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
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>>
What is it with you warmists? I see these snappy comebacks on all sorts of blogs. Someone calls CO2 a trace gas and out comes the sarcastic “oh yeah, we’ll put trace amounts of strychnine in your body and see how what happens” as if that somehow proves anything. This is the second time I’ve seen the Lindzen/smoke/babies thing which also has nothing to do with anything. Are you all using the same iPhone app because you don’t know enough about the subject to come up with your very own snappy responses?
For what its worth, Smokey is bang on. Anyone who knows Roberts Rules and the politics of an organization can box the majority into a corner with procedures. I’ve seen it done from professional organizations to local community organizations. The people who are part of the society out of mutual interest rarely have the passion, patience, or time to block a hijacking of the organization by learning the rules and fighting the hacks who are there to further their personal politics.
BTW, to one of your other comments, societies by definition are groups of people with a common interest formed for the purpose of mutual discussion and benefit. They have no product or service other than to provide a forum for their members. They are funded by their membership fees. so yup, they’re socialist organizations, which by no means dictates that any given member is a socialist.
So…Starling…..oh….er um….Pigeon…..uhh….. I mean “Wren”….what is your point?
I figured I would regurgitate an earlier post I made on this thread….just for you!
_________
I find it amusing how “scholars” like Lakoff continually to try and make it a partisan issue, which it should not be.
It should be about finding the truth.
Most people I talk to are a combination of the two [fiscally more conservative but socially more liberal]….and so they [we] are like….”who the hell is this guy talking about??
Regardless, CAGW skeptics run the full range of political persuasions, so it is a moot point.
Also, it would seem that this “study” is the big fat pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one.
Sure there is cognitive dissonance on all sides. It is endemic to the human condition, unfortunately.
However, it just so happens to be more manifest currently on the “my mind is made up the science is settled – CAGW is real – we are all doomed” side of the debate!
When I hear people like Lakoff spouting off academic nonsense like this [or at least the nonsense part is the partisan political part] it makes me laugh:
“How ******* stupid does he think we are??”
I don’t like to see anyone’s personal demise….but I personally will enjoy with GREAT pleasure watching the washed-up, tired, dishonest CAGW house of cards collapse over the next few years.
Next!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
James Sexton (21:29:15) :
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.
====================
I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….
Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.
Police officers are socialists, but private security guards are not.
Children at public schools are socialists, but children at private schools are not.
Marines are socialists, but Black Water employees are not.
How am I doing ?
“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.
That’s true but that does not exclude that other types of people can also reason AGW is not correct, is embellished or is something other than stupilated e.g. Roger is a brown eyed man. Some brown eyed men do not like liberals. This does not imply Roger does not like liberals merely that it is, under the given conditions a possibility.
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
This is only true relative to the function that if liberals are under no central mental process to limit their acknowledgement of ‘progressive’ society (which they shouldn’t be by their definition) then they can determine by default that AGW is possibly real. This however, is fiction and quite truly can entirely be thrown out because its so simplistic and really, it’s just flat out boring.
There is easily a counter argument where because liberals are by their nature revolutionary that they wish for change and have alternate reasons for their belief in AGW other than their knowledge of the reality of the situation. Trying to break this into liberal / republican or whatever other label you want to put to a person is just about how best to brain wash a society into one mode of thinking or another.
The only way you know about how something works is about research and reading, knowing your own limitation and excluding self imposed bias as best you can. If you know you believe something and have a feeling one way or another you have to get past that and look at the evidence. If you cannot conclude that it is persuasive on its merit alone but you also cannot understand it, then you should probably let authority guide you. Let the other people intelligent enough make the basis of your case for you when it comes to knowing the systems and how they work (when it comes to climatology). You don’t need climatologists to be able to understand.. there are many people adept at processing reality but filtering through this becomes difficult to say the least.
How am I doing ?
Probably better than you intended. #B^1
Wren (21:33:04) :
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.
==============
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ahh, the brash, bold exuberance of youth. Forget about knowledge and experience, just know you’re right!!!
Son, you haven’t thought this through. Assume your right. Forget about the way they average temps to prove we’re getting warmer. Forget about the fact that humanity thrives in warmer climates. Forget about the arbitrary correction of historical temps. Forget about the homogenization and value added temps to average the incorrectly averaged temps. Forget about the minuscule portion of anthropological CO2 is emitted compared to the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. Forget the historical proof that the earth was warmer (and colder) before. Forget the lies, we were told. Forget it all. Assume the CAGW theory is correct. What price are you willing to pay to fix it? Are you willing to thwart man’s energy? His ability to eat? How about the availability to drink? Son, existence isn’t living. I wouldn’t wish that world on my children or my children’s children. I don’t know where you’re from and I don’t care. What I do know, is that before the earthquake in Haiti, they were starving to death. I didn’t see the CAGW scientists focusing their energies there. It seems to me, they’re not concerned with the condition of mankind, rather, they’re concerned with manipulating and mandating mankind’s behavior. Even if we should forget about all of the flaws in their supposition, I’ll pass. But pass isn’t a strong enough word. I take the whole CAGW mythology as an affront to mankind and freedom world wide. They will be stopped. Hopefully, by words and logic, but…….
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” and
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but …”…….they will be stopped.
[REPLY – Screwtape advises his “nephew” if his “patient” must pray for his mother, that he should make sure he prays for the state of her soul — but never her rheumatism. ~ Evan]
Wren: “How am I doing ?”
On a logic versus illogic scale of one to ten?
Do you really want an answer??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Wren
I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….
Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.>>
No. Libraries are socialist organizations. Librarians are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Book stores are private enterprises, book store clerks may or may not be socialists.
Wren
Police officers are socialists, but private security guards are not.>>
Police organizations are socialists. Police officers are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Private security companies are… uhm… private? the security guards are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists.
Wren
Children at public schools are socialists, but children at private schools are not.>>
No. The public school system is a socialist organizations. The children are students who attend. They may or may not be socialists. Private schools are… uhm, private again? The children there are students. They may or may not be socialists.
Wren
Marines are socialists, but Black Water employees are not.>>
No. The armed forces are socialist organizations. The marines are people who serve in the armed forces. They may or may not be socialists. Black Water is a private company. The people who work there are employees who may or may not be socialists.
Wren
How am I doing ?>>
Awfull. You didnt get a single one right.
James Sexton (22:18:14) :
That is one of the most eloquent invectives ever. Bravo.
One word though….in your heat…you meant “anthropogenic” and not “anthropological”….regardless… I [and everyone else] got your point.
Well said.
Chris
davidmhoffer (22:07:29) :
Wren
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>>
What is it with you warmists? I see these snappy comebacks on all sorts of blogs…….
There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke. Check out what this site has to say about him.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Of course Lindzen is 70 years old, so that’s enough years to make a lot of mistakes.
davidmhoffer (22:28:06) :
Wren
I’ll have to remember your rule of thumb for telling who is socialist and who is not. If I got it right ….
Public librarians are socialists, but book store clerks are not.>>
No. Libraries are socialist organizations. Librarians are people who work for them and may or may not be socialists. Book stores are private enterprises, book store clerks may or may not be socialists.
====
I won’t bother to repeat the rest of your post, David, because you are not following James Sexton’s method for identifying socialists as I did. Read his post, and you will see what I mean.
Wren
There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke>>
Which has what to do with how small groups of activists can thwart the majority in a large organization by abuse of procedural rules? Why when presented with a specific point, do you respond by blowing second hand smoke?
Why, when presented with a cogent argument, do you respond with witty remarks on an entirely different topic?
It brings nothing of value to the conversation. If you dispute what Lindzen said about hijacking of organizations, then present the facts and arguments in that regard. Failing to do so only exposes that you have no argument to make.
Wren (22:40:26) :
Your lack of logic is astounding.
I would love to see you actually in the ring with Lindzen.
He would eat you alive. If you can contest that, then on what grounds?
Would you then be willing to debate him, face to face?
That, I would pay to see.
Chris
[REPLY – Screwtape advises his “nephew” if his “patient” must pray for his mother, that he should make sure he prays for the state of her soul — but never her rheumatism.]
True that. Lewis understood the vile methods of evil. While it saddens me that many failed to hear, I take heart in the fact that a few listened. And, I take comfort in the idea that “no problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.” I believe the CAGW fantasy is under assault at this moment.
James Sexton (22:18:14) :
Wren (21:33:04) :
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.
==============
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ahh, the brash, bold exuberance of youth. Forget about knowledge and experience, just know you’re right!!!
Son, you haven’t thought this through……
=============
I’m not a youth. I’m old. I’m also sleepy, so I will say goodnight.
Dang, do French count??? Well, yes, yes they do!!! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/23/french-give-up-on-carbon-tax-plan-for-now/#more-17618
R. Gates (17:05:30) :
Most indications are that Arctic ice will be close to normal this summer and there will be a large increase in multi-year ice.
davidmhoffer (22:47:31) :
Wren
There are more reasons to be wary of Lindzen than his view on second-hand smoke>>
Which has what to do with how small groups of activists can thwart the majority in a large organization by abuse of procedural rules? Why when presented with a specific point, do you respond by blowing second hand smoke?
Why, when presented with a cogent argument, do you respond with witty remarks on an entirely different topic?
It brings nothing of value to the conversation. If you dispute what Lindzen said about hijacking of organizations, then present the facts and arguments in that regard. Failing to do so only exposes that you have no argument to make.
====
Sorry, I meant to respond, before turning in, but forgot.
You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS.
Goodnight.
Wren: “Sorry, I meant to respond, before turning in, but forgot.
You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS.
Goodnight.”
I am starting to feel sorry for the weakness presented here…time and time again.
Nah…….
Goodnight! Watch out for the hawks in the AM. LOL
Chris
Wren
You shouldn’t expect me to present FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OPINIONS>>
And there, in one brief sentence, Wren summarizes the entire AGW debate. Thank you Wren for stipulating that your argument does not rest on facts and that you see no reason that it should.
I’m sure what Wren intended to write was that that (he/she?) had no FACTS to counter Lindzen’s OBSERVATIONS.
Some points:
a) NAS is not a good choice as an example in that it has gov’t links (mandated into law by Pres Lincoln). Better examples are the American Nuclear Society or the ASME or ASTM or AMA, Space Exploration Societies, etc
b) I have the greatest respect for many professions, scientists included, but not all professions. Politicians? hmmmmm Those who sell there services in brothels? hmmmmm
c) Promoting ones profession and job is normal. If you do it through a profession society, it still is.
d) Gov’ts endorsing a specific scientific theory? Yes. [Poor Pres. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.]
e) When a professional/scientific society endorses a specific scientific theory (see d above), even though not every member endorses it, what does that tell me? And who funds virtually all the scientists who work on that specific scientific theory (see d above)? What does that tell me?
Conclusion: Scientists and their professional societies are paying extremely close attention to there only client/customer. Good decision.
Recommendation: eliminate d) above and create alternate private/voluntary funding schemes besides the gov’t.
John
””””Wren (20:50:24) : . . . . You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences. . . . . I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.””””’
Wren,
My comment above ‘John Whitman (23:43:18) :’ was intented to be addressed to you.
Here it is again below for your convenience.
John
+++++++++++++
””””Wren (20:50:24) : . . . . You might start at the National Academy Of Sciences. . . . . I don’t buy the notion the scientific community is a brothel.””””’
Wren,
Some points:
a) NAS is not a good choice as an example in that it has gov’t links (mandated into law by Pres Lincoln). Better examples are the American Nuclear Society or the ASME or ASTM or AMA, Space Exploration Societies, etc
b) I have the greatest respect for many professions, scientists included, but not all professions. Politicians? hmmmmm Those who sell there services in brothels? hmmmmm
c) Promoting one’s profession and job is normal. If you do it through a profession society, it still is.
d) Gov’ts endorsing a specific scientific theory? Yes. [Poor Pres. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.]
e) When a professional/scientific society endorses a specific scientific theory (see d above), even though not every member endorses it, what does that tell me? And who funds virtually all the scientists who work on that specific scientific theory (see d above)? What does that tell me?
Conclusion: Scientists and their professional societies are paying extremely close attention to their only client/customer. Good decision.
Recommendation: eliminate d) above and create alternate private/voluntary funding schemes besides the gov’t.
John
Oh, goodness. That hearkens back to people feeling people’s skulls and to racists claiming that blacks are inherently inferior (contradicted by so many things, but we DO happen to have a very intelligent – if not always agreed with – President who has one or two black genes in him, plus a horny black golfer who kicks everybody’s arses in a white sport that uses a little white ball).
And let’s not forget eugenics, something most scientists adhered to 100 years ago.
It’s nice to know there are still scientists who can read sociological if not physiological superiority into their side and genetic defects into their opponents! It gives one SUCH a feeling of confidence in science.
It makes one wonder if sociology should even be considered a science, doesn’t it? Just because they saw a number on the Interstate sign doesn’t mean their field of study is science. 90% of sociology, anthropology and psychology are interpretive – like judging ice skating at the Olympics – and somehow they convinced someone along the way that interpretation is science.
Ask 1,000 sociologists for their interpretation of a phenomenon, and you will get at least 1,000 interpretations.
Some science.
Cognitive “science” ? This is further evidence that disciplines with “science” in the name certainly aren’t. Real sciences such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology don’t need a “science” label. Amongst the pretend sciences we now have
Cognitive Science
Climate Science
Social Science
Computer Science