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.
He ought to be willing to take bets on long-term temperature trends at lower odds, then, at https://www.intrade.com
WordPress didn’t like the capital H, so make that https://www.intrade.com
“Cadae (00:33:48) :
[…]
Computer Science”
Cadae, even though computers are abused by climate science, you’re talking out of your rectum here, please look up “halting problem” or “Turing” to get an idea of what computer science is about. Also, to enlighten you further, Chomsky’s language hierarchy, widely used in compiler construction, is not a communist plot.
“reason is shaped by the body” – LakoffCommonSense
quote
I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered,
striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he
rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
unquote – Boswell
I am not a political Conservative — that would imply there was something to conserve, but I still admire the insight of a genuine conservative into the mind of the Liberal — “Against whom, are they doing good? We never ask!”
They may not care much, but that’s not what Steve was talking about. He was talking about their opinion of the matter. They have opinions on many matters that are of little interest to them. Polls indicate popular opinion of the matter has recently become sharply more skeptical, due in part — no doubt — to the way the alarmists overplayed their hand with certain predictions that have now been cast in doubt, or even falsified.
A useless idiot?
It’s been noted here before that the pressure to conform to the on-campus CAWG consensus is so intense that mostly the old guys who have less to lose, careerwise, and are less involved in climbing the greasy pole, feel freer to speak out. There was a notable woman climatologist who died recently and to whom WUWT devoted a thread a month or so ago who said, when she issued a mildly skeptical statement, that she was able to do so now that she was retired.
As for Lindzen, he’s still active and publishing, and his skepticism is of long standing. I suspect that was the case for nearly all the emeritus professors as well.
How about countering his arguments, then?
Oops!! — I meant to say, “How about countering
hiswith arguments, then?”And then they say abortion harms no one … Moron circular logic, it’s a hoot.
When the temperature record doesn’t fit, just make it up. It’s moron science.
How would Professor Lakoff account for the number of us here at WUWT who were once believers of AGW and decided ‘To look seriously at the science and at whether people and the world were going to be harmed or not’ and concluded that they were not. Are we victims of a rare cognitive brain function disorder or what?
The (British) Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.
The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece
Lakoff’s “theory” sounds like recycled and reconstituted BS to me…
Nonsense, my son. Lakoff merely points out the openmindedness of those who agree with him.
(In order to stifle and ridicule those who do not.)
DirkH (01:17:40) :
“Cadae, even though computers are abused by climate science, you’re talking out of your rectum here”
To characterise Computing as a “Science” is streching the scope of science beyond useful boundaries. Computing is closer to mathematics than science – your example of the Halting Theorem is in fact a good example of a mathematical theorem, not a scientific theory – this is also true for the Chomsky language hierarchy – it’s a mathematical model.
Computing may be used a lot in sciences, but this does not make it a science in its own right.
“On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.””
Or rather, liberal’s cognitive processes see a problem everywhere they look and they have to save the world from itself.
So liberals are open minded???? To the idea of the free-market perhaps? To the idea of banning abortion? To God?
Maybe conservatives should be banned from voting, as they can’t open their minds to new ideas. This is a principle often promoted by “liberal” governments is it not?
A glimpse inside the Plastic Reality, where good intentions count more than positive results.
****************
Marvin (22:12:07) :
“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.
****************
That’s true? How is it true? “conservatives tend to feel that the free market should be unregulated and (that) environmental regulations are immoral and wrong,” is neither logical nor correct. Plenty of conservatives want clean water, air, and land. What an idiotic presumption. This guy is just another socialist, academic hit man. He should be ashamed of himself.
Feet2theFire (00:23:32) :
“… 90% of sociology, anthropology and psychology are interpretive – like judging ice skating at the Olympics…”
I am sure you can provide empirical evidence for that statement, right?
BBk (04:40:56) :
“On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.””
Or rather, liberal’s cognitive processes see a problem everywhere they look and they have to save the world from itself.
Liberals’ cognitive processes are usually the result of youthful overindulgence in psychotropic substances. I could show you the code I used to prove it, but you’d just use it to try to disprove my findings and/or mock me mercilessly.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m easily mocked.
Wren (14:38:36) :
…but how would you explain all right-wing and libertarian organizations rejecting the conclusion that CAGW is a threat that requires action?
Ummmm — because they paid attention in school during geology classes?
Anyway, as I’m feeling particularly open-minded today I’m off to invent a new approach to solar power. This approach will use simply a tank of water with a glass tank of 100% CO2 on top. Using the “greenhouse theory” the CO2 will ensure that the heat coming from the sun will go one way – into the water tank where it will be prevented from leaving by the magical properties of the CO2. This will cause the water in the tank to heat to enormous temperatures making it a simple matter to extract the heat into a steam turbine and generate useful electricty. Voila, our problems are solved by the very gas that is (allegedly) causing our problems today.
My beautiful wife is a psychology major and was ‘taught’ this garbage at a major university. The argument, constructed by professors on the left (which is almost redundant) is that those on the right are somewhat mentally ‘impaired’, and that is why they can not agree with the more open-minded people on the left.
Arguing that anyone who does not agree with you must have something wrong with there brain…is the opposite of ‘open-minded’.
theBuckWheat (05:34:12) :
A glimpse inside the Plastic Reality, where good intentions count more than positive results>>
What would compell you to believe that any of this has anything to do with good intentions? Give me your money, it for a good and noble cause. I will of course have to have a nice car and fancy hotel room as I zoom around the world doing good for others, that’s my right for being dedicated to a just and noble cause. And should it come to pass that my results were not positive, it is only because you and other selfish people like you did not give enough. And if it should come to pass that the cause is fictitious, well that is only because you are too selfish and stupid to comprehend the danger that confronts us all. And if it should come to pass the evidence to support the existance of the cause has been fabricated, well you are just too selfish, stupid and narrow minded to see that the intention of good weighed against fabricated data must be decided in favour of intention.
Having found by your own testimony that you are selfish, stupid, and narrow minded, it is clear that your betters must care for the world despite your mean spirited refusal to help by taxing from you that which you will not give voluntarily. This is a great burden of responsibility on your betters, and so they must be supprted with very large sums of money to ease the stress they are under. Should such sums prove so large that none is left to fulfill the good intentions, then taxes shall have to be raised still more. You are too selfish, stupid and narrow minded to understand this.
There is nothing good about these people’s intentions. If their intentions were good they would have abandoned the plot line when it started to follow apart and moved on. They cling to it because they still believe that they can win.
Lakoff is the same booster who nearly every year publishes reworked, “research” that “proves” that conservatives are stupid, selfish, evil, emotionally-stunted perverts. He has no problem getting published in the progressive rags.
Steve Goddard said (23:09:10) :
“Most indications are that Arctic ice will be close to normal this summer and there will be a large increase in multi-year ice.”
First, what data set/range are you defining as “normal”?
Second, what are you defining as “close”?
I don’t disagree with the multi-year ice statement to a point, as that is comes from the current and wind conditions in the arctic this winter. However, I would again, ask you to define “large”. Will it take us above some long term average? Will it even take us up to the long term average? (By long term, I mean as long as exact records or observations have been kept or made).
I think there is some insinuation in your recent and previous remarks that somehow the arctic is showing some full and complete recovery from it longer term trend toward less and less year-to-year ice. This would be inaccurate, and I for one will be especially keen to observe the trend of arctic ice this summer. If it is trending up, then we ought to have seen a great ice extent this winter than last, but we have not, and we ought to see a higher low summer ice minimum than summer 2009. I shall watch this closely, and see if the greater amount of multi-year ice makes any difference, or if the high temps in the arctic, espcially on the Atlantic/Greenland side cause a huge melt taking us below the summer low of 2009.
For the most accurate picture of what is going on in the arctic, I can think of no better single chart than this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Someone please tell me why this would not be the case…
I may be in trouble… I and my siblings were raised by an authoritarian father. But strangely enough, he, despite being conservative, self-educated and successful, he was always receptive to new ideas, encouraged all of our family to read with a dictionary beside us and, if we didn’t know something, “Look it up” rang in our ears. He also took the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ seriously enough to volunteer and serve in the armed forces through two World Wars. He used to insist that “dopey liberals and socialists want to run the world but don’t have the intelligence to understand how anything works, despite their impressive vocabularies filled with nonsense”.