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.
When the Arctic ice mass decreased in 2007 I became concerned and began to believe the in the whole AGW thing as well. As a recently graduated Earth Science student, I tried to learn as much as I could about the SCIENCE, I found the most complete information about climate change on skeptical websites. A lot of pro AGW sites just said the same thing…The end is near, save the planet, be green, become a member..etc etc. I came at the problem with what I felt was a very open mind. At that time, I was naive to just how politically charged the debate already was. I feel the data that proves AGW is a dire concern is flawed because it has already been proven incorrect several times.
I don’t feel that confronting a question, gathering information from several sources, and drawing conclusions on what I found has anything to do with politics, metaphors, or open and closed mindedness. Someone who tries to pin my logic on some kind of sociological connection is being condescending in my opinion.
Lakoff is a far left political loon filled with crack pot theories, conspiracies, and “special knowledge”. He is an embarrassment to academia. A Chomsky want-to-be in an occupation that has not had any real science or scholastic thought since the 1800’s. A pretend occupation of no social worth.
As an ardent Liberal when I look at the science behind AGW I find it utterly lacking in credibility. I have no problem in placing my support behind many liberal initiatives and ideas. But when I look carefully at AGW I cannot help to see it for what it is…a fantasy of the ultra left designed to foist their minimalist vision of the world onto the rest of society.
Lakoff. Educated fool.
Lakoff hahahaha!
Hes is in person another proof of what happens with science when left wings becomes Professors.
I wonder what diagnos he gives.
Lindzen
Spencer
Singer
Pielke
Ball
Carter
Armstrong
McIntyre
Mcitirick
Christy
The man is an embarrassment for science! [snip]
What about us slightly right of centre libertarians who think AGW is a complete load of bunk? Am I an outlier? His hypothesis fails, except of course in the US, where everything, even the material your socks are made of, is a left/right issue.
Looking at Lakoff’s study in a different light, Lakoff is saying that Liberals are more gullible and less likely to question “science”…. that sounds about right.
Is cognitive assessment proof of cognitive ability? Obviously not. ; )
This tendency to want to separate believers and the skeptics into either conservative or liberal groupings displays a real ignorance about the current situation, imo. Maybe it was actually like that once, in the early days of the debate(?) – but too much has happened since then. You’re right Anthony- where does this research place people who once believed in AGW but subsequently changed their minds? If somebody stops believing in AGW (to whatever degree) do they automatically become a conservative? The author seems to be putting forth a picture of humans who can only ever be rigid in their beliefs. Luckily, people are always changing their minds about all kinds of things- that’s just normal human growth.
I agree with Mark. A quick check around will show that Lakoff isn’t a scientist, he’s a linguist, and one who seems to have had a long, rather fruitless secondary career as a political activist – he apparently founded a failed “progressive think tank”.
Actually, the current version of his Wiki page is pretty funny – he’s a heretical Chomskite, whom even crazy ol’ Noam has denounced as an ignorant know-nothing. Lakoff’s contribution to linguistics sounds like Jungian psychoanalysis with the serial numbers rubbed off and painted up in scientific rhetoric. Basically, he’s a witch doctor, and has spent his career selling the postmodern notion that people live in insular, linguistic isolates – like Aboriginal dreamtime.
In short, he’s an absolutist relativist, and doesn’t recognize anything like objective science, or the possibility of honest debate, for that matter.
jorgekafkazar (10:21:50) said:
[snip]
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
Though I have yet to meet one who understands why CO2 may cause warming. Open minded here usually means huge gaps in understanding that allows any old rubbish to sound plausible.
davide (10:01:03) :
I’ll refrain from criticizing engineering, which I know nothing about, if you’ll reciprocate.
Lakoff would have to pay me to teach me. Because I’d have to pay someone else to help me unlearn his brainless attempt at reason. Seriously, his position is about as tenable as the mob’s in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail. “SO, if she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s made of wood…and therefore…she’s a witch! Wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance; to claim reason and abandon it simultaneously.
When this guy looks at an ink blot heaven knows what he sees?
Personally I see the mess left by some guy who still uses an old fashioned pen!
A breakthrough in long range forecasting?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/03/-i-am-indebted-to.shtml
I am indebted to Dr Jarl Ahlbeck, from Abo Akademi University, Finland, who contacted me about his fascinating new piece of research relating to this winters severe cold across much of Europe, and a possible link to the very low solar activity we have been experiencing.
I am aware that there is a hugely varied readership of my blog; those who are very well informed about weather and climate, and others that have an interest in the subject but would struggle with some of the details contained in scientific papers. I have thus asked the author to summarize the main points of the research, and will include a link to the paper for those that feel brave enough to look into it themselves.
Dr Ahlbeck writes:
“Historically, low solar activity periods like the Dalton and Maunder Minima have been connected to cold winters in Europe. It seems very possible that the low solar activity forced areas of low pressures into a southern route or caused a negative Arctic Oscillation, AO, which in turn allowed cold air from the North Pole to flow across Europe. But can we obtain from real measurements that low solar activity really is able to do that?
I found that the mechanism is statistically significant, but it is not very simple to prove. There is no direct statistical relationship saying that low solar activity always should cause a negative Arctic Oscillation (which caused cold air to push further south than normal). But if we consider a second natural parameter, the strength and direction of the stratospheric wind in the Tropics (the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation index, QBO) I found a very interesting result: During periods of low solar activity (few or no sunspots) an easterly QBO causes a negative AO, but a westerly QBO causes a positive AO.
However, during low solar activity the easterly QBO causes a considerably stronger negative AO than the westerly QBO is able to cause a positive AO. Furthermore, easterly QBO is more common than westerly QBO during the Nordic Hemisphere winter.
The conclusion of my work is clear. If the sun goes into a new Dalton and Maunder minimum, we can therefore expect extremely cold winters in North America, Europe and Russia – which is exactly what was experienced during both the Maunder minimum (1600’s) and the Dalton minimum (early 1800’s).”
… article continues. The blog author writes this about himself
“Hello, I’m Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. I’ve been interested in the weather and climate for as long as I can remember, and worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for more than ten years locally and at the international unit before joining the BBC in October 2007. Here I divide my time between forecasting and reporting on stories about climate change and its implications for people’s everyday lives.”
How come people that believe in government control and regulation are called ‘liberals’?
How come people that are so politically blinkered as to be unable to comprehend beliefs that differ from their own, and so must explain them as wicked or stupid, are called ‘professors’?
Professor Lakoff, it seems history shows the contrary, please see:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
I always remind his sort of people that life is a sexually transmitted condition with 100% mortality. It helps put all these scares into perspective!
Mitch, well said and all true.
L’Earth Hour? Mais, Non.
La France retreats, ala Napoleon, from Copenhagen.
…-
“France Abandons Plan for Carbon Tax
PARIS — After months of political rancor and legal obstacles, the French government on Tuesday shelved its plan to introduce a tax on carbon emissions that had been a cornerstone of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s enviromental policy.
Ministers and members of the governing UMP party said the tax would put French companies at a disadvantage to their European neighbors, most of whom do not pay anything similar.
But analysts said the drubbing handed to the center-right government on Sunday in regional elections brought the U-turn from Mr. Sarkozy.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister François Fillon said the country’s environmental policy needed to be “better coordinated with the European Union,” particularly so that French companies do not lose ground against their German counterparts.
“It’s a big climb-down linked to the election — it’s political,” said Nicolas Bouzou, director of Asterès, a financial consultancy in Paris. “There was a lack of preparation and a lot of time and energy wasted by the government.”
He said that by arguing that the measure needs to be supported by France’s European partners, the government is effectively burying the tax.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi
I’d be interested to know what this twit (Lakoff) says keeps liberals from acknowledging human nature.
I don’t doubt his central thesis about the mass of people, left or right, but the following little pearl of wisdom:
***********
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.
***********
Is a screamer.
Professor Lakoff is a poster boy for why Parker and Stone said, “We don’t like conservatives, but we f**kin hate liberals” and why millions of middle of the roaders agree.
The simple fact that there is a stark left-right divide over AGW, that the animosity is so high, and all the misrepresentation of the opposing view that has occurred, demonstrates that “that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs”
Here is another “brain claim”, Just published:
The case is made!
By 2030 our economies can be CO2 free! No more us of fossil fuels or nuclear power.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091026/100-renewables-2030-less-fossil-power-case-made
Our Green Happy FUTURE will be based on 51% wind, 40% solar and 9% water and an electrical grid that’s able to cope with the power fluctuations at a cost of 100 billion dollar.
No word about agriculture, no word about the petrol chemical industry that brings us clothing, fertilizers, glass, concrete, plastics, medicine, pet bottles, sterile packaging, wind mills, solar panels, batteries, electric cars, etc. etc.
No world about cokes that allows us to produce steel!
No word about fueling our aircraft.
And you know what, it is much cheaper than using fossil fuels for the same period.
All that Governments have to do is make the decision and go for it!
No word about the shale gas revolution that delivers us energy at a price of $1MMBTU or below, depending on how close new supplies are to population centers that kills the entire economics behind their lunatic plan.
They are idiots and they should be closed up in closed section of a mental institution for heavy cases, no windows, steel doors and obligatory straitjackets and ball gags.
Together with Obama and his crowd, Al Gore, Pachauri and half the political elite that undermines our civilization.
Gosh – Lakoff is re-heating that old “authoritarian” Adorno soup of the Frankfurt School again.
Yes, yes, those who grew in the patriarchal families and even dared to love their parents are irreversibly psychologically damaged and on their way to become concentration camp wardens one day.
Can’t have that, can we?