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.
Rick, you’re joking, right?
James Sexton (15:20:35) :
Wren (14:38:36) :
The explanations are getting desperate. I wonder then how Dr. Lakoff explains people like myself, who once accepted the scientific arguments presented on global warming, but who now reject most of the hype and urgency attached to it? Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist. But that’s another story.
======
I don’t know how Dr. Lakoff would explain your change of mind, but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?
Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
=====
All those scientific societies are socialist organizations?
Get out of here!
Is this guy 95% certain of his statistical conclusions or merely 100% sure of his funding?
I’m from Sweden so you Americans probably consider me a socialist (I’m liberal) and I am pretty sure there is no real proof for AGW, if there is I must have missed it. The argument that your political opponents cant think is retarded. There are many reasons why two intelligent beings end up on the opposite sides of an argument. Claiming that the other side is close minded, stupid ignorant and so forth is just crap. Bring better science/arguments or shut up.
Better smile when you say that, Slim.
John Whitman (18:54:14) :
””””Wren (15:16:15) : OK, I’ll put it another way. Among scientific societies of standing, do those that subscribe to CAGW outnumber those that don’t?”””’
Hi Wren,
Hey, haven’t run across your comments in a while. How are you?
Subscribe? I think none of the scientific societies ’subscribe’ to CAGW. It is more like they make statements that include some words to the affect (or is it effect) that AGW theory has some merits with certain (no pun intended) uncertainties still unresolved. Two of the many uncertainties are the magnitude and timing of the effects of potential AGW. Pretty weasel-like, scientifically speaking. Then they make a huge leap to some kind of catastrophic ‘precautionary principle’. That huge leap is the fatal act of non-science.
Not to put a too cynical edge on this, by such statements are they ensuring the funding stream keeps flowing? Certainly, wouldn’t being openly critical of AGW theory increase their risks of losing some gov’t funds?
John
====
I’m fine John. How are you.
I think if you check their web sites, you will find that that scientific societies do more than say CAGW theory has merits.
You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences.
http://americasclimatechoices.org/
I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.
So, then, psychotropic drugs must be available to treat our condition?
I’m not a conservative therefore the existence of my brain, which follows the Carl Sagan Principle of Requiring Extraordinary Evidence for Extraordinary Claims, falsifies professor George Lakoff laughable hypothesis. It sure had a short half life.
Andrew W (11:50:17) :
So much vitriol, so much emotion, this comments thread itself is an argument supporting Lakoff.
Say I suggest Greenpeace activists are nutters. Now if I wander into a Greenpeace site and loudly suggest that there is nothing wrong with eating dolphins they will not sit quietly. Guaranteed some of them in their anger will say some nutty things. Is that then proof I am right? Hardly. It is a stupid line of logic, just as yours is. If you say stupid and rude things about people, they will on the whole be justified in their anger.
What amazes me rather is that anyone can believe that no skeptics are liberal.
Any general theory can be falsified by a singe counter-example. Since it is easy to find liberal, science-educated AGW sceptics (me, for a start) his theory is basically rotten.
The vitriol seen is what he deserves for saying something so utterly stupid.
Robert E. Phelan (12:05:03) :
actuator (11:53:56) :
“I could be wrong, but I thought one aspect of the original “liberal” philosophers thinking was the liberty of the individual. What I see going on in the community that calls themselves “liberal” today seems to care not a whit for individuals having the right or the ability to think, evaluate and decide for themselves.”
No, actuator, you are not wrong. Classical Liberalism was a late 18th early 19th Century movement based on the philososphy of Utilitarianism (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) which held that people were quite capable of deciding for themselves what was good for them. They were much more akin to modern conservatives and libertarians than anything else. Oddly enough, John Stuart Mill, a staunch advocate of free market capitalism, and Robert Owen, the “Father of Modern Socialism”, both emerged from the movement.
========
Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.
Wren (20:13:09):
“All those scientific societies are socialist organizations? Get out of here!”
You’re clearly not up to speed on the way the real world operates. Prof Richard Lindzen gave a recent first hand account of how it only takes one or two activists to cause professional organizations to endorse statements that are completely at odds with the great majority of their membership: click
Given the absence of any settled science regarding the climate mechanism, or even the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, and given the fact that both the government and numerous NGOs, for example the heavily pro-CAGW Grantham Foundation, the like-minded Heinz and Rockefeller Foundations, and many similar ones with the same agenda such as the many pro-UN/World Government NGOs funded by billionaire George Soros, and the 100% politically appointed IPCC, and numerous similar organizations with enormous assets and an activist CAGW agenda that award large grants to professional organizations, with strings attached requiring that they endorse the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, it is extremely naive for you to believe that every one of those professional organizations have taken a decisive CAGW position based on science alone.
Their Executive Boards are preposterously stating, all in lock step, that the minuscule fraction of CO2 attributable to human activity is the primary driver of the planet’s climate, and that there can be no disputing their judgement. Does this sound to you like an honest search for scientific truth? All it really shows is that money doesn’t talk; it screams.
As the elected CFO of an organization of more than 15,000 dues paying members, I can tell you for a fact that Prof Lindzen is right on the money. Having seen how a single activist can change the course of an organization with patience, cunning, and a knowledge of the bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order, I have also observed first hand that with the right game plan, the current one-sided results can easily be achieved, despite the serious reservations of the rank-and-file membership.
Being naive is no sin. But remaining so changes the label from naive to fool. Read Dr Lindzen’s paper. It is only the tip of the iceberg.
Er, I think Lakoff needs to flip it 180 political degrees and then he has it right…..;-)
But of course Lakoff knows that, he’s just being deliberately perverse… Once again the left are telling us that what we see, isn’t there and what we heard, wasn’t said…… Then they take what remains and flip it around and say….. “If only you would look at the facts with an open mind. It is you who are wrong because you refuse to see it OUR way….” Yup, yup.
Of course there are no supporting facts and the only ones with a closed mind…. Is them.
The examples of this closed mindedness and their inablility to inquire being… The Climategate email scandal. Amazongate. Himalayan glaciergate. Polar bears thriving instead of dying. UHI effects that are not accounted for. Lack of correlation between rising CO2 and temperature observations. The compromised siting of temperature stations and their non compliance to their own regulations. A climate catastrophe that refuses to actually happen… etc.
…. and Lakoff can’t even be logical. What about this howler!….
“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.”
…. Wtf!. He is trying to tell us that Conservatives are somehow hypocritical to be using science because we are criticizing science???… D’ oh!….. Actually we are skeptical of their results and critical of their scientific methodology. This offends them greatly!
The other thing I find strange about Lakoff is he treats “Science” as an entity of some kind… He is almost deifying it…. He is making a religion out of his environmental ideal and using this “science” of his, as the “living proof”. A Christ child of infallibility, so to speak;-)
However, science is simply a methodology of observation and measurement…. It is not an idol or an ideology. It is merely a method of inquiry using certain unbending principles…. Otherwise it isn’t the scientific method.
What is it with the left and their pathological desire to form elitist cliques based on emotional constructs? They have this frantic obsession to take everything and anyone around them and to control them… It’s G’damn maniacal.
I liked the way Pat Micheals criticism of Lakoff had the last word of the article……. “Michaels said that the idea that people who don’t buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn’t fit with the American ideal of individual liberty.
“I don’t think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country,” Michaels said.”
Nicely said.
Wren (20:13:09) :
James Sexton (15:20:35) :
Because we’re capable of critical thinking. How do you explain CAGW is embraced by every socialist organization known to man in spite of evidence to the contrary? Why do they keep repeating the mantra “there’s a consensus!”, when none obviously exists. Why do keep saying “the science is settled” when it obviously isn’t? They keep running different models, and more studies themselves. Why, if the science is settled? Heck, I’d love to see someone, anyone, list all the variants that contribute to our climate. No one can. Given that insight, if no one knows the equation, how is it someone can name the solution to the equation? They can’t.
=====
All those scientific societies are socialist organizations?
Get out of here!
========
I don’t know, let’s figure it out. All of the CAGW scientific advocates that I’ve read either receive government grants or work for a government institutions. In fact, I’ve seen where studies done by private industry is invalidated only by the fact that is was done by a private industry.(To where they don’t even address the content of the study.) The scientific communities seem to be a collection of scientists that live by government monies. So, you tell me, does that meet your requisite definition of socialist, or do I need to go into more detail about the various POS that won’t get off of my teet and seem hell bent on the destruction of humanity? All the while demanding that I and people like me pay for it.
Wren (21:08:40) :
Everything you say is old, hackneyed spin.
Yawn.
I found that article on CNN about a research paper showing that liberals are smarter than conservatives:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?iref=allsearch
My notes as follows:
1) The study was done with adolescents and young adults under age of 28. Since people tend to move from left to right politicaly as they age, the sample is biased.
2) The really good news is that those really intelligent “lakoff types” who deem themselves so much smarter than the rest of us that we are beneath contempt in a discussion of science, aren’t having kids.
So…. in the long war of who should control who dear Dr. Lakoff, my gene pool (which is a lot smarter than you think) is going to obliterate your gene pool, not by my gene pool doing anything to your gene pool, but because your gene pool for all its vaunted intelligence, can’t figure out how to score.
Roger Knights (15:35:15) :
Wren:
That’s not many people.
Here’s a longer list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
=====
Yes, I’ve seen that list before, and it sure has a lot of old guys(e.g., professor emeritus). Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.
Professor Emeritus
How about a post sometime describing the process that led you from ‘global warming activist’ to prominent skeptic?
/Mr Lynn
PS Despite the fun that Rush and others have had with Mr. Lakoff’s name, as I recall it is pronounced ‘Lay-koff’ (at least that’s how I heard it some decades ago when he was at MIT). Not that this makes his inchoate maunderings any more rational. . .
Wren (21:08:40) :
“Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.”
—————-
Wren, that was supposed to be a history lesson not a sales pitch…. but ideologues love to impute motives. I suspect that there are no reflecting surfaces in your home.
Smokey (21:08:47) :
Wren (20:13:09):
“All those scientific societies are socialist organizations? Get out of here!”
You’re clearly not up to speed on the way the real world operates. Prof Richard Lindzen gave a recent first hand account of how it only takes one or two activists to cause professional organizations to endorse statements that are completely at odds with the great majority of their membership…..
=====
Yeah, well Lindzen doesn’t believe second-hand smoke is harmful to babies, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (21:30:05) :
Wren (21:08:40) :
Everything you say is old, hackneyed spin.
Yawn.
=====
I’m trying to make you sleepy.
What a bunch of crap, I think drugs and prostitution should be legalized – I’m quite open-minded, but not so open that my brains are falling out.
My God, what a crock. How would Lakoff rate me?
> I am a Canadian and voted Liberal until my early thirties, then, through a conscious decision brought about by PM Jean Chretien’s infamous “roll the dice” comment during the 1995 Quebec Referendum, began voting by candidate (Liberal, Conservative, even a Green Party once).
> I have always had a very egalitarian view point: I believe absolutely in individual equality and personal freedoms (speech, choice, etc.).
> I think universal health care is excellent (lots of rich physicians in Canada!) and truly believe that it could work in America (although I think opposition to it will prevent a smooth transition).
> I believe market regulations are needed to prevent unfettered greed and insider trading running amok, and to protect the average investor.
> Environmental regulations are necessary (CO2 excepted) and we should restrict trade with nations that do not live up to the western world’s standards.
I am liberal in every sense of the word except my views on AGW. So WTF am I, Prof. Lakoff? What a crock.
Robert E. Phelan (21:43:53) :
Wren (21:08:40) :
“Good luck on trying to sell laissez-faire in the 21st Century.”
—————-
Wren, that was supposed to be a history lesson not a sales pitch…. but ideologues love to impute motives. I suspect that there are no reflecting surfaces in your home.
======
Excuse me, I thought it was a sales pitch.
I live in a house full of mirrors. It makes the place look larger than it actually is.
Wren (21:45:45),
So that’s your response??
Hmm-mm. “Babies”, huh? So, who to believe? Ms Wren? Or the internationally esteemed Head of MIT’s Atmospheric Sciences department?
I suppose I should be more kind to the lame.
Admit it: that’s your picture in the article, isn’t it?
Age takes it’s toll on the brain and the body.
Yes, one starts to think with what is between one’s shoulders rather than what is between one’s legs.