Hump day hilarity: Chris Mooney's abby-normal post modern science

Chris Mooney has come up with new book to explain why people like you and I are “abby-normal” for not unthinkingly and uncritically accepting all aspects of global warming climate change climate disruption. I haven’t read it, though the cover itself speaks volumes. I won’t commit the same dumb mistake that Igor Peter Gleick committed when he wrote his bogus non-review of Donna LaFramboise’s IPCC book, so I’ll let somebody who has reviewed it speak about it. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

He writes: Chris Mooney, the author and blogger who once alleged a Republican “war” on science, is going back to that well one more time with a new book (above). In it he “explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things.”

Mooney writes:

“[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”

Mooney promises to explain:

“[T]he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts.”

Roger adds:

I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?

=========================================================

Next I suppose we’ll hear why we need selective breeding programs to weed out this “genetic scourge”.

Turnabout is fair play:

I’m sure Josh could do a better satire, but hey, this is the best I can do on one cup of coffee.

Some inspiring levity from Mel Brooks:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ron

I wonder if he’s got a theory on Independents, or on party switchers.

TheBigYinJames

They’re panicking, expect more of this guff.

MangoChutney

compulsory euthanasia for the inferior – now where have i heard that before?

Ed Caryl

Chris Mooney needs to examine his own combination of genes.

JeffC

I would bet that there is a higher percentage of degree’s in the hard sciences and engineering on the right than on the left …

Matt in Houston

I think Mr. Mooney is the one with the mental disorder. I find it rather amusing but telling that the warmistas demand we take their claims on faith yet we are the ones that are unscientific and lacking mental faculties. Modern day witch doctor is a fitting title for Chris and friends…

Jon

Oh well … I’m off to shoot myself … toodle pip!

“I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?”
Very well should think. Some people need to feel that everything’s all their fault now that the old Orginal Sin story doesn’t wash so well anymore.
Most of us in the West are born into a consensual reality which is underpinned, psychologically, by archetypal themes and motifs that are derived from a Judaic religion. I’m not anti-Semitic and I think the Jews have many things going for them but, in my opinion, their religion is not one of them, not least because it has caused us to always Fall for the line of being the Fall guy for whatever happens.
After the account of the Creation of the Earth in Genesis, the very next story we come to is about how man sinned by eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and so was banished from the Garden of Eden.
No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better. Our subconscious resonates much more willingly with irrationality and it works hard to construct metaphors with such motifs which make sense to it and which override all conscious rationale.
That’s why it has been very easy to persuade our subconscious minds that we’re about to be banished from the Garden of Eden (the Earth) for the sin of listening to the Serpent (emitting too much carbon dioxide) and for accessing the Tree of Knowledge (the internet) through our Apple Macs. Like the song goes, “I can’t believe we’re on the EVE of destruction.”

Latitude

What kind of gene do you need to make you believe in witch doctors that have not correctly predicted anything…….
….I think that gene would have been bred out by now

Caleb

Chris Mooney has to have his tongue in his cheek. If he actually believes himself, well, someone needs to take him aside and explain psychology isn’t a true science. Psychology will never be a true science. It is a pseudoscience…
….Unless….
……….You wear a white lab coat and grow a small, pointed beard. Only then is it science.
Chris Mooney lacks the necessary beard.

Oh wow! The eugenics discussion is open again. I’m off to buy a big supply of popcorn to use while I watch this debate.
Cheers!

Jay Curtis

You gotta hand it to Mooney. There are a lot of people who will eat this book up. He’ll make quite a bit of money on it. Wouldn’t surprise me if it becomes a New York Times best seller.
However, the first lesson in psychology for Mooney is that “Projection” is one of the most basic and primitive of the ego defense mechanisms. You can’t create something without revealing a lot about who you are, yourself. The parody title “Chris Mooney’s Brain” is really the more appropriate title for his book.

I like Mooney’s (lack of) details on the AGU website /sarc
And a gmail address!
FOIA avoidance anyone? 🙂

Sean Peake

Clearly, Mr. Mooney comes from the shallow end of the gene pool

Eric Anderson

“In it he ‘explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things.'”
Who decides what the “wrong things” list is? Presumably someone who doesn’t believe those “wrong things.” Very scientific indeed . . .
I could come up with my own list of “wrong things” and see who believes them (not I, of course, as I would disbelieve every single one of them, thus proving that I don’t believe wrong things).

If I didn’t already know Chris Mooney can’t be taken seriously, his interchangable use of the terms “Republican” and “conservative” would alert me.

Curiousgeorge

I wonder how much time Mr. Mooney spends hiding under the stairs, giggling and sucking his thumb?

Honest ABE

How nice – he is using the pseudoscience of agenda-driven punk-written “polls” telling us how uninformed conservatives are in order to support the pseudoscience of CAGW.
If we really want to find out who is smarter, and perhaps there is a small difference, then we’d need to do a double-blind study using established IQ tests with a sufficiently large sample size and/or correcting for age/education/etc. That is unlikely to happen; they are more interested in declaring certain things to be “true” and then if someone doesn’t believe them they are stupid.
I guess it just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun of Progressivism – eugenics is making a comeback!

Wilson

Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo?
Because there are plenty of us…

Austin

Its true that in our past many made their living by killing others and taking their things. One wonders how they justified it and if this sophistric approach is encoded in their genes along with the urge to kill off those that oppose them?

So, it mentally deficient to believe in adult, responsible behavior, balancing a budget, living within your means, and not driving yourself into irretrievable debt? And it’s wrong or deficient to oppose “science” which is not science and makes no sense, just because there is an evil agenda afoot? And it’s deranged to believe in personal work, creativity, and productivity, which make up the free enterprise system of capitalism, the only economic system that actually can work by itself without government control or regulation?
I guess I’m just plain its, then. Gee, somebody sure screwed me up somehow! Now, who to blame?

pat

Mr. Mooney seems quite caught up in his own great understanding of science,economics, and history. So much so that he feels it necessary to “prove scientifically” that anyone who thinks other than himself must be defective. And he thoughtfully worries that he may hurt the feelings of those genetically doomed to ignorance and stupidity. And he has deduced a quick and sure way to identify these imbeciles. They are “Republicans”.
Mr Mooney has just done more good for skeptics than he can imagine.

Michael Palmer

Wilson says:
November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am
Here’s the problem for Mooney’s lame idea – how do you explain evolution-believing, left-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories ..

That must be your brain in the jar.

JohnM

Compulsory euthanasia for the inferior [unbelievers]
Obviously of green forebears…..kill everyone who doesn’t believe what we believe [the right stuff]

Jim G

“Jon says:
November 9, 2011 at 8:12 am
Oh well … I’m off to shoot myself … toodle pip!”
Your comment reminds me of the present Mayor Daley of Chicago who in a 1980’s or 90’s Wall Street Journal interview was asked about flunking the bar exam 3 or 4 times and responded, “Yeah, so I flunked the bar, I guess I should go out and shoot myself!” Always loved his refinement, good Democrat that he is. His Dad actually ran a pretty tight ship, if you ignored the crassness, crooked machine, kickbacks and bribery of the city politics.

“[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”
So, there it is. If being critical of non-conservative opinions is genetic, then too, it is genetic for the followers of said opinions.
I have often wondered why some folks will follow others over a cliff. The only explanation is it is a genetic flaw. Example: AGW zealots.
It could be that my father, being an engineer, was an exacting critical thinker. I myself having several science degrees recall that rat maze learning is passed to offspring. A genetic learning attribute. One could make the leap that would explain how this genetic memory is passed on based on the rats offspring born with the knowledge of the key to a maze.
So, with that in mind we come back to the question at hand. Are we genetically mapped to be gullible or more critical in our beliefs. Why is there a malicious side to those over at say Real Climate?
I say the answer is in a self-serving greedy personality that shows up as narcissistic self-important behavior. Here we see a book written as another attack on those who do not get inline with their own opinions. Their evilness always ends up in leadership because they have to be in control. They say or do anything to get there.

Let me be the first to recommend that Chris Mooney be invited to be a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. The crowd there will love him.

Actually, there are significant differences in how the “L” (Liberal ~Democrat) and “C” (Conservative ~Republican) minds approach, process, and judge issues of economics, morality, social organization, and even science and technology.
We have been discusing some of those “L/C” differences FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT on my Blog for several years.
See Voting and Notions of Fairness, Voting and Notions of Fairness, L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds, What the Democrats Don’t Get, Five Channels of Morality, Emotions and Reasoning – Liberal and Conservative View of the Economy, and For all of the L/C Postings on my Blog.

chris y

The climate change circle of life-
“Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.
Not just a dreamer, he also ran some experiments.
“A remarkable experiment has been carried out in one of the pubic schools of Stockholm, whereby the mental and physical growth of children has been greatly stimulated by electricity. The experiment was made at the suggestion of the distinguished scientist, Professor Svante Arrhenius, who recently advanced the interesting theory that life was spread through the universe by germs driven by the force of light from one star to another.
The experiment will be continued as long as its good results are evident, and it is hoped in this way to produce a race of practically perfect children.”
June 13, 1912

“No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. Yet the illogic of the story doesn’t matter, and might even serve its purpose better.”
The sin wasn’t eating the fruit. The sin was disobeying God’s command not to eat the fruit.

randomengineer

Amy Ridenour If I didn’t already know Chris Mooney can’t be taken seriously, his interchangable use of the terms “Republican” and “conservative” would alert me.
Failure to distinguish between social conservatives (a disproportionately vocal minority of the right) and republican moderates says that Mooney is so partisan as to self-disqualify from any commentary.
Ishtar Dingir …and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”.
The story is allegory from the period of say 13k years back when man transitioned from hunter gatherer tribes to agrarian communities. The “knowledge” (grains and new social structure) was questioned during the early days of the transition because it was demonstrably DIFFERENT than the previous existence with few guarantees of improvement. 13k years ago the story had more impact and relevance.

hunter

And remember this:
Mooney represents the AGU when he writes this swill.Mooney is a hack bigot no better than a white supremacist or racist eugenicist justifying why they need to find a final solution to the danger posed by the object of their hatred.
It is long past time for ignorant slimeballs like Mooney to be taken ot the exit of the public square and put out of civil discussion.

JamesS

Mooney’s thesis is just rewarmed Stalinism: anybody who rebels against the State (CAGW) must be mentally ill, because any “normal” person would immediately realize the primacy of the State (CAGW) over anything else. I just wonder if the guy is self-aware enough to know what he’s doing.

Do we know if Mooney got a publishing grant from the Simulating Science Stimulus Program?

Kaboom

Considering that a republican is a democrat that has been mugged, mugging must be conductive to serious changes in brain chemistry. Someone send me a large box of neatly stacked grant money, please.

Ged

This stuff makes me sick. Don’t let anyone know about epigenetics! Or how our mental choices can reshape our brain, actively, to help reinforce them. You know, brain plasticity? I suppose Mooney hasn’t heard of that either.

Brad

Mooney has already solved this puzzle.
The reason we reject science is that we know too much science. In his own words:
“Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere, finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more skepticism and denial—rather than  less.

“In my experience, climate skeptics [sic] are nothing if not confident in their ability to challenge the science of climate change–and even to competently recalculate (and scientifically and mathematically refute) various published results. It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science. But the fact is, if you go to blogs like WattsUpWithThat or Climate Audit, you certainly don’t find scientific and mathematical illiterates doubting climate change.”
It’s all so obvious.

DCA

Anthony,
Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science is a summary of the global warming peer reviewed science since 2007. Produced by a team of 26 scientists led by the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre, the Diagnosis convincingly proves that the effects of global warming have gotten worse in the last three years.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/11/prweb8948198.htm

Chris B

Some interesting voting stats. Democrat vs Republican 2006
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

Peter Whale

Mooney writes “[T]here might be a combination of genes acting together that somehow predispose us to have particular politics, presumably through their role in influencing our brains and thus our personalities or social behaviors ..,”
There might be a green house gas that causes global warming.
There might be a climate scientist who looks at the science.
There might be an end to vast amounts of taxpayers money wasted on jaunts by the selected nutcases to go to Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban.
There might be a father Christmas,
There might be a climate fairy as well as a tooth fairy.
There might be a ???
I could go on but I have not read the book only the quote above.

bertief

I’m one of Wilson’s lot . .
So if we are left wing ‘unbelievers’ then doesn’t Mooney’s logic mean that Wilson, myself and the legions of other of the same ilk are actually correct in our scepticism?
And if we are, but people on the right who disagree are wrong, then what’s right and what’s not? Or is this a quantum theory of AGW that we are all both right and wrong at the same time?

mac

Perhaps measuring the length of noses and the distance between eyes is more scientifically valid?
Perhaps not!
Anyway does psychology count as a real science?

From Feynmann:

“If it doesn’t agree with experiment, then you are wrong.”
Dr. Rutherford Aris: (1929-2005) Head of Dept. of Chemical Engineering, U of MN. Conservative, and “Christian”…TWO Phd’s. One in Mathematics, obtained by CORRESPONDANCE while living and working in Edinborough Scottland, the second, London University, in Chemical Engineering.
The experiement: Real people, real intelligence. Oh sorry, he was an “Engineer”, not a hoity toit “scientist”. Guess that doesn’t qualify.

John West

OT:
Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:
“No-one has ever managed to explain sufficiently why eating such a tasty and health-giving fruit should be wrong, and I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen a Tree of Knowledge or even why partaking of the fruits of knowledge would be considered “a bad thing”. ”
It’s symbolism! The story is about going from “animal” (no right or wrong, just survival) to “human” (conscience) and how it’s impossible to reverse the process, not that it’s particularly “bad”. Take for example our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, they have socially derived rights and wrongs too, obviously nothing to humanities level but the same Truths still hold, what portions of such “knowledge” they have acquired can’t be un-acquired. Adam and Eve are symbolic of many generations of pre-humans and humans. (BTW the original text doesn’t even say “apple”. I really suggest researching before making a judgment, whether it be GW or religion.)
Sorry about the OT, hot button issue, straw manning the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, however, science and the Bible agree on most every issue if you don’t just have to read it literally (like a science book). For example; Creation: Bible: From nothing through incremental advancements to man. Science: From nothing through incremental advancements to man.
Basically the Bible says the same thing as science except unscientifically.

peakbear

Being a probably slightly lefty Brit scientist, I think I’m safe from criticism in all of “The Republican Brain” , “The Republican War on Science” and “Unscientific America”. Surely that last book alienates virtually the entire country – Surely you might what to attract some ‘unscientists’ to have a look at what you are talking back. The first 2 at least only alienate about half the country.
I’m still not really sure what your political persuasion has to do with whether you believe in CAGW.

I be willing to bet the chimpanzees don’t have to feel responsible for the sky falling on everyone’s heads. 🙂

dtbronzich

So we need to fall in step like good little drones chanting “Imhotep” believing in their pseudo-science? Bah!

KnR

Given the number of leftest who are 9/11 truthers , UFO believers etc its a frankly silly claim to make, even more so as when it comes GM or Nuclear there plenty of those who claim to support the ‘science’ on AGW who also totally reject science when it comes these . So in fact their support for science is not based on the truth or the validity of the science but that if the science supporters what they like.

Double checked my facts on my old Professor, Dr. Aris. At first I thought I made a mistake, but in the San Diego Ledger Obit they clarified that although he DID recieve his degree, by Correspondence, it was London Univerity, where he then attended to obtain his Phd in ChemE.
Now, here’s the KICKER that makes this all the more hillarious. (If we want to talk, RAW intelligence):From the Ledger Obit.
“Dr. Aris, known as Gus, was born in Bournemouth, England, on Sept. 15, 1929, the son of Algernon Pollock Aris and the former Janet Elford. At 16, he completed a bachelor’s degree in mathematics at the University of London; the university, reluctant to grant a degree to one so young, did not officially confer it until 1948, when he was 19.”
Again, he then completed his Phd in Mathematics, the same way, via “correspondence”. Golly, that would probably make him a “leading edge home schooler” too! (Obviously a primative neandrethal…NOT!)/sarc

BradProp1

I am a product of a good public education that started in 1961. I was fortunate enough to have teachers that taught me the value of forming my own opinion based on facts and ask questions when others’ opinions/statements didn’t add up. Now this Mo(r)oney is trying to tell me I’m stupid because I don’t believe in AGW because the facts don’t add up and the warmists can’t produce the facts to answer my questions? I’m not the one with “STUPID” written on my forehead!