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.
The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
======
I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?
Obviously a follower of Lysenko
Is professor Lakoff the guy of the photograph above?
REPLY: No that is Marty Feldman
“Wren (14:38:36) :
[…]
I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?”
Wren, the german conservative government party CDU as well as the UK’s conservatives, the Tories, are into AGW. Do i have to say Angela Merkel? Do Dr. Lakoff’s “research results” apply only on the American continent? Is there a mystical psycho barrier running through the Atlantic, preventing our conservatives from a decline of their cognitive brain functions?
“Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming”
Now there’s a scientific mind at work. A peer reviewed study no doubt.
Consider how such a statement reflects on the cognitive brain function of one claiming to be a scientist of any field.
In truth, I think this guy must be a conservative plant purposely trying to enrage thinking people everywhere. Surely even the progressives couldn’t be so stupid as to let this guy embarrass their movement like this.
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
aka gullable and naive
So Lackoff’s whole thesis is that Conservatism is a mental defect?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH…..!!!!!!!!!!
Stop the presses. I mean it, if this is what they’re printing, just … stop it.
One can be both 99% right and 100% wrong. They ought to teach that in school.
(Come to think of it, didn’t a few old-time playwrights suggest that thought?)
The problem with his study is this: has he studied the brain and politics of those former believers in AGW like Anthony Watts, many people on this thread as well as mine and determined WHY WE BECAME SCEPTICS?
Odd.
First I didn’t believe in AGW because I wasn’t educated enough.
Then I didn’t believe in AGW because I wasn’t smart enough.
And now I don’t believe in AGW because I’m a bigot. To make it worse, because I believe in free markets, apparently I am by default against environmental regulations of any sort.
I was not aware that the entire theory of AGW revolved around my evidently stable belief system. This thing about me being against environmental regulations though came as somewhat of a surprise. I didn’t know I was against that. I’m glad I have Lakoff to tell me what I think. My concern is that if I change my mind on the environmental regulation thing, will it cause a gravitational rift resulting in AGW theory to implode, explode, or simply spin off into space as the two are supposedly closely coupled?
Why is it there are so many butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, psychologists, biologists and phucologists (specialists who don’t know fiddle all) who are girding up for battle on the science of global warming? If they don’t understand the physics and chemistry of global warming, then they are just taking it on faith. This reinforces the picture that has emerged over the past few years of a political agenda with precious little science for frosting.
Smokey said:
“AGW is an unproven hypothesis on its way to being reduced to a conjecture…”
—–
This statement would be a conjecture on the way be being? Only two possibilities…on the way to being (or already is) an absurdity, or prophetic.
In regards to my comment on Steve’s statement about polar sea ice. If nothing at all was happening in either the arctic or antarctic, Steve’s comment would be accurate, but since the last I checked, the arctic would be considered “polar” and certainly something has been happening in the arctic, (has not had a positive anomaly since 2004 for example) it is actually Steve who made an incorrect statement.
But you’re a true believer Smokey, and nothing someone like me says will ever change your mind, nor would I wish to.
James Sexton (14:32:55) :
Wren (14:01:02) :
You say “My understanding of real scientific work is that one doesn’t dismiss anything until proven.”
Well, sure you can’t prove Bigfoot and Nessie don’t exist, but so far there is no creditable evidence of their existence.
My point Wren, you asked if some scientific body has dismissed CAGW. I can’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist no more than anyone can prove CAGW doesn’t exist. I suggest they exist on the same alternate universe, but I can’t prove it.
=====
OK, I’ll put it another way.
Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?
For the record I’m not a Conservative. When it comes to AGW I am a believer in the scientific method being followed first before any politics comes into it.
Does Lakoff explain the basis of patronising one’s opponent? That’s what he has done here. It is an excellent way of needlessly offending people, raising the emotional temperature, and muddying the waters.
As an Australian I agree with US liberals on some things and disagree on others. What box do I get crammed into by Lakoff?
Wren (14:38:36) :
The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
======
I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?
Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
R. Gates,
Polar sea ice has scarcely changed during the satellite record, and is right at normal now.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Hope you are prepared to cope when summer extent in the Arctic ends up close to normal this year.
Proof positive that try as you might you just can’t stop stupid.
David Alan Evans (13:59:25) said:
It seems that that saying is more correctly attributed to Dorothy [Rothschild] Parker:
http://everything2.com/?node_id=820199
Wren,
Most people reject CAGW because they see that the catastrophic predictions are not happening.
Some people have their eyes open, while other self-proclaimed “open minded” people have their eyes and ears shut tight.
Steve Goddard (09:39:15) :
“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach”
Actually it may be better stated that:
““Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach Cognitive Science and Linguistics””
Here’s a longer list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
In a humble hairdressing salon in North London this afternoon the general discussion among the ladies, for they were all ladies, turned to Global Warming. It’s rubbish, inn’it, look at this cold winter , gone back to winter as they was, Spring is late – did you hear about the flower festival and there was no daffodils out? And all that snow – Doris broke her wrist, the Royal Free was full of fractures, nah, it’s rubbish. They got it wrong.
How much more intelligence was displayed there than by this California-Berkeley Professor. Cut off their taxpayer funded salaries!
It is so good to know that there are others who were former believers in the global warming scam. I am not a scientist, but I began to be suspicious of the politics. I began reading about how propaganda works and found a few skeptic sites that explained why they were skeptical of the science. Things began to fit together. Using fear for your children’s children and one’s love for animals was really a good trick. I don’t feel so stupid anymore.
Thanks for you work.
Global warming kind of makes sense if you don’t have many facts available.
1. CO2 absorbs LW radiation. More CO2 means it warms up.
2. People feel guilty about the environment, imagining that life was better for primitive people who lived to an average age of 22.
3. There never used to be any storms or heat waves before the automobile was invented.
4. Polar bears never used to have to swim before the invention of the automobile.