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.
Wren: you keep asking how many national science academies support the AGW position and how many do not. That is nothing more than a variation on the argument from authority. Your question is irrelevant on a number of grounds:
1. the statements of support generally emanate from a committee recommendation and were not put to the membership for approval;
2. many societies have no expertise in the topic and rely for their evidence on the very same researchers who have been so thoroughly discredited by climate-gate;
3. the societies have become activists and purveyors of alarmism. Take this gem from The Interacademy Panel, an affiliate of the Interacademy Council which has been selected by the UN to review the IPCC:
Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter of the CO2 produced from human activities. This CO2 would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to greater climate change. However, the absorption of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which are on average slightly alkaline) to become more acidic. The average pH of oceanic surface waters has been lowered by 0.1 units since the pre-industrial period. This represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ion activity. Hydrogen ions attack carbonate ions which are the building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures. This loss of carbonate ions produce lower saturation levels for the carbonate minerals, aragonite and calcite, which are used in many shells and skeletons. Carbonate ion concentrations are now lower than at any other time during the last 800 000 years.
Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 ppm. If current trends in CO2 emissions continue, model projections suggest that by mid-century CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years. The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer.
If you don’t understand what’s wrong with the statement, I’m sure any regular here would be delighted to enlighten you.
re: “And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.
Pretty funny. Shame on me for going back to the data.
Imagine if I tried to argue that I am right and he is wrong based on the fact that I think I am more “open minded” then he.
Confession first. I am one of those woolly minded liberals who has recently seen the light so far as climate variability is concerned.
Comment second. Lakoff’s output raises a seriously worrying issue. Not because of the “science” which, as many posts have already said, is just downright silly, but because it obliquely addresses the appalling polarisation in the advocacy pro and con “climate-change-action”.
While it is not surprising that the “soft left” in general has swallowed the AGW line because they tend, in general, to believe in the perfectability of society and to be motivated by the wish to “do good” (whatever that means), it is seriously worrying that people like Lakoff are painting the argument over the science as though it is a belief-struggle between the “church of the left” and the “church of the right”.
In concrete terms, my biggest problem is how do I persuade the Australian Labour Party (my political “home”) to stop believing and to start thinking.
And, of course, I meant “whom Lakoff had to thank.”
R. Gates (17:05:30) paraphrase: Most people don’t care about AGW one way or the other.
I think more people care about it than you acknowledge.
Why?
Because they care about their freedom.
huh. i wish fishing were that easy
Andrew W (13:08:52) :
peterhodges (12:33:22) :
“umm, i’m liberal, a philosopher to boot, and do not believe in AGW
hypothesis FALSIFIED”
I can’t accept that any competent philosopher could make a statement so lacking in logic.
Wren (14:38:36) :
You belong in a political blog since you are really arguing the science. It’s all political spin from you Wren.
They are hanging on by their fingernails, but that does not mean it’s all over bar the shouting (and shouting there certainly is at the moment). They are keeping the left/right rift (of their own fostering, at least as regards this debate) and the present tactic seems to be to wear the public down by constantly throwing up and repeating red herrings until it tires of the ever more complicated debate, losing the little remaining critical independent thought it ever had. Anyway this article is the final unshakeable proof that warmist motives are purely political and have nothing to do with the saving the planet.
Anthony, the first comment here by [Jim (09:32:51)] and one or two others here is pure RealClimate sarcasm. Jim strikes me as an agent provocateur and his silly name pun should have been snipped: letting him post it plays right into their hands.
We just have to stick to our guns and hammer home the one simple message that CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant and the onus is on them to PROVE that it is. ‘Nuff sed.
Bernie Green (17:16:52) :
how do I persuade the Australian Labour Party (my political “home”) to stop believing and to start thinking.
Take out the allure of large taxes and the control of people and they’ll drop it. They don’t care about the science.
What is the use of research that depends on the Manichaean idea (so popular in America) that everyone is either a liberal or a conservative?
Gilbert’s “Iolanthe” has a lot to answer for.
TYPO
………………………………………………………………………………
Amino Acids in Meteorites (18:10:16) :
Wren (14:38:36) :
You belong in a political blog since you are really arguing the science.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
aren’t really arguing the science
not
are really arguing the science
“Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science..”
Liberals say but they don’t do. Half of liberals reject the scientific method.
John Whitman (17:08:04) :
“Laughable are Lakoff’s thoughts.”
Sound like Yoda from Star Wars you do. Can you post on this blog from another planet? (e.g. the swamp planet of Dagobah)
“Facts aren’t as important as beliefs”
Facts:
1. Polar bears are disappearing
2. The arctic is melting to nothing
3. The himalayan glaciers are melting
4. The Amazon forest will die if there is a tiny bit less rain
5. The earth will be destroyed by 2 degrees or something like that.
6. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas
7. Cities don’t affect local temperature
8. The earth is warmer than it has ever been
9. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been.
10. ….
Um, I’m seeing a problem here.
peterhodges (17:43:56) :
Well, Lakoff did say 99.999%. So maybe you;re that .001%. You’re him, aren’t you? You’re the one Lakoff was talking about!
Or, maybe not. Maybe, you’re not really a Liberal. Maybe you’re an AGW skeptic in Liberal clothing.
Or maybe you really do believe in AGW, you just think you don’t!
Grandfather: “It’s a fact” means “It’s true.”
Grandson: Not at all! It means “It’s in a peer-reviewed journal.”
Gfather: What’s that?
Gson: It’s science, Granpa.
Gfather: Science means knowledge, right?
Gson: Not at all! It means what people who publish in peer-reviewed journals believe.
Gfather: Even if they believe only what they want to believe?
Gson: You’re not going to argue with science, are you, Granpa?
Gfather: Not if it is what you say it is. In my day, you asked a believer, why do you believe; but you asked a scientist, how do you know.
Gson: How naive you are! We know nothing but what we we believe. Haven’t you heard of Karl Popper? All knowledge is conjectural.
Gfather: Is it? To me, “I conjecturally know” means exactly the same as “I conjecture.”
Gson: No, not at all. It means the same as “I know”, if it gets published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Gfather: I think I got it. Can I choose my own peers?
”””’phlogiston (18:32:19) : “Laughable are Lakoff’s thoughts.” Sound like Yoda from Star Wars you do. Can you post on this blog from another planet? (e.g. the swamp planet of Dagobah)”””’
phlogiston,
Thanks for the levity. It is needed alot. Appreciate it.
Actually, wouldn’t “Laughable Lakoff’s thoughts are.” be more Yoda like?
John
Wren (15:16:15) : “Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”
Wren is confusing politics (voting) and science (proof). CAGW prophesies contain a lot of one and very little of the other.
””””Wren (15:16:15) : OK, I’ll put it another way. Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”””’
Hi Wren,
Hey, haven’t run across your comments in a while. How are you?
Subscribe? I think none of the scientific societies ‘subscribe’ to CAGW. It is more like they make statements that include some words to the affect (or is it effect) that AGW theory has some merits with certain (no pun intended) uncertainties still unresolved. Two of the many uncertainties are the magnitude and timing of the effects of potential AGW. Pretty weasel-like, scientifically speaking. Then they make a huge leap to some kind of catastrophic ‘precautionary principle’. That huge leap is the fatal act of non-science.
Not to put a too cynical edge on this, by such statements are they ensuring the funding stream keeps flowing? Certainly, wouldn’t being openly critical of AGW theory increase their risks of losing some gov’t funds?
John
Liberals are rarely open minded, this is just propaganda. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are basically fools.
“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.
That’s not a liberal or a conservative thing, that’s an extremist thing.
Most people are just swimming in a pool of sharks, and they bounce from one end of the pool to the other. It will stay that way until we demand better.
Zeke the Sneak (17:05:09) :
No, I get by with a little help from my friends
Mm, I get high with a little help from my friends
Mm, gonna try with a little help from my friends
Just with a little help from my friends
I will change everything, from the way you see
till the world you used to live..
In reading through Lakoff’s statements, I am far less concerned about the debate of the science than the tone and message.
conservatives are nothing more than people who put more emphasis on personal responsibility, work ethic, and rewards proportional to the work (versus other issues) liberals are nothing more than people who put more emphasis on social responsibility and freedoms provided they not injure others (versus other issues). In the grand scheme of the political spectrum, there is little daylight between them.
What Lakoff proposes is neither liberalism nor conservatism. He proposes that those who disagree with his particular clique of intellectuals are defficient from being poorly parented or low intelligence or other defects. His unstated implication is that being incapable of rational thought, there is justification that the masses be ruled by the elites for their own good.
I have met his type before and I have learned that they frequently don’t even believe their own claptrap. Their purpose is to ingratiate themselves to those whom they percieve as gaining power. When he percieves that the wind is blowing the other way, he will turn his ship about and loudly proclaim that he was leading the fleet in that direction from the beginning.
He is no “usefull idiot”. His type are far more dangerous than that.
Is this guy for real?..he can not be serious. He absolutely must either been dropped on his head at birth or has one serious problem with drugs……..no rational human reallly thinks way. As bugs bunny would say.”What a Maroon”!..John.
I fear that I am going to upset most of you here, on both sides of the debate.
Professor Lakoff’s analysis is very USA centric, as are many of your comments describing liberals and conservatives.
Most Australians are pragmatics – whatever works well, works well and whever does not is dumped.
That’s why we have a mixed economy and the best health system, although that still has many faults. It is not too expensive, anybody can get good free public hospital care (as long as they live in a major city, otherwise not so good, but that’s why it is not too expensive). If you can afford fairly modest private insurance, you get excellent care. It’s not as beauracratic or as costly to the government as in the UK, nor as expensive and out of reach of the poor as in the USA. (I don’t know the ins and outs of the law just passed).
Well after anoying all of you, I have to admit a majority of Australians still believe in AGW. But the good news is that the number is falling steadily as people come to realise the issues.
What works, works. What sounds good but fails in pracice eventually fades away.
There is an opinion swing away from our right of centre, Labor (non socialist) governemts, State and Federal, and towards our very slightly more right of centre Liberal (Liberal in name, which in reality is freer but not free-market, socially conscious, liberal and conservative mixed) Party.
The cap and trade bill will get a third outing in the next few months, but nobody on either side expects that it will pass in the Senate.
The test will come after the next election.
We may get a carbon tax or we may not.
It all depends on whether the AGW cult collapses globally by then or not.
Who knows?
The future is ours my friends, not ce sera, sera (or whatever).
Al Gore is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
??? What the heck, why did I say that???
The swing in the pendulum in Australian politics is due to the incompetence of incumbernt Labor governements – not due to any political factors.
When I was studying psychology in the 1970s, the conservatives in Austrailia tended to be older and more rigid in their thinking – the authoritan personality syndrome sort of thing.
Modern conservatives are now much younger thant I.
I try to evaluate policies on their merits.
I supported the Labor government’s cash splurge at the very start of the GFC, having studied both Keynes and Freeman at universtity and coming down on Keynes’ side.
That worked well and helped australai going into recession.
But I am appauled at the government’s inability to manage this spending and to be sucked in by “experts” with an AGW axe to grind.