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.
So what his research boils down to is that conservatives are closed minded and liberals are open minded.
Of course, if you try to argue against his research then you are simply proving you are a close minded conservative whereas if you accept it you are proving you are open minded liberal.
“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.
As a social scientist I am not surprised at all. Progressive liberals are a demonstration of the correctness of that statement. They perceive man as evil, ignorant, greedy and destructive and, by God, that’s what their research proves…. much as every extreme weather event, hot, cold, wet, dry, flood or driught proves AGW.
Are we still having contact with Planet Berkeley?
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.
Hmm! This study could go a long way towards explaining why professor’s of cognitive science and linguistics tend to be somewhat rotund, myopic and balding, with a propensity for bow ties, rimless glasses and irrational theories espousing imminent “threats” to humanity from bizarre sources.
I’d like to read more. Perhaps it would help me understand myself better!
“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 certainly true for the AGWers.
It’s SCIENCE!!
How do we perceive the world when we’re well fed, latte sipping urbanites who have never experienced an iota is suffering or toiling the fields for generations?
Or, phrased another way, conservatives are closed-minded, liberals are gullible. You can phrase it any way you like, but in the end it comes down to bias and interpretation.
For the record, I was also – back in the 90s – a global warming activist, until the phrases “the science is settled” and “the debate is over” were uttered. My science-trained brain rebelled at these, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Obviously suffering from a lakoff brains….
Maybe this numb nuts should look at the science instead of the social aspects of the situation!
Yes, yes! As usually, only progressives can ignore facts when coming to their conclusions, and still be considered thoughtful and logical!
LOL!
He must have either started out very stupid or smoked a lot of that stuff they used to have in Berkeley, to think that there is a perfect correlation between political views and cognitive processes, and that all the logic is on one side. It’s a very short step from his stated views to deciding that his political opponents are incapable of reason and therefore should be denied the vote.
Note that he calls himself a cognitive scientist, but his core discipline is linguistics, which is more accurately a branch of history.
OT: An interesting exchange between Andy Revkin and Joe Romm about the Barber “rotten ice” paper in climateprogress highlights my own doubts about chosing to report on the Beaufort sea at the end of summer…:
Revkin writes:
“The reason I didn’t write on Dave Barber’s paper when it came out (even though he was featured in our 2005 Discovery-Times “Arctic Rush” documentary and is a highly regarded scientist), is that I got a lot of pushback from a batch of Arctic Ocean ice specialists who immediately said that the Beaufort is a special case and cited various reasons to handle those findings cautiously. I may revisit and query Dr. Barber and them anew. That’s how I try to avoid what I call “whiplash journalism” (or blogging). Covering every paper can lead to real neck trauma when focused on the more complicated parts of climate science (even as the basics are clear). ”
Winnipeg’s Barber is an alarmist and seems to stop at nothing to get his funding renewed. It is funny to read that Canadian scientists are muzzled and to see Barber’s stuff quickly published in a peer reviewed journal and featured all over the MSM.
Now Revkin is thrown under the bus… not alarmist enough!
Wow… So I’m basically a mentally ill conservative, despite the fact I have more liberal beliefs.
But whatever, let them spew this rubbish. If it damages their agenda then I’m ok with being a mentally ill conservative.
Funny that these conservative hard hats believe they are open minded. They even don’t accept scepticism as a tool for new ideas. It looks a bit like sclerosis.
George Lakoff needs to take some time out with Hanson and company at the drug rehabilitation centre of their choice. Maybe then he could honestly dissect his own cognitive process. Oh by the way this bloke wants you on his team.http://bushynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Kumi-Naidoo_1596791c.jpg
Cognitive dissonance keeps liberals from rejecting the hype.
What utter nonsense this is!
“look seriously at the science”, liberals say…if only they did!
I do have to admit, we’re I to be in the market for a new brain, I’d prefer to buy a liberals, since it would have such low mileage on the odometer..
“Lakoff told CNSNews.com that “metaphors” shape a person’s understanding of the world, along with one’s values and political beliefs —”
I guess liberals understanding of the world is to expect the government to take care of them instead of doing things for themselves.
“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.
This is just insulting.
I’ve NEVER heard a conservative say that environmental regulations were “immoral and wrong”.
I’ve certainly heard a lot of grousing about nonsensical, hysterical, or corrupt regulations. A prime one is the mandated use of reformulated gasoline, as an example, which is more costly, hard on engines, and does nothing to improve net air quality. Or mandating cfl’s without accounting for disposal of their mercury nor the real cost comparisons with incandescents.
On the other hand, I know a lot of conservative folks who support regulation of pesticide use as well as release of contaminants into the water table or noxious chemicals into the air.
Of course conservatives rightly understand that the free market is best, but they also understand that there’s certainly nothing wrong with using regulation for keeping polluters from poisoning us or their neighbors.
What is wrong with these people? Will they say ANYTHING?
Another article which is 180 degrees away from what’s happening. I’ve been a socialist most of my life, and was a believed in CAGW until a couple of years ago. I’m a now sceptical denier of the link between climate and catastrophic warming and all it took was a few days examining the evidence, rather than just accepting the scare stories put out by the media.
Cargo cult science, as practised by the IPCC cabal, has no place in the 21s century. The more they try to hide the facts from the public, the worst the situation becomes, and few people and few people will believe a word they say.
We may be winning the CAGW battle, but need to be vigilant regarding the next scam they will perpetrate. Their ultimate aim remains to rule the people of the world through an unelected elitist world government.
“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.
Which is why they don’t teach hard science at liberal arts colleges
So in other words, I do not have the ability to view absurdity as fact? No thanks, I’ll keep my conservative brains intact.
You know, there just might be something to this idea. The AWG crowd will swallow any scam that comes their way without giving it a thought. It seems to me that an “open mind” so often translates to an “empty head.”