Hump day hilarity: Chris Mooney’s abby-normal post modern science

Chris Mooney has come up with new book to explain why people like you and I are “abby-normal” for not unthinkingly and uncritically accepting all aspects of global warming climate change climate disruption. I haven’t read it, though the cover itself speaks volumes. I won’t commit the same dumb mistake that Igor Peter Gleick committed when he wrote his bogus non-review of Donna LaFramboise’s IPCC book, so I’ll let somebody who has reviewed it speak about it. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

He writes: Chris Mooney, the author and blogger who once alleged a Republican “war” on science, is going back to that well one more time with a new book (above). In it he “explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things.”

Mooney writes:

“[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”

Mooney promises to explain:

“[T]he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts.”

Roger adds:

I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?

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

Next I suppose we’ll hear why we need selective breeding programs to weed out this “genetic scourge”.

Turnabout is fair play:

I’m sure Josh could do a better satire, but hey, this is the best I can do on one cup of coffee.

Some inspiring levity from Mel Brooks:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Humor, Politics, Post-normal science, Satire and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Hump day hilarity: Chris Mooney’s abby-normal post modern science

  1. Ron says:

    I wonder if he’s got a theory on Independents, or on party switchers.

  2. TheBigYinJames says:

    They’re panicking, expect more of this guff.

  3. MangoChutney says:

    compulsory euthanasia for the inferior – now where have i heard that before?

  4. Ed Caryl says:

    Chris Mooney needs to examine his own combination of genes.

  5. JeffC says:

    I would bet that there is a higher percentage of degree’s in the hard sciences and engineering on the right than on the left …

  6. Matt in Houston says:

    I think Mr. Mooney is the one with the mental disorder. I find it rather amusing but telling that the warmistas demand we take their claims on faith yet we are the ones that are unscientific and lacking mental faculties. Modern day witch doctor is a fitting title for Chris and friends…

  7. Jon says:

    Oh well … I’m off to shoot myself … toodle pip!

  8. “I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?”

    Very well should think. Some people need to feel that everything’s all their fault now that the old Orginal Sin story doesn’t wash so well anymore.

    Most of us in the West are born into a consensual reality which is underpinned, psychologically, by archetypal themes and motifs that are derived from a Judaic religion. I’m not anti-Semitic and I think the Jews have many things going for them but, in my opinion, their religion is not one of them, not least because it has caused us to always Fall for the line of being the Fall guy for whatever happens.

    After the account of the Creation of the Earth in Genesis, the very next story we come to is about how man sinned by eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and so was banished from the Garden of Eden.

    No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better. Our subconscious resonates much more willingly with irrationality and it works hard to construct metaphors with such motifs which make sense to it and which override all conscious rationale.

    That’s why it has been very easy to persuade our subconscious minds that we’re about to be banished from the Garden of Eden (the Earth) for the sin of listening to the Serpent (emitting too much carbon dioxide) and for accessing the Tree of Knowledge (the internet) through our Apple Macs. Like the song goes, “I can’t believe we’re on the EVE of destruction.”

  9. Latitude says:

    What kind of gene do you need to make you believe in witch doctors that have not correctly predicted anything…….

    ….I think that gene would have been bred out by now

  10. Caleb says:

    Chris Mooney has to have his tongue in his cheek. If he actually believes himself, well, someone needs to take him aside and explain psychology isn’t a true science. Psychology will never be a true science. It is a pseudoscience…

    ….Unless….

    ……….You wear a white lab coat and grow a small, pointed beard. Only then is it science.

    Chris Mooney lacks the necessary beard.

  11. WillR says:

    Oh wow! The eugenics discussion is open again. I’m off to buy a big supply of popcorn to use while I watch this debate.

    Cheers!

  12. Jay Curtis says:

    You gotta hand it to Mooney. There are a lot of people who will eat this book up. He’ll make quite a bit of money on it. Wouldn’t surprise me if it becomes a New York Times best seller.

    However, the first lesson in psychology for Mooney is that “Projection” is one of the most basic and primitive of the ego defense mechanisms. You can’t create something without revealing a lot about who you are, yourself. The parody title “Chris Mooney’s Brain” is really the more appropriate title for his book.

  13. Brady says:

    I like Mooney’s (lack of) details on the AGU website /sarc
    And a gmail address!
    FOIA avoidance anyone? :-)

  14. Sean Peake says:

    Clearly, Mr. Mooney comes from the shallow end of the gene pool

  15. Eric Anderson says:

    “In it he ‘explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things.’”

    Who decides what the “wrong things” list is? Presumably someone who doesn’t believe those “wrong things.” Very scientific indeed . . .

    I could come up with my own list of “wrong things” and see who believes them (not I, of course, as I would disbelieve every single one of them, thus proving that I don’t believe wrong things).

  16. Amy Ridenour says:

    If I didn’t already know Chris Mooney can’t be taken seriously, his interchangable use of the terms “Republican” and “conservative” would alert me.

  17. Curiousgeorge says:

    I wonder how much time Mr. Mooney spends hiding under the stairs, giggling and sucking his thumb?

  18. TheGoodLocust says:

    How nice – he is using the pseudoscience of agenda-driven punk-written “polls” telling us how uninformed conservatives are in order to support the pseudoscience of CAGW.

    If we really want to find out who is smarter, and perhaps there is a small difference, then we’d need to do a double-blind study using established IQ tests with a sufficiently large sample size and/or correcting for age/education/etc. That is unlikely to happen; they are more interested in declaring certain things to be “true” and then if someone doesn’t believe them they are stupid.

    I guess it just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun of Progressivism – eugenics is making a comeback!

  19. Wilson says:

    Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo?

    Because there are plenty of us…

  20. Austin says:

    Its true that in our past many made their living by killing others and taking their things. One wonders how they justified it and if this sophistric approach is encoded in their genes along with the urge to kill off those that oppose them?

  21. higley7 says:

    So, it mentally deficient to believe in adult, responsible behavior, balancing a budget, living within your means, and not driving yourself into irretrievable debt? And it’s wrong or deficient to oppose “science” which is not science and makes no sense, just because there is an evil agenda afoot? And it’s deranged to believe in personal work, creativity, and productivity, which make up the free enterprise system of capitalism, the only economic system that actually can work by itself without government control or regulation?

    I guess I’m just plain its, then. Gee, somebody sure screwed me up somehow! Now, who to blame?

  22. pat says:

    Mr. Mooney seems quite caught up in his own great understanding of science,economics, and history. So much so that he feels it necessary to “prove scientifically” that anyone who thinks other than himself must be defective. And he thoughtfully worries that he may hurt the feelings of those genetically doomed to ignorance and stupidity. And he has deduced a quick and sure way to identify these imbeciles. They are “Republicans”.
    Mr Mooney has just done more good for skeptics than he can imagine.

  23. Michael Palmer says:

    Wilson says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories ..

    That must be your brain in the jar.

  24. JohnM says:

    Compulsory euthanasia for the inferior [unbelievers]

    Obviously of green forebears…..kill everyone who doesn’t believe what we believe [the right stuff]

  25. Jim G says:

    “Jon says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:12 am
    Oh well … I’m off to shoot myself … toodle pip!”

    Your comment reminds me of the present Mayor Daley of Chicago who in a 1980′s or 90′s Wall Street Journal interview was asked about flunking the bar exam 3 or 4 times and responded, “Yeah, so I flunked the bar, I guess I should go out and shoot myself!” Always loved his refinement, good Democrat that he is. His Dad actually ran a pretty tight ship, if you ignored the crassness, crooked machine, kickbacks and bribery of the city politics.

  26. “[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”

    So, there it is. If being critical of non-conservative opinions is genetic, then too, it is genetic for the followers of said opinions.

    I have often wondered why some folks will follow others over a cliff. The only explanation is it is a genetic flaw. Example: AGW zealots.

    It could be that my father, being an engineer, was an exacting critical thinker. I myself having several science degrees recall that rat maze learning is passed to offspring. A genetic learning attribute. One could make the leap that would explain how this genetic memory is passed on based on the rats offspring born with the knowledge of the key to a maze.

    So, with that in mind we come back to the question at hand. Are we genetically mapped to be gullible or more critical in our beliefs. Why is there a malicious side to those over at say Real Climate?

    I say the answer is in a self-serving greedy personality that shows up as narcissistic self-important behavior. Here we see a book written as another attack on those who do not get inline with their own opinions. Their evilness always ends up in leadership because they have to be in control. They say or do anything to get there.

  27. sean2829 says:

    Let me be the first to recommend that Chris Mooney be invited to be a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. The crowd there will love him.

  28. Actually, there are significant differences in how the “L” (Liberal ~Democrat) and “C” (Conservative ~Republican) minds approach, process, and judge issues of economics, morality, social organization, and even science and technology.

    We have been discusing some of those “L/C” differences FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT on my Blog for several years.

    See Voting and Notions of Fairness, Voting and Notions of Fairness, L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds, What the Democrats Don’t Get, Five Channels of Morality, Emotions and Reasoning – Liberal and Conservative View of the Economy, and For all of the L/C Postings on my Blog.

  29. chris y says:

    The climate change circle of life-

    “Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.

    Not just a dreamer, he also ran some experiments.

    “A remarkable experiment has been carried out in one of the pubic schools of Stockholm, whereby the mental and physical growth of children has been greatly stimulated by electricity. The experiment was made at the suggestion of the distinguished scientist, Professor Svante Arrhenius, who recently advanced the interesting theory that life was spread through the universe by germs driven by the force of light from one star to another.
    The experiment will be continued as long as its good results are evident, and it is hoped in this way to produce a race of practically perfect children.”
    June 13, 1912

  30. Mike Smith says:

    “No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better.”

    The sin wasn’t eating the fruit. The sin was disobeying God’s command not to eat the fruit.

  31. randomengineer says:

    Amy Ridenour If I didn’t already know Chris Mooney can’t be taken seriously, his interchangable use of the terms “Republican” and “conservative” would alert me.

    Failure to distinguish between social conservatives (a disproportionately vocal minority of the right) and republican moderates says that Mooney is so partisan as to self-disqualify from any commentary.

    Ishtar Dingir …and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”.

    The story is allegory from the period of say 13k years back when man transitioned from hunter gatherer tribes to agrarian communities. The “knowledge” (grains and new social structure) was questioned during the early days of the transition because it was demonstrably DIFFERENT than the previous existence with few guarantees of improvement. 13k years ago the story had more impact and relevance.

  32. hunter says:

    And remember this:
    Mooney represents the AGU when he writes this swill.Mooney is a hack bigot no better than a white supremacist or racist eugenicist justifying why they need to find a final solution to the danger posed by the object of their hatred.
    It is long past time for ignorant slimeballs like Mooney to be taken ot the exit of the public square and put out of civil discussion.

  33. JamesS says:

    Mooney’s thesis is just rewarmed Stalinism: anybody who rebels against the State (CAGW) must be mentally ill, because any “normal” person would immediately realize the primacy of the State (CAGW) over anything else. I just wonder if the guy is self-aware enough to know what he’s doing.

  34. Moira says:

    Do we know if Mooney got a publishing grant from the Simulating Science Stimulus Program?

  35. Kaboom says:

    Considering that a republican is a democrat that has been mugged, mugging must be conductive to serious changes in brain chemistry. Someone send me a large box of neatly stacked grant money, please.

  36. Ged says:

    This stuff makes me sick. Don’t let anyone know about epigenetics! Or how our mental choices can reshape our brain, actively, to help reinforce them. You know, brain plasticity? I suppose Mooney hasn’t heard of that either.

  37. Brad says:

    Mooney has already solved this puzzle.

    The reason we reject science is that we know too much science. In his own words:

    “Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere, finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more skepticism and denial—rather than  less.

    “In my experience, climate skeptics [sic] are nothing if not confident in their ability to challenge the science of climate change–and even to competently recalculate (and scientifically and mathematically refute) various published results. It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science. But the fact is, if you go to blogs like WattsUpWithThat or Climate Audit, you certainly don’t find scientific and mathematical illiterates doubting climate change.”

    It’s all so obvious.

  38. DCA says:

    Anthony,

    Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science is a summary of the global warming peer reviewed science since 2007. Produced by a team of 26 scientists led by the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre, the Diagnosis convincingly proves that the effects of global warming have gotten worse in the last three years.

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/11/prweb8948198.htm

  39. Chris B says:

    Some interesting voting stats. Democrat vs Republican 2006

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

  40. Peter Whale says:

    Mooney writes “[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”
    There might be a green house gas that causes global warming.
    There might be a climate scientist who looks at the science.
    There might be an end to vast amounts of taxpayers money wasted on jaunts by the selected nutcases to go to Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban.
    There might be a father Christmas,
    There might be a climate fairy as well as a tooth fairy.
    There might be a ???

    I could go on but I have not read the book only the quote above.

  41. Bertram Felden says:

    I’m one of Wilson’s lot . .

    So if we are left wing ‘unbelievers’ then doesn’t Mooney’s logic mean that Wilson, myself and the legions of other of the same ilk are actually correct in our scepticism?

    And if we are, but people on the right who disagree are wrong, then what’s right and what’s not? Or is this a quantum theory of AGW that we are all both right and wrong at the same time?

  42. mac says:

    Perhaps measuring the length of noses and the distance between eyes is more scientifically valid?

    Perhaps not!

    Anyway does psychology count as a real science?

  43. Max Hugoson says:

    From Feynmann:

    “If it doesn’t agree with experiment, then you are wrong.”

    Dr. Rutherford Aris: (1929-2005) Head of Dept. of Chemical Engineering, U of MN. Conservative, and “Christian”…TWO Phd’s. One in Mathematics, obtained by CORRESPONDANCE while living and working in Edinborough Scottland, the second, London University, in Chemical Engineering.

    The experiement: Real people, real intelligence. Oh sorry, he was an “Engineer”, not a hoity toit “scientist”. Guess that doesn’t qualify.

  44. John West says:

    OT:
    Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:
    “No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. ”

    It’s symbolism! The story is about going from “animal” (no right or wrong, just survival) to “human” (conscience) and how it’s impossible to reverse the process, not that it’s particularly “bad”. Take for example our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, they have socially derived rights and wrongs too, obviously nothing to humanities level but the same Truths still hold, what portions of such “knowledge” they have acquired can’t be un-acquired. Adam and Eve are symbolic of many generations of pre-humans and humans. (BTW the original text doesn’t even say “apple”. I really suggest researching before making a judgment, whether it be GW or religion.)

    Sorry about the OT, hot button issue, straw manning the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, however, science and the Bible agree on most every issue if you don’t just have to read it literally (like a science book). For example; Creation: Bible: From nothing through incremental advancements to man. Science: From nothing through incremental advancements to man.
    Basically the Bible says the same thing as science except unscientifically.

  45. peakbear says:

    Being a probably slightly lefty Brit scientist, I think I’m safe from criticism in all of “The Republican Brain” , “The Republican War on Science” and “Unscientific America”. Surely that last book alienates virtually the entire country – Surely you might what to attract some ‘unscientists’ to have a look at what you are talking back. The first 2 at least only alienate about half the country.

    I’m still not really sure what your political persuasion has to do with whether you believe in CAGW.

  46. I be willing to bet the chimpanzees don’t have to feel responsible for the sky falling on everyone’s heads. :-)

  47. dtbronzich says:

    So we need to fall in step like good little drones chanting “Imhotep” believing in their pseudo-science? Bah!

  48. KnR says:

    Given the number of leftest who are 9/11 truthers , UFO believers etc its a frankly silly claim to make, even more so as when it comes GM or Nuclear there plenty of those who claim to support the ‘science’ on AGW who also totally reject science when it comes these . So in fact their support for science is not based on the truth or the validity of the science but that if the science supporters what they like.

  49. Max Hugoson says:

    Double checked my facts on my old Professor, Dr. Aris. At first I thought I made a mistake, but in the San Diego Ledger Obit they clarified that although he DID recieve his degree, by Correspondence, it was London Univerity, where he then attended to obtain his Phd in ChemE.

    Now, here’s the KICKER that makes this all the more hillarious. (If we want to talk, RAW intelligence):From the Ledger Obit.

    “Dr. Aris, known as Gus, was born in Bournemouth, England, on Sept. 15, 1929, the son of Algernon Pollock Aris and the former Janet Elford. At 16, he completed a bachelor’s degree in mathematics at the University of London; the university, reluctant to grant a degree to one so young, did not officially confer it until 1948, when he was 19.”

    Again, he then completed his Phd in Mathematics, the same way, via “correspondence”. Golly, that would probably make him a “leading edge home schooler” too! (Obviously a primative neandrethal…NOT!)/sarc

  50. BradProp1 says:

    I am a product of a good public education that started in 1961. I was fortunate enough to have teachers that taught me the value of forming my own opinion based on facts and ask questions when others’ opinions/statements didn’t add up. Now this Mo(r)oney is trying to tell me I’m stupid because I don’t believe in AGW because the facts don’t add up and the warmists can’t produce the facts to answer my questions? I’m not the one with “STUPID” written on my forehead!

  51. JPeden says:

    I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?

    I’ll tell you how, Chris, you stole my idea! That is, as it applies negatively more correctly to people like you, Chris. I’ve been claiming for years that Faux Liberals, in contrast to Classical Liberals whose name the former parasitized, and now known as Progressives, are either evolutionary throw-backs or dead ends. And that what we are roughly involved in now is only another survival struggle between hominid subspecies, the Parasites and the Producers, a categorization which of course is not my idea alone.

    But perhaps we could just say that the tired old propagandistic “Fairness Doctrine” distinction between Liberals and Conservatives simply does not get it right. No, the difference is between [Faux] Liberalism and Rationalism. And leave it at that.

  52. James Sexton says:

    [T]he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history.
    ============================================================
    Lol, while the science posit is funny enough, I’d only say, there are many notable skeptics that are definitely not Republicans. In fact, some here, are derisive towards Republicans. It is well documented.

    But even more laughable is Mooney’s posit that Republicans reject mainstream economics? What does a libtard know about economics? Those people think you can tax yourself wealthy and spend yourself to prosperity. Mainstream economics? Does the moron believe advocacy equals mainstream?

    Additionally, history revisionism is part and parcel of the liberal approach. All one has to do is look at the claims they make about climate change. It always has predicted more/less snow, rain, drought, floods, hurricanes….etc.

    I wonder what color the sky is in Mooney’s world?

  53. cotwome says:

    Is this the Ideological Democrats version of the ‘Bell Curve’?

  54. Nick says:

    Why does this remind me of the eugenics movement of the early 1900′s?

  55. Smokey says:

    Young Frankensein had to be one of the funniest movies evar! A sample.

  56. chip says:

    So someone who writes:

    “[T]he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts.”

    has written an entire book bemoaning the state of science?

    (And, presumably, the Democrat idea that you can continually spend more than you earn is a widely accepted policy fact.)

  57. In, “the Battle Cry of Freedom”, J McPhearson relates that, in the 1850′s, a Southern Democrat produced a book that claimed the superiority of the Norman “Master Race” descent of the Plantation owners over the Anglo-Saxon, “Slave Race” descent of the northern Republicans. What is it about the Left that they return to the same old, same old?

  58. Mike M says:

    Joseph Goebbels is blushing in his grave.

  59. jorgekafkazar says:

    Ira Glickstein, PhD says: “…We have been discusing some of those “L/C” differences FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT on my Blog for several years.”

    Fascinating insight based on immersion in Bhubaneswar, another culture. Very nice! Yayyyy, Glick!

  60. LarryD says:

    Re: TheGoodLocust says: November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am …

    Here’s a dirty little secret of the Progressives. Eugenics never left. It was just relabeled.

  61. Nicanuk says:

    Bloody hell only 50 years after WW2 and the same eugenics – they are inferior to us because “science” tell us so – rationale rears its ugly, slick head. Shame on him. I haven’t read the book so I might be talking bollocks but then it sounds like Mooney is too. Shame and twice shame. My grandad was lucky enough to only get shot in the leg to stop the last lot of fascists who were attempting world domination.
    Stay awake people.
    Freedom is ours to lose, the costs of getting it back are terrible to contemplate.

  62. Gary Pearse says:

    I have a theory based on observation that the lifelong activist type is engaging in transference from the frustration of unfulfilled rebelling against autocratic fathers (less commonly mothers). Such hypercritical, unhappy types make up a very large pool of useful fools for the cunning opportunists who work such an idea for fame, power and profit. CAGW is a natural for this kind of thing. One can see in the totalitarian ideas of elitist policy prescriptions, malthusian bugaboos, the hatred of mankind that has become the despoiled science of biology and the throngs of idiots that can be enlisted. Remember the cultural revolution in China where “wrong-thinking” persons were invested into hard labour and retraining courses for correction of their revisionist, radical thinking, with death being the diploma for the incorrigible. This is scary stuff! Remember the hate laws don’t protect those who are going against institutional hatred….. Lighten up Gary, your shtick is supposed to be geology and engineering for which post normal is impossible (the crowd isn’t going to insist designing a railroad bridge).

  63. Nick Shaw says:

    Seeing as my comment won’t come up on Roger’s blog, I’ll put it here in the hopes he notices. ;-)
    I take Republican to encompass all conservatives and, as such, “half the population” doesn’t do us justice, Roger. We actually have them outnumbered according to many polls.
    That being said and I a member of the majority, I declare liberalism (in the modern sense) / progressivism to be a disease we must treat.
    Do I have a consensus? I’ll bet I do, so, seeing as consensus passes for science these days, it shall be done!

  64. JEM says:

    The world divides into two groups:

    a) Those who, upon seeing some movie scene that scares them, cover their eyes and shriek
    b) Those who watch closely and think “That’s a cool effect, I wonder how they did it”

    There are just a lot of people inclined to believe things that are scary, and the scarier the story the stronger the belief.

    One-dimensional vs two-dimensional people – those for whom there’s just ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ vs those capable of mentally plotting both risk and reward axes.

  65. Al Gored says:

    DCA says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
    Anthony,

    “Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.”

    Thanks DCA. Looks like a treasure trove of very scary ‘conclusions… just in time for Durban.

    And “Elsevier, the world-leading publisher of scientific, technical and medical information products and solutions, is a proud to release The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.”

    Proud? Looks like Elsevier is a real Team Player.

    ” Produced by a team of 26 scientists led by the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre, the Diagnosis convincingly proves that the effects of global warming have gotten worse in the last three years…”

    Proves?

    “The report places the blame for the century long temperature increase on human factors and says the turning point “must come soon”. If we are to limit warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial values, global emissions must peak by 2020 at the latest and then decline rapidly. The scientists warned that waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.”

    Do I smell the Convenient Precautionary Principle? We can’t wait for more information!!! because the threat is so great!!! Act now!!! No pressure, of course, but think of The Children!!!

    Also known as the Used Car Sales Principle.

    I can hardly wait for the post(s) shredding this propaganda piece.

  66. Alan the Brit says:

    I see, so people who question the Global warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Climate Catastrophe theory are mentally deficient, just because they don’t want the world Ruled (I say ruled because governed lends an air of democracy about it) by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, unsackable, Global Socialist Government that wants to control every single aspect of our lives, what we eat, drink, say, think, & do, with the intention of systematcially destroying the United State of America while it’s at it, along with all national boundaires under its Agenda 21 blueprint, brainwash our children into looking to the state for their information, education, & reasoning, & not their parents, etc, etc? Makes sense I guess! What do I know, if Hugo Chavez can turn up at Copenhagen & get a standing ovation for declaring that “capitalism has caused climate change”, & Robert Mogabe by saying “the western developed countires have caused climate change!” & get a standing ovation, I think we know where this is all leading us – up the garden path!!! :-)

  67. Charlie A says:

    I have observed that scientists and academics trend towards being liberally politically and believing in CAGW. By “scientist” in this context I mean primarily research oriented scientists.

    OTOH, it seems that most engineers are skeptical. And a majority lean conservative.

    I’m convinced that research scientists and academics have little accountability in their professional life. Very little direct feedback, and much of that feedback is really opinion rather than hard objective feedback.

    OTOH, most engineers get direct, solid feedback. The product works or it doesn’t. The bridge works or it falls down.

    In the political arena, it appears that liberal politicians choose programs and actions because they sound and feel good and nice, rather than whether they actually have the intended effect.

    Conservatives, as are engineers, are more likely to look at what actually works, and what the actual observed effects of programs and laws really turn out to be in real life.

  68. Werner Brozek says:

    “DCA says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Anthony,

    Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.”

    A quote inside: “”A must read book for those wanting the truth about climate change–credible and authoritative by some of the world’s leading scientists.” — Dr. Robert Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002″

    See the following for a rather different quote by Dr. Robert Watson:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29#cite_note-WebsterPagnamenta2010-6

    In 2010, he warned the IPCC against overstatement:[6]

    “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.” Adding “We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

  69. Larry Geiger says:

    Just to set the record straight it’s the:
    “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.
    Genesis 2:9
    NOT the “tree of knowledge”.

  70. pwl says:

    What about us Canucks? We don’t Republicans or Democrats up here in the Great White North, our Conservatives are like your liberals and our Liberals are like your leftists while our New Democrats are not just like the socialists all Americans fear, they are socialists that Americans fear – and yes they do sometimes form the governments, although more recently it’s Provincial governments rather than Federal. Guess Chris Mooney’s theory only applies to those who can vote within the the borders of the USA – as such it seems like a loonie theory and as such is falsified due to the geographic boundary issue.

    I have a better theory: the science is wrong or at least the alleged evidence isn’t sufficient to convince people that it’s correct.

  71. TRM says:

    I wonder what his theory of Libertarians would be?

    As one who doesn’t believe but tries to understand things he is welcome to his beliefs but not at the expense of my trying to understand things. Of course nobody will every understand everything but in basing ones life on understanding you grow because you never stop trying to learn. It is a Zen sort of philosophy in that the journey is more important than the destination.

    It would be a lot easier for me to change my understanding than for Mr Mooney to change his beliefs. All you have to do is prove things to me but no amount of proof, including an ice age, would change his beliefs.

  72. Nick Shaw says:

    John West says:
    Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:
    I won’t get down into the weeds regarding religion, John, though I agree with you. I believe Ishtar was speaking in jest but, one thing that struck me. The Tree of Knowledge had an apple (broadly speaking) on it that when eaten, was our fall from grace.
    The Tree of Knowledge today also has an Apple on it!
    I knew it! Steve Jobs is the devil!!! :-)
    Absolutely no disrespect to Mr. Jobs…maybe :-)

  73. mondo says:

    Your presentation implies that the last quote in italics is by Chris Mooney, whereas if you look at Roger’s post, it is his own (ie Roger’s) comment on Mooney’s thesis. It might help to clarify by replacing the words “he adds” with “Roger adds”.

    REPLY: Good suggestion, done – Anthony

  74. Ray says:

    A true scientist is by definition a skeptic. Those that are not are doing social science.

  75. Michael D Smith says:

    Sounds like a little of Sir Francis Galton has found its way into Chris’ momma’s jeans.

  76. nikki says:

    “He adds:

    I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?”

    ;) Hey, this is straight from C. Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)! Where he wrights about statistcs:

    “Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight
    Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully
    half of all Americans have below average intelligence).”

  77. _Jim says:

    Jay Curtis says on November 9, 2011 at 8:18 am

    You gotta hand it to Mooney. There are a lot of people who will eat this book up. He’ll make quite a bit of money on it.

    Would it be too early to call him the “Michael Moore” (of “Roger and Me’, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11″ et al) of his particular sect (notwithstanding physical factors)?

    .

  78. Colin in BC says:

    He adds: I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?

    So hard — oh so hard — to not invoke Godwin’s Law here. Biting my tongue…

  79. Todd says:

    Is there something about a leftist, Journalism major brain that prevents them from believing in the scientific method?

    Just a simple answer will do. I need anyone to write a book or anything.

  80. Sun Spot says:

    Soooo Matt Ridley has a Republican Brain and is anti-science eh Chris ??
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf

  81. TomB says:

    Wilson says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo?

    Because there are plenty of us…

    Amen brother Wilson. I’m tired of the whole right wing conspiracy meme in regards to the AGW debate. Being a conservative is not a prerequisite for calling the science into question.

  82. Jay Davis says:

    I’m one of those people who believes liberalism/progressiveism is a mental disorder. Those that suffer from this disorder, who we label “liberals” or “progressives”, do not have a grasp on reality. They live in a fantasy world where they know better than everyone else and therefore are best qualified to rule over us all – telling us how we should live, what we should eat, what we should read and so on. They also believe the rules they apply to us do not apply to them. To date, there is no cure for this disorder, though sometimes a liberal/progressive is cured, at least as far as their opinion on gun control and criminal control is concerned, after they are mugged or assaulted. But that “treatment” is not reliable enough for it to be generally recommended.

  83. DJ says:

    Mr. Mooney’s sequel will be most interesting as he is forced to analyze, and pass judgement based on race.

    South America, for the most part, doesn’t care about climate change.
    India doesn’t care about climate change.
    South east asia doesn’t care, China doesn’t care, Africa doesn’t care.
    The middle east doesn’t care about climate change.

    Who cares? North America and western europe.
    It appears that the only people truly preoccupied with global warming is my fellow anglos. And some of us think the preoccupation with AGW is folly.

    So, apparently, only a small fraction of the earth’s 7 Billion people aren’t genetically defective.

  84. Jeremy says:

    It is actually quite frightening to think that anyone listens to Mooney. He’s essentially creating justification for eliminating large sections of population, whether he means to or not.

    What happened the last time political activists mis-used the authority of science to justify political action?

  85. Al Gored says:

    Todd says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:33 am

    “Is there something about a leftist, Journalism major brain that prevents them from believing in the scientific method?

    Just a simple answer will do. I need anyone to write a book or anything.”

    Yes. One cannot fail any experiment or question any data too strongly lest their self esteem be diminished. Everybody gets full marks for attendance.

  86. DirkH says:

    Mooney needs money.

  87. Iskandar says:

    I work for a DNA sequencing company. Given his loony ideas, he must have some extreme abberations in his DNA. We would love to have his genome sequenced, so we could suggest therapy for this poor fellow, along with advise how handle this in his offspring.

    /sarc

  88. Michael Palmer says:

    peakbear says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:16 am

    I’m still not really sure what your political persuasion has to do with whether you believe in CAGW.

    I’m on the wrong side of this correlation as well, but it seems to be at least as good as that between CO2 and temperatures.

  89. EternalOptimist says:

    I wonder how he asks us to falsify his theory. Do we have to wait 17 years or something ?

    or maybe it’s simply non-falsifiable

  90. Joe Horner says:

    So how does he explain people like me who don’t believe in Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Carbon Induced Climate Alteration or whatever they’re calling it now, but wouldn’t vote Republican even if you held a gun to my head in the voting booth – leave aside the fact I’m in the UK for a moment ;)

    As a lifelong confirmed Socialist it really does annoy me that my carefully considered views on a single topic get me labelled as some neo-facist capitalist profit whore* Belief or otherwise in the current state of climate science is (should be) nothing to do with political leanings – I honestly am a virtual commie in my general outlook**.

    It’s to do with capacity for independent thought, a willingness to listen to all sides, and to judge arguments entirely on perceived merit. Attributes that political parties of ALL flavours tend to frown on, or there’d be no such thing as the “Party Line”.

    Even if I was completely new to the debate, without the balance of evidence I’ve personally looked at, the fact that the AGW camp are so keen to politicise their position like this (and using absurdly general stereotypes to do it!) rather than sticking to discussing the science would immediately make me wary of their motives!

    *No offence intended to Republicans by that but I get the distinct impression that’s what the AGW movement are really thinking when they say “Republican”. Just as valid as their other views, but there ya go!

    ** If you neo-fascist capitalist blah-blah-blah’s want to see me as some pinko nuke weilding threat to global stability because of that then fair play to you :D

  91. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    I’m extremely genetically defective. I don’t beleive anyone, even myself.

  92. JohnWho says:

    [snip - over the top]

  93. AC1 says:

    Chris Mooney’s long form Freudian projection.

  94. R. Gates says:

    Ron says:
    November 9, 2011 at 7:55 am
    I wonder if he’s got a theory on Independents, or on party switchers.

    _____
    Take it from my personal experience…Independent’s brains are the most unusual of all.

  95. Olen says:

    So Mooney admits global warming is an opinion.

  96. gator69 says:

    “A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”
    Lyle H Rossiter Jr, MD
    The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

  97. Q. Daniels says:

    Ayn Rand was a better physicist than Chris Mooney will ever be.

  98. Spector says:

    As best as I can tell, post-normal science implies reaching scientific conclusions with minimal supporting data when a hypothetical threat is seen to be so dangerous that it must be declared true out of an abundance of caution. Perhaps this might better be called ‘fear-forced science.’

  99. Objective truth by the scientific method is only obtained by persistent skepticism that continually tests all models against data. We need to uphold the scientific method against the efforts of Mooney et al. who seek to impose political control over science by “chicken little” alarmism.
    e.g. See Trenberth’s effort to reverse the null hypothesis.
    Climate null (?) hypothesis

    PS Does Mooney claim the existence of the “gay” gene by natural selection?

  100. Bill Illis says:

    The history books will write about this period and they will say …

    “Even though the evidence up to 2011 pointed to … , the ___ side continued to … ”

    What does the actual evidence to 2011 say?

  101. Max Hugoson says:

    “nikki says” – Alledged that Eisenhower was upset when he found out that 1/2 the population were “below normal intelligence”.

    Frankly, I think that’s a MYTH. I did, however, 10 years ago, hear an overly self important NPR reporter say this, “Despite 4 years of effort, fully 1/2 of all students taking the standardized testing in the New Jersey school system fall below the mean..”

    Two thoughts immediately – Next version should say, “Despite INFINITE years of effort…” and “It should be obvious which SIDE OF THE MEAN” this reporter falls on..”

  102. Dave Wendt says:

    If Mr. Mooney is suggesting that he and his cohorts at DESMOGBLOG represent the genetic intellectual superiority of Liberalism, I’d say that is the logical equivalent of loading up the old Mossberg 12 gauge pump and touching one off into your Florsheim. Anyone who lacks the wit to see the incredible irony of bannering your blog with the line ‘Clearing The PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” when your founding principal is one of the biggest purveyors of PR in the Western world is obviously operating from a deficit in the old brain pan. A check of their “About Desmog” page

    http://www.desmogblog.com/about

    shows that apart from their PR maven founder, they are graduates in journalism, which as we all know is widely credited with instilling intellectual rigor and critical thinking. Do I really need a sarc tag on that one? Anyone credentialed in STEM fields seems to be notably absent. I’ve seldom bothered to visit their site, but I did waste some of my valuable time to read the posts that Mooney suggests are indicative of what will be provided in his book, which I would point out is strictly vaporware at this time, promised for release sometime next year. Given the level of mindless blather that has been flooding forth in the run up to Durban and the next IPCC fantasy document, I can’t say his efforts are at the top of the heap, but I’d definitely put it in the top 5 and probably in the top 3.

  103. G. Karst says:

    nikki says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:30 am

    (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully
    half of all Americans have below average intelligence).”

    You cracked me up!
    Sometimes only humor will convey a technical element that would otherwise be “lost”.

    A woman once said to me after reading her life expectancy had bumped up to 73 yrs, “I will be alive at 73… too bad about you”.

    I replied “What it is really saying is: that of all the people born on your birthday – half will be cold, stone, dead, at 73! What evidence, can you offer, that suggest, you are a member of the other lucky half?” Crickets chirped for an embarrassing long time. To cheer her up, I mentioned “The good news is – the older you get the longer your life expectancy becomes! Crickets continued their chirping. :) GK

  104. Mr. Mooney has taken the position that skeptical people can’t be trusted to evaluate new facts and come to valid conclusions. That’s a pretty tough argument.

    The opposite of skeptical is gullible. Does Mr. Mooney think that gullible people are more likely to make valid conclusions? I could read more of his arguments but I’m just not gullible enough to spend my time on such a tired old saw.

  105. JohnWho says:

    JohnWho says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:08 am
    [snip - over the top]

    No problem – at least I now know at least one thing that is considered “over the top”.

  106. Dana H. says:

    “Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo? Because there are plenty of us…”

    Not to mention us evolution-believing, RIGHT-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo. But there may be fewer of us.

    Mooney’s thesis is idiotic on so many levels. But perhaps the biggest idiocy is that it commits the fallacy of self-exclusion: “*Your* ideas are a consequence of your genes and the structure of your brain, but *my* ideas are a consequence of rational consideration of the evidence.”

  107. Dave Wendt says:

    DCA says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
    Anthony,

    Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science is a summary of the global warming peer reviewed science since 2007. Produced by a team of 26 scientists led by the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre, the Diagnosis convincingly proves that the effects of global warming have gotten worse in the last three years.

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/11/prweb8948198.htm

    I don’t have time to do it myself but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the authors of this work. The introductory document for the Copenhagen conference had a similar number of authors and about half were from the ClimateGate email list. It begins to appear that the “overwhelming consensus of climate science” is likely composed of dozens rather than thousands of “scientists”

  108. Foxgoose says:

    From Wikipedia, on “The Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union”:-

    the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR arose from the conception that people who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally sick since there was no other logical rationale why one would oppose the sociopolitical system considered the best in the world

    I think we can all see which road Mooney and the green lobby are heading down here.

  109. Bob Diaz says:

    I think I can summarize his book; I’m right, so I’m going to come up with a psyco babble reason to justify my position.

    You can NOT use psychology to declare what is “right” or “wrong”. Truth doesn’t work that way.

  110. Roy UK says:

    From the useless wikisource:

    1. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding … was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly dubbed as the ‘gay gene’ in the media, causing significant controversy. Sanders et al. in 1998 reported on their similar study,

    2. Eugenics is currently defined as the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”, usually referring to human populations.[2] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.

    3. Schizophrenia has long been blamed on bad genes or even bad parents. Wrong, says a growing group of psychiatrists…

    Skeptic gene anyone?

  111. Bernal says:

    So let’s say you are liberal and pregnant and you find out your fetus is genetically conservative so of course you start thinking about an abortion. But then you find out the fetus is a gay male. As a liberal can you ethically terminate the pregnancy?

    How about this: if conservatives have a genetic disease should we become a protected class? Does that not make an argument for valuing conservative culture? Should not our multicultural sensitivities be respected?

    Is Chris Mooney guilty of hate speech? What about my feelings? Gloria Allred?

  112. Spector says:

    RE: David L. Hagen: (November 9, 2011 at 11:28 am)
    “Objective truth by the scientific method is only obtained by persistent skepticism that continually tests all models against data.

    The proponents of ‘fear-forced science’ might say that the danger they have perceived is so horrendous that all skepticism must be laid aside. Others might start to wonder if these people have some ulterior motive or irrational obsession behind their urgency.

  113. Sparks says:

    Maybe this lunatic would prefer if we all had the genetic make-up of a dog being obedient and somewhat faithful, I favor a breed of dog that is harder to earn it’s respect, the more time you commit to this breed the more you will get back. When it comes to lunatics (yes I think it is an accurate description) there is a universal constant in their literature, it usually tries to suggest that there is an understood science behind the human mind, this is simply not true, No one person can study another person from birth to death and accurately document one persons lifetime and then come to any kind of scientific conclusion, based on the study of one person (hundreds of thousands of people would be needed for this study for any accuracy), the amount of data collected for one life time would take a thousand men a thousand years to compile and organize their data before they were able to give an accurate descriptive conclusion on that one persons life.
    Here we have one person claiming that they know everything about anthropology and have claimed all kinds of specifics, liars have taken shortcuts in science, it is called and known as Post Normal Science, They preach but know sweet F**k all, The misanthropy and political slant is irrelevant by the fact that it wrote…

    I have to go. I’ll get back to this later.

  114. cwon14 says:

    I’m surprised the PSU sex abuse scandal hasn’t been brought up in relation to the Michael Mann records stone-walling. Considering the global stakes of climate fraud I think it should be covered.

  115. KnR says:

    In short ever that does not agree with me is mad and bad, and I know this to be true becasue I said so.

  116. G. Karst says:

    The hubris is particularly noticeable, in light, of the near possibility, of climate sensitivity (2xCO2) reduction to 1.7 oC.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/climate-sensitivity-lowering-the-ipcc-fat-tail/

    I would say, that proves many warmists gullible. GK

  117. Latitude says:

    Well that’s good news….
    Republicans get a second opinion….and libtards don’t

  118. u.k.(us) says:

    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:42 am
    “Your comment reminds me of the present Mayor Daley of Chicago who in a 1980′s or 90′s Wall Street Journal interview was asked about flunking the bar exam 3 or 4 times and responded, “Yeah, so I flunked the bar, I guess I should go out and shoot myself!” Always loved his refinement, good Democrat that he is. His Dad actually ran a pretty tight ship, if you ignored the crassness, crooked machine, kickbacks and bribery of the city politics.”
    ==========
    Seems you are a bit out of the loop :)

    The present Mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel, formerly President Obama’s Chief of Staff.
    President Obama appointed William M. Daley, the brother of Emanuel’s predecessor as mayor, as Chief of Staff to replace Emanuel.
    The machine has moved into the White House.
    God help us all.

  119. mkelly says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:41 am
    “…Mossberg 12 gauge…”

    When I hit the old Hush Puppies I typically use my Mossberg .410 bolt action with 3 shot internal clip. Bolt action being slightly slower than a pump usually allows me to stop at one shot.

  120. KnR says:

    In short ever ONE that does not agree with me is mad and bad, and I know this to be true becasue I said so.

  121. elmer says:

    At first I thought this article was called “Dump Hillary Day”

  122. Aunty Freeze says:

    Not sure what Mooney would make of me. Politics generally to the centre, maybe left leaning, an environmentalist who looks after the wildlife around me, help create butterfly habitats and a keen wildlife photographer. But I don’t believe in the AGW scam because i don’t believe real science is being done. After seeing the money involved, the data hiding and fiddling and the nastiness of the whole business, I am a true skeptic.
    It has nothing to do with politics to me, I just have a very strong sense of right and wrong and hate the corruption of it all.

  123. DocMartyn says:

    I have not read the book and so it would be unfair to comment, but a couple of pointers.
    The incubation of a neonates brain with testosterone/dihydrotestosterone causes profound changes, including handedness (hence a complete switch of hemisphere specialization) and 3D/2D spacial ability.
    There is more difference between the brain architecture and skills of males and females, than there is within the sexes.
    In any tested mental skill the variance within female POPULATIONS is much smaller than in male POPULATIONS; women, as a population, cling to the mean and men have more individuals at the left and right hand sides.
    Thus, you will always find more males, as a % of the population, who are brilliant and more who are crap.

    Males are mental extremists, and women mental conservatives. There will always be more male grandmasters and more male criminals.

    In real terms the split in humans isn’t between the political left and right, but between males and females.
    Anyone who writes about the functioning, data processing and predictive simulation modeling performed by the brain, without mentioning this point, is a first class asshole.

  124. Vince Causey says:

    Had Mooney written his masterpiece a few years ago, I would bet that one of the “wrong” things he would have poked fun at, that conservatives believe in – was that the European single currency would never work. Certainly, in the UK, this was the voiced – and ridiculed – opinion of many right wingers. How Mooney would have hoisted them up for ridicule, had the book been written then.

    I wonder how many other “wrong” things will turn out to be not so wrong given the passage of time? But who cares – Mooney will be laughing all the way to the bank either way.

  125. Dave Wendt says:

    mkelly says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Dave Wendt says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:41 am
    “…Mossberg 12 gauge…”

    When I hit the old Hush Puppies I typically use my Mossberg .410 bolt action with 3 shot internal clip. Bolt action being slightly slower than a pump usually allows me to stop at one shot.

    Stopping at one doesn’t appear to be one of Mr. Mooney’s goals. He’s already hit both feet and looks to be working his way up to the knee on both legs.

  126. DanB says:

    I am glad my Ph.D. review board did not read this book, or they never would have awarded me my Ph.D. in engineering, thinking I was genetically incapable of actually understanding science.

  127. Dave Wendt says:

    Jay Davis says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:41 am
    I’m one of those people who believes liberalism/progressiveism is a mental disorder. Those that suffer from this disorder, who we label “liberals” or “progressives”, do not have a grasp on reality. They live in a fantasy world where they know better than everyone else and therefore are best qualified to rule over us all – telling us how we should live, what we should eat, what we should read and so on.

    If you go to the archives of this site

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

    you will find quite a number of compelling dissections the good Doctor (MD/Psychiatry) has done on the subject of Liberalism as a psychological disorder.

  128. nikki says:

    Perhaps there is another parallel. Mr Mooney doesn’t realise it, his claims are something like Diedrik Stapel’s research! ;)
    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel
    via Luboš
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/diederik-stapel-liberalism-codified-as.html

  129. Spector says:

    This book is an obvious attempt to project a political stereotype. I do not think that this is healthy. One might just as well have a book entitled “The Democratic Brain: Why he does not Believe in America.” This sort of thing does not do anyone any good. Perhaps it would be beneficial for Chris Mooney if he had a dream where he walks into a bathroom and sees Herman Cain’s face looking back at him through the mirror.

  130. Walter says:

    So how does Mooney explain me?

    Socially lefty, pale green (cos I can’t standing wasting things).

    Old fashioned in my approach and thinking.

    Don’t like spending money needlessly.

    Thinks there should be a welfare state and system (up to a point).

    Believes in markets and free enterprise economies and the spirit of entrepreneurship.

    Thinks governments should provide some essential services (eg water, sewerage, and [horrors] electricity) as a social service not as a profit center.

    Does not like rabid greenies, WWF, Greenpeace or other extremist nutters of any shape or size.

    Does not BELIEVE in the religion of CAGW – but used to and changed my mind after doing a lot of reading.

    Perhaps I have some other special gene Mooney has not yet identified.

    Trouble with generalising and trying to apply your pet theory to others: its damn hard to be 100% right. In this case, he’s just a nutcase.

  131. DirkH says:

    DocMartyn says:
    November 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    “In any tested mental skill the variance within female POPULATIONS is much smaller than in male POPULATIONS; women, as a population, cling to the mean and men have more individuals at the left and right hand sides.”

    Males have only one X chromosome, women have two. This forces the male organism to use ALL genes on the one copy of the X chromosome whereas female organisms switch off one copy in each body cell, but not always the same. Many genes that code for intelligence reside on the X chromosome. This results in a large intelligence variance in males, and less in females because they mix the performance of the two copies of the X chromosome. In other words: 15% of males are idiots, 15 % are geniusses. For women, only 1% are idiots (less female prison population is the result) and only 1% are geniusses (less engineers etc.).

  132. hunter says:

    Sadly, what Chris Mooney suffers from is a lack of character. It is not at all likely that this due to genetics, but rather his personal choices.
    This book of his is not only an idiocratic flat out wrong waste of paper and ink. It is more importantly a damning self-indictment of the author and those who enabled him to do this pitifulhack work.

  133. 1DandyTroll says:

    Mr Mooney is probably one of those cheery easy going green lefties who mean so very well telling the autistic person he’s sorry for him suffer autism. ;-)

  134. ROM says:

    When I come across the type of warped and twisted mentality exhibited by Chris Mooney for some reason i am reminded of that quote from John Wanamaker, [ 1838 ; 1922 ] Department Store owner and one time US Postmaster General.

    “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.

    The principle seems applicable here!

  135. Sirius says:

    In Soviet Union (1922-1991), dissidents were mentally ill…

  136. Theo Goodwin says:

    This is a case of “There is nothing new under the sun.” Mooney’s basic premiss is simply that our beliefs are caused. They can be caused by any among the usual suspects such as “environment,” capitalist oppression of the proletariat, “our paradigm,” or you name it. Apparently, Mooney does not have the knowledge or courage to return to the modern source of the basic premiss in the writings of Karl Marx. There has never been a genuine communist who did not believe that our beliefs are caused. There has never been one who believes that our beliefs are caused who is not disposed to be a communist.

  137. Jim Barker says:

    Skeptic jeans are blue!

  138. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    He’s not writing to the general population, he’s writing to those fanatics who need reaffirmation about their superiority.

  139. Jackstraw says:

    Chris Mooney, a self proclaimed Climate Expert, and Psychologist.

    That’s quite a stretch for an English major.

    Perhaps he can write. Alas I will never know.

  140. Sirius says:

    @ Rhoda Ramirez
    To be more exact: self proclaming moral superiority. Oh yeah!

  141. Al Gored says:

    Wonder how Mooney explains Rick Perry. He was involved with Al Gore’s political campaign – the Presidential one, not the Carbon Trading one – and a Democrat. Now he’s a Republican who laughs at the AGW scam.

    So what happened to his brain? Or was it a genetic mutation?

    Comrade Mooney’s theories are childish, simplistic, moronic, but convenient. He is a useful idiot as Lenin called such people. A joke. But this kind of stuff is what totalitarian states find toooo helpful and that trend is not funny at all.

  142. Myrrh says:

    Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Most of us in the West are born into a consensual reality which is underpinned, psychologically, by archetypal themes and motifs that are derived from a Judaic religion. I’m not anti-Semitic and I think the Jews have many things going for them but, in my opinion, their religion is not one of them, not least because it has caused us to always Fall for the line of being the Fall guy for whatever happens.

    After the account of the Creation of the Earth in Genesis, the very next story we come to is about how man sinned by eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and so was banished from the Garden of Eden.

    No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better. Our subconscious resonates much more willingly with irrationality and it works hard to construct metaphors with such motifs which make sense to it and which override all conscious rationale.

    It’s a story about the emergence of self-reflection, rationality, responsibility and creativity in the human animal, referring back to Genesis I, ‘made in the image of God, male and female with free will’. It’s not a tree of ‘knowledge as amount of information/omniscence’, but “the tree of Life and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil” which is knowledge as in Wisdom, “Happy is the man who finds Wisdom.. Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a Tree of Life to those who take hold of Her, and happy are all who retain Her.”

    Not that some in Jewish teaching didn’t use these verses to debase man’s human condition, with the added bonus of expressing misogyny, but the West’s particular reading of it with biases consolidated came out of the mind of Augustine, the originator of the dogma of Original Sin. He misread

    2:16-17 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil– of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die. [Septuagint]

    as ‘but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, I shall kill you’. He went on to bolster this view by mangling Paul and so on. His dogma begins with the premises that man does not have free will and that Adam (male and female) was male, and that Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden. The original sin therefore was not obeying God and loss of immortality. This has never been the ‘standard’ classic teaching which reads instead of a demand for obedience and punishment by death for violation, a warning of consequence, don’t put your fingers in the electric socket.. In the standard teaching they were not immortal, neither mortal nor immortal, their choice was eating of the Tree of Life and learning the knowledge of good and evil which entailed experiencing death, that is being fully of this world, or not, (not really alive, it is the tree of life and so not eating would be not fully realised which is the potential from ‘becoming gods like Us’ in knowing what is good and what evil). In standard Orthodox (Eastern Christian) teaching, God is uncreated energy, love, grace and getting back to Eden, is to become fully realised in the image of God through the learning of the knowledge good and evil, by bringing good out of ourselves and not evil (God became man so man could become God). Not a relationship of man as created creature as object lesser other created with no free will, but man as created creature of God uncreated, manifest in the world. The difference in will is between the Augustinian Original Sin with no free will having to obey a superior and Orthodox free will in image and likeness in synergistic relationship, in which the aim is like creativity, image as in reflection, (so Orthodox can never be Augustinians, because free will means that God cannot ever impose his will so there is nobody to obey).

    It’s been a while since I discussed such things, hope I’ve made it clear, or at least not too confusing. Jewish teaching on the subject includes such explanations as Adam (male and female in the one body) as they split into two halves by separating out from the side (i.e. Eve not created out of a rib, but of one body becoming two), having no backs, nothing behind them.

    What we are is what we can create ourselves to be, and we’re still stuck with mankind in the control of the 6% sociopaths able to utilise our natural bent for creative co-operation by manipulating our basic trust.

    ..

  143. Bill Illis says:

    The UAH lower troposphere temperatures are currently at about -0.1C.

    So today, temperatures are below the average of 1979 to 2010 (the last 31 years). That is, without a big volcano dropping temperatures as has happened twice in this period.

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7721/dailyuahtempsoctober201.png

    What exactly should a rational person conclude about global warming given that? Does one have to be Left-wing person to see this is consistent with the theory? Does one have to not understand numbers and graphs to get it? Why is the evidence so solid that only a biased person would not see the global warming?

    Why don’t we believe? Facts is facts – it is not happening. Emotional reasoning has a problem with facts. Logical people use evidence first.

  144. Eugenics, pure and simple. Disgustingly so.

  145. sdcougar says:

    This has been a great night for hiilarity. I’m LMAO at a quote I just read. While looking for the Yale study that correlates skepticism and scientific literacy, this article stated, regarding that study that Mooney “must have needed CPR after he read this paper….Mooney, whose chest must still hurt from the defibrillator, is deep-sixing this until he can spin it:”
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/07/yale-study-global-warming-skepticism.html

  146. _Jim says:

    Walter says November 9, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    So how does Mooney explain me?

    Socially lefty, pale green (cos I can’t standing wasting things).

    Forgive me if I think there is more to ‘it’ (being a ‘lefty’) than that, such as the propensity for “taking other people’s money and spreading it around” because at some point federal ‘force’ becomes involved (read that as: taxing authorities who resort to force to ‘take’ at some point because the lefties have ‘written law’ that created a ‘federal’ program of some sort that requires paying for). This is a far cry from asking someone for help, or seeking help for a charitable organization.

    Even – I – can’t stand wasting things …

    .

  147. TRM says:

    “Spector says: November 9, 2011 at 11:28 am
    Perhaps this might better be called ‘fear-forced science.”

    So that is what FFS stands for. I always wondered about that :)
    If that was intentional then well done if not you are an accidental genius.

  148. Poptech says:

    First of all I cannot comment anymore at DeSmogBlog as the admins will not approve the account I made. Likely because I exposed the hypocrisy of their site,

    The Truth about DeSmogBlog

    “DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.”

  149. Poptech says:

    I would like to respond to some of the comments directed at me here since they will not allow me to respond at DeSmogBlog,

    AnOilMan – Mon, 2011-11-07 13:03

    [...] You see… My brother in law is a crazy rightwinger. And in a regretable dining incident the subject of Climate Change came up. [...]

    I told him to find a scientific paper supporting his position. He pulled up a pdf opinion piece on a Blog. (He didn’t know what a paper was…)

    Undaunted he pulled up this;

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    It looks dire. It looks official… it even has REAL papers. So it must be so. But as you can guess, he couldn’t understand at all what he was seeing.

    I read a few papers I realized that there were a lot of mistakes. (Papers with conclusions unrelated to their thesis.) That’s when I decided to examine Energy and Climate. A polisci editor with no useful knowledge of science who thinks of Energy and Climate as a means of pushing her own political agenda.

    I have no idea what he is referring to “Papers with conclusions unrelated to their thesis” as he fails to mention a specific paper. There is nothing called “Energy and Climate”. I assume he is referring to “Energy and Environment” of which all that nonsense he mentioned is corrected here,

    Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

  150. TomRude says:

    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP)—Penn State trustees fired football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier amid the growing furor over how the school handled sex abuse allegations against an assistant coach.

    If climate science was like sports…

  151. Poptech says:

    Phil M – Mon, 2011-11-07 17:17
    Yes, Poptech has been covered on numerous blogs.

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=15&t=745&&n=571

    All of this has been refuted,

    Rebuttal to Greenfyre – “Poptart gets burned again, 900 times”

    “Greenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true. [...] As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.”

    Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

    “In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic’s arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

    Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated “analysis”. His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.”

    He has just found any paper that even mentions & cloud & has said yeah thats good enough.

    Total lie.

    Poptech was also responsible for a smear campaign a few years back on one of the desmog members. He posted the real name & address of a member in the hope they would be persecuted or attacked.

    Total lie. At Greenfyre’s site I posted the contact information from a vicious Greenfyre commentator who posted by their full name. Everything that I posted was freely available online and found using Google. No threat was made and what I did was perfectly legal. I did that to expose how much of an idiot he was nothing more.

  152. Poptech says:

    Mooney’s book his hilarious as it fails to explain myself, I am a climate skeptic yet support evolution theory. I am also agnostic and a libertarian. I don’t fit any of his stereotypes. What is poor Chris Mooney, B.A. English to do?

  153. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Does Amazon have a climate phrenology section for this book?

  154. Agnostic says:

    My god! How ridiculous.

    The world is not divided into republicans and democrats!

    What dismays the most about the ‘debate’ on climate change is that has been co-opted by political agendas. It’s not a scientific debate (enough) but a political one. Now that is a real travesty.

    @ Joe Horner:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/hump-day-hilarity-chris-mooneys-abby-normal-post-modern-science/#comment-792497

    I am completely with you comrade… :-)

    My own politics is very much to the left and my view of republican politics is that they are a bit beyond the pale. It just so happens that the skepticism of climate change aligns with their own political ideologies and they have adopted as part of their ’cause’. But if CAGW really was a serious issue with good evidence to support it, then it’s the first duty of government to act on our behalf.

    What frustrates me is that it seems to be a particularly American bent to characterise the debate and political idiologies based on their experience of their own country. It’s a big world out there! There are completely different, alien and often very successful political systems other than their own. And this is what makes this book so ridiculous – is he saying that republican and democrat differences are confined to the Borders of the US?

  155. Ralph says:

    The picture in this article is of the comedian Marty Feldman. If there was ever an ‘abnormal’ brain, it was Marty’s – (in the nicest possible way).

    .

  156. M2Cents says:

    I expect that he believes in retrophrenology as well

  157. DEEBEE says:

    Chris Mooney the mordern day Margaret Sanger. Perhaps he can start the Planned Preisthood to ensure acceptance of science.

  158. Spector says:

    RE: TRM: (November 9, 2011 at 7:58 pm)
    REF: My ‘Fear-Forced Science’ as a better alternative for ‘Post-Normal Science’ statement.
    “So that is what FFS stands for. I always wondered about that :)”

    Website: “http : // acronyms . thefreedictionary . com / FFS” now lists 62 possible polite definitions for FFS, including ‘Fast File System,’ ‘Focused Feasibility Study,’ and ‘Fumble Finger Syndrome.’
    :-)

  159. DEEBEE says:

    In the satrical picture of Chris Mooney’s book, his brain should be shown as having only a right lobe to acknowledge his left only thinking. Oh while I am on a roll — given his last name need one say anything more.

  160. Jessie says:

    Smokey says: November 9, 2011 at 9:40 am
    Young Frankensein had to be one of the funniest movies evar! A sample.

    Eh you are a funny boy Smokey

    Look up the takes on that short act in Young Frankenstein – they were endless. (endlessly hilarious).

    Anway because I got snipped on this one, I will try again (totally unrelated to post) but a very early rebutt on eugenics ;)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8TjBbnsoJ0&NR=1

    And also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsXyDrf9HO0

  161. Jessie says:

    Nope try again

  162. Jessie says:

    And this

  163. hro001 says:

    Al Gored says:November 9, 2011 at 9:56 am
    DCA says: November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am

    [Re the Copenhagen Diagnosis]

    “Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.”

    Thanks DCA. Looks like a treasure trove of very scary ‘conclusions… just in time for Durban.

    Actually it’s a treasure trove of recycled very scary conclusions. Despite 2 press releases and fanfare (Nov. 24/09 and Dec. 15/09) it didn’t pack quite the wallop its authors probably expected to get from the MSM.

    According to the website, this is the “second edition” [although Elsevier does not list it as such]

    If there are any differences between the first edition (which is available as a free download) and the second (iUS$49.95 for 114 pages), my guess is that, like a second verse of a song, this one will be “a little bit louder, and a little bit worse”. The headline of their Dec. 15/09 Press Release:

    Emissions cut of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 needed for industrial countries for 2 degree C limit
    Tuesday, 15 December 2009 – 1030 UTC/GMT

    I seem to recall that 14 of the 26 “leading scientist” authors were IPCC-niks (but it was not an IPCC document)

  164. hro001 says:

    Here’s the list of authors, for the Copenhagen Diagnosis (according to Elsevier):

    Ian Allison, Nathaniel Bindoff, Robert Bindschadler, Peter Cox, Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudre´, Matthew England, Jane Francis, Nicolas Gruber, Alan Haywood, David Karoly, Georg Kaser, Corinne Le Que´re´, Tim Lenton, Michael Mann, Ben McNeil, Andy Pitman, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Rignot, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Stephen Schneider, Steven Sherwood, Richard Somerville, Konrad Steffen, Eric Steig, Martin Visbeck, Andrew Weaver

    Exactly the same as those indicated on the website for the 2009 version – including Stephen Schneider. Wonder how he managed to contribute to this “second edition”.

    Perhaps they should have called it “The Copenhagen Diagnosis Dusted off for Durban”

  165. Fernando says:

    Iskandar says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
    I work for a DNA sequencing company. Given his loony ideas, he must have some extreme abberations in his DNA. We would love to have his genome sequenced, so we could suggest therapy for this poor fellow, along with advise how handle this in his offspring.

    /sarc

    / SARC

    fragment,

    A T G C T C G A C G T T C G A C T T A G C
    C T G C A A G C T AC AGW AGW AGW TTAG

  166. Gail Combs says:

    JeffC says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:06 am

    I would bet that there is a higher percentage of degree’s in the hard sciences and engineering on the right than on the left …
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You would win that bet. The DEMOCRATS even did a poll that supports your conclusion!

    This is from the Blair-Rockefeller Poll (YUP oil/banker money from the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute) with the University of Arkansas. It seems to be a Democratic party think tank poll to figure out why they lost so many of the 2010 elections.

    ….poll results shows that while Tea Party members are politically sophisticated….

    …The Blair-Rockefeller Poll found that Tea Party members are predominantly white, middle class, educated….

    Tea Party members tend to have a higher income, more education and lower unemployment rates than non-Tea Party members, they are more pessimistic about the future. When asked about their personal situations, 36.9 percent of Tea Party members reported they expect things to be worse or much worse in the coming year….

    http://newswire.uark.edu/Article.aspx?ID=16325

    And here are the Democrats:

    Shifting Support for Democratic Party…
    ….While older voters continue to vote in high percentages, compared to younger cohorts, clear support for the Democratic Party is confined largely to African Americans. While older Hispanics generally favored the Democratic Party, they showed substantial willingness to vote for Republican Senatorial candidates in the 2010 midterm election. Further, the traditional Democratic support among older Caucasians continues to decline, particularly among older Caucasians living in the South…..

    http://blairrockefellerpoll.uark.edu/5292.php

    The report showed older people were more inclined to be conservative and Republican. There was a “…a 23 point gap in favor of the Republican Party among a group that is highly involved in contemporary political life.”

    …..the traditional Democratic support among older Caucasians continues to decline, particularly among older Caucasians living in the South. If these trends continue, the 2012 presidential election will require the Democratic Party to continue to bring young, and often unreliable, voters to the polls. Further, the Democratic Party must continue to make inroads into the growing Latino/Hispanic population. If the GOP is able to maintain its grip on older voters in the South, that tend to not only vote at high rates, but are also overwhelmingly conservative, Republican and willing to support GOP candidates the Democratic presidential campaign strategy will be forced to continue building winning coalitions without the assistance of most of the southern states. With growing populations and over one-third of the Electoral College votes needed to win the Electoral College, losing support among the elderly is an important trend that scholars must continue to monitor….”

    http://blairrockefellerpoll.uark.edu/5292.php

    I guess that explains why the school systems are targeting young white males for brain damage that will make them more easily led and keep them from thinking for them selves.

    “..Among elementary students, 17% of all students and 33% of white boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and the vast majority had been medicated for this condition
    Neither Safer nor Jensen reported ADHD rates by race and gender. Such reporting is important (in addition to reporting by age groups) because prevalence and treatment have been documented to vary by all three factors, with the highest rate of ADHD among 6- to 9-year-old white boys”
    http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html

    “…Lead researcher, Prof. Joan Baizer of the University of Buffalo says, “clinicians consider Ritalin to be short-acting. When the active dose has worked its way through the system, they consider it all gone.” She went on to say that this concept may be wrong, that their research “suggests that [Ritalin] has the potential for causing long-lasting changes in brain cell structure and function.”” http://www.yourspine.com/Chiropractic/Ritalin+May+Cause+Longterm+Brain+Damage.aspx

    And back to the Rockefellers and following the money with the Rockefeller – Pharmaceutical industry connections.

  167. Gail Combs says:

    Nick says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Why does this remind me of the eugenics movement of the early 1900′s?
    ________________________________________
    Because the movement never went away it just went underground and morphed into “population Control”

    …Berdahl served as president of Texas A&M University before coming to Berkeley. During a presentation about his case, Chapela revealed that a spermicidal corn developed by a U.S. company is now being tested in Mexico. Males who unknowingly eat the corn produce non-viable sperm and are unable to reproduce….

    http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm

    California-based Epicyte corporation developed the corn with money from the USDA. Biolex Therapeutics acquired Epicyte and the corn Biolex Therapeutics is a private company based near my home in Pittsboro NC the last I checked.

    This is just one of the new GM crops, known as biopharmaceuticals, that produce industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals within their tissues.

    http://askville.amazon.com/kind-corn-seed-Epicyte-develop-2001/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=55840510

  168. Gail Combs says:

    TRM says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

    ….It would be a lot easier for me to change my understanding than for Mr Mooney to change his beliefs. All you have to do is prove things to me but no amount of proof, including an ice age, would change his beliefs.
    _______________________
    You are making the mistake in thinking Mooney actually BELIEVES the stuff he is spewing. CAGW is nothing more than a political device used to scare the unthinking into handing over their freedom and wealth. It has ALWAYS been about power and money. That is why the IPCC only looks to find evidence that mankind is the villain specifically Western Industrial Civilization.

    It is interesting to note that the villain or villein was originally a free peasant and sometimes a minor landholder not a serf. The rights to a serf could be bought and sold but it was not “slavery” since the “rights” were limited. http://books.google.com/books?id=SOdNT0xFnJsC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Medieval++Villein+%22Free+peasant%22&source=bl&ots=NyQDgJYAp0&sig=n53H7WS62JJl75fgkzaHjM4cEro&hl=en&ei=qOG7Tv2kC4-2tgeUkLnPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

    It would seem the hatred of “Free Peasants” by the Upper Class is centuries old given how the word for “Free Peasant” has morphed into meaning a “scoundrel – rascal – rogue – miscreant – blackguard” a person “capable of a crime, wickedness or depravity”

    I sometimes wonder if the whole “Socialism” bit was created as a method to push the “Middle class genie” back into the bottle and reinstate an Upperclass/Serf society.

    Direct from the United Nations:

    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

    United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 – Preamble

    “If you don’t have the right to own property…you are property!” Anon.

  169. Gail Combs says:

    Jay Davis says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:41 am

    I’m one of those people who believes liberalism/progressiveism is a mental disorder….
    _______________________________
    Actually anyone who leans far left or far right I find VERY scary. They have more in common than one would think because their goal is to force their views on everyone else. They also blindly follow dogma and do not bother to think for themselves.

    This is why you find “Left” and “Right” here on WUWT. We think and therefore moderate our views more to the center combining the good parts of both and rejecting the extremes.

  170. Rob Crawford says:

    “compulsory euthanasia for the inferior – now where have i heard that before?”

    This is why they re-adopted the title “Progressive”. They wanted to get back to their roots.

  171. Matt says:

    Seems to me that if Chris Mooney and his ilk actually thought they were winning the social, political, economic and scientific debates, they wouldn’t need nor want to write books like this. In fact, they are not. They know they are not. This book is simply an indicator of the level of their hysteria over their impending marginalization and powerlessness. Their tears of utter despair are yummy to me.

  172. Resourceguy says:

    This is more evidence of personality type manifestation (and infestation) as opposed to science or climate. We need another reference page for that.

  173. RoHa says:

    “I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?”

    For those of us outside the USA, it will come as no surprise.

    In Australia we do have some people like that, but we keep them together in a special institution. It’s called “Parliament”.

  174. RoHa says:

    Mainstream economics?

    The problems start when people do accept what economists say. Keynes, Hayek. Friedman, Mises, etc., are all a bunch of charlatans.

  175. Poptech says:

    RoHa says:
    November 10, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    Mainstream economics?

    The problems start when people do accept what economists say. Keynes, Hayek. Friedman, Mises, etc., are all a bunch of charlatans.

    Keynes is considered mainstream economics and a tiny bit of Friedman but not Hayek or Mises. Friedman, Hayek and Mises are certainly not charlatans. I highly recommend you read them.

  176. Smoking Frog says:

    Myrrh November 9, 2011 at 4:54 pm
    In the standard teaching they were not immortal, neither mortal nor immortal, their choice was eating of the Tree of Life and learning the knowledge of good and evil which entailed experiencing death, that is being fully of this world, or not, (not really alive, it is the tree of life and so not eating would be not fully realised which is the potential from ‘becoming gods like Us’ in knowing what is good and what evil).

    The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are two different trees. God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the latter, “for when you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

    You have an amazing talent for getting things wrong and writing at length about them.

  177. Myrrh says:

    Smoking Frog says:
    November 10, 2011 at 11:36 pm
    Myrrh November 9, 2011 at 4:54 pm
    “In the standard teaching they were not immortal, neither mortal nor immortal, their choice was eating of the Tree of Life and learning the knowledge of good and evil which entailed experiencing death, that is being fully of this world, or not, (not really alive, it is the tree of life and so not eating would be not fully realised which is the potential from ‘becoming gods like Us’ in knowing what is good and what evil).”

    The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are two different trees. God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the latter, “for when you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

    You have an amazing talent for getting things wrong and writing at length about them.

    Shrug, there’s one tree in the midst of the garden, the Tree of Life and (which is) the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil. If you think you can acquire Wisdom, “She is the Tree of Life”, by ignorance of the difference between good and evil, bully for you..

    When all’s said and done, a God who creates mankind, male and female, in image and likeness with free will and then demands obedience under threat of death is obvious irrational, a liar and manipulator.. Made worse, totally insanity, if that is taken from the premise of the Eastern Church which does not have the separation of created creature as an inferior who must not think for himself, where mankind is seen as the uncreated God created creature, as that would make God ordering himself, to not disobey his order to himself and then punishing himself with death for disobeying.. :)

    In the West, thanks to Augustine, the meaning of image and likeness is not understood, hence the sin of disobedience in wanting to acquire knowledge which is deemed God’s alone, where ignorance is seen as perfection and death as punishment for wanting to be like God, not as Easter Orthodox have it, as teaching of consequence of the danger inherent in it.

    All I was pointing out was there are explanations of why not to eat the fruit that is not irrational. Eastern Orthodox traditionally don’t have this irrationality, the guilt of Original Sin was a creation of Augustine’s which became the default Christian dogma in the West. For Orthodox Christians the difference is between God uncreated and God in the created, mankind in image and likeness is God. Extrapolating from this view, standard traditional Eastern Christianity, Eden is the beginning of this self-discovery, they are in potential, and with the aim to self-realisation of being God, in whose image and likeness we’re created.

    Anyway, I shan’t discuss this further than this post, as this would go against board policy, and the arguments are as convoluted as those for and against AGW…, I was merely giving the brazen serpent of healing a rational explanation from tradition which she said was lacking in the West’s psyche, and giving the author of it, Augustine, as she thought this was the religious teaching of the Jews – to make it clear, the Jews don’t have this doctrine of Original Sin; for them mankind was created with free will with the capacity for good and evil, the OS doctrine was a creation of Augustine’s misreadings consolidated out of biases etc. Eastern Orthodox keep to the Jewish basic here, that mankind is created with free will with the capacity for good and evil, hence Jesus’s teaching, to bring the good out of ourselves if we want life. See Pelagius v Augustine arguments at the time of OS’s creation if you want to explore this further on your own.

  178. Myrrh says:

    P.S.
    Smoking Frog says:
    November 10, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    You have an amazing talent for getting things wrong and writing at length about them.

    Only to someone who thinks their own view is correct and everyone disagreeing is wrong. Objectively you first need to understand that there are differing viewpoints, when I give an argument from “tradition” it is from that particular viewpoint. You can argue ’til you’re blue in the face, say, that visible light heats water, but traditional physics says it can’t – this isn’t my opinion, it is what traditional physics teaches about the properties and processes of visible light and matter it impinges upon. Same here, the view that doesn’t read the dogma of Original Sin in Genesis goes back 2,000 years in Christianity, the Augustine doctrine of OS of guilt ridden man condemned to hell just for being born goes back only 1600 years and the Jews have even more centuries of tradition to add in which they never had that doctrine. In other words, you’re not arguing with my personal opinion, but with consolidated bodies of thought about something. Whether you think they’re right or not is personal opinion because the difference here is that a particular interpretation which is the foundation of any belief system, tradition, is a matter of belief, and a never ending argument because belief systems don’t require to be proved. But, if you want to prove I’m wrong about the physics of visible light, then understand you’re arguing in a tradition which demands proof, science, and tradition has already established what the properties are and what processes are possible. In other words, you have to prove traditional physics wrong. You can do this by proving that your view, say that visible light heats oceans, is physically possible and until you do that all you are demanding I belief is your opinion.

    And taking this back to the subject of opening post, it is because Mooney is defending a belief system and not science that he demands compliance without attempting to show proof that his science claims are real physics. Claiming it’s proved in science is not a substitute for presenting proof of that claim.. Not being able to prove it his time is spent in making personal attacks on individuals or groups regardless of accuracy, because accuracy is not important in defending unprovable belief systems for those who demand others comply with them. It’s when we demand obedience to ‘our particular view, our tradition, our belief’ about something when the problems begin and the antagonism towards those who won’t believe escalates, even to mass slaughter as those with differing views are marginalised. Those who hold particular belief systems regardless of how many believe or don’t believe in them don’t have this need to prove their beliefs right by the amount of people believing them, “consensus” isn’t proof any belief system is real, but it is irrelevant in science. Marginalising and directing hate against those who disagree with you about anything shows paucity of thinking, here Mooney is doing that in defending an unproven in science claim by directing spite against those who dare point it out. Show the science or be happy in your belief system without demanding that everyone else complies with it.

  179. RoHa says:

    “Friedman, Hayek and Mises are certainly not charlatans.”

    Tosh. Hayek inspired Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of British Industry. Friedman, Hayek, and Mises are the core ideologues of the economic system that has just brought fiscal ruin to the world.

  180. Poptech says:

    Hayek inspired Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of British Industry.

    Please explain how.

    Friedman, Hayek, and Mises are the core ideologues of the economic system that has just brought fiscal ruin to the world.

    Please explain what part of their ideologies supported government deficit spending, the social-welfare state, government guaranteed mortgage loans and government bailouts? The current economic system has nothing to do with their ideologies. They never advocated Keynesian Economics, Crony Capitalism, Progressivism or Social-Democracy.

    You really seem confused on what the current economic system is and what they advocated for.

  181. Tucci78 says:

    In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

    – H.L. Mencken (collected in his Chrestomathy, 1949)

  182. Chris says:

    Ummm, you do realize the book isn’t even out yet and no one has read it, so you are kind of making yourselves look like fools by attacking something you don’t know anything about.

  183. JSmith says:

    “I won’t commit the same dumb mistake that Igor Peter Gleick committed when he wrote his bogus non-review of Donna LaFramboise’s IPCC book, so I’ll let somebody who has reviewed it speak about it. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.”

    How has Dr Pielke Jr been able to review the book, when it is not out yet and he doesn’t say that he has actually read it ? Someone has made a “dumb mistake”…

Comments are closed.