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.
Oh no! The eugenicists come out of the closet again!
— Ahem, the skeptics are different from you and me, biologically. Why, they might as well be a different species. —
What crapola! Nothing new, though. You’d think eugenics would have gone out of favor following Hitler’s excesses, but nope. Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution famously blurted out a few years ago that “black brains are wired differently.” PBS Newshour commentator Mark Shields announced a while back that “conservatives are genetically different from liberals.”
Both were shamed into apologies. I wonder if Lakoff will apologize eventually. Eugenics is frowned upon these days as despicable junk science, but evidently Lakoff hasn’t gotten the memo. That or else he is a congenital idiot whose cognitive brain functions are all screwed up.
If professor Lakoff wishes to scientifically observe cognitive misfunction that results in politically based confirmation bias, he is going to need to apply for a grant to fund the purchase of a very crucial piece of reseach equipment evidently absent from his lab …
… a mirror.
Obviously we all need to be packed off to the psycho ward and let those people do their job. Can I say psycho?
You can see it here:
social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs
If you are a scientist, FACTS are the ONLY important thing, beliefs are nowhere in comparison.
Does this mean that “social” and “science” are totally different and not to be mentioned in the same sentence? i always thought that the “soft” sciences are not really science, but just a way for socialists to gain the accolade of being called a scientist. Remember Maureen Lippman in the British Telecommunications advertisment ” you got an “”ology”! you’re a scientist!!”
How a social scientist can actually use the scientific method of formulating a theory, and the testing it by experiment is totally beyond me, as an engineer. If you know how how to conduct an experiment in social science then please, enlighten me
George Lakoff, a.k.a., Abby Normal.
Consider the source – Lakoff is spouting pomo nonsense…
And of course, among those who believe in global warming, that belief could not possibly be shaped by their beliefs that:
1. capitalism is evil
2. nature is good
3. oil is bad
4. government should have more power
5. people should have less freedom
6. mankind is a bunch of polluters
7. we need government to protect us
8. meat is unhealthy
9. everyone should be vegetarians
10. fewer humans on this planet would be a good thing
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
http://tinyurl.com/4spnuz
Most of us were AGW believers years ago. WHY? Because we trusted science and scientists.
The AGW theory seemed hard to believe. It did not seem possible that MAN could affect the world’s complex climate patterns.
So, as more and more skeptical articles came out, the more, and more we became skeptical.
Climategate opened the floodgates.
Believers in real science were aghast that the IPCC and its staff of “scientists” would purposely create “junk” science for political reasons.
And now George Lakoff, who claims to have an “open mind”, is 99.999% sure that the end of the world is nigh.
If one has an open mind then NOTHING is 99.999% sure.
What a completely illogical professor he is.
He does qualify, though, as another preacher for the Church of Man-Made Global Warming.
BTW, years ago the Pope declared that the Earth was the center of the Universe. If you were a skeptic, you were burned at the stake. That made all thse believers FEEL GOOD. Copernicus was so fearful of the Church, that he had his theory of the Earth and Planets revolving around the Sun withheld until 30 years after his death. The pope, also, was 99.999% sure that we lived in a geocentric universe.
“Believe it or not, in the early 90’s I used to be a global warming activist.”
You’re right, I don’t believe it.
I first heard of AGW in 1967, age 16, I was a sophomore in college; a professor of phys chem and historian of chemistry told me about an “obscure and ridiculous” argument of Arrhenius about “heating the atmosphere by burning fuel,” few people had heard of the notion at the time
I never thought I would hear about it again, until 1971 when I learned that some people associated with Harvard were trying to “quantify” this, I wondered, why people would look at anything so preposterous
In summary, it’s good to dispel this notion in people when they are young
Yeah, I saw this–almost as good as the flowers.
Great choice with Marty Feldman.
Funny…..a prof at probably the looniest university on the planet (the University of California-Berkeley) pretending to pontificate about reality. Too many acid hits, it appears.
Is this the silly season already??? 🙂
[snip]
To put it in terms of Liberal and Conservative is to completely misrepresent the subject.
He says “Liberals say: ‘Look seriously at the science…’ ” etc – actually, from what I’ve seen, most people just take it for granted that since the IPCC said there was a large probability that humans are affecting the climate then it must be true. That is about the extent of a lot of peoples thinking on the subject.
Lakoff has been pushing his theories on the Democrats for a few election cycles now. His theory is that unpopular policies that they want to shove down our throat are only unpopular because they aren’t using the right vocabulary to describe them.
I am a geologist (some would say earth scientist but that’s way to 90’s for me) and a conservative.
I understand the mechanisms by which our world formed and shapes itself constantly. This understanding was developed by learning, questioning and re-learning dat and information.
My politics have no bearing over the way I form my cognitive arguments around what I know as science and by which is amply demonstrated in the rocks, minerals and fossils I have been privileged to study throughout the world we live and breathe in.
Having read these last sentences, written peacefully and in a balanced way, I am quite happy now to call this bloke a raving nutter.
Taxi for Lakoff!
Maybe it’s the warmists that have “Abby Normal” brains!!!!
Loved the movie!
DSo I sense some hypocrisy here?
Back when this fellow was a student, did he not sneer at any who didn’t deeply distrust and question authority?
Now that he’s an “authority,” is he not sneering at those who question him?
And this is open-minded?
Maybe some of the researchers spend too much time in the lab, at the computer, or reading other research papers, rather than spending their time in the natural environment.
OT. Did Steve McIntyre take a holiday I see nothing happening over at CA for quite awhile. Hope there are no problems.
I think he might have a point, but he just got things mixed up a little. It should have read:
“It relates directly (to global warming) because activists tend to feel that human beings are intrinsically bad for the planet,” Lakoff might have said.
“And what they do is cherry pick the science to justify their hypothesis and then label it a scientific consensus,” Lakoff might have said.
“On the other hand,” he could have added, “skeptics’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded” because they are willing to go wherever the data conclusively lead.”
“Skeptics say, ‘Look seriously at the science and don’t just assume people are going to be harmed or the world is going to be harmed just because you think human beings are bad,’” Lakoff could have said.
FTA: “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,”
Oh man. That is TOO FUNNY.
Only in the through-the-looking-glass world that is UC Berkeley could anyone make such a ridiculous statement and be completely serious about it.
I think these people should look in the mirror. Don’t they realise that it is independent scientists that are sceptical of AGW?
Heh. Funny stuff. Interesting how he has no understanding of what liberals or conservatives believe. Must be due to his living in that ivory tower.
I think a lot of us at one time were, if not advocates/activists, more sympathetic to the global warming warnings. Until Al Gore, and people like him, took over and kicked the science out the door.
Then we came to realize how bad that science really is, and so on.