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.
Dripping with desperation.
JMANON (11:43:28) :
I think they are just setting the scene for brainwashing/re-education of non-believers
Pol-Pot said reeducation of grown ups was impossible to attain, so they proposed the killing of all above fourteen years old.
Anyway, new-age reincarnation is on our side ☺
The money he gets to spout such tripe.Do people take him seriously? I will not be lumped into a group.
I’m an individual.
What a dull world he inhabits.
Wren (11:24:41) :
“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.
====
Yes, people committed to an ideology will tend to deny or dismiss information that suggests the ideology is flawed.
But this is nothing new.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wren, are there any mirrors in your home?
Such blind self-righteousness has always been the seed of totalitarianism.
The use of the term Liberal is being misused in this thread. The correct word is Progressive. Progressives are a Marxist like group and in the early part of the 20th century so fouled the the name that they took over the Liberal name that existed before and stood for something good. They have now fouled the name Liberal so badly that they are starting to use the name progressive again.
Be ware because progressives exist in both parties so avoid using party names as well unless the facts apply only to the party.
First off does he define Liberal and Conservative? It seems more clear cut in America but maybe not everywhere else. Perhaps an American liberal may appear conservative to a North Korean communist.
Secondly how does his argument stack up for liberals who don’t believe the scare around climate change. Prof. Philip Stott is a self-confessed liberal.
R. Gates (11:42:11),
Your reading comprehension needs improvement. Or maybe your knowledge of geography. Steve Goddard specifically referred to “polar” ice — not Arctic ice. But you start arguing based only on the Arctic.
Did you know there are two poles? Added together there is no unusual change in global polar ice cover: click
I suspect that if the reverse was true, and Arctic ice was increasing, while Antarctic ice was decreasing, that your argument would be flipped and you would constantly refer to the Antarctic, just like you always refer to the Arctic now, while studiously ignoring the Antarctic.
It’s called cherry-picking, and you do it all the time.
Also, you use the acronym “AGWT” without any explanation that I’ve ever seen [not that I read every post]. But if your “T” refers to Theory, you are dead wrong: AGW is an unproven hypothesis on its way to being reduced to a conjecture, because its proponents refuse to divulge the raw data and methods they use to arrive at their scary conclusions. Catastrophic AGW is certainly not a theory, and never was: click
[Note the author’s CV at the end of the article. If yours compares with Dr Glassman’s, I’ll pay attention to your wishful attempt to pretend that CAGW is a theory. It’s not.]
Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.
Then it’s settled – Lakoff is an open-minded, liberal, progressive who is obsessed with words.
So I’m basically a mentally ill conservative
I am certain this must be a disability, Quick someone, have the goverment give me some money for my disability.
Seems I’m in the minority, being a modern liberal and a sceptic. In political terms, I actually agree with Lakoff about conservative thinking.
But what Lakoff has failed to do is distinguish science from politics. He’s failed to achieve a political escape velocity in his own science. In short, he’s failed.
And what he describes as politically conservative is actually described in psephology as 19th century “Classical Liberalism”. The shifting sands of politics… they change almost as much as GISS’s GHCN adjustments..
With regard to “IQ Tests”.. 35 year old book:
“The stranglehold of IQ”, by Benjamin Fine, Phd.
Dr. Fine EXPLODES the “MYTH” of an IQ test. You really CANNOT measure overall
“intelligence”. You can measure APTITUDES in various areas.
But as the field researcher in “The Gods Must Be Crazy” part II, found out, once in a pure survival situation in the Kalahari desert, all his academic training was WORTHLESS and the “bush” intelligence of the Bushman was worth his life! (Hey, I kind of like saying the Bushman was the hero..!)
” Andrew W (11:50:17) :
So much vitriol, so much emotion, this comments thread itself is an argument supporting Lakoff.”
I’m pretty sure that’s a quickly dropped off drive-by comment but if you’re still there, Andrew, and you think Mr. Lakoff is right, why don’t you tell us a little bit more? Do you think support or rejection of the AGW theory is lined up along political lines, and that a deterioration of cognitive brain function leads to rejection of the AGW theory?
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
Gullible mugs that believe in anything and everything.
At least his argument is coherent. Belief is more important than fact… which is exactly what manifested in his very own study!
I find it surprising that so many academics remain convinced that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, but then I suppose that everything has been peer reviewed, so that makes it ok…
I get the impression that applied scientists are much more sceptical (perhaps I think that because I am one). We have to deliver products, processes or solutions to problems, within budget. If we get something wrong it comes back to bite us fairly quickly, so success, or correct science, is challenging to do, but easy to judge.
Climate science is in its infancy. Decent computing power has only been around for a few years. Modelling is very much a GIGO pastime especially if the science is not fully understood. The historical temperature data is very limited (in climate terms), and the measurement quality is a nightmare. The proxy alternatives are dubious at best and do not seem to be consistent. There are only three sources of the temperatures and these seem to be incestuous. The adjustments for instruments, movements, UHI, gridding and the rest may be wonderful processes but they do not inspire me with confidence.
Why do so many academics (95% consensus, I’m told) place absolute faith in this mess?
” Jeff (12:01:33) :
[…]
close proximity with one another. Algore again brings us the inconvenient whatever:”
With posts like that Al’s blog could become an interesting place to visit…
Lysenko lives.
If this person’s research is government funded, it should be stopped immediately. Just as research into the mental capabilities of negros and jews should have been stopped in the 30s by the same “progressives”. It’s the “scientific” underpinnings of neo Nazi throught and we know where it leads. The fact that this guy hasn’t been fired is scary enough.
There seems to be two strategies for dealing with the world. People with very good memories seem to base their strategies on things they have learned. Folks with good problem solving skills, tend to trust their ability to understand things over what they have been taught.
I find that Liberals tend to be in the former category, conservatives the latter. It should not be surprising that Lakoff pretends to do science, is does not follow adhere to normal logical processes.
“Liberals say, ‘Look seriously at the science and look at whether people are going to be harmed or not….”
That is precicely what the sceptics have done “Look seriously at the science…” and found it wanting. What’s wrong with that? It shows good brains applying a healthy dose of scepicism to the science which is how scientific advances are made.
I suspect George Lakoff is tying in global warming to the mind in order to get more funding. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
My youthful enthusiasm for Lakoff has officially died, if this quote is accurate:
“any question of math’s being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is.”
How would he suggest a teacher determine whether all the students got back on the school bus without counting them?
Do you fly on airplanes or cross suspension bridges, Dr. Lakoff? If so you are nothing but a tiresome hairsplitter at best or an opportunistic hypocrite at worst in my (anonymously posted) opinion.
Oh, I loooove this one : If you don’t accept what I say, you’re stupid. Running out of arguments, huh ? Last straws ? And yes, I’m another one that used to believe the AGW idea. Then I started thinking.
umm, i’m liberal, a philosopher to boot, and do not believe in AGW
hypothesis FALSIFIED
Anthony wrote:
If you were to ask me (and I suggest you don’t), I’d say the increase in wrong-thinking must be due to Global Warming, of course. After all, it’s the cause behind just about everything.
BTW, I never heard of CNSNews.com before. I assume it stands for Central Nervous System News. If it doesn’t, it certainly should.
This is a pretty high bar for an April Fool’s Day post. I don’t know if I can do better.
Re: Ralph (11:54:33) :
Uhuh … is this the kind of ‘Liberal open mindedness’ that makes people want to be controlled by an all-powerful state machine? That open, eh?
—
He’s probably right, and this is where beliefs are more important than facts.
It’s a basic tool in psyops, propaganda and other forms of marketing. Real facts are often the last things you want your mark believing in. Hence we get the appeals to authority, fear and all the other standard tricks to make people believe. Once they’re hooked on the belief, it’s harder to sway their minds with facts and much easier to convince them to part with their money. The more open minded they are, the easier it is to convince them to drink the Kool Aid.