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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?
I’ll tell you how, Chris, you stole my idea! That is, as it applies negatively more correctly to people like you, Chris. I’ve been claiming for years that Faux Liberals, in contrast to Classical Liberals whose name the former parasitized, and now known as Progressives, are either evolutionary throw-backs or dead ends. And that what we are roughly involved in now is only another survival struggle between hominid subspecies, the Parasites and the Producers, a categorization which of course is not my idea alone.
But perhaps we could just say that the tired old propagandistic “Fairness Doctrine” distinction between Liberals and Conservatives simply does not get it right. No, the difference is between [Faux] Liberalism and Rationalism. And leave it at that.
[T]he real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history.
============================================================
Lol, while the science posit is funny enough, I’d only say, there are many notable skeptics that are definitely not Republicans. In fact, some here, are derisive towards Republicans. It is well documented.
But even more laughable is Mooney’s posit that Republicans reject mainstream economics? What does a libtard know about economics? Those people think you can tax yourself wealthy and spend yourself to prosperity. Mainstream economics? Does the moron believe advocacy equals mainstream?
Additionally, history revisionism is part and parcel of the liberal approach. All one has to do is look at the claims they make about climate change. It always has predicted more/less snow, rain, drought, floods, hurricanes….etc.
I wonder what color the sky is in Mooney’s world?
Is this the Ideological Democrats version of the ‘Bell Curve’?
Why does this remind me of the eugenics movement of the early 1900’s?
Young Frankensein had to be one of the funniest movies evar! A sample.
So someone who writes:
“[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.”
has written an entire book bemoaning the state of science?
(And, presumably, the Democrat idea that you can continually spend more than you earn is a widely accepted policy fact.)
In, “the Battle Cry of Freedom”, J McPhearson relates that, in the 1850’s, a Southern Democrat produced a book that claimed the superiority of the Norman “Master Race” descent of the Plantation owners over the Anglo-Saxon, “Slave Race” descent of the northern Republicans. What is it about the Left that they return to the same old, same old?
Joseph Goebbels is blushing in his grave.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says: “…We have been discusing some of those “L/C” differences FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT on my Blog for several years.”
Fascinating insight based on immersion in Bhubaneswar, another culture. Very nice! Yayyyy, Glick!
Re: TheGoodLocust says: November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am …
Here’s a dirty little secret of the Progressives. Eugenics never left. It was just relabeled.
Bloody hell only 50 years after WW2 and the same eugenics – they are inferior to us because “science” tell us so – rationale rears its ugly, slick head. Shame on him. I haven’t read the book so I might be talking bollocks but then it sounds like Mooney is too. Shame and twice shame. My grandad was lucky enough to only get shot in the leg to stop the last lot of fascists who were attempting world domination.
Stay awake people.
Freedom is ours to lose, the costs of getting it back are terrible to contemplate.
I have a theory based on observation that the lifelong activist type is engaging in transference from the frustration of unfulfilled rebelling against autocratic fathers (less commonly mothers). Such hypercritical, unhappy types make up a very large pool of useful fools for the cunning opportunists who work such an idea for fame, power and profit. CAGW is a natural for this kind of thing. One can see in the totalitarian ideas of elitist policy prescriptions, malthusian bugaboos, the hatred of mankind that has become the despoiled science of biology and the throngs of idiots that can be enlisted. Remember the cultural revolution in China where “wrong-thinking” persons were invested into hard labour and retraining courses for correction of their revisionist, radical thinking, with death being the diploma for the incorrigible. This is scary stuff! Remember the hate laws don’t protect those who are going against institutional hatred….. Lighten up Gary, your shtick is supposed to be geology and engineering for which post normal is impossible (the crowd isn’t going to insist designing a railroad bridge).
Seeing as my comment won’t come up on Roger’s blog, I’ll put it here in the hopes he notices. 😉
I take Republican to encompass all conservatives and, as such, “half the population” doesn’t do us justice, Roger. We actually have them outnumbered according to many polls.
That being said and I a member of the majority, I declare liberalism (in the modern sense) / progressivism to be a disease we must treat.
Do I have a consensus? I’ll bet I do, so, seeing as consensus passes for science these days, it shall be done!
The world divides into two groups:
a) Those who, upon seeing some movie scene that scares them, cover their eyes and shriek
b) Those who watch closely and think “That’s a cool effect, I wonder how they did it”
There are just a lot of people inclined to believe things that are scary, and the scarier the story the stronger the belief.
One-dimensional vs two-dimensional people – those for whom there’s just ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ vs those capable of mentally plotting both risk and reward axes.
DCA says:
November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
Anthony,
“Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.”
Thanks DCA. Looks like a treasure trove of very scary ‘conclusions… just in time for Durban.
And “Elsevier, the world-leading publisher of scientific, technical and medical information products and solutions, is a proud to release The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.”
Proud? Looks like Elsevier is a real Team Player.
” 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…”
Proves?
“The report places the blame for the century long temperature increase on human factors and says the turning point “must come soon”. If we are to limit warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial values, global emissions must peak by 2020 at the latest and then decline rapidly. The scientists warned that waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.”
Do I smell the Convenient Precautionary Principle? We can’t wait for more information!!! because the threat is so great!!! Act now!!! No pressure, of course, but think of The Children!!!
Also known as the Used Car Sales Principle.
I can hardly wait for the post(s) shredding this propaganda piece.
I see, so people who question the Global warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Climate Catastrophe theory are mentally deficient, just because they don’t want the world Ruled (I say ruled because governed lends an air of democracy about it) by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, unsackable, Global Socialist Government that wants to control every single aspect of our lives, what we eat, drink, say, think, & do, with the intention of systematcially destroying the United State of America while it’s at it, along with all national boundaires under its Agenda 21 blueprint, brainwash our children into looking to the state for their information, education, & reasoning, & not their parents, etc, etc? Makes sense I guess! What do I know, if Hugo Chavez can turn up at Copenhagen & get a standing ovation for declaring that “capitalism has caused climate change”, & Robert Mogabe by saying “the western developed countires have caused climate change!” & get a standing ovation, I think we know where this is all leading us – up the garden path!!! 🙂
I have observed that scientists and academics trend towards being liberally politically and believing in CAGW. By “scientist” in this context I mean primarily research oriented scientists.
OTOH, it seems that most engineers are skeptical. And a majority lean conservative.
I’m convinced that research scientists and academics have little accountability in their professional life. Very little direct feedback, and much of that feedback is really opinion rather than hard objective feedback.
OTOH, most engineers get direct, solid feedback. The product works or it doesn’t. The bridge works or it falls down.
In the political arena, it appears that liberal politicians choose programs and actions because they sound and feel good and nice, rather than whether they actually have the intended effect.
Conservatives, as are engineers, are more likely to look at what actually works, and what the actual observed effects of programs and laws really turn out to be in real life.
“DCA says:
November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
Anthony,
Have you heard about this. Mann and Steig are co-authors.”
A quote inside: “”A must read book for those wanting the truth about climate change–credible and authoritative by some of the world’s leading scientists.” — Dr. Robert Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002″
See the following for a rather different quote by Dr. Robert Watson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29#cite_note-WebsterPagnamenta2010-6
In 2010, he warned the IPCC against overstatement:[6]
“The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.” Adding “We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”
Just to set the record straight it’s the:
“tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.
Genesis 2:9
NOT the “tree of knowledge”.
What about us Canucks? We don’t Republicans or Democrats up here in the Great White North, our Conservatives are like your liberals and our Liberals are like your leftists while our New Democrats are not just like the socialists all Americans fear, they are socialists that Americans fear – and yes they do sometimes form the governments, although more recently it’s Provincial governments rather than Federal. Guess Chris Mooney’s theory only applies to those who can vote within the the borders of the USA – as such it seems like a loonie theory and as such is falsified due to the geographic boundary issue.
I have a better theory: the science is wrong or at least the alleged evidence isn’t sufficient to convince people that it’s correct.
I wonder what his theory of Libertarians would be?
As one who doesn’t believe but tries to understand things he is welcome to his beliefs but not at the expense of my trying to understand things. Of course nobody will every understand everything but in basing ones life on understanding you grow because you never stop trying to learn. It is a Zen sort of philosophy in that the journey is more important than the destination.
It would be a lot easier for me to change my understanding than for Mr Mooney to change his beliefs. All you have to do is prove things to me but no amount of proof, including an ice age, would change his beliefs.
John West says:
Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:
I won’t get down into the weeds regarding religion, John, though I agree with you. I believe Ishtar was speaking in jest but, one thing that struck me. The Tree of Knowledge had an apple (broadly speaking) on it that when eaten, was our fall from grace.
The Tree of Knowledge today also has an Apple on it!
I knew it! Steve Jobs is the devil!!! 🙂
Absolutely no disrespect to Mr. Jobs…maybe 🙂
Your presentation implies that the last quote in italics is by Chris Mooney, whereas if you look at Roger’s post, it is his own (ie Roger’s) comment on Mooney’s thesis. It might help to clarify by replacing the words “he adds” with “Roger adds”.
REPLY: Good suggestion, done – Anthony
A true scientist is by definition a skeptic. Those that are not are doing social science.
Sounds like a little of Sir Francis Galton has found its way into Chris’ momma’s jeans.