From CNSNews.com – Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.
George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.
Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person’s understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs — including what they think about global warming.
“It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
“Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not and whether the world is going to be harmed,’” Lakoff said.
In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.
“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.
…
Read the entire piece here
=======================
The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
Wow! A professor @ur momisugly Berkeley, where feeling good has been honed into a fine art and where they teach how not to hurt anyones feelings, including your own, says only liberals see the facts and can be honest with themselves….. ? and Conservatives only – “feel” and go about the world guided only by beliefs……? Really? So is it the cognitive capability of the brain that guides it to the left and sees the world you wish it were, in denial of human nature? Or is it an overwhelming emotional need to deny ones human nature that blurs the cognitive capability to grasp the reality of ones life and see the world not as it is, but how you wish it were?
Ah, right Professor, spoken like a true conservative. It depends on the individual.
Oh, by the way Professor, I have a bridge that you can see from most of Berkeley that I want to sell you – cheap! Well, maybe not that cheap. Maybe you and a group of your fellow professors could pool your money….
Nice pic of Monckton.
REPLY: You know what Mr. Hooper? Take your opinion elsewhere. Both Feldman and Monckton suffer from Graves disease.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/graves-disease/DS00181/DSECTION=symptoms
Do you also mock people with handicaps?
– Anthony
Robert E. Phelan (12:11:01) :
Wren (11:24:41) :
“It relates directly (to global warming) because conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” Lakoff said.
====
Yes, people committed to an ideology will tend to deny or dismiss information that suggests the ideology is flawed.
But this is nothing new.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wren, are there any mirrors in your home?
=======
I’m not committed to an ideology.
Slabadang (10:44:05) :
Lakoff hahahaha!
Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
I wonder what diagnos he gives.
Lindzen
Spencer
Singer
Pielke
Ball
Carter
Armstrong
McIntyre
Mcitirick
Christy
======
Some people have to be different. Being different gets you more recognition then you would get otherwise.
“Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that ‘cognitive’ brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.”
let me translate…
Brain function prevents conservatives from believing in AGW.
let me try again…
Thinking prevents belief in “climate change”
Hey! I think he’s right!
So Perfessor (rhymes with) Lackoff — does that mean smarter people just accept the science without question? That doesn’t really sound very smart, does it?
A scientist is supposed to ask questions. Are your students not supposed to ask questions? Should they accept this and everything else you and the other professors say just because you say so?
I seem to remember a version of Flash Gordon in which the mad scientist was called Dr. Jerkov.
@ur momisugly Doug Proctor
Thanks very well put.
Perhaps Doc. Lakoff rythme with Jack… has hit on something.
Conservatives apply reason [and have a stronger affinity with that]
whereas liberals are open minded, will believe anything and are susceptible to emotive noise.
Ralph (11:54:33) :
Uhuh … is this the kind of ‘Liberal open mindedness’ that makes people want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine? That open, eh?
The modern progressive statists don’t “want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine.” They want to be the all-powerful state machine that controls the rest of us, while blithely ignoring any suggestion that those controls apply to them. They enjoy jumping on their Gulfstreams to fly off to semi-monthly confabs at various gardens spots around the planet, where they can formulate rules for how many sheets of TP we may use per throne room visit, what kind of light bulbs we may use, what, where, and if we may drive and how much extra it should cost if we do, etc., etc. All while lunching on caviar and truffles washed down with a nicely chilled bottle of the Dom. They love to hector others about our obligation to serve the needs of the poor and oppressed of the developing world, while their every action ensures that said poor will be endlessly condemned to their present fate. They lie awake at night dreaming of innovative new ways to tax every aspect of human existence. Said taxes are completely mandatory for others, but are the meerest of suggestions for themselves. They believe that people are possessed of an infinite number of “rights” but just as long as they are the only arbiter of what those “rights” are. Those rights will usually involve them taking the fruits of the labors of others and dispensing them to those unwilling to labor in their own behalf for as long as the recipients are willing to support their quest for power.
Peter Miller (11:51:25) :
Dr. Rock – I’d Rather Have A Bottle In Front of Me (Than A Frontal Lobotomy)
I love that too 🙂
DaveE.
James Sexton (13:18:15) :
Wren (11:32:46) :
Slabadang (10:44:05) :
Lakoff hahahaha!
Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
I wonder what diagnos he gives.
Lindzen
Spencer
Singer
Pielke
Ball
Carter
Armstrong
McIntyre
Mcitirick
Christy
The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]
=====
That’s not many people.
“Do any scientific societies of standing dismiss the threat of CAGW?”
Wren, you’re a little backward in your thinking, basically asking to disprove a negative. My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven. In regards to CAGW, the question/problem was posited that the earth is getting warmer, that warmer will be disastrous and that man’s carbon emissions were primarily the cause. It isn’t up to anyone to give attention to nor dismiss, nor to prove anything other than the “scientists” that made such ridiculous assertions. It would be a mistake for anyone calling themselves a scientist to dismiss out of hand any postulation without looking at the facts first. Of course, the more facts that get revealed the more it seems that science will in the end dismiss it as a hoax abetted by bad math masquerading as science.
=====
You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”
Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.
As for theories, science doesn’t “prove” theories.
Doncha just love it when anyone, and I mean anyone from any side of the debate, professes to know what or how I think? If someone really was interested in figuring this out, wouldn’t they…wait for it…ASK me what or how I think?
Liberals are so open minded their brain has rolled out.
Thanks mods. Really when dealing with these issues, sooner or later one arrives at snippable conclusions.
Andrew W (12:46:06) :
Thanks for your answer and for explaining your position. It’s roughly identical with mine only that i think we don’t have increasing warming happening but we have slightly raised temperatures as long as the CO2 concentration is rising (the anomaly being more proportional to the growth rate than to the absolute level of CO2).
But i don’t think it’s a left-right issue. We have enough outliers here. Polarization happens when people are organized but there are many more people who refuse to join a political organization and still make up their own opinion.
Oh and talking about unorganized people: Even a lot with a rather conservative worldview will probably take AGW for granted given the media coverage, at least here in Germany and the UK. You see dramatic scenes in the television, the TV person you trust explains that the ice is melting because of your car, you believe…
I’m neither conservative nor liberal. The climate data shows nothing out of the ordinary is happening in climate. I am going with the data.
What does that make me?
“Wren (13:48:00) :
[…]
Some people have to be different. Being different gets you more recognition then you would get otherwise.”
We know that you’re different, Wren. It’s ok.
Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story
Anthony said this? I don’t see a name by it.
REPLY: Yes, it’s true. -Anthony
Those here who have responded with a rant against liberals seem to be rather hilariously in complete agreement with Dr Lakoff’s thesis that liberals support AGW and conservatives oppose it. Indeed your only dispute with what he says seems to be about which side should be described as having open minds.
Unfortunately not all people who appose AGW do so for reasons that I agree with. Some even deserve the name denier. It is a broad tent and not everyone in here is very nice. In particular I wish all you liberal bashing extreme conservatives would go play somewhere else.
“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.
Whoa whoa whoa … he’s saying that climate scientists and social scientists work under the same paradigm? (yeah yeah, way out of context, but hi-larious)
Oh looky here what our friend the wikipedia has to say about recent activities of Mr. Lakoff:
“In 2008, Lakoff joined Fenton Communications, the nation’s largest public interest communications firm, as a Senior Consultant.”
So… maybe Mr. Fenton had a little suggestion to make with respect to the future publications of a certain Mr. Lakoff? 😉
Fenton himself acknowledges it:
http://www.fenton.com/intelligence-report/2008/08/linguist-lakoff.html
Wren (14:01:02) :
You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”
Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.
My point Wren, you asked if some scientific body has dismissed CAGW. I can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist no more than anyone can prove CAGW doesn’t exist. I suggest they exist on the same alternate universe, but I can’t prove it.
Liberals have more open minds….
and with such are much easier to dupe and deceive and much more accepting of arguments to authority.
Blind acceptance is not a virtue.
“George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics…”
In other words, someone who knows nothing of climate science.
Can we say “Soros shill” now? 😉