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:
“[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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Some interesting voting stats. Democrat vs Republican 2006
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 🙂
So we need to fall in step like good little drones chanting “Imhotep” believing in their pseudo-science? Bah!
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
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!