To do that we must be declared “abnormal” and “different” will do for a start. By the time tthey get through deciding who is “sane” and who is not legislation to adress the problem will be a cinch.
    It isn’t all that hard a step to take. Just look back in history at the eugenics programs in, wait for it, California… the “re-education” of native populations in the US and Australia, the camps for “dissidents” in Russia and you’ll get the idea. We don’t have to go back to the middle ages, just a decade or two or three.
    What’s the next step? Unenvironmntal activities committees?

  156. Liam says:

    Damn. I thought my opinions on scientific subjects were formed by a hard science education to PhD level and 30 years professional experience in Science and Technology. Thanks to Prof Fako I now realise that my distrust in AGW came not from gradual disillusion as learnt more about the subject while a volunteer for a Green organisation, but because I must be some kind of Nazi.
    Sounds like junk science trying to back up junk science.

  157. Chad Woodburn says:

    Oh, this is wonderful. What a relief! Since my brain is to blame for my doubts about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, surely they can come up with a drug to help cure me of my mental illness. Hey, and since most of the people I know tend to agree with me on CAGW, maybe they could just put the medicine in our drinking water.

    Blame it all on the brain. So, my lack of self-control, my anxieties, my addictions, my restlessness, my depression (none of which I really have), and now my conservatism are all blamed on the brain.

  158. Gary Hladik says:

    Veronica (England) (09:44:13) : “What if there was a left-wing, pinko bleeding-heart liberal who became a sceptic because she is a scientist and tends to try to understand the data rather than worry how she feels about global warming?

    Does that person smash the paradigm or should she be committed to a mental insitution for some kind of split personality disorder? I need to know!”

    In the Soviet Union, dissidents were committed to mental institutions, because only the “insane” would question “the system”. Talk about the inmates running the asylum! Kind of like UC Berkeley…

  159. Robert Kral says:

    What a maroon.

  160. Roger Knights says:

    “look seriously at the science”

    Lakoff has probably read half a dozen warmist books and the Wikipedia site, read several “How to Talk to a Skeptic” compilations, followed RC’s strawman knockdowns and Romm’s blog, attended several warmist lectures, talked to several warmist colleagues, and swallowed the smears of the warmists (as being cranks or hired guns). I.e., he’s read material where the warmists get the last word. I doubt that he’s spent much time looking deeply into what the skeptics say, but mostly at what the warmists say the skeptics say.

    This condescension reminds me of the way that liberals treated critics of fluoridation, etc. back when.

  161. Enneagram says:

    They usually begin by using gold to buy….and, as history shows, end by using lead for convincing the non believers

  162. Andrew W says:

    So much vitriol, so much emotion, this comments thread itself is an argument supporting Lakoff.

  163. Peter Miller says:

    Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

    Being a cognitive conservative and a geologist and therefore a real scientist as opposed to being a ‘cognitive scientist’, whatever that might mean, I prefer:

    A full bottle in front of me, to

    A full frontal lobotomy.

    Professors of dubious science concepts from left leaning centres of learning presumably prefer the latter.

  164. PaulsNZ says:

    I smell bullshit!

  165. actuator says:

    I could be wrong, but I thought one aspect of the original “liberal” philosophers thinking was the liberty of the individual. What I see going on in the community that calls themselves “liberal” today seems to care not a whit for individuals having the right or the ability to think, evaluate and decide for themselves.

  166. Enneagram says:

    Chad Woodburn (11:45:19) : All the symptoms you just mentioned seem those of lack of kool-aid drinking. ☺

  167. Ralph says:

    Uhuh … is this the kind of ‘Liberal open mindedness’ that makes people want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine? That open, eh?

  168. Mr Lynn says:

    Funny, as soon as I heard a decade or more ago that the ‘global warming’ models could not account for ice ages, or the Viking settlements in Greenland, I guessed they were on the wrong track. Then when it became clear that the all this ‘climate change’ hype was being put to the service of a political agenda of tax and control, I knew the science was being skewed by an agenda. And when I found out that graduate students in the sciences were afraid to express skepticism, I knew for certain that ‘global warming’ had become the focus of a dangerous ideological orthodoxy.

    Lakoff says we should “Look seriously at the science.” And indeed we should, particularly when that science is being subsumed to a political ideology and demanding unquestioning belief of its adherents. Lakoff’s claim that ‘liberals’ are more ‘open-minded’ is absurd on its face.

    /Mr Lynn

  169. red432 says:

    I used to be a fan of Lakoff. I think he doesn’t realize he’s making himself look stupid and probably hasn’t looked into the details of the issue much. There are many people in this category who should learn to keep their mouths shut until they know more about what they are talking about.

  170. Larry says:

    To paraphase: I am right, and people like me are really cool People that disagree with me are wrong, and must be mentally deranged. I am a scientist, therefore everything I say is science. Therefore if you disagree with me you must not be a scientist. With logic like that, is he a fellow of the Royal Society? He could have lead the science review. “A few crazy people have suggested the science is not up to scratch. I have reviewed my thoughts on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that they must be mad. Science is what I say it is, I say this is science.” As far as the calibre of the most eminent scientists is concerned, it really is worse than we thought. Politicians in white coats seems like a more appropriate description.

  171. lichanos says:

    As one who has been the victim of a Dunning-Kruger social science attack (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) which purports to demonstrate that skeptics like me increase their sense of certainty the less they know about something, I have to say I find this man’s arguments idiotic.

    Equally idiotic are the responses by many of the commenters who take a page from their opponents and isist that the divide here is a political one: liberals are close-minded numbskulls; they, conservatives, are wise.

    Speaking as a skeptical and open-minded liberal, I have to say that the problem with this man is not his politics, but that he is an example of the worst that Academe has to offer.

  172. Mark Bowlin says:

    A professor from Berkeley is lecturing on open-mindedness? That’s funny.

    Do you think he’d sit down with this bubba from Texas and listen to me for more than a minute before interrupting and telling me I’m wrong (the subject doesn’t matter)? 30 seconds?

  173. Jeff says:

    @ HeavyD (11:26:02) : Clearly earthquakes are caused by oil drilling. So we have anthropogenic earthquakes. I’m sure there’s a suitable graph to demonstrate that earthquakes have sharply risen in the 20th and 21st century. We must stop drilling for oil lest the plates shift back to their original position and we are all forced to live in close proximity with one another. Algore again brings us the inconvenient whatever:
    http://www.algore.org/blog/ldavis48413_hotmail_com/oil_drilling_causing_more_earthquakes_and_possible_increase_plate_tecto

  174. Robert E. Phelan says:

    actuator (11:53:56) :
    “I could be wrong, but I thought one aspect of the original “liberal” philosophers thinking was the liberty of the individual. What I see going on in the community that calls themselves “liberal” today seems to care not a whit for individuals having the right or the ability to think, evaluate and decide for themselves.”

    No, actuator, you are not wrong. Classical Liberalism was a late 18th early 19th Century movement based on the philososphy of Utilitarianism (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) which held that people were quite capable of deciding for themselves what was good for them. They were much more akin to modern conservatives and libertarians than anything else. Oddly enough, John Stuart Mill, a staunch advocate of free market capitalism, and Robert Owen, the “Father of Modern Socialism”, both emerged from the movement.

  175. Logan says:

    The exploitation or distortion of psychological concepts for political propaganda has generally favored the left. Conservatives are slandered as dogmatists, anal, infantile, racists, etc. Now, there is at least some academic pushback, as the book by Lyle Rossiter shows:

    Probably the simple ‘follow-the-money’ aspects explains most of the AGW politics. Still, the more extreme ideas and opinions that are collected at the green-agenda website, which is ‘up’ at the moment, probably do reflect psychological effects. If there is a generation of Dalton or Maunder cooling, as now seems likely, it will be fun to see how long they hold out, and how long the US liberal media maintains the party line.

  176. James F. Evans says:

    Dripping with desperation.

  177. Enneagram says:

    JMANON (11:43:28) :

    I think they are just setting the scene for brainwashing/re-education of non-believers
    Pol-Pot said reeducation of grown ups was impossible to attain, so they proposed the killing of all above fourteen years old.
    Anyway, new-age reincarnation is on our side ☺

  178. Noelene says:

    The money he gets to spout such tripe.Do people take him seriously? I will not be lumped into a group.
    I’m an individual.
    What a dull world he inhabits.

  179. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Wren (11:24:41) :
    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
    ====
    Yes, people committed to an ideology will tend to deny or dismiss information that suggests the ideology is flawed.

    But this is nothing new.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wren, are there any mirrors in your home?

  180. Jim Steele says:

    Such blind self-righteousness has always been the seed of totalitarianism.

  181. Dena says:

    The use of the term Liberal is being misused in this thread. The correct word is Progressive. Progressives are a Marxist like group and in the early part of the 20th century so fouled the the name that they took over the Liberal name that existed before and stood for something good. They have now fouled the name Liberal so badly that they are starting to use the name progressive again.
    Be ware because progressives exist in both parties so avoid using party names as well unless the facts apply only to the party.

  182. Steve says:

    First off does he define Liberal and Conservative? It seems more clear cut in America but maybe not everywhere else. Perhaps an American liberal may appear conservative to a North Korean communist.

    Secondly how does his argument stack up for liberals who don’t believe the scare around climate change. Prof. Philip Stott is a self-confessed liberal.

  183. Smokey says:

    R. Gates (11:42:11),

    Your reading comprehension needs improvement. Or maybe your knowledge of geography. Steve Goddard specifically referred to “polar” ice — not Arctic ice. But you start arguing based only on the Arctic.

    Did you know there are two poles? Added together there is no unusual change in global polar ice cover: click

    I suspect that if the reverse was true, and Arctic ice was increasing, while Antarctic ice was decreasing, that your argument would be flipped and you would constantly refer to the Antarctic, just like you always refer to the Arctic now, while studiously ignoring the Antarctic.

    It’s called cherry-picking, and you do it all the time.

    Also, you use the acronym “AGWT” without any explanation that I’ve ever seen [not that I read every post]. But if your “T” refers to Theory, you are dead wrong: AGW is an unproven hypothesis on its way to being reduced to a conjecture, because its proponents refuse to divulge the raw data and methods they use to arrive at their scary conclusions. Catastrophic AGW is certainly not a theory, and never was: click

    [Note the author's CV at the end of the article. If yours compares with Dr Glassman's, I'll pay attention to your wishful attempt to pretend that CAGW is a theory. It's not.]

  184. DCC says:

    Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

    Then it’s settled – Lakoff is an open-minded, liberal, progressive who is obsessed with words.

  185. David A says:

    So I’m basically a mentally ill conservative

    I am certain this must be a disability, Quick someone, have the goverment give me some money for my disability.

  186. Simon H says:

    Seems I’m in the minority, being a modern liberal and a sceptic. In political terms, I actually agree with Lakoff about conservative thinking.

    But what Lakoff has failed to do is distinguish science from politics. He’s failed to achieve a political escape velocity in his own science. In short, he’s failed.

    And what he describes as politically conservative is actually described in psephology as 19th century “Classical Liberalism”. The shifting sands of politics… they change almost as much as GISS’s GHCN adjustments..

  187. Joe Papp says:

    With regard to “IQ Tests”.. 35 year old book:

    “The stranglehold of IQ”, by Benjamin Fine, Phd.

    Dr. Fine EXPLODES the “MYTH” of an IQ test. You really CANNOT measure overall
    “intelligence”. You can measure APTITUDES in various areas.

    But as the field researcher in “The Gods Must Be Crazy” part II, found out, once in a pure survival situation in the Kalahari desert, all his academic training was WORTHLESS and the “bush” intelligence of the Bushman was worth his life! (Hey, I kind of like saying the Bushman was the hero..!)

  188. DirkH says:

    ” Andrew W (11:50:17) :

    So much vitriol, so much emotion, this comments thread itself is an argument supporting Lakoff.”

    I’m pretty sure that’s a quickly dropped off drive-by comment but if you’re still there, Andrew, and you think Mr. Lakoff is right, why don’t you tell us a little bit more? Do you think support or rejection of the AGW theory is lined up along political lines, and that a deterioration of cognitive brain function leads to rejection of the AGW theory?

  189. MartinGAtkins says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    Gullible mugs that believe in anything and everything.

  190. Sean O. says:

    At least his argument is coherent. Belief is more important than fact… which is exactly what manifested in his very own study!

  191. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    I find it surprising that so many academics remain convinced that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, but then I suppose that everything has been peer reviewed, so that makes it ok…

    I get the impression that applied scientists are much more sceptical (perhaps I think that because I am one). We have to deliver products, processes or solutions to problems, within budget. If we get something wrong it comes back to bite us fairly quickly, so success, or correct science, is challenging to do, but easy to judge.

    Climate science is in its infancy. Decent computing power has only been around for a few years. Modelling is very much a GIGO pastime especially if the science is not fully understood. The historical temperature data is very limited (in climate terms), and the measurement quality is a nightmare. The proxy alternatives are dubious at best and do not seem to be consistent. There are only three sources of the temperatures and these seem to be incestuous. The adjustments for instruments, movements, UHI, gridding and the rest may be wonderful processes but they do not inspire me with confidence.

    Why do so many academics (95% consensus, I’m told) place absolute faith in this mess?

  192. DirkH says:

    ” Jeff (12:01:33) :
    [...]
    close proximity with one another. Algore again brings us the inconvenient whatever:”

    With posts like that Al’s blog could become an interesting place to visit…

  193. K says:

    Lysenko lives.

    If this person’s research is government funded, it should be stopped immediately. Just as research into the mental capabilities of negros and jews should have been stopped in the 30s by the same “progressives”. It’s the “scientific” underpinnings of neo Nazi throught and we know where it leads. The fact that this guy hasn’t been fired is scary enough.

  194. Lon Hocker says:

    There seems to be two strategies for dealing with the world. People with very good memories seem to base their strategies on things they have learned. Folks with good problem solving skills, tend to trust their ability to understand things over what they have been taught.

    I find that Liberals tend to be in the former category, conservatives the latter. It should not be surprising that Lakoff pretends to do science, is does not follow adhere to normal logical processes.

  195. Jimbo says:

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not….”

    That is precicely what the sceptics have done “Look seriously at the science…” and found it wanting. What’s wrong with that? It shows good brains applying a healthy dose of scepicism to the science which is how scientific advances are made.

    I suspect George Lakoff is tying in global warming to the mind in order to get more funding. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

  196. red432 says:

    My youthful enthusiasm for Lakoff has officially died, if this quote is accurate:

    “any question of math’s being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is.”

    How would he suggest a teacher determine whether all the students got back on the school bus without counting them?

    Do you fly on airplanes or cross suspension bridges, Dr. Lakoff? If so you are nothing but a tiresome hairsplitter at best or an opportunistic hypocrite at worst in my (anonymously posted) opinion.

  197. Karel says:

    Oh, I loooove this one : If you don’t accept what I say, you’re stupid. Running out of arguments, huh ? Last straws ? And yes, I’m another one that used to believe the AGW idea. Then I started thinking.

  198. peterhodges says:

    umm, i’m liberal, a philosopher to boot, and do not believe in AGW

    hypothesis FALSIFIED

  199. Ric Werme says:

    Anthony wrote:

    I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it?

    If you were to ask me (and I suggest you don’t), I’d say the increase in wrong-thinking must be due to Global Warming, of course. After all, it’s the cause behind just about everything.

    BTW, I never heard of CNSNews.com before. I assume it stands for Central Nervous System News. If it doesn’t, it certainly should.

    This is a pretty high bar for an April Fool’s Day post. I don’t know if I can do better.

  200. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re: Ralph (11:54:33) :

    Uhuh … is this the kind of ‘Liberal open mindedness’ that makes people want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine? That open, eh?

    He’s probably right, and this is where beliefs are more important than facts.

    It’s a basic tool in psyops, propaganda and other forms of marketing. Real facts are often the last things you want your mark believing in. Hence we get the appeals to authority, fear and all the other standard tricks to make people believe. Once they’re hooked on the belief, it’s harder to sway their minds with facts and much easier to convince them to part with their money. The more open minded they are, the easier it is to convince them to drink the Kool Aid.

  201. savethesharks says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat (12:27:31) :

    Could not agree more. Well said!

    Chris

  202. Craig Moore says:

    With the coming chill, will enlightened warmists be sufficiently smart and capable to write their names in the snow without the govt shaking their pencils for them?

  203. Cadae says:

    This is clear evidence that AGW has morphed into Lysenkoism.

  204. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Like many others on this site, I was convinced AGW was real, reading books by Lovelock (still an admirer on a personal level), John Gribben, Monbiot and Pearce among others. How wrong I was!
    I find the labels Right and Left wing unhelpful, preferring to view each issue on its merits. Individual responsibility being the cornerstone of my political view.
    Love to hear about Anthony’s Damascene conversion.

  205. Andrew W says:

    Dirk, I think it’s obvious to all that there is a division over acceptance of AGW along political lines, so people ARE assessing AGW according to their politics rather than an objective assessment of the science.

    To me the obvious argument against Lakoff is that he and other liberals are also influenced by their politics, while I personally accept that AGW is happening, the evidence that it’ll be “catastrophic” under BAU is, I think, not conclusive, (though if we get anywhere near 1000ppm CO2 we should be worried) many liberals are certain that AGW will be catastrophic under BAU without (in my opinion) having the science supporting that claim.

  206. R. de Haan says:

    IPCC reviewer predicts 30 years of cold, read a mini ice age!
    He must must suffer from “cognitive” brain function as well other wise he would make such irresponsible remarks jeopardizing his professional career and all!

    The climate nuts want us to look crazy! FAT CHANCE.

  207. adpack says:

    “In the country of the blind, the one eyed man will be king.” Oh no, as H.G. Wells showed in his short story: The man who can “see” must be a defective. He is a threat to our society. His eyes must be immediately removed or he must be killed.

  208. Gino says:

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

    So, debunking an argument by showing the science is flawed is really only a political opinion, and the scientific method of testing a hypothesis is really just a witch hunt then?

  209. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “1. capitalism is evil
    2. nature is good
    3. oil is bad
    4. government should have more power
    5. people should have less freedom
    6. mankind is a bunch of polluters
    7. we need government to protect us
    8. meat is unhealthy
    9. everyone should be vegetarians
    10. fewer humans on this planet would be a good thing”

    ———

    Hey, that Hitler fella believed in 9 out of 10 of those! He had no problem with number 3 (oil) at the time because he had no choice.

  210. tj says:

    Jim Steele (12:13:18) :

    Such blind self-righteousness has always been the seed of totalitarianism.

    Agreed, but the people here need to understand those seeds are planted with the left hand and the right hand. Totalitarianism be it “Communism” or “Fascism” is totalitarianism. The right v. left construct is a false box that keeps lots of good people at each others’ throats. Those at the top just keep winking and nodding at the ruckus they can create.

    Most people, on both sides, follow their leaders blindly; that is the problem.

  211. Al Gored says:

    When all else fails, descend into false and utterly simplistic comparisons.

    This ‘scientific’ branding of the heretics is just a taste of what is to come from the Church of AGW.

    In the USSR they routinely branded dissidents as being paranoid or having mental problems. This is just one step away from that.

    And the AGW gang has been building its squads of young brainwashed greenshirts, all taught that all their problems are due to older and of course much dumber generations, and they will be unleashed to ‘save the planet.’ This is going to get very, very strange, in a 1930s Germany kind of way.

  212. DesertYote says:

    These studies ( this is not the first) are an attempt to dehumanize everyone not willing to play progressive ball. If those who are not leftists are sub-human, then there really don’t have any rights and they can be safely ignored and, if they get to be a bother, eliminated. This is plain old pregame propaganda and its existence should be taken as a sign of what is to come.

  213. Bill Tuttle says:

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    That’s the argument the Dems used to foist health care “reform” on us.

    But I digress. I propose an experiment.

    Doc Lakoff, I really, *really*, reeeeaalllly believe you can fly.

    Take a hike off the roof of a five-story building and we’ll see how belief stacks up against fact.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I neither own, nor am I employed by, a sidewalk-repair contractor.

  214. Andrew W says:

    peterhodges (12:33:22) :

    “umm, i’m liberal, a philosopher to boot, and do not believe in AGW

    hypothesis FALSIFIED”

    I can’t accept that any competent philosopher could make a statement so lacking in logic.

  215. maz2 says:

    The return of communism’s Lysenkoism.
    …-

    “What are science’s benefits?

    Earlier this month five Dutch scientific organisations responsible for administering funding presented a method for determining the societal benefits research would offer. The method is supposed to replace the widely used – and controversial – method of measuring publications’ impact through the number of times it is referred to by peers. The new method tries to take into account whether research may be of use to business or help solve problems in society. The proposed new measure has proven controversial in itself, with scientists claiming research’s benefit is impossible to quantify in advance. Others claim the method is part of a trend in which garnering positive publicity is becoming more important than getting results.”

    “Ask not what science can do for you”

    [...]

    “I have limited myself to the retrospective usefulness of the pure science of Huygens, Einstein and their colleagues, stretched out over four centuries of ‘pointless’ research. Because science is about finding facts, I could tell a similar story of any discipline. Even so, society’s demands for usefulness to be proven in advance grow ever louder. The tragedy here is that any system that demands usefulness be proven in advance, will never lead to ground-breaking findings that future generations will be able to use. But as long as free science takes care of the proofs, the products will take care of themselves.”

    http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2509715.ece/Ask_not_what_science_can_do_for_you

  216. kwik says:

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,”

    Aha, so thats why Bastardi is saying what he is saying here;

    http://www.accuweather.com/video/68856143001/global-warmth-getting-ready-to-collapse.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi

    Yes, the Professors argument is very logical…..

  217. Doug Proctor says:

    The idea that “liberals” are open-minded about their beliefs based on science, while “conservatives” are not, in intriguing as I find the more conservative group is the more science-based. Liberals have a philosophy that people are inherently good and corrupted or let down by circumstance, while conservatives tend to see people as inherently flawed and let down by weaknesses in their talents, their ability to recognize elements undesirable to their lives, or corruption through vanities or personal rewards. Liberals, I find, use authority figures such as doctors, “scientists”, pastors etc. to determine what is or is not, giving them the benefit of the doubt if questions arise. Conservatives, I find want to see for themselves. Authority figures – such as Aristotle, the Pope or Al Gore – tend to make conservatives nervous. It seems counter-intutitive to those of us who grew up with liberal conspiracy theories of the “military-industrial complex”, but the liberal seems to take more comfort in giving control to the state or appointees of the “common good” than do conservatives. A case in point: the $33million Exxon is said to have paid to the climate skeptic movement, including the Heartland Institute, is seen by them as corruptive, while the $79billion various governments have given to the warmist NGOs, researchers and their own departments, creates no conflict of interest. Al Gore is recognized positively for becoming the first Green billionaire; his words are gospel. Someone like me, a self-employed geologist in the oil and gas business, somehow is a shill for dirty oil, even though I drive a 10-year old Jeep and anticipate retiring to a trailer in the backwoods of Mexico on my savings after 31 years in the biz.

    The paradigm break is like this: The Liberal believes in the wisdom of the social organism; the conservative, in the individual’s ability to determine truth and virtue. Open-mindedness and scientific merit are not issues in this conflict. The importance of determining for oneself what is and is not going on is the fundamental issue. Skepticism on AGW is greeted with questions of personal morality, integrity and motive by the warmists, not the science. Belief in AGW is greeted by questions of gullibility, ignorance, laziness and agenda by the skeptics. One defends conclusions, the other questions data. Belief in AGW is inextricably bound up in the notion that humankind is harmful, not just to itself but to life itself. This is a difficult notion to deny by anyone who has even experienced the cruelty of the grade school playground. How to come to a common ground and plan to action is indeed a headscratcher. If wild-eyed extremists like Paul Ehrlich can be maintained as “honorary” directors of the David Suzuki Foundation, there is little room for reasonableness; his fanaticism is viewed as a zealousness created by a hostile capitalist society, a necessary trait in the struggle for the Good. The good professor of this article cannot see but through his own eyes. He is not a sociologist of society, but a sociologist of his own society.

  218. James Sexton says:

    Wren (11:32:46) :

    Slabadang (10:44:05) :
    Lakoff hahahaha!
    Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
    I wonder what diagnos he gives.
    Lindzen
    Spencer
    Singer
    Pielke
    Ball
    Carter
    Armstrong
    McIntyre
    Mcitirick
    Christy

    The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]
    =====
    That’s not many people.

    “Do any scientific societies of standing dismiss the threat of CAGW?”

    Wren, you’re a little backward in your thinking, basically asking to disprove a negative. My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven. In regards to CAGW, the question/problem was posited that the earth is getting warmer, that warmer will be disastrous and that man’s carbon emissions were primarily the cause. It isn’t up to anyone to give attention to nor dismiss, nor to prove anything other than the “scientists” that made such ridiculous assertions. It would be a mistake for anyone calling themselves a scientist to dismiss out of hand any postulation without looking at the facts first. Of course, the more facts that get revealed the more it seems that science will in the end dismiss it as a hoax abetted by bad math masquerading as science.

  219. rw says:

    I heard Lakoff give a talk about 15 years ago. Essentially, his thesis was that metaphors are reflections of the “embodied mind” and just about every aspect of human psychology can be explained in these terms. By the end of the talk, he seemed to me to be getting completely out of control in his attempt to expound his grand ‘theory’. I remember that there was a family metaphor that ‘explained’ the difference between conservatives and liberals. Mathematics could be ‘explained’ in terms of embodied metaphors like the real number line (so there were no univeral truths in mathematics). And so forth.

    I came away from the talk with a much greater appreciation for his nemesis, Aristotle, who helped us clamber out of the sump known as the “metaphorical mind”. Which people like Lakoff would like us to dive back into.

    A final irony. If you look at the last chapter of his book, “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things”, (I think it’s the last) you will find a rather inept attempt to lay out the thesis in more concrete terms – by listing metaphors or words with figurative force. The irony is that the whole exercise sounds like it was done by a computer. This is because Dr. Lakoff doesn’t have an ounce of artistic motherwit. Instead, he’s just another dry-as-dust pedant, who in this case doesn’t have the merit to accept his limitations. Which may explain some of his antics.

  220. Cathy says:

    This is more fun than I’ve had throughout a long, long, long (did I say long?) winter.
    WUWT has the funniest, classiest, smartest commentators in the known universe.

    I’m just going to sit back and smile, smile, smile.

  221. P Gosselin says:

    Now you know what kind of medicine and medical research we’re gonna get from Obamacare.

  222. P Gosselin says:

    Expect him to be referenced in one of the IPCC chapters of WG1 in the AR5!

  223. rw says:

    postscript:

    After “dry-as-dust pedant”, I forgot to add parenthetically, “just like Aristotle”

  224. Enneagram says:

    [snip]

  225. Urederra says:

    Cadae (12:44:04) :
    This is clear evidence that AGW has morphed into Lysenkoism.

    I was thinking in national-socialism (Nazism) more than Lysenkoism. CAGWers really believe that they are better than the rest, and the reason they give is that they have a brain that ‘understands science’ whereas the rest of us don’t.

    That scares me a lot.

  226. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Wow! A professor @ Berkeley, where feeling good has been honed into a fine art and where they teach how not to hurt anyones feelings, including your own, says only liberals see the facts and can be honest with themselves….. ? and Conservatives only – “feel” and go about the world guided only by beliefs……? Really? So is it the cognitive capability of the brain that guides it to the left and sees the world you wish it were, in denial of human nature? Or is it an overwhelming emotional need to deny ones human nature that blurs the cognitive capability to grasp the reality of ones life and see the world not as it is, but how you wish it were?

    Ah, right Professor, spoken like a true conservative. It depends on the individual.

    Oh, by the way Professor, I have a bridge that you can see from most of Berkeley that I want to sell you – cheap! Well, maybe not that cheap. Maybe you and a group of your fellow professors could pool your money….

  227. John Hooper says:

    Nice pic of Monckton.

    REPLY: You know what Mr. Hooper? Take your opinion elsewhere. Both Feldman and Monckton suffer from Graves disease.

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/graves-disease/DS00181/DSECTION=symptoms

    Do you also mock people with handicaps?

    – Anthony

  228. Wren says:

    Robert E. Phelan (12:11:01) :
    Wren (11:24:41) :
    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
    ====
    Yes, people committed to an ideology will tend to deny or dismiss information that suggests the ideology is flawed.

    But this is nothing new.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wren, are there any mirrors in your home?
    =======
    I’m not committed to an ideology.

  229. Wren says:

    Slabadang (10:44:05) :
    Lakoff hahahaha!
    Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
    I wonder what diagnos he gives.
    Lindzen
    Spencer
    Singer
    Pielke
    Ball
    Carter
    Armstrong
    McIntyre
    Mcitirick
    Christy
    ======
    Some people have to be different. Being different gets you more recognition then you would get otherwise.

  230. Abefij says:

    “Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that ‘cognitive’ brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.”

    let me translate…
    Brain function prevents conservatives from believing in AGW.

    let me try again…
    Thinking prevents belief in “climate change”

    Hey! I think he’s right!

  231. John Galt says:

    So Perfessor (rhymes with) Lackoff — does that mean smarter people just accept the science without question? That doesn’t really sound very smart, does it?

    A scientist is supposed to ask questions. Are your students not supposed to ask questions? Should they accept this and everything else you and the other professors say just because you say so?

  232. RichieP says:

    I seem to remember a version of Flash Gordon in which the mad scientist was called Dr. Jerkov.

  233. Pat D says:

    @ Doug Proctor
    Thanks very well put.

    Perhaps Doc. Lakoff rythme with Jack… has hit on something.
    Conservatives apply reason [and have a stronger affinity with that]
    whereas liberals are open minded, will believe anything and are susceptible to emotive noise.

  234. Dave Wendt says:

    Ralph (11:54:33) :
    Uhuh … is this the kind of ‘Liberal open mindedness’ that makes people want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine? That open, eh?

    The modern progressive statists don’t “want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine.” They want to be the all-powerful state machine that controls the rest of us, while blithely ignoring any suggestion that those controls apply to them. They enjoy jumping on their Gulfstreams to fly off to semi-monthly confabs at various gardens spots around the planet, where they can formulate rules for how many sheets of TP we may use per throne room visit, what kind of light bulbs we may use, what, where, and if we may drive and how much extra it should cost if we do, etc., etc. All while lunching on caviar and truffles washed down with a nicely chilled bottle of the Dom. They love to hector others about our obligation to serve the needs of the poor and oppressed of the developing world, while their every action ensures that said poor will be endlessly condemned to their present fate. They lie awake at night dreaming of innovative new ways to tax every aspect of human existence. Said taxes are completely mandatory for others, but are the meerest of suggestions for themselves. They believe that people are possessed of an infinite number of “rights” but just as long as they are the only arbiter of what those “rights” are. Those rights will usually involve them taking the fruits of the labors of others and dispensing them to those unwilling to labor in their own behalf for as long as the recipients are willing to support their quest for power.

  235. David Alan Evans says:

    Peter Miller (11:51:25) :

    Dr. Rock – I’d Rather Have A Bottle In Front of Me (Than A Frontal Lobotomy)

    I love that too :-)

    DaveE.

  236. Wren says:

    James Sexton (13:18:15) :
    Wren (11:32:46) :

    Slabadang (10:44:05) :
    Lakoff hahahaha!
    Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
    I wonder what diagnos he gives.
    Lindzen
    Spencer
    Singer
    Pielke
    Ball
    Carter
    Armstrong
    McIntyre
    Mcitirick
    Christy

    The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]
    =====
    That’s not many people.

    “Do any scientific societies of standing dismiss the threat of CAGW?”

    Wren, you’re a little backward in your thinking, basically asking to disprove a negative. My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven. In regards to CAGW, the question/problem was posited that the earth is getting warmer, that warmer will be disastrous and that man’s carbon emissions were primarily the cause. It isn’t up to anyone to give attention to nor dismiss, nor to prove anything other than the “scientists” that made such ridiculous assertions. It would be a mistake for anyone calling themselves a scientist to dismiss out of hand any postulation without looking at the facts first. Of course, the more facts that get revealed the more it seems that science will in the end dismiss it as a hoax abetted by bad math masquerading as science.
    =====

    You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”

    Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.

    As for theories, science doesn’t “prove” theories.

  237. Pamela Gray says:

    Doncha just love it when anyone, and I mean anyone from any side of the debate, professes to know what or how I think? If someone really was interested in figuring this out, wouldn’t they…wait for it…ASK me what or how I think?

  238. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    Liberals are so open minded their brain has rolled out.

  239. Enneagram says:

    Thanks mods. Really when dealing with these issues, sooner or later one arrives at snippable conclusions.

  240. DirkH says:

    Andrew W (12:46:06) :

    Thanks for your answer and for explaining your position. It’s roughly identical with mine only that i think we don’t have increasing warming happening but we have slightly raised temperatures as long as the CO2 concentration is rising (the anomaly being more proportional to the growth rate than to the absolute level of CO2).

    But i don’t think it’s a left-right issue. We have enough outliers here. Polarization happens when people are organized but there are many more people who refuse to join a political organization and still make up their own opinion.

    Oh and talking about unorganized people: Even a lot with a rather conservative worldview will probably take AGW for granted given the media coverage, at least here in Germany and the UK. You see dramatic scenes in the television, the TV person you trust explains that the ice is melting because of your car, you believe…

  241. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    I’m neither conservative nor liberal. The climate data shows nothing out of the ordinary is happening in climate. I am going with the data.

    What does that make me?

  242. DirkH says:

    “Wren (13:48:00) :
    [...]
    Some people have to be different. Being different gets you more recognition then you would get otherwise.”

    We know that you’re different, Wren. It’s ok.

  243. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story

    Anthony said this? I don’t see a name by it.

    REPLY: Yes, it’s true. -Anthony

  244. Ian H says:

    Those here who have responded with a rant against liberals seem to be rather hilariously in complete agreement with Dr Lakoff’s thesis that liberals support AGW and conservatives oppose it. Indeed your only dispute with what he says seems to be about which side should be described as having open minds.

    Unfortunately not all people who appose AGW do so for reasons that I agree with. Some even deserve the name denier. It is a broad tent and not everyone in here is very nice. In particular I wish all you liberal bashing extreme conservatives would go play somewhere else.

  245. Jeremy says:

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    Whoa whoa whoa … he’s saying that climate scientists and social scientists work under the same paradigm? (yeah yeah, way out of context, but hi-larious)

  246. DirkH says:

    Oh looky here what our friend the wikipedia has to say about recent activities of Mr. Lakoff:
    “In 2008, Lakoff joined Fenton Communications, the nation’s largest public interest communications firm, as a Senior Consultant.”

    So… maybe Mr. Fenton had a little suggestion to make with respect to the future publications of a certain Mr. Lakoff? ;-)

    Fenton himself acknowledges it:
    http://www.fenton.com/intelligence-report/2008/08/linguist-lakoff.html

  247. James Sexton says:

    Wren (14:01:02) :

    You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”
    Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.

    My point Wren, you asked if some scientific body has dismissed CAGW. I can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist no more than anyone can prove CAGW doesn’t exist. I suggest they exist on the same alternate universe, but I can’t prove it.

  248. Liberals have more open minds….
    and with such are much easier to dupe and deceive and much more accepting of arguments to authority.

    Blind acceptance is not a virtue.

  249. David S says:

    “George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics…”

    In other words, someone who knows nothing of climate science.

  250. DirkH says:

    Can we say “Soros shill” now? ;-)

  251. Wren says:

    The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
    ======
    I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?

  252. Richard Drury says:

    Obviously a follower of Lysenko

  253. Enneagram says:

    Is professor Lakoff the guy of the photograph above?

    REPLY: No that is Marty Feldman

  254. DirkH says:

    “Wren (14:38:36) :
    [...]
    I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?”

    Wren, the german conservative government party CDU as well as the UK’s conservatives, the Tories, are into AGW. Do i have to say Angela Merkel? Do Dr. Lakoff’s “research results” apply only on the American continent? Is there a mystical psycho barrier running through the Atlantic, preventing our conservatives from a decline of their cognitive brain functions?

  255. Piltdown Mann says:

    “Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming”
    Now there’s a scientific mind at work. A peer reviewed study no doubt.

    Consider how such a statement reflects on the cognitive brain function of one claiming to be a scientist of any field.

    In truth, I think this guy must be a conservative plant purposely trying to enrage thinking people everywhere. Surely even the progressives couldn’t be so stupid as to let this guy embarrass their movement like this.

  256. Nick Yates says:

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    aka gullable and naive

  257. R. Craigen says:

    So Lackoff’s whole thesis is that Conservatism is a mental defect?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAH…..!!!!!!!!!!

    Stop the presses. I mean it, if this is what they’re printing, just … stop it.

  258. Roger Knights says:

    Lakoff’s presumption that man-made warming is 99.9999% proven ….

    One can be both 99% right and 100% wrong. They ought to teach that in school.

    (Come to think of it, didn’t a few old-time playwrights suggest that thought?)

  259. Jimbo says:

    The problem with his study is this: has he studied the brain and politics of those former believers in AGW like Anthony Watts, many people on this thread as well as mine and determined WHY WE BECAME SCEPTICS?

  260. davidmhoffer says:

    Odd.
    First I didn’t believe in AGW because I wasn’t educated enough.
    Then I didn’t believe in AGW because I wasn’t smart enough.
    And now I don’t believe in AGW because I’m a bigot. To make it worse, because I believe in free markets, apparently I am by default against environmental regulations of any sort.

    I was not aware that the entire theory of AGW revolved around my evidently stable belief system. This thing about me being against environmental regulations though came as somewhat of a surprise. I didn’t know I was against that. I’m glad I have Lakoff to tell me what I think. My concern is that if I change my mind on the environmental regulation thing, will it cause a gravitational rift resulting in AGW theory to implode, explode, or simply spin off into space as the two are supposedly closely coupled?

  261. Gary Pearse says:

    Why is it there are so many butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, psychologists, biologists and phucologists (specialists who don’t know fiddle all) who are girding up for battle on the science of global warming? If they don’t understand the physics and chemistry of global warming, then they are just taking it on faith. This reinforces the picture that has emerged over the past few years of a political agenda with precious little science for frosting.

  262. R. Gates says:

    Smokey said:

    “AGW is an unproven hypothesis on its way to being reduced to a conjecture…”

    —–

    This statement would be a conjecture on the way be being? Only two possibilities…on the way to being (or already is) an absurdity, or prophetic.

    In regards to my comment on Steve’s statement about polar sea ice. If nothing at all was happening in either the arctic or antarctic, Steve’s comment would be accurate, but since the last I checked, the arctic would be considered “polar” and certainly something has been happening in the arctic, (has not had a positive anomaly since 2004 for example) it is actually Steve who made an incorrect statement.

    But you’re a true believer Smokey, and nothing someone like me says will ever change your mind, nor would I wish to.

  263. Wren says:

    James Sexton (14:32:55) :
    Wren (14:01:02) :

    You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”
    Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.

    My point Wren, you asked if some scientific body has dismissed CAGW. I can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist no more than anyone can prove CAGW doesn’t exist. I suggest they exist on the same alternate universe, but I can’t prove it.
    =====
    OK, I’ll put it another way.

    Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?

  264. Jimbo says:

    For the record I’m not a Conservative. When it comes to AGW I am a believer in the scientific method being followed first before any politics comes into it.

  265. david elder says:

    Does Lakoff explain the basis of patronising one’s opponent? That’s what he has done here. It is an excellent way of needlessly offending people, raising the emotional temperature, and muddying the waters.

    As an Australian I agree with US liberals on some things and disagree on others. What box do I get crammed into by Lakoff?

  266. James Sexton says:

    Wren (14:38:36) :

    The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
    ======
    I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?

    Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.

  267. Steve Goddard says:

    R. Gates,

    Polar sea ice has scarcely changed during the satellite record, and is right at normal now.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Hope you are prepared to cope when summer extent in the Arctic ends up close to normal this year.

  268. FTM says:

    Proof positive that try as you might you just can’t stop stupid.

  269. Richard Sharpe says:

    David Alan Evans (13:59:25) said:

    Peter Miller (11:51:25) :

    Dr. Rock – I’d Rather Have A Bottle In Front of Me (Than A Frontal Lobotomy)

    I love that too :-)

    It seems that that saying is more correctly attributed to Dorothy [Rothschild] Parker:

    http://everything2.com/?node_id=820199

  270. Steve Goddard says:

    Wren,

    Most people reject CAGW because they see that the catastrophic predictions are not happening.

    Some people have their eyes open, while other self-proclaimed “open minded” people have their eyes and ears shut tight.

  271. Ben D says:

    Steve Goddard (09:39:15) :

    “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach”

    Actually it may be better stated that:

    ““Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach Cognitive Science and Linguistics””

  272. Mari Warcwm says:

    In a humble hairdressing salon in North London this afternoon the general discussion among the ladies, for they were all ladies, turned to Global Warming. It’s rubbish, inn’it, look at this cold winter , gone back to winter as they was, Spring is late – did you hear about the flower festival and there was no daffodils out? And all that snow – Doris broke her wrist, the Royal Free was full of fractures, nah, it’s rubbish. They got it wrong.

    How much more intelligence was displayed there than by this California-Berkeley Professor. Cut off their taxpayer funded salaries!

  273. rhondda says:

    It is so good to know that there are others who were former believers in the global warming scam. I am not a scientist, but I began to be suspicious of the politics. I began reading about how propaganda works and found a few skeptic sites that explained why they were skeptical of the science. Things began to fit together. Using fear for your children’s children and one’s love for animals was really a good trick. I don’t feel so stupid anymore.
    Thanks for you work.

  274. Steve Goddard says:

    Global warming kind of makes sense if you don’t have many facts available.

    1. CO2 absorbs LW radiation. More CO2 means it warms up.

    2. People feel guilty about the environment, imagining that life was better for primitive people who lived to an average age of 22.

    3. There never used to be any storms or heat waves before the automobile was invented.

    4. Polar bears never used to have to swim before the invention of the automobile.

  275. Jimbo says:

    This paper is akin to Phrenology. What a load of utter bollocks!

    Remember “rotten ice”, “flowers losing scent”, “global warming leads to more violence”, “edible pets”, “give up meat” etc.? The alarmists are really desperate now as the warmth slips from their fingers and brings a chill down their spines [pun intended].

    For more media alarmist desperation reports see:
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  276. Lazarus Long says:

    Yeah, yeah, the reactionary leftist hatred for conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians is an old story, they’ve been peddling this same line of cr@p for years.

  277. DirkH says:

    “Mari Warcwm (15:36:11) :
    [...]
    How much more intelligence was displayed there than by this California-Berkeley Professor. Cut off their taxpayer funded salaries!”

    He’d still have the Fenton money. I herewith declare the discovery of a new species of invertebrate: The Bearded Western Mock Scientist.

    (And no, it still has nothing to do with left or right but with being corruptible.)

  278. Lazarus Long says:

    Oh, yeah, it’s an desperate adaptation of the despicable communist claims about so-called “false conciousness”.

  279. Philemon says:

    lakoff, v. To rub the deep structure of a sentence until it expresses its logical form. “Too much laking off can cause insanity.”

    The Philosophical Lexicon, 2008 edition.
    http://www.philosophicallexicon.com/

  280. Jimbo says:

    Keeping an open mind. What does it mean? Does it mean that we continued to accept that the Sun goes round the Earth? Ulcers are mostly caused by food / stress and not by a bacterium? The Earth’s continents are static? If we all went along with the above consensuses by keeping an open mind where would science be today?

  281. Bruce Cobb says:

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.
    Huh? And this guy is supposed to be a professor of linguistics? Beyond the garbled language though, it sounds like he’s bashing skeptics for being skeptical, for having the audacity to try to debunk “the science”, which is what scientists are supposed to do to begin with.

    ““Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’”
    Substitute “Alarmists” for the word Liberals, and his statement begins to make sense, because for Alarmists, the focus really is on the harm they imagine will happen due to mankind, if he doesn’t mend his ways. The science is secondary, and is just a means to an end. The thought that the science could be faulty doesn’t enter their tiny brains, or if it does, it is quickly banished. Any facts or science refuting Alarmist “science” is automatically rejected.

    His descriptions of how “Liberals” and “Conservatives” think are laughable. I feel sorry for his students.

  282. David L says:

    Total BS and completely offensive!!! Conservatives cant be open minded scientists????? Only Liberals have the capacity for open minded scientific thought and care about the world???? BS. BS. BS!!!!

    I and many of my PhD friends are conservative, went to the best graduate schools, have very successful scientific careers, and completely disagree with the AGW data.

  283. son of mulder says:

    “Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.”

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
    =================================================
    What has this to do with science? No way I’m a conservative, which is a particular socioecophilosophical view of the human condition and morals.

    His words are those of a desperate cadre who realise that they have no real scientifically significant support for the climate system that they crave as justification for their view of the anthroposphere and hence they spout this drivel in a desperate attempt to achieve some sort of moral high ground (or immoral high temperature).

    It just gets more and more pathetic!

  284. J. D. Lindskog says:

    Liberal cognitive dissonance = self perpetuating phalicies.

    Pun intended.

  285. jlc says:

    Along with a good many of the other commenters here, I was a socialist for most of my life.

    I did, however, retain an open mind and gradually and painfully became conservative.

    I am absolutely in favour of sensible and verifiable environmental legislation.

    I am totally opposed to enforced use of CFLs, especially in Canada where the heat from the incandescents has to be replaced by peak generation. Typically, this means using coal to replace hydro.

    “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”.

  286. chip says:

    Burt Rutan, Freeman Dyson, Ray Kurzweil. I mean, how closed-minded can you get, as opposed to those free thinkers at Berkeley?

  287. James F. Evans says:

    From the posted paper: “On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    This is the biggest fallacy and insult.

    Objective scientists and/or scientific observers apply BOTH reasonable scepticism AND an open-mind to evidence offered in support of a scientfic proposition or against a scientific proposition as the case may be.

    But where the fallacy and insult come into play is to assume that conservatives don’t have an open-mind to evidence.

    No political persuasion has a monopoly on having an open-mind.

    Are there closed minds? Of course there are, but an analogy is to alcoholism: Alcoholism knows no class, political persuasion, race, philosophy, or creed.

    So, too, the same is true for having an closed-mind.

    Or the reverse, having an open-mind is not the monopoly of any political persuasion, class, race, philosophy, or creed.

    It is the conceit of George Lakoff to postulate that one political persuasion is more open-minded than another.

    There are liberals that reject AGW based on the science just as there as conservatives that reject AGW based on the sience, and every political stripe in between.

    One can only shake their heads when somebody projects their personal assumptions (and political assumptions) into the shape of a supposedly scientific paper.

    George Lakoff is wrong — and, frankly, I think he hurts his cause by making such foolish statements and then pretends science backs him up.

  288. Zeke the Sneak says:

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

    “Trust but verify.” -Ronaldus Maximus Or, put that another way, “Verify.”

    Oh so they don’t have that in cognitive and linguistic science.

    He would really be shocked at the incredible parallel computing abilities of my conscious and inmost minds!

  289. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said:

    “Most people reject CAGW because they see that the catastrophic predictions are not happening.”

    ________

    Correction, MOST people don’t care one way or another..they neither reject nor accept CAGW. They simply want to live their lives, make a living, raise their famiiles, etc. It is only the “freaks” (and I include myself in this group) who frequent web sites like WUWT, and like to talk about this sort of thing and spend any time at all even thinking about it. MOST people don’t really care one way or another. The only way MOST people will ever car about AGW (or any issue outside their direct daily life) is if it actually starts to really impact their lives in some meaningful direct way. Unfortunately, if AGW is a real effect, if it ever really starts to impact people’s daily lives in a negative way…it will be too late. On the flip side, it could impact their lives in a positive way (i.e. greater crop yields, new places to take an ocean cruise in the arctic, etc.) and they still wouldn’t care much about the actual phenomenon. Bottom line– most people don’t care about anything other than that which immediately and directly impacts their daily life and convenience.

  290. davidmhoffer says:

    Paraphrasing here, can’t remember the exact quote….

    “Those who do not believe in the Truth are defective. They must accept the guidance of those who know the Truth. For the good of all, they must be brought to the path of Truth though they may resist this for being defective.”

    Who? Lakoff? No, I was paraphrasing Osama bin Ladin. Who is Lakoff?

  291. JER0ME says:

    Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

    So that makes an immediate and false assumption that ‘conservatives’ do not believe in any AGW threat. I fail to see how such a false polarisation of the issue is in any way intelligent or constructive.

    Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person’s understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs — including what they think about global warming.

    So we are talking about ‘Metaphors’ here. That is appropriate, because nothing in the AGW argument is based on any tangible reality. Calling the arguments ‘metaphors’ works, so does ‘parables’ in my book.

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

    OK, so I can see a small piece of logic. Conservatives don’t believe in regulations, AGW sceptics don’t believe in CO2 regulations, ipso facto, sceptics are conservatives. Well, it must be said that correlation does not equal causation. Oh, and I think we pointed that out about the whole AGW argument too.

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

    Yup!

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    Oh? What is it about being a ‘liberal’ that makes it easier to be ‘open minded’? Just about every single AGV web site I have ever seen displays an incredible reluctance to ‘open’ their minds. I think you are making that one up out of thin air, perhaps even CO2?

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.

    As do sceptics, yes.

    In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.

    Yup. That could be because of the ‘raft’ of evidence that the ‘raft’ of contradictory reports have been largely made up. The increasing stupidity of new reports tells us the same thing, only more so.

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

    Well, we are seeing that all over in the AGW crowd, aren’t we?

    Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

    “Climate crisis says we had something to do with it and we better act fast because that’s the reality,” Lakoff said

    Show me. Go, on, show me. I promise to believe there is a problem if you can show it to me.

    Lakoff said while he doesn’t think of himself as someone who attacks conservatives for having a different world view than liberals, he does believe that in the case of global warming, the conservative view is “deadly.”

    While roundly attacking sceptics for being conservatives, and conservatives for being ‘closed minded’ (by implication as the liberals are able to be ‘open minded’ of course), he can really say that with a straight face? I’m impressed!

    “I think this is a place where a certain moral world view comes into conflict with scientific fact in a way that is harmful to the Earth,” Lakoff said.

    Could not agree more, except I would substitute “our economy” for “the Earth”.

    In a February article on The Huffington Post, Lakoff praised recent media reports on the physiological and conceptual roots of political beliefs. He credited some of the movement to his 1996 book “Moral Politics,” where he claims that these beliefs are rooted in the “two profoundly different models of the ideal family, a strict father family for conservatives and a nurturant family for liberals.”

    This is so funny! He should do stand-up!

    Lakoff writes, “In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from ‘others’ and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting.

    “Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence — doing well as one can to make oneself and one’s family and community better.”

    Yup, a definite talent there. I’m just trying to figure out where I am in his boxed-in world view. Life is so much more complicated than that simplistic puerile scenario, sorry. I think you may be able to figure out what his childhood was like though, as I suspect he is projecting. If he has children of his own, and I doubt it from this statement, it will not end well, I think.

  292. West Houston says:

    Quoting:
    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’”
    Commenting:
    Nope. Liberals say, “What can we hate today? Oh, yes, Conservatives. What don’t they like? Oh, yes, pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that says natural climate variation is Man’s fault. Let’s take them out back and beat them senseless! …Hey, where’d everybody go?”

  293. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Doctor My Eyes

    Tell me what is wrong

    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long?

    Just say if it’s too late for me

  294. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said:

    “Hope you are prepared to cope when summer extent in the Arctic ends up close to normal this year.”

    _________

    Not sure what you mean by this, but I will find it fascinating iff arctic summer sea ice ends up close to normal, considering it has been so far below “normal” (in terms of anomalies) since 2004. I was actually surprized it did not peak into the positive anomaly range this spring already. (but there is still time). I would have thought the prolonged solar minimum might have kicked it over. Either way, one spring or one season of ice melt does not a climate make. For example, if we get a really big volcanic eruption in Iceland, this could cool things off for a year or two, just as Pinatubo did in 1991. And so, I am more interested in what the long term trends are for sea ice (both arctic and antarctic) between now and 2015. If arctic sea ice goes through a 4 or 5 year growing trend between now and then…without a major volcanic eruption, well, I’ll begin to have my serious doubts about the accuracy of AGW models. As it stands today (again, short of a major volcanic eruption), I still think 2010 will be the warmest year on instrument record, and the arctic sea ice will have a summer low less than 2009 or 2008, but not quite as low as 2007. So I am excited to see if my “guess” holds up– but I have no vested interest other than that.

  295. John A says:

    There are many philosophical liberals who reject global warming alarmism because we’ve examined the scientific claims and they don’t stack up.

    But this is exactly what happened during the Lysenko era – Mendelian biologists were pilloried as mental defectives by other scientists.

  296. John Whitman says:

    Laughable are Lakoff’s thoughts.

    But ignore his philosophical errors at your own risk. They are pandemic.

    Point 1 – If human thoughts are subjective, as he suggests, then since he is human his thoughts are subjective and we can just disregard his thoughts as no more valid than those he disagrees with. This is the inherent subjectivist dilemma. Politically this means anything goes, there is no fact/knowledge/truth.

    Point 2 – At root, both major American political parties are philosophical similar in their premise. That premise is man’s mind and his the product of his thoughts are secondary to some higher authority. One says that higher authority is the state, the other says it is the teachings of some diety belief system. Same coin, different sides. Surprisingly, the beliefs within each party are a bewildering array of inconsistencies. It is like they were made up at the spur of the moment on a random basis.

    Point 3 – If you want idependent knowledge, facts and consistency . . . the political parties aren’t going to provide it. You must provide it yourself with rational, logical, consistent application of your mental capabilities.

    John

  297. JER0ME says:

    Looking at that last bit, I think I am in both camps, although I cannot see how. I am strict when important (to me – I’m not reading from anyone else’s book on that one) lines are transgressed, even to the point of ‘smacking’ (oh the horror) our children when I think it is required. But I also nurture them, and pretty much let them do what they like as long as it is not harmful or dangerous. I would even let them believe in AGW, although I’d try to convince them otherwise. And I do let them know the world is a dangerous place. It really is. Children need to be told about the dangers of drugs and even STD’s, as they are a reality (even at 12). There are also naste dangerous people about and knowing they are can help should you come across them (luckily this is far less often than parents imagine).

    The world is also full of nasty people who would like to steal money from you. By taxing you with false premises, for example.

    I pretty much adhere to the Terry Pratchett school of thought as to bringing up kids, you look after them, try to stop them killing themselves, and hope they don’t catch anything fatal. I mean, what more can you really do? I also encourage them to have as much fun as possible, as long as it is not at anyone else’s expense.

    What does that make me? I think a liberal in his book, although not as foolish a one as to believe the world is a warm confortable cosy place. I’ve seen enough of it no know the reality is so different, unless you perhaps happen to be a ‘rich liberal’ (which maybe I am). By rich, I mean those able to afford food, clothes, hot water, heating and education for their children, along with a luxury or two like a computer, or a car.

    OMG, I’ll start believing in AGW next!

  298. Steve Goddard says:

    R. Gates (16:49:34) :

    The reason that concern for global warming has collapsed in the polls is because nobody sees it happening.

    Three years ago global warming was worth a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award. This year it is less valuable than Charmin. Very few people take it seriously any more outside of the Obama administration.

  299. Philemon says:

    DirkH (14:30:09) :
    Oh looky here what our friend the wikipedia has to say about recent activities of Mr. Lakoff:
“In 2008, Lakoff joined Fenton Communications, the nation’s largest public interest communications firm, as a Senior Consultant.”

    Fenton Communications must be getting desperate if they’re paying good money for Lakoff.

    I’d like to look at the acknowledgements in Lakoff’s book to see who he thanked for paying him for the time he spent writing it. Fodor always had to thank the NSF because they would fund anything by a philosopher who argued he had the key to the language of thought; what a con. I wonder who Lakoff had to thank.

  300. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Wren: you keep asking how many national science academies support the AGW position and how many do not. That is nothing more than a variation on the argument from authority. Your question is irrelevant on a number of grounds:

    1. the statements of support generally emanate from a committee recommendation and were not put to the membership for approval;
    2. many societies have no expertise in the topic and rely for their evidence on the very same researchers who have been so thoroughly discredited by climate-gate;
    3. the societies have become activists and purveyors of alarmism. Take this gem from The Interacademy Panel, an affiliate of the Interacademy Council which has been selected by the UN to review the IPCC:

    Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter of the CO2 produced from human activities. This CO2 would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to greater climate change. However, the absorption of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which are on average slightly alkaline) to become more acidic. The average pH of oceanic surface waters has been lowered by 0.1 units since the pre-industrial period. This represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ion activity. Hydrogen ions attack carbonate ions which are the building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures. This loss of carbonate ions produce lower saturation levels for the carbonate minerals, aragonite and calcite, which are used in many shells and skeletons. Carbonate ion concentrations are now lower than at any other time during the last 800 000 years.

    Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 ppm. If current trends in CO2 emissions continue, model projections suggest that by mid-century CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years. The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer.

    If you don’t understand what’s wrong with the statement, I’m sure any regular here would be delighted to enlighten you.

  301. John Norris says:

    re: “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

    Pretty funny. Shame on me for going back to the data.

    Imagine if I tried to argue that I am right and he is wrong based on the fact that I think I am more “open minded” then he.

  302. Bernie Green says:

    Confession first. I am one of those woolly minded liberals who has recently seen the light so far as climate variability is concerned.

    Comment second. Lakoff’s output raises a seriously worrying issue. Not because of the “science” which, as many posts have already said, is just downright silly, but because it obliquely addresses the appalling polarisation in the advocacy pro and con “climate-change-action”.

    While it is not surprising that the “soft left” in general has swallowed the AGW line because they tend, in general, to believe in the perfectability of society and to be motivated by the wish to “do good” (whatever that means), it is seriously worrying that people like Lakoff are painting the argument over the science as though it is a belief-struggle between the “church of the left” and the “church of the right”.

    In concrete terms, my biggest problem is how do I persuade the Australian Labour Party (my political “home”) to stop believing and to start thinking.

  303. Philemon says:

    And, of course, I meant “whom Lakoff had to thank.”

  304. James F. Evans says:

    R. Gates (17:05:30) paraphrase: Most people don’t care about AGW one way or the other.

    I think more people care about it than you acknowledge.

    Why?

    Because they care about their freedom.

  305. peterhodges says:

    huh. i wish fishing were that easy

    Andrew W (13:08:52) :

    peterhodges (12:33:22) :

    “umm, i’m liberal, a philosopher to boot, and do not believe in AGW

    hypothesis FALSIFIED”

    I can’t accept that any competent philosopher could make a statement so lacking in logic.

  306. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Wren (14:38:36) :

    You belong in a political blog since you are really arguing the science. It’s all political spin from you Wren.

  307. John Wright says:

    They are hanging on by their fingernails, but that does not mean it’s all over bar the shouting (and shouting there certainly is at the moment). They are keeping the left/right rift (of their own fostering, at least as regards this debate) and the present tactic seems to be to wear the public down by constantly throwing up and repeating red herrings until it tires of the ever more complicated debate, losing the little remaining critical independent thought it ever had. Anyway this article is the final unshakeable proof that warmist motives are purely political and have nothing to do with the saving the planet.

    Anthony, the first comment here by [Jim (09:32:51)] and one or two others here is pure RealClimate sarcasm. Jim strikes me as an agent provocateur and his silly name pun should have been snipped: letting him post it plays right into their hands.

    We just have to stick to our guns and hammer home the one simple message that CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant and the onus is on them to PROVE that it is. ‘Nuff sed.

  308. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Bernie Green (17:16:52) :

    how do I persuade the Australian Labour Party (my political “home”) to stop believing and to start thinking.

    Take out the allure of large taxes and the control of people and they’ll drop it. They don’t care about the science.

  309. RoHa says:

    What is the use of research that depends on the Manichaean idea (so popular in America) that everyone is either a liberal or a conservative?

    Gilbert’s “Iolanthe” has a lot to answer for.

  310. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    TYPO

    ………………………………………………………………………………

    Amino Acids in Meteorites (18:10:16) :

    Wren (14:38:36) :

    You belong in a political blog since you are really arguing the science.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………

    aren’t really arguing the science

    not

    are really arguing the science

  311. phlogiston says:

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science..”

    Liberals say but they don’t do. Half of liberals reject the scientific method.

    John Whitman (17:08:04) :

    “Laughable are Lakoff’s thoughts.”

    Sound like Yoda from Star Wars you do. Can you post on this blog from another planet? (e.g. the swamp planet of Dagobah)

  312. Rick says:

    “Facts aren’t as important as beliefs”

    Facts:
    1. Polar bears are disappearing
    2. The arctic is melting to nothing
    3. The himalayan glaciers are melting
    4. The Amazon forest will die if there is a tiny bit less rain
    5. The earth will be destroyed by 2 degrees or something like that.
    6. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas
    7. Cities don’t affect local temperature
    8. The earth is warmer than it has ever been
    9. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been.
    10. ….

    Um, I’m seeing a problem here.

  313. Philemon says:

    peterhodges (17:43:56) :
    Well, Lakoff did say 99.999%. So maybe you;re that .001%. You’re him, aren’t you? You’re the one Lakoff was talking about!

    Or, maybe not. Maybe, you’re not really a Liberal. Maybe you’re an AGW skeptic in Liberal clothing.

    Or maybe you really do believe in AGW, you just think you don’t!

  314. Speechless in Seattle says:

    Grandfather: “It’s a fact” means “It’s true.”
    Grandson: Not at all! It means “It’s in a peer-reviewed journal.”
    Gfather: What’s that?
    Gson: It’s science, Granpa.
    Gfather: Science means knowledge, right?
    Gson: Not at all! It means what people who publish in peer-reviewed journals believe.
    Gfather: Even if they believe only what they want to believe?
    Gson: You’re not going to argue with science, are you, Granpa?
    Gfather: Not if it is what you say it is. In my day, you asked a believer, why do you believe; but you asked a scientist, how do you know.
    Gson: How naive you are! We know nothing but what we we believe. Haven’t you heard of Karl Popper? All knowledge is conjectural.
    Gfather: Is it? To me, “I conjecturally know” means exactly the same as “I conjecture.”
    Gson: No, not at all. It means the same as “I know”, if it gets published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Gfather: I think I got it. Can I choose my own peers?

  315. John Whitman says:

    ”””’phlogiston (18:32:19) : “Laughable are Lakoff’s thoughts.” Sound like Yoda from Star Wars you do. Can you post on this blog from another planet? (e.g. the swamp planet of Dagobah)”””’

    phlogiston,

    Thanks for the levity. It is needed alot. Appreciate it.

    Actually, wouldn’t “Laughable Lakoff’s thoughts are.” be more Yoda like?

    John

  316. Gary Hladik says:

    Wren (15:16:15) : “Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”

    Wren is confusing politics (voting) and science (proof). CAGW prophesies contain a lot of one and very little of the other.

  317. John Whitman says:

    ””””Wren (15:16:15) : OK, I’ll put it another way. Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”””’

    Hi Wren,

    Hey, haven’t run across your comments in a while. How are you?

    Subscribe? I think none of the scientific societies ‘subscribe’ to CAGW. It is more like they make statements that include some words to the affect (or is it effect) that AGW theory has some merits with certain (no pun intended) uncertainties still unresolved. Two of the many uncertainties are the magnitude and timing of the effects of potential AGW. Pretty weasel-like, scientifically speaking. Then they make a huge leap to some kind of catastrophic ‘precautionary principle’. That huge leap is the fatal act of non-science.

    Not to put a too cynical edge on this, by such statements are they ensuring the funding stream keeps flowing? Certainly, wouldn’t being openly critical of AGW theory increase their risks of losing some gov’t funds?

    John

  318. Ed Murphy says:

    Liberals are rarely open minded, this is just propaganda. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are basically fools.

    “This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.
    That’s not a liberal or a conservative thing, that’s an extremist thing.

    Most people are just swimming in a pool of sharks, and they bounce from one end of the pool to the other. It will stay that way until we demand better.

  319. Enneagram says:

    Zeke the Sneak (17:05:09) :

    No, I get by with a little help from my friends
    Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends
    Mm, gonna try with a little help from my friends

    Just with a little help from my friends
    I will change everything, from the way you see
    till the world you used to live..

  320. davidmhoffer says:

    In reading through Lakoff’s statements, I am far less concerned about the debate of the science than the tone and message.

    conservatives are nothing more than people who put more emphasis on personal responsibility, work ethic, and rewards proportional to the work (versus other issues) liberals are nothing more than people who put more emphasis on social responsibility and freedoms provided they not injure others (versus other issues). In the grand scheme of the political spectrum, there is little daylight between them.

    What Lakoff proposes is neither liberalism nor conservatism. He proposes that those who disagree with his particular clique of intellectuals are defficient from being poorly parented or low intelligence or other defects. His unstated implication is that being incapable of rational thought, there is justification that the masses be ruled by the elites for their own good.

    I have met his type before and I have learned that they frequently don’t even believe their own claptrap. Their purpose is to ingratiate themselves to those whom they percieve as gaining power. When he percieves that the wind is blowing the other way, he will turn his ship about and loudly proclaim that he was leading the fleet in that direction from the beginning.

    He is no “usefull idiot”. His type are far more dangerous than that.

  321. John from MN says:

    Is this guy for real?..he can not be serious. He absolutely must either been dropped on his head at birth or has one serious problem with drugs……..no rational human reallly thinks way. As bugs bunny would say.”What a Maroon”!..John.

  322. AusieDan says:

    I fear that I am going to upset most of you here, on both sides of the debate.

    Professor Lakoff’s analysis is very USA centric, as are many of your comments describing liberals and conservatives.

    Most Australians are pragmatics – whatever works well, works well and whever does not is dumped.

    That’s why we have a mixed economy and the best health system, although that still has many faults. It is not too expensive, anybody can get good free public hospital care (as long as they live in a major city, otherwise not so good, but that’s why it is not too expensive). If you can afford fairly modest private insurance, you get excellent care. It’s not as beauracratic or as costly to the government as in the UK, nor as expensive and out of reach of the poor as in the USA. (I don’t know the ins and outs of the law just passed).

    Well after anoying all of you, I have to admit a majority of Australians still believe in AGW. But the good news is that the number is falling steadily as people come to realise the issues.

    What works, works. What sounds good but fails in pracice eventually fades away.

    There is an opinion swing away from our right of centre, Labor (non socialist) governemts, State and Federal, and towards our very slightly more right of centre Liberal (Liberal in name, which in reality is freer but not free-market, socially conscious, liberal and conservative mixed) Party.

    The cap and trade bill will get a third outing in the next few months, but nobody on either side expects that it will pass in the Senate.
    The test will come after the next election.
    We may get a carbon tax or we may not.
    It all depends on whether the AGW cult collapses globally by then or not.

    Who knows?
    The future is ours my friends, not ce sera, sera (or whatever).

  323. Tom Black says:

    Al Gore is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    ??? What the heck, why did I say that???

  324. AusieDan says:

    The swing in the pendulum in Australian politics is due to the incompetence of incumbernt Labor governements – not due to any political factors.

    When I was studying psychology in the 1970s, the conservatives in Austrailia tended to be older and more rigid in their thinking – the authoritan personality syndrome sort of thing.
    Modern conservatives are now much younger thant I.

    I try to evaluate policies on their merits.
    I supported the Labor government’s cash splurge at the very start of the GFC, having studied both Keynes and Freeman at universtity and coming down on Keynes’ side.
    That worked well and helped australai going into recession.
    But I am appauled at the government’s inability to manage this spending and to be sucked in by “experts” with an AGW axe to grind.

  325. Jeff Alberts says:

    Rick, you’re joking, right?

  326. Wren says:

    James Sexton (15:20:35) :
    Wren (14:38:36) :

    The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
    ======
    I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?

    Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
    =====
    All those scientific societies are socialist organizations?

    Get out of here!

  327. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Is this guy 95% certain of his statistical conclusions or merely 100% sure of his funding?

  328. Alex says:

    I’m from Sweden so you Americans probably consider me a socialist (I’m liberal) and I am pretty sure there is no real proof for AGW, if there is I must have missed it. The argument that your political opponents cant think is retarded. There are many reasons why two intelligent beings end up on the opposite sides of an argument. Claiming that the other side is close minded, stupid ignorant and so forth is just crap. Bring better science/arguments or shut up.

  329. Bill Parsons says:

    Alberta Slim (10:05:17) :

    Most of us were AGW believers years ago. WHY?

    Better smile when you say that, Slim.

  330. Wren says:

    John Whitman (18:54:14) :
    ””””Wren (15:16:15) : OK, I’ll put it another way. Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”””’

    Hi Wren,

    Hey, haven’t run across your comments in a while. How are you?

    Subscribe? I think none of the scientific societies ’subscribe’ to CAGW. It is more like they make statements that include some words to the affect (or is it effect) that AGW theory has some merits with certain (no pun intended) uncertainties still unresolved. Two of the many uncertainties are the magnitude and timing of the effects of potential AGW. Pretty weasel-like, scientifically speaking. Then they make a huge leap to some kind of catastrophic ‘precautionary principle’. That huge leap is the fatal act of non-science.

    Not to put a too cynical edge on this, by such statements are they ensuring the funding stream keeps flowing? Certainly, wouldn’t being openly critical of AGW theory increase their risks of losing some gov’t funds?

    John
    ====

    I’m fine John. How are you.

    I think if you check their web sites, you will find that that scientific societies do more than say CAGW theory has merits.

    You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences.

    http://americasclimatechoices.org/

    I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.

  331. Elizabeth (Canada) says:

    So, then, psychotropic drugs must be available to treat our condition?

  332. pwl says:

    I’m not a conservative therefore the existence of my brain, which follows the Carl Sagan Principle of Requiring Extraordinary Evidence for Extraordinary Claims, falsifies professor George Lakoff laughable hypothesis. It sure had a short half life.

  333. Mooloo says:

    Andrew W (11:50:17) :
    So much vitriol, so much emotion, this comments thread itself is an argument supporting Lakoff.

    Say I suggest Greenpeace activists are nutters. Now if I wander into a Greenpeace site and loudly suggest that there is nothing wrong with eating dolphins they will not sit quietly. Guaranteed some of them in their anger will say some nutty things. Is that then proof I am right? Hardly. It is a stupid line of logic, just as yours is. If you say stupid and rude things about people, they will on the whole be justified in their anger.

    What amazes me rather is that anyone can believe that no skeptics are liberal.

    Any general theory can be falsified by a singe counter-example. Since it is easy to find liberal, science-educated AGW sceptics (me, for a start) his theory is basically rotten.

    The vitriol seen is what he deserves for saying something so utterly stupid.

  334. Wren says:

    Robert E. Phelan (12:05:03) :
    actuator (11:53:56) :
    “I could be wrong, but I thought one aspect of the original “liberal” philosophers thinking was the liberty of the individual. What I see going on in the community that calls themselves “liberal” today seems to care not a whit for individuals having the right or the ability to think, evaluate and decide for themselves.”

    No, actuator, you are not wrong. Classical Liberalism was a late 18th early 19th Century movement based on the philososphy of Utilitarianism (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) which held that people were quite capable of deciding for themselves what was good for them. They were much more akin to modern conservatives and libertarians than anything else. Oddly enough, John Stuart Mill, a staunch advocate of free market capitalism, and Robert Owen, the “Father of Modern Socialism”, both emerged from the movement.
    ========

    Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.

  335. Smokey says:

    Wren (20:13:09):

    “All those scientific societies are socialist organizations? Get out of here!”

    You’re clearly not up to speed on the way the real world operates. Prof Richard Lindzen gave a recent first hand account of how it only takes one or two activists to cause professional organizations to endorse statements that are completely at odds with the great majority of their membership: click

    Given the absence of any settled science regarding the climate mechanism, or even the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, and given the fact that both the government and numerous NGOs, for example the heavily pro-CAGW Grantham Foundation, the like-minded Heinz and Rockefeller Foundations, and many similar ones with the same agenda such as the many pro-UN/World Government NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros, and the 100% politically appointed IPCC, and numerous similar organizations with enormous assets and an activist CAGW agenda that award large grants to professional organizations, with strings attached requiring that they endorse the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, it is extremely naive for you to believe that every one of those professional organizations have taken a decisive CAGW position based on science alone.

    Their Executive Boards are preposterously stating, all in lock step, that the minuscule fraction of CO2 attributable to human activity is the primary driver of the planet’s climate, and that there can be no disputing their judgement. Does this sound to you like an honest search for scientific truth? All it really shows is that money doesn’t talk; it screams.

    As the elected CFO of an organization of more than 15,000 dues paying members, I can tell you for a fact that Prof Lindzen is right on the money. Having seen how a single activist can change the course of an organization with patience, cunning, and a knowledge of the bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order, I have also observed first hand that with the right game plan, the current one-sided results can easily be achieved, despite the serious reservations of the rank-and-file membership.

    Being naive is no sin. But remaining so changes the label from naive to fool. Read Dr Lindzen’s paper. It is only the tip of the iceberg.

  336. J.Hansford says:

    Er, I think Lakoff needs to flip it 180 political degrees and then he has it right…..;-)

    But of course Lakoff knows that, he’s just being deliberately perverse… Once again the left are telling us that what we see, isn’t there and what we heard, wasn’t said…… Then they take what remains and flip it around and say….. “If only you would look at the facts with an open mind. It is you who are wrong because you refuse to see it OUR way….” Yup, yup.

    Of course there are no supporting facts and the only ones with a closed mind…. Is them.

    The examples of this closed mindedness and their inablility to inquire being… The Climategate email scandal. Amazongate. Himalayan glaciergate. Polar bears thriving instead of dying. UHI effects that are not accounted for. Lack of correlation between rising CO2 and temperature observations. The compromised siting of temperature stations and their non compliance to their own regulations. A climate catastrophe that refuses to actually happen… etc.

    …. and Lakoff can’t even be logical. What about this howler!….

    “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.”

    …. Wtf!. He is trying to tell us that Conservatives are somehow hypocritical to be using science because we are criticizing science???… D’ oh!….. Actually we are skeptical of their results and critical of their scientific methodology. This offends them greatly!

    The other thing I find strange about Lakoff is he treats “Science” as an entity of some kind… He is almost deifying it…. He is making a religion out of his environmental ideal and using this “science” of his, as the “living proof”. A Christ child of infallibility, so to speak;-)

    However, science is simply a methodology of observation and measurement…. It is not an idol or an ideology. It is merely a method of inquiry using certain unbending principles…. Otherwise it isn’t the scientific method.

    What is it with the left and their pathological desire to form elitist cliques based on emotional constructs? They have this frantic obsession to take everything and anyone around them and to control them… It’s G’damn maniacal.

    I liked the way Pat Micheals criticism of Lakoff had the last word of the article……. “Michaels said that the idea that people who don’t buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn’t fit with the American ideal of individual liberty.

    “I don’t think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country,” Michaels said.”

    Nicely said.

  337. James Sexton says:

    Wren (20:13:09) :

    James Sexton (15:20:35) :

    Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
    =====
    All those scientific societies are socialist organizations?

    Get out of here!

    ========

    I don’t know, let’s figure it out. All of the CAGW scientific advocates that I’ve read either receive government grants or work for a government institutions. In fact, I’ve seen where studies done by private industry is invalidated only by the fact that is was done by a private industry.(To where they don’t even address the content of the study.) The scientific communities seem to be a collection of scientists that live by government monies. So, you tell me, does that meet your requisite definition of socialist, or do I need to go into more detail about the various POS that won’t get off of my teet and seem hell bent on the destruction of humanity? All the while demanding that I and people like me pay for it.

  338. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Wren (21:08:40) :

    Everything you say is old, hackneyed spin.

    Yawn.

  339. davidmhoffer says:

    I found that article on CNN about a research paper showing that liberals are smarter than conservatives:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?iref=allsearch

    My notes as follows:

    1) The study was done with adolescents and young adults under age of 28. Since people tend to move from left to right politicaly as they age, the sample is biased.

    2) The really good news is that those really intelligent “lakoff types” who deem themselves so much smarter than the rest of us that we are beneath contempt in a discussion of science, aren’t having kids.

    So…. in the long war of who should control who dear Dr. Lakoff, my gene pool (which is a lot smarter than you think) is going to obliterate your gene pool, not by my gene pool doing anything to your gene pool, but because your gene pool for all its vaunted intelligence, can’t figure out how to score.

  340. Wren says:

    Roger Knights (15:35:15) :
    Wren:

    That’s not many people.

    Here’s a longer list:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
    =====
    Yes, I’ve seen that list before, and it sure has a lot of old guys(e.g., professor emeritus). Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.

    Professor Emeritus

  341. Mr Lynn says:

    It’s always Marcia, Marcia (14:16:21) :
    Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story

    Anthony said this? I don’t see a name by it.

    REPLY: Yes, it’s true. -Anthony

    How about a post sometime describing the process that led you from ‘global warming activist’ to prominent skeptic?

    /Mr Lynn

    PS Despite the fun that Rush and others have had with Mr. Lakoff’s name, as I recall it is pronounced ‘Lay-koff’ (at least that’s how I heard it some decades ago when he was at MIT). Not that this makes his inchoate maunderings any more rational. . .

  342. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Wren (21:08:40) :
    “Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.”
    —————-
    Wren, that was supposed to be a history lesson not a sales pitch…. but ideologues love to impute motives. I suspect that there are no reflecting surfaces in your home.

  343. Wren says:

    Smokey (21:08:47) :
    Wren (20:13:09):

    “All those scientific societies are socialist organizations? Get out of here!”

    You’re clearly not up to speed on the way the real world operates. Prof Richard Lindzen gave a recent first hand account of how it only takes one or two activists to cause professional organizations to endorse statements that are completely at odds with the great majority of their membership…..
    =====
    Yeah, well Lindzen doesn’t believe second-hand smoke is harmful to babies, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

  344. Wren says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites (21:30:05) :
    Wren (21:08:40) :

    Everything you say is old, hackneyed spin.

    Yawn.
    =====
    I’m trying to make you sleepy.

  345. What a bunch of crap, I think drugs and prostitution should be legalized – I’m quite open-minded, but not so open that my brains are falling out.

  346. oakgeo says:

    My God, what a crock. How would Lakoff rate me?

    > I am a Canadian and voted Liberal until my early thirties, then, through a conscious decision brought about by PM Jean Chretien’s infamous “roll the dice” comment during the 1995 Quebec Referendum, began voting by candidate (Liberal, Conservative, even a Green Party once).

    > I have always had a very egalitarian view point: I believe absolutely in individual equality and personal freedoms (speech, choice, etc.).

    > I think universal health care is excellent (lots of rich physicians in Canada!) and truly believe that it could work in America (although I think opposition to it will prevent a smooth transition).

    > I believe market regulations are needed to prevent unfettered greed and insider trading running amok, and to protect the average investor.

    > Environmental regulations are necessary (CO2 excepted) and we should restrict trade with nations that do not live up to the western world’s standards.

    I am liberal in every sense of the word except my views on AGW. So WTF am I, Prof. Lakoff? What a crock.

  347. Wren says:

    Robert E. Phelan (21:43:53) :
    Wren (21:08:40) :
    “Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.”
    —————-
    Wren, that was supposed to be a history lesson not a sales pitch…. but ideologues love to impute motives. I suspect that there are no reflecting surfaces in your home.
    ======
    Excuse me, I thought it was a sales pitch.

    I live in a house full of mirrors. It makes the place look larger than it actually is.

  348. Smokey says:

    Wren (21:45:45),

    So that’s your response??

    Hmm-mm. “Babies”, huh? So, who to believe? Ms Wren? Or the internationally esteemed Head of MIT’s Atmospheric Sciences department?

    I suppose I should be more kind to the lame.

    Admit it: that’s your picture in the article, isn’t it?

  349. evanmjones says:

    Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.

    Yes, one starts to think with what is between one’s shoulders rather than what is between one’s legs.

  350. davidmhoffer says:

    Wren
    Yeah, well Lindzen doesn’t believe second-hand smoke is harmful to babies, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt>>

    What is it with you warmists? I see these snappy comebacks on all sorts of blogs. Someone calls CO2 a trace gas and out comes the sarcastic “oh yeah, we’ll put trace amounts of strychnine in your body and see how what happens” as if that somehow proves anything. This is the second time I’ve seen the Lindzen/smoke/babies thing which also has nothing to do with anything. Are you all using the same iPhone app because you don’t know enough about the subject to come up with your very own snappy responses?

    For what its worth, Smokey is bang on. Anyone who knows Roberts Rules and the politics of an organization can box the majority into a corner with procedures. I’ve seen it done from professional organizations to local community organizations. The people who are part of the society out of mutual interest rarely have the passion, patience, or time to block a hijacking of the organization by learning the rules and fighting the hacks who are there to further their personal politics.

    BTW, to one of your other comments, societies by definition are groups of people with a common interest formed for the purpose of mutual discussion and benefit. They have no product or service other than to provide a forum for their members. They are funded by their membership fees. so yup, they’re socialist organizations, which by no means dictates that any given member is a socialist.

  351. savethesharks says:

    So…Starling…..oh….er um….Pigeon…..uhh….. I mean “Wren”….what is your point?

    I figured I would regurgitate an earlier post I made on this thread….just for you!
    _________

    I find it amusing how “scholars” like Lakoff continually to try and make it a partisan issue, which it should not be.

    It should be about finding the truth.

    Most people I talk to are a combination of the two [fiscally more conservative but socially more liberal]….and so they [we] are like….”who the hell is this guy talking about??

    Regardless, CAGW skeptics run the full range of political persuasions, so it is a moot point.

    Also, it would seem that this “study” is the big fat pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one.

    Sure there is cognitive dissonance on all sides. It is endemic to the human condition, unfortunately.

    However, it just so happens to be more manifest currently on the “my mind is made up the science is settled – CAGW is real – we are all doomed” side of the debate!

    When I hear people like Lakoff spouting off academic nonsense like this [or at least the nonsense part is the partisan political part] it makes me laugh:

    “How ******* stupid does he think we are??”

    I don’t like to see anyone’s personal demise….but I personally will enjoy with GREAT pleasure watching the washed-up, tired, dishonest CAGW house of cards collapse over the next few years.

    Next!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  352. Wren says:

    James Sexton (21:29:15) :
    Wren (20:13:09) :

    James Sexton (15:20:35) :

    Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
    =====
    All those scientific societies are socialist organizations?

    Get out of here!

    ========

    I don’t know, let’s figure it out. All of the CAGW scientific advocates that I’ve read either receive government grants or work for a government institutions. In fact, I’ve seen where studies done by private industry is invalidated only by the fact that is was done by a private industry.(To where they don’t even address the content of the study.) The scientific communities seem to be a collection of scientists that live by government monies. So, you tell me, does that meet your requisite definition of socialist, or do I need to go into more detail about the various POS that won’t get off of my teet and seem hell bent on the destruction of humanity? All the while demanding that I and people like me pay for it.
    ====================
    I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….

    Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.

    Police officers are socialists, but private security guards are not.

    Children at public schools are socialists, but children at private schools are not.

    Marines are socialists, but Black Water employees are not.

    How am I doing ?

  353. Marvin says:

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

    That’s true but that does not exclude that other types of people can also reason AGW is not correct, is embellished or is something other than stupilated e.g. Roger is a brown eyed man. Some brown eyed men do not like liberals. This does not imply Roger does not like liberals merely that it is, under the given conditions a possibility.

    On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

    This is only true relative to the function that if liberals are under no central mental process to limit their acknowledgement of ‘progressive’ society (which they shouldn’t be by their definition) then they can determine by default that AGW is possibly real. This however, is fiction and quite truly can entirely be thrown out because its so simplistic and really, it’s just flat out boring.

    There is easily a counter argument where because liberals are by their nature revolutionary that they wish for change and have alternate reasons for their belief in AGW other than their knowledge of the reality of the situation. Trying to break this into liberal / republican or whatever other label you want to put to a person is just about how best to brain wash a society into one mode of thinking or another.

    The only way you know about how something works is about research and reading, knowing your own limitation and excluding self imposed bias as best you can. If you know you believe something and have a feeling one way or another you have to get past that and look at the evidence. If you cannot conclude that it is persuasive on its merit alone but you also cannot understand it, then you should probably let authority guide you. Let the other people intelligent enough make the basis of your case for you when it comes to knowing the systems and how they work (when it comes to climatology). You don’t need climatologists to be able to understand.. there are many people adept at processing reality but filtering through this becomes difficult to say the least.

  354. evanmjones says:

    How am I doing ?

    Probably better than you intended. #B^1

  355. James Sexton says:

    Wren (21:33:04) :

    Roger Knights (15:35:15) :
    Wren:

    That’s not many people.

    Here’s a longer list:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
    =====
    Yes, I’ve seen that list before, and it sure has a lot of old guys(e.g., professor emeritus). Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.
    ==============

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Ahh, the brash, bold exuberance of youth. Forget about knowledge and experience, just know you’re right!!!
    Son, you haven’t thought this through. Assume your right. Forget about the way they average temps to prove we’re getting warmer. Forget about the fact that humanity thrives in warmer climates. Forget about the arbitrary correction of historical temps. Forget about the homogenization and value added temps to average the incorrectly averaged temps. Forget about the minuscule portion of anthropological CO2 is emitted compared to the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. Forget the historical proof that the earth was warmer (and colder) before. Forget the lies, we were told. Forget it all. Assume the CAGW theory is correct. What price are you willing to pay to fix it? Are you willing to thwart man’s energy? His ability to eat? How about the availability to drink? Son, existence isn’t living. I wouldn’t wish that world on my children or my children’s children. I don’t know where you’re from and I don’t care. What I do know, is that before the earthquake in Haiti, they were starving to death. I didn’t see the CAGW scientists focusing their energies there. It seems to me, they’re not concerned with the condition of mankind, rather, they’re concerned with manipulating and mandating mankind’s behavior. Even if we should forget about all of the flaws in their supposition, I’ll pass. But pass isn’t a strong enough word. I take the whole CAGW mythology as an affront to mankind and freedom world wide. They will be stopped. Hopefully, by words and logic, but…….
    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” and
    “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but …”…….they will be stopped.

    [REPLY - Screwtape advises his "nephew" if his "patient" must pray for his mother, that he should make sure he prays for the state of her soul -- but never her rheumatism. ~ Evan]

  356. savethesharks says:

    Wren: “How am I doing ?”

    On a logic versus illogic scale of one to ten?

    Do you really want an answer??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  357. davidmhoffer says:

    Wren
    I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….
    Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.>>

    No. Libraries are socialist organizations. Librarians are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Book stores are private enterprises, book store clerks may or may not be socialists.

    Wren
    Police officers are socialists, but private security guards are not.>>

    Police organizations are socialists. Police officers are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Private security companies are… uhm… private? the security guards are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists.

    Wren
    Children at public schools are socialists, but children at private schools are not.>>

    No. The public school system is a socialist organizations. The children are students who attend. They may or may not be socialists. Private schools are… uhm, private again? The children there are students. They may or may not be socialists.

    Wren
    Marines are socialists, but Black Water employees are not.>>

    No. The armed forces are socialist organizations. The marines are people who serve in the armed forces. They may or may not be socialists. Black Water is a private company. The people who work there are employees who may or may not be socialists.

    Wren
    How am I doing ?>>

    Awfull. You didnt get a single one right.

  358. savethesharks says:

    James Sexton (22:18:14) :

    That is one of the most eloquent invectives ever. Bravo.

    One word though….in your heat…you meant “anthropogenic” and not “anthropological”….regardless… I [and everyone else] got your point.

    Well said.

    Chris

  359. Wren says:

    davidmhoffer (22:07:29) :
    Wren
    Yeah, well Lindzen doesn’t believe second-hand smoke is harmful to babies, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt>>

    What is it with you warmists? I see these snappy comebacks on all sorts of blogs…….

    There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke. Check out what this site has to say about him.

    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

    Of course Lindzen is 70 years old, so that’s enough years to make a lot of mistakes.

  360. Wren says:

    davidmhoffer (22:28:06) :
    Wren
    I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….
    Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.>>

    No. Libraries are socialist organizations. Librarians are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Book stores are private enterprises, book store clerks may or may not be socialists.
    ====
    I won’t bother to repeat the rest of your post, David, because you are not following James Sexton’s method for identifying socialists as I did. Read his post, and you will see what I mean.

  361. davidmhoffer says:

    Wren
    There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke>>

    Which has what to do with how small groups of activists can thwart the majority in a large organization by abuse of procedural rules? Why when presented with a specific point, do you respond by blowing second hand smoke?

    Why, when presented with a cogent argument, do you respond with witty remarks on an entirely different topic?

    It brings nothing of value to the conversation. If you dispute what Lindzen said about hijacking of organizations, then present the facts and arguments in that regard. Failing to do so only exposes that you have no argument to make.

  362. savethesharks says:

    Wren (22:40:26) :

    Your lack of logic is astounding.

    I would love to see you actually in the ring with Lindzen.

    He would eat you alive. If you can contest that, then on what grounds?

    Would you then be willing to debate him, face to face?

    That, I would pay to see.

    Chris

  363. James Sexton says:

    [REPLY - Screwtape advises his "nephew" if his "patient" must pray for his mother, that he should make sure he prays for the state of her soul -- but never her rheumatism.]

    True that. Lewis understood the vile methods of evil. While it saddens me that many failed to hear, I take heart in the fact that a few listened. And, I take comfort in the idea that “no problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.” I believe the CAGW fantasy is under assault at this moment.

  364. Wren says:

    James Sexton (22:18:14) :
    Wren (21:33:04) :

    Roger Knights (15:35:15) :
    Wren:

    That’s not many people.

    Here’s a longer list:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
    =====
    Yes, I’ve seen that list before, and it sure has a lot of old guys(e.g., professor emeritus). Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.
    ==============

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Ahh, the brash, bold exuberance of youth. Forget about knowledge and experience, just know you’re right!!!
    Son, you haven’t thought this through……
    =============
    I’m not a youth. I’m old. I’m also sleepy, so I will say goodnight.

  365. Steve Goddard says:

    R. Gates (17:05:30) :

    Most indications are that Arctic ice will be close to normal this summer and there will be a large increase in multi-year ice.

  366. Wren says:

    davidmhoffer (22:47:31) :
    Wren
    There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke>>

    Which has what to do with how small groups of activists can thwart the majority in a large organization by abuse of procedural rules? Why when presented with a specific point, do you respond by blowing second hand smoke?

    Why, when presented with a cogent argument, do you respond with witty remarks on an entirely different topic?

    It brings nothing of value to the conversation. If you dispute what Lindzen said about hijacking of organizations, then present the facts and arguments in that regard. Failing to do so only exposes that you have no argument to make.
    ====
    Sorry, I meant to respond, before turning in, but forgot.

    You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS.

    Goodnight.

  367. savethesharks says:

    Wren: “Sorry, I meant to respond, before turning in, but forgot.
    You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS.
    Goodnight.”

    I am starting to feel sorry for the weakness presented here…time and time again.

    Nah…….

    Goodnight! Watch out for the hawks in the AM. LOL

    Chris

  368. davidmhoffer says:

    Wren
    You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS>>

    And there, in one brief sentence, Wren summarizes the entire AGW debate. Thank you Wren for stipulating that your argument does not rest on facts and that you see no reason that it should.

  369. Robert E. Phelan says:

    I’m sure what Wren intended to write was that that (he/she?) had no FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OBSERVATIONS.

  370. John Whitman says:

    Some points:

    a) NAS is not a good choice as an example in that it has gov’t links (mandated into law by Pres Lincoln). Better examples are the American Nuclear Society or the ASME or ASTM or AMA, Space Exploration Societies, etc

    b) I have the greatest respect for many professions, scientists included, but not all professions. Politicians? hmmmmm Those who sell there services in brothels? hmmmmm

    c) Promoting ones profession and job is normal. If you do it through a profession society, it still is.

    d) Gov’ts endorsing a specific scientific theory? Yes. [Poor Pres. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.]

    e) When a professional/scientific society endorses a specific scientific theory (see d above), even though not every member endorses it, what does that tell me? And who funds virtually all the scientists who work on that specific scientific theory (see d above)? What does that tell me?

    Conclusion: Scientists and their professional societies are paying extremely close attention to there only client/customer. Good decision.

    Recommendation: eliminate d) above and create alternate private/voluntary funding schemes besides the gov’t.

    John

  371. John Whitman says:

    ””””Wren (20:50:24) : . . . . You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences. . . . . I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.””””’

    Wren,

    My comment above ‘John Whitman (23:43:18) :’ was intented to be addressed to you.

    Here it is again below for your convenience.

    John
    +++++++++++++
    ””””Wren (20:50:24) : . . . . You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences. . . . . I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.””””’

    Wren,

    Some points:

    a) NAS is not a good choice as an example in that it has gov’t links (mandated into law by Pres Lincoln). Better examples are the American Nuclear Society or the ASME or ASTM or AMA, Space Exploration Societies, etc

    b) I have the greatest respect for many professions, scientists included, but not all professions. Politicians? hmmmmm Those who sell there services in brothels? hmmmmm

    c) Promoting one’s profession and job is normal. If you do it through a profession society, it still is.

    d) Gov’ts endorsing a specific scientific theory? Yes. [Poor Pres. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.]

    e) When a professional/scientific society endorses a specific scientific theory (see d above), even though not every member endorses it, what does that tell me? And who funds virtually all the scientists who work on that specific scientific theory (see d above)? What does that tell me?

    Conclusion: Scientists and their professional societies are paying extremely close attention to their only client/customer. Good decision.

    Recommendation: eliminate d) above and create alternate private/voluntary funding schemes besides the gov’t.

    John

  372. Feet2theFire says:

    Oh, goodness. That hearkens back to people feeling people’s skulls and to racists claiming that blacks are inherently inferior (contradicted by so many things, but we DO happen to have a very intelligent – if not always agreed with – President who has one or two black genes in him, plus a horny black golfer who kicks everybody’s arses in a white sport that uses a little white ball).

    And let’s not forget eugenics, something most scientists adhered to 100 years ago.

    It’s nice to know there are still scientists who can read sociological if not physiological superiority into their side and genetic defects into their opponents! It gives one SUCH a feeling of confidence in science.

    It makes one wonder if sociology should even be considered a science, doesn’t it? Just because they saw a number on the Interstate sign doesn’t mean their field of study is science. 90% of sociology, anthropology and psychology are interpretive – like judging ice skating at the Olympics – and somehow they convinced someone along the way that interpretation is science.

    Ask 1,000 sociologists for their interpretation of a phenomenon, and you will get at least 1,000 interpretations.

    Some science.

  373. Cadae says:

    Cognitive “science” ? This is further evidence that disciplines with “science” in the name certainly aren’t. Real sciences such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology don’t need a “science” label. Amongst the pretend sciences we now have

    Cognitive Science
    Climate Science
    Social Science
    Computer Science

  374. Roger Knights says:

    Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming …

    He ought to be willing to take bets on long-term temperature trends at lower odds, then, at https://www.intrade.com

  375. Roger Knights says:

    WordPress didn’t like the capital H, so make that https://www.intrade.com

  376. DirkH says:

    “Cadae (00:33:48) :
    [...]
    Computer Science”

    Cadae, even though computers are abused by climate science, you’re talking out of your rectum here, please look up “halting problem” or “Turing” to get an idea of what computer science is about. Also, to enlighten you further, Chomsky’s language hierarchy, widely used in compiler construction, is not a communist plot.

  377. Oscar Bajner says:

    “reason is shaped by the body” – LakoffCommonSense

    quote
    I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered,
    striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he
    rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
    unquote – Boswell

    I am not a political Conservative — that would imply there was something to conserve, but I still admire the insight of a genuine conservative into the mind of the Liberal — “Against whom, are they doing good? We never ask!”

  378. Roger Knights says:

    R. Gates (16:49:34) :

    Steve Goddard said:

    “Most people reject CAGW because they see that the catastrophic predictions are not happening.”

    Correction, MOST people don’t care one way or another..they neither reject nor accept CAGW.

    They may not care much, but that’s not what Steve was talking about. He was talking about their opinion of the matter. They have opinions on many matters that are of little interest to them. Polls indicate popular opinion of the matter has recently become sharply more skeptical, due in part — no doubt — to the way the alarmists overplayed their hand with certain predictions that have now been cast in doubt, or even falsified.

    davidmhoffer
    He is no “useful idiot”. His type are far more dangerous than that.

    A useless idiot?

    Wren (21:33:04) :

    Yes, I’ve seen that list before, and it sure has a lot of old guys (e.g., professor emeritus). Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.

    It’s been noted here before that the pressure to conform to the on-campus CAWG consensus is so intense that mostly the old guys who have less to lose, careerwise, and are less involved in climbing the greasy pole, feel freer to speak out. There was a notable woman climatologist who died recently and to whom WUWT devoted a thread a month or so ago who said, when she issued a mildly skeptical statement, that she was able to do so now that she was retired.

    As for Lindzen, he’s still active and publishing, and his skepticism is of long standing. I suspect that was the case for nearly all the emeritus professors as well.

    davidmhoffer:
    If you dispute what Lindzen said about hijacking of organizations, then present the facts and arguments in that regard.

    Wren:
    You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS.

    How about countering his arguments, then?

  379. Roger Knights says:

    Oops!! — I meant to say, “How about countering his with arguments, then?”

  380. tarpon says:

    And then they say abortion harms no one … Moron circular logic, it’s a hoot.

    When the temperature record doesn’t fit, just make it up. It’s moron science.

  381. Beth Cooper says:

    How would Professor Lakoff account for the number of us here at WUWT who were once believers of AGW and decided ‘To look seriously at the science and at whether people and the world were going to be harmed or not’ and concluded that they were not. Are we victims of a rare cognitive brain function disorder or what?

  382. Stargazer says:

    The (British) Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

    The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece

  383. UK Sceptic says:

    Lakoff’s “theory” sounds like recycled and reconstituted BS to me…

  384. evanmjones says:

    Nonsense, my son. Lakoff merely points out the openmindedness of those who agree with him.

    (In order to stifle and ridicule those who do not.)

  385. Cadae says:

    DirkH (01:17:40) :
    “Cadae, even though computers are abused by climate science, you’re talking out of your rectum here”

    To characterise Computing as a “Science” is streching the scope of science beyond useful boundaries. Computing is closer to mathematics than science – your example of the Halting Theorem is in fact a good example of a mathematical theorem, not a scientific theory – this is also true for the Chomsky language hierarchy – it’s a mathematical model.

    Computing may be used a lot in sciences, but this does not make it a science in its own right.

  386. BBk says:

    “On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.””

    Or rather, liberal’s cognitive processes see a problem everywhere they look and they have to save the world from itself.

  387. Ryan says:

    So liberals are open minded???? To the idea of the free-market perhaps? To the idea of banning abortion? To God?

    Maybe conservatives should be banned from voting, as they can’t open their minds to new ideas. This is a principle often promoted by “liberal” governments is it not?

  388. theBuckWheat says:

    A glimpse inside the Plastic Reality, where good intentions count more than positive results.

  389. Jim says:

    ****************
    Marvin (22:12:07) :

    “It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.

    That’s true but that does not exclude that other types of people can also reason AGW is not correct, is embellished or is something other than stupilated e.g. Roger is a brown eyed man. Some brown eyed men do not like liberals. This does not imply Roger does not like liberals merely that it is, under the given conditions a possibility.
    ****************
    That’s true? How is it true? “conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” is neither logical nor correct. Plenty of conservatives want clean water, air, and land. What an idiotic presumption. This guy is just another socialist, academic hit man. He should be ashamed of himself.

  390. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Feet2theFire (00:23:32) :
    “… 90% of sociology, anthropology and psychology are interpretive – like judging ice skating at the Olympics…”

    I am sure you can provide empirical evidence for that statement, right?

  391. Bill Tuttle says:

    BBk (04:40:56) :
    “On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.””
    Or rather, liberal’s cognitive processes see a problem everywhere they look and they have to save the world from itself.

    Liberals’ cognitive processes are usually the result of youthful overindulgence in psychotropic substances. I could show you the code I used to prove it, but you’d just use it to try to disprove my findings and/or mock me mercilessly.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I’m easily mocked.

  392. Bill Tuttle says:

    Wren (14:38:36) :
    …but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?

    Ummmm — because they paid attention in school during geology classes?

  393. Ryan says:

    Anyway, as I’m feeling particularly open-minded today I’m off to invent a new approach to solar power. This approach will use simply a tank of water with a glass tank of 100% CO2 on top. Using the “greenhouse theory” the CO2 will ensure that the heat coming from the sun will go one way – into the water tank where it will be prevented from leaving by the magical properties of the CO2. This will cause the water in the tank to heat to enormous temperatures making it a simple matter to extract the heat into a steam turbine and generate useful electricty. Voila, our problems are solved by the very gas that is (allegedly) causing our problems today.

  394. Jim Clarke says:

    My beautiful wife is a psychology major and was ‘taught’ this garbage at a major university. The argument, constructed by professors on the left (which is almost redundant) is that those on the right are somewhat mentally ‘impaired’, and that is why they can not agree with the more open-minded people on the left.

    Arguing that anyone who does not agree with you must have something wrong with there brain…is the opposite of ‘open-minded’.

  395. davidmhoffer says:

    theBuckWheat (05:34:12) :
    A glimpse inside the Plastic Reality, where good intentions count more than positive results>>

    What would compell you to believe that any of this has anything to do with good intentions? Give me your money, it for a good and noble cause. I will of course have to have a nice car and fancy hotel room as I zoom around the world doing good for others, that’s my right for being dedicated to a just and noble cause. And should it come to pass that my results were not positive, it is only because you and other selfish people like you did not give enough. And if it should come to pass that the cause is fictitious, well that is only because you are too selfish and stupid to comprehend the danger that confronts us all. And if it should come to pass the evidence to support the existance of the cause has been fabricated, well you are just too selfish, stupid and narrow minded to see that the intention of good weighed against fabricated data must be decided in favour of intention.

    Having found by your own testimony that you are selfish, stupid, and narrow minded, it is clear that your betters must care for the world despite your mean spirited refusal to help by taxing from you that which you will not give voluntarily. This is a great burden of responsibility on your betters, and so they must be supprted with very large sums of money to ease the stress they are under. Should such sums prove so large that none is left to fulfill the good intentions, then taxes shall have to be raised still more. You are too selfish, stupid and narrow minded to understand this.

    There is nothing good about these people’s intentions. If their intentions were good they would have abandoned the plot line when it started to follow apart and moved on. They cling to it because they still believe that they can win.

  396. David Corcoran says:

    Lakoff is the same booster who nearly every year publishes reworked, “research” that “proves” that conservatives are stupid, selfish, evil, emotionally-stunted perverts. He has no problem getting published in the progressive rags.

  397. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said (23:09:10) :

    “Most indications are that Arctic ice will be close to normal this summer and there will be a large increase in multi-year ice.”

    First, what data set/range are you defining as “normal”?

    Second, what are you defining as “close”?

    I don’t disagree with the multi-year ice statement to a point, as that is comes from the current and wind conditions in the arctic this winter. However, I would again, ask you to define “large”. Will it take us above some long term average? Will it even take us up to the long term average? (By long term, I mean as long as exact records or observations have been kept or made).

    I think there is some insinuation in your recent and previous remarks that somehow the arctic is showing some full and complete recovery from it longer term trend toward less and less year-to-year ice. This would be inaccurate, and I for one will be especially keen to observe the trend of arctic ice this summer. If it is trending up, then we ought to have seen a great ice extent this winter than last, but we have not, and we ought to see a higher low summer ice minimum than summer 2009. I shall watch this closely, and see if the greater amount of multi-year ice makes any difference, or if the high temps in the arctic, espcially on the Atlantic/Greenland side cause a huge melt taking us below the summer low of 2009.

    For the most accurate picture of what is going on in the arctic, I can think of no better single chart than this:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

    Someone please tell me why this would not be the case…

  398. Alexander says:

    I may be in trouble… I and my siblings were raised by an authoritarian father. But strangely enough, he, despite being conservative, self-educated and successful, he was always receptive to new ideas, encouraged all of our family to read with a dictionary beside us and, if we didn’t know something, “Look it up” rang in our ears. He also took the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ seriously enough to volunteer and serve in the armed forces through two World Wars. He used to insist that “dopey liberals and socialists want to run the world but don’t have the intelligence to understand how anything works, despite their impressive vocabularies filled with nonsense”.

  399. CodeTech says:

    Ryan (07:01:53) :

    …This will cause the water in the tank to heat to enormous temperatures making it a simple matter to extract the heat into a steam turbine and generate useful electricty. Voila, our problems are solved by the very gas that is (allegedly) causing our problems today.

    If you use seawater, it will end up acidic enough to use as battery electrolyte, an added bonus.

    Seriously, I keep hearing from the left that the right is “mean spirited” and “hostile” and whatever else, and yet this is the kind of analysis they seem to produce. It’s nothing more than an attack on a mindset. It’s not even really worth commenting on, since it’s so over the top. Tragically, I do know people who probably would be nodding their heads in agreement.

    and:

    Wren (14:38:36) :
    …but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?

    I know you don’t realize it, but that was one of the funniest things posted here. The real question is how to explain all of the lefties insisting that the “science” shows a “conclusion” that CAGW is a threat that requires action, when the “science” is clearly flawed, the data gathering that is not flawed is manipulated, and all of the proposed solutions would do nothing anyway.

    At some point even the most adamant will have to come to the realization that they were duped, and are completely wrong.

  400. Dave Springer says:

    After looking at the science I’ve determined that global cooling of any degree is bad news and global warming of modest degree is good news.

    This is not surprising given that for the most of the history of life on this planet it was much warmer with a much higher concentration of CO2. Life adapted and optimized over geologic spans of time for those typical conditions. Where is life more abundant and diverse – in the Amazon or in Alaska?

    I’ve been saying for many years “If the earth starts getting colder we’ll be left fervently wishing that warming it up was as easy as burning more fossil fuels.”

    Cooling it off in the exceedingly unlikely event it gets so hot as to cause a net negative effect, on the other hand, is cheap and simple. Most of us have probably heard the term “nuclear winter”. If it gets too hot all we have to do is pop off a very small fraction of the cold war nuclear arsenal in some remote desert region to loft a calculated amount of dust into the stratosphere and bingo, the earth cools down within a matter of days.

    But you might say “Dave! Won’t that cause everyone to get cancer from the radioactive fallout?” Well, it will raise the background rate of cancer significantly but not to some horrible degree. But here’s the thing. There’s a win-win plan to handle that. Let’s take all those trillions of dollars that the global warming whackos propose spending to lower CO2 emissions and instead invest that RTFN (right the f*** now) on curing cancer. See, that way, if we have to pop off some nukes to cool the planet the increased cancer rate is a non-concern because we’ll have cured cancer. And if we don’t need to break out the nukes, well, we still cured cancer and that’s a good thing in an of itself worthy of the investment. It’s called a win-win situation.

  401. Wren says:

    davidmhoffer (23:20:56) :
    Wren
    You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS>>

    And there, in one brief sentence, Wren summarizes the entire AGW debate. Thank you Wren for stipulating that your argument does not rest on facts and that you see no reason that it should.
    ——-
    You missed the point by a mile. Opinions are opinions, not facts, but you seem to think a person’s opinions should be regarded as truth until countered with facts.

    Here’s some opinions I have heard.

    The CRU hack was carried out on orders from Sen. Inhofe.

    President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

    Do you believe these opinions are true until proved false with facts?

  402. Steve Goddard says:

    R. Gates (08:42:56) :

    The 2007 Arctic low was due to less ice on the west side of the Arctic. Ice drifts from west to east and melts in the North Atlantic. This year drift is very low due to the negative AO, which points to a larger amount of older ice in the summer.

  403. Ornithophobe says:

    I already knew Lakoff was a lousy linguist; now it looks like he’s a whackjob as well. This is, after all, a man who managed to piss off both Steve Pinker and Noam Chomsky simultaneously. He’s cracked, his theories are bunk, and he hasn’t done a day of honest research in his life. Pay him no mind.

  404. davidmhoffer says:

    Wren
    You missed the point by a mile. Opinions are opinions, not facts, but you seem to think a person’s opinions should be regarded as truth until countered with facts.
    Here’s some opinions I have heard.
    The CRU hack was carried out on orders from Sen. Inhofe.
    President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

    Do you believe these opinions are true until proved false with facts?>>

    I consider them opinions which might be proven true, and might be proven false, by facts.

    Which returns me to the same point that I have repeatedly made. Why, when asked to support your opinions to you seek to change the subject instead of providing evidence to support your opinion?

    The fact that you can’t suggests you have none to offer. The logic behind this seems to elude you, as you continue to run away from the argument and change the subject instead.

    I have two rats in a cage. I overhead one say to the other “well, if there’s no God, then who cleans the cage”. The other rat pondered for a moment and then responded “the cage was never dirty in the first place. you are delusional if you think it was because look at it, it is clean right now. That poop you just laid down is new poop, there is no evidence to suggest that there was poop before or ever. Your claim that there was poop before, but it is now gone is just an opinion. In my opinion, neither of us poop, ever, except for that one single instance of you going poop just now. Don’t tell me that poop is natural either because my opinion is that it is not. Nor will I consider an experiment where we measure the amount of poop every day and see if it slowly increases and then suddenly disappears since I have no need of facts to show that my opinion os correct.”

    So, while you ponder if I am delusional or not, or if my pet rats are, or both, I want to thank you for your assistance in picking out names for at least one of them, which I will henceforth call “Wren”.

  405. Steve Goddard says:

    Peaceful and open-minded liberals shut down free speech at Ottawa University – by threating violence.
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/speech+cancelled/2718883/story.html

  406. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Wren:

    You have missed the point by a mile. Dr. Lindzen was reporting his observations, i.e. “facts”, not opinions. The facts may be open to interpretation or modification by the introduction of other evidence, but you have no other evidence. You just prefer to ignore Lindzen because you don’t like his position. As for the good Senator, I’d heard from a reliable source it was really a certain Canadian Blogger who did the deed… and the CiC can fix his problem by just releasing the damn piece of paper and then laughing in their faces.

  407. Zeke the Sneak says:

    It helps to use specific examples of the “open-mindedness” of the liberals cited by the good Doctor of cognitive and linguistics science.

    Green opposition to technological progress in nanotechnology:

    “The response to the UK publishing another nanotechnology strategy has been almost universally critical….
    The most common complaint appears to be that it put such extreme emphasis on risk issues related to environment, health and safety (EHS) that it virtually excluded the activity of promoting innovation. This position was so radical it even made one of the world’s most vocal proponents of addressing the EHS concerns surrounding nanotechnology wince.”

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechnology/how-did-the-uk-nanotechnology-strategy-become-such-a-shambles

    From Friends of the Earth:

    “Nanotechnology is being heralded as the basis of the next industrial revolution, yet, amidst the hype there are serious questions about the health and environmental impacts, social and political dimensions of this powerful new technology. The FoE nano project aims to catalyse debate on what is set to be one of the defining issues of our time.”

    http://nano.foe.org.au/

    “Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said. This has nothing in the world to do with being open-minded. It is adopting the position that all technological progress and decent standards of living are unsustainable and automatically “harmful” to “the world.” The opposition to the remarkable vistas of possibilities opening up in nanotech is going to be a textbook case in this point, for any who care to watch.

  408. Enneagram says:

    Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming
    Ann Coulter

  409. Wren says:

    Robert E. Phelan (11:45:52) :
    Wren:

    You have missed the point by a mile. Dr. Lindzen was reporting his observations, i.e. “facts”, not opinions. The facts may be open to interpretation or modification by the introduction of other evidence, but you have no other evidence. You just prefer to ignore Lindzen because you don’t like his position. As for the good Senator, I’d heard from a reliable source it was really a certain Canadian Blogger who did the deed… and the CiC can fix his problem by just releasing the damn piece of paper and then laughing in their faces.
    ======
    Lindzen extrapolated his unverified observations, and you believe Lindzen because you want to believe him.

    As for the CRU hack, the police still are investigating the case, so we don’t yet know exactly what happened.
    However, it may be theft.

    I am wary of people who use things that may have been stolen. I don’t trust people who use things that have been stolen. If someone gives tacit approval to theft by using what’s stolen, I suspect that person also will think it’s OK to lie.

  410. Robert says:

    @ Dave Springer (09:59:59) :

    In SCIAM of January this year there was an article on what could happen if Pakistan and India decide to use their nuclear arsenal on each other.

    20 million people could die directly with up to a billion later on from starvation and global average temperatures could drop as much as 1.2 degrees celcius within a month and could take to over a decade to rise 0.5 to 0.8 degrees wich by then is still well below todays averages.

    For some at the extreme end of the argument this could be their wettest dream ever!

  411. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Wren (13:15:23) :

    Pathetic.

  412. Hank Hancock says:

    Dr. George Lakoff asserts in his writings that conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good through self-discipline and hard work. Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality which sees people as something to be cared for and assisted.

    I believe his concise description lays out the divide between liberal and conservative ideology nicely. Liberals think they need to care for me. They don’t. They think I need their assistance. I don’t. They think the earth needs to be saved from me. It doesn’t. They think science is a tool with which to prove and thereby justify the need to enforce their care and assistance. It isn’t.

    The fallacy of Lakoff’s public exposition on the skeptical view of climate change is he is obviously a liberal – hardly impartial or neutral in his characterizations of climate skeptics. It is not that I want the science to be wrong or feel a need to debunk science. Rather, I am a self disciplined, hard working researcher myself. I expect scientific conclusion to be impartial, unemotional, objective, unbiased and apolitical. When science is hijacked for purpose of posturing a political moral view, it has ceased to be science and has become a political movement cloaked in the false legitimacy of science.

    Lakoff himself cannot differentiate between tenets of science and the convictions of his Nurturant Parent moral view else he wouldn’t spout such utter nonsense that so totally exposes him as yet another shrill, blaming, condescending liberal voice saying “we’re here to care for and help you.” No thanks, George, I can help myself.

  413. John Whitman says:

    Robert E. Phelan (15:45:50) :

    Hey, I haven’t forgotten the pics you wanted.

    Still in Taipei but heading back to SF (for a week) the Adirondack Mtns NY for the summer/fall.

    John

  414. sorepaw says:

    A psychologist’s quick take:

    George Lakoff (pronounced Lake-off, for those who are curious) was a solid linguist 35 or 40 years ago. His ideas incurred the displeasure of Noam Chomsky, but so have the views of virtually all linguists who are not in line with the latest edition of Chomskyanism.

    Since he got into theorizing about political attitudes, he’s essentially been producing junk. On “climate change,” he seems to be indulging in breathtakingly circular reasoning.

    It’s been a long way downhill.

  415. Zeke the Sneak says:

    sorepaw (17:55:27) :

    A psychologist’s quick take:

    Since he got into theorizing about political attitudes, he’s essentially been producing junk.

    I suspected so much, but must say I have not had a look at his book. If anyone really wants to see some exciting neuroscience, you must see Dr. Johnjoe McFadden’s Conscious Electromagnetic Field theory, which he discusses in his book, _Quantum Evolution_. He explores brain function from the electrical polarization of the cell membranes, all the way to the incredibly complex em fields that are produced by the sychronous firing of millions and billions of neurones. Loosely, the synchronous firing is linked to awareness and is happening at various locations all over the cortex, so the field theory offers a simple solution to the binding problem in brain science.

    He is a great writer and I have not looked at the ol grey matter the same since…highly recommended reading.

  416. savethesharks says:

    Robert E. Phelan (15:45:50) : @ Wren (13:15:23) :

    “Pathetic.”

    Agreed. Starting to feel sorry for him actually.

    If he feels he could challenge Lindzen, I would pay to see that debate.

    It would be short in duration though and there would be nothing left but little wren feathers.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  417. Robert E. Phelan says:

    John Whitman (17:14:22) :

    Looking forward to the photos. The Adirondacks are a lot closer to here than Yang Ming Shan…. if you want to come a little further East, I can throw a party here that would make TCM green with envy. The 2010 Summer Climate Picnic. Sheesh. I’m so close to New York that Gavin Schmidt could make it… and he’d be an honored guest if he chose to turn up and snarf a brew with us…

  418. R. Gates says:

    Steve Goddard said:

    “This year drift is very low due to the negative AO, which points to a larger amount of older ice in the summer.”

    ———-

    I’ve been watching that, and actually thought we might see a positive anomaly for the first time since 2004 because of the light winds and related small drift. It certainly has been a good year for the multi-year ice to build back up. But the same light winds (caused by the negative AO) also brought a persistant high pressure area over the region) and higher temps over N. Canada and Greenland, and so I do expect pretty impressive melt in this part of the arctic because of the that. Despite some attempts to characterize arctic sea ice loss as coming all from wind and currents, higher arctic temps do play a part the equation.

    I am sticking with my forecast that despite the rebound in multi-year ice the summer arctic sea ice minimum will be less than 2009 and 2008, but not as low as 2007. Between now and 2015, the arctic sea ice should hit several new record summer lows. If it doesn’t hit at least one new modern record summer low minimum by 2015, by confidence in the validity of AGWT will fall from 75% to 50/50 or lower.

  419. Robert E. Phelan says:

    savethesharks (19:54:34) :
    Agreed. Starting to feel sorry for him actually.
    If he feels he could challenge Lindzen, I would pay to see that debate.
    It would be short in duration though and there would be nothing left but little wren feathers.

    Chris:
    Agreed about the feathers, respectfully dissent about the “sorry”. The only sorry thing in this exchange is wren’s logic, accuracy and integrity.

    This might be a good juncture to point out that some of us use our real names and some of us make public service announcements linking our legal identities to our “handles”. Others with legitimate security/privacy issues declare their bonafides to the blog host. Posters like wren, who swears there is no ideological interest and lots of mirrors in his home, but whose statements belie that, and “sou”, who claims to be a concerned Australian but hasn’t said a damn thing that I, who has never visited Australia, doesn’t already know and know is false, are simply trolls and have nothing to contribute.

  420. Wren says:

    It’s too bad Lindzen’s defenders have little to offer other than ad homiens. He deserves better.

    Lets face it, Lindzen (age 70) is past his prime and fading. It happens to all of us, and is nothing to be ashamed about. I don’t blame him for trying to add to his legacy by finding something new. I would do the same. The problem is you can do worse by trying to do better, and I think his recent work on GRL (Lindzen and Choi:2009) will do little to enhance his reputation. Even Roy Spenser found it seriously lacking.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/

    I don’t know how posters got the idea I want to debate Lindzen. I never said anything about debating him.

    “savethesharks (19:54:34) :
    Agreed. Starting to feel sorry for him actually.
    If he feels he could challenge Lindzen, I would pay to see that debate.”

    But I am flattered.

  421. Butch says:

    As long as we are doing true confessions here, I must admit to being present for the 1st Earth Day. I’m not sure what metaphor made me do it but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

    I lost interest in the early 70’s when all the out of work anti-war Marxists/Maoists hijacked the movement.

  422. Bill Tuttle says:

    Wren (13:15:23) :
    As for the CRU hack, the police still are investigating the case, so we don’t yet know exactly what happened.
    However, it may be theft.

    I am wary of people who use things that may have been stolen. I don’t trust people who use things that have been stolen. If someone gives tacit approval to theft by using what’s stolen, I suspect that person also will think it’s OK to lie.

    Bait and switch. You’re positing a possibility and then treating that possibility as an actuality to further your point.

    The police admit the e-mails were on an open server. Something placed on an open server is, ipsa res loquitur, placed there for people to read or download.

  423. Tamara says:

    Since, as Dr. Lakoff claims, “reason is shaped by the body,” it suggests to me that liberals must have a temperature perception inhibition which allows them to perceive global warming even when their toes are freezing off.

  424. phlogiston says:

    Wren

    “Yeah, well Lindzen doesn’t believe second-hand smoke is harmful to babies, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.”

    Are you going to reference the published epidemiological studies that show that it is? I’m all ears. (Actual direct link epidemiology, not inductive serial assumption statistical nonsense that is just as idiotic as C-AGW.) The dose is the toxin. If you dont understand this statement, you are at least as ignorant of epidemiology as you are of climate.

    Lindzen is a real scientist with courage to challenge politically-driven pseudo-science myths. You appear to be a serial band-wagon jumper with no scientific instinct.

  425. Wren says:

    Bill Tuttle (06:28:42) :
    Wren (13:15:23) :
    As for the CRU hack, the police still are investigating the case, so we don’t yet know exactly what happened.
    However, it may be theft.
    I am wary of people who use things that may have been stolen. I don’t trust people who use things that have been stolen. If someone gives tacit approval to theft by using what’s stolen, I suspect that person also will think it’s OK to lie.

    Bait and switch. You’re positing a possibility and then treating that possibility as an actuality to further your point.

    The police admit the e-mails were on an open server. Something placed on an open server is, ipsa res loquitur, placed there for people to read or download.
    ====
    I know that was a theory, but I didn’t know the police had concluded there was no crime and stopped investigating. What’s your source?

    If they have, I have to wonder why no one has stepped forward and said “I did it, and it’s no crime.”

  426. toyotawhizguy says:

    Skepticism is a form of self preservation, the will to survive, a defense mechanism, it is a trait common in all animals. An example would be a domesticated feline that will not allow itself to be approached by a stranger, even if friendly. (However once the stranger feeds the cat, this will usually change). Natural selection predicts that species lacking healthy skepticism will not survive, and its appearance is the true anomaly. It’s resurgence in humans may be due to a regressive gene that can only gain a foothold in a society that nourishes it, i.e. civilization.
    It is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of the public who are AGW believers have not spent more than a few hours of their time examining the “facts”, instead choosing to put their trust in those promoting the hypothesis and (mis)representing it as an undisputed truth. As an analogy, it is not apparent to the first-time casual observer that a sintered bronze bearing is full of holes until it is examined closely.

  427. Wren says:

    toyotawhizguy (04:17:30) :
    Skepticism is a form of self preservation, the will to survive, a defense mechanism, it is a trait common in all animals. An example would be a domesticated feline that will not allow itself to be approached by a stranger, even if friendly. (However once the stranger feeds the cat, this will usually change). Natural selection predicts that species lacking healthy skepticism will not survive, and its appearance is the true anomaly. It’s resurgence in humans may be due to a regressive gene that can only gain a foothold in a society that nourishes it, i.e. civilization.
    It is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of the public who are AGW believers have not spent more than a few hours of their time examining the “facts”, instead choosing to put their trust in those promoting the hypothesis and (mis)representing it as an undisputed truth.
    ============
    I’m skeptical when people who have spent a few hours examining the facts claim they know more about global warming than climate scientists who have spent years examining the facts.

  428. Jane Coles says:

    George Lakoff wrote an important PhD dissertation back in 1966 (later published as Irregularity in Syntax). Unfortunately, the quality of his work has been in decline ever since.

Comments are closed.