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:
“nikki says” – Alledged that Eisenhower was upset when he found out that 1/2 the population were “below normal intelligence”.
Frankly, I think that’s a MYTH. I did, however, 10 years ago, hear an overly self important NPR reporter say this, “Despite 4 years of effort, fully 1/2 of all students taking the standardized testing in the New Jersey school system fall below the mean..”
Two thoughts immediately – Next version should say, “Despite INFINITE years of effort…” and “It should be obvious which SIDE OF THE MEAN” this reporter falls on..”
If Mr. Mooney is suggesting that he and his cohorts at DESMOGBLOG represent the genetic intellectual superiority of Liberalism, I’d say that is the logical equivalent of loading up the old Mossberg 12 gauge pump and touching one off into your Florsheim. Anyone who lacks the wit to see the incredible irony of bannering your blog with the line ‘Clearing The PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” when your founding principal is one of the biggest purveyors of PR in the Western world is obviously operating from a deficit in the old brain pan. A check of their “About Desmog” page
http://www.desmogblog.com/about
shows that apart from their PR maven founder, they are graduates in journalism, which as we all know is widely credited with instilling intellectual rigor and critical thinking. Do I really need a sarc tag on that one? Anyone credentialed in STEM fields seems to be notably absent. I’ve seldom bothered to visit their site, but I did waste some of my valuable time to read the posts that Mooney suggests are indicative of what will be provided in his book, which I would point out is strictly vaporware at this time, promised for release sometime next year. Given the level of mindless blather that has been flooding forth in the run up to Durban and the next IPCC fantasy document, I can’t say his efforts are at the top of the heap, but I’d definitely put it in the top 5 and probably in the top 3.
You cracked me up!
Sometimes only humor will convey a technical element that would otherwise be “lost”.
A woman once said to me after reading her life expectancy had bumped up to 73 yrs, “I will be alive at 73… too bad about you”.
I replied “What it is really saying is: that of all the people born on your birthday – half will be cold, stone, dead, at 73! What evidence, can you offer, that suggest, you are a member of the other lucky half?” Crickets chirped for an embarrassing long time. To cheer her up, I mentioned “The good news is – the older you get the longer your life expectancy becomes! Crickets continued their chirping. 🙂 GK
Mr. Mooney has taken the position that skeptical people can’t be trusted to evaluate new facts and come to valid conclusions. That’s a pretty tough argument.
The opposite of skeptical is gullible. Does Mr. Mooney think that gullible people are more likely to make valid conclusions? I could read more of his arguments but I’m just not gullible enough to spend my time on such a tired old saw.
JohnWho says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:08 am
[snip – over the top]
No problem – at least I now know at least one thing that is considered “over the top”.
“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…”
Not to mention us evolution-believing, RIGHT-leaning, pro-science atheists who doubt global warming scare stories for the same reasons we doubt homeopathy and voodoo. But there may be fewer of us.
Mooney’s thesis is idiotic on so many levels. But perhaps the biggest idiocy is that it commits the fallacy of self-exclusion: “*Your* ideas are a consequence of your genes and the structure of your brain, but *my* ideas are a consequence of rational consideration of the evidence.”
DCA says:
November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am
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
I don’t have time to do it myself but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the authors of this work. The introductory document for the Copenhagen conference had a similar number of authors and about half were from the ClimateGate email list. It begins to appear that the “overwhelming consensus of climate science” is likely composed of dozens rather than thousands of “scientists”
From Wikipedia, on “The Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union”:-
the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR arose from the conception that people who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally sick since there was no other logical rationale why one would oppose the sociopolitical system considered the best in the world
I think we can all see which road Mooney and the green lobby are heading down here.
I think I can summarize his book; I’m right, so I’m going to come up with a psyco babble reason to justify my position.
You can NOT use psychology to declare what is “right” or “wrong”. Truth doesn’t work that way.
From the useless wikisource:
1. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding … was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly dubbed as the ‘gay gene’ in the media, causing significant controversy. Sanders et al. in 1998 reported on their similar study,
2. Eugenics is currently defined as the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”, usually referring to human populations.[2] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism.
3. Schizophrenia has long been blamed on bad genes or even bad parents. Wrong, says a growing group of psychiatrists…
Skeptic gene anyone?
So let’s say you are liberal and pregnant and you find out your fetus is genetically conservative so of course you start thinking about an abortion. But then you find out the fetus is a gay male. As a liberal can you ethically terminate the pregnancy?
How about this: if conservatives have a genetic disease should we become a protected class? Does that not make an argument for valuing conservative culture? Should not our multicultural sensitivities be respected?
Is Chris Mooney guilty of hate speech? What about my feelings? Gloria Allred?
RE: David L. Hagen: (November 9, 2011 at 11:28 am)
“Objective truth by the scientific method is only obtained by persistent skepticism that continually tests all models against data.
The proponents of ‘fear-forced science’ might say that the danger they have perceived is so horrendous that all skepticism must be laid aside. Others might start to wonder if these people have some ulterior motive or irrational obsession behind their urgency.
Maybe this lunatic would prefer if we all had the genetic make-up of a dog being obedient and somewhat faithful, I favor a breed of dog that is harder to earn it’s respect, the more time you commit to this breed the more you will get back. When it comes to lunatics (yes I think it is an accurate description) there is a universal constant in their literature, it usually tries to suggest that there is an understood science behind the human mind, this is simply not true, No one person can study another person from birth to death and accurately document one persons lifetime and then come to any kind of scientific conclusion, based on the study of one person (hundreds of thousands of people would be needed for this study for any accuracy), the amount of data collected for one life time would take a thousand men a thousand years to compile and organize their data before they were able to give an accurate descriptive conclusion on that one persons life.
Here we have one person claiming that they know everything about anthropology and have claimed all kinds of specifics, liars have taken shortcuts in science, it is called and known as Post Normal Science, They preach but know sweet F**k all, The misanthropy and political slant is irrelevant by the fact that it wrote…
I have to go. I’ll get back to this later.
I’m surprised the PSU sex abuse scandal hasn’t been brought up in relation to the Michael Mann records stone-walling. Considering the global stakes of climate fraud I think it should be covered.
In short ever that does not agree with me is mad and bad, and I know this to be true becasue I said so.
The hubris is particularly noticeable, in light, of the near possibility, of climate sensitivity (2xCO2) reduction to 1.7 oC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/climate-sensitivity-lowering-the-ipcc-fat-tail/
I would say, that proves many warmists gullible. GK
Well that’s good news….
Republicans get a second opinion….and libtards don’t
Jim G says:
November 9, 2011 at 8:42 am
“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.”
==========
Seems you are a bit out of the loop 🙂
The present Mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel, formerly President Obama’s Chief of Staff.
President Obama appointed William M. Daley, the brother of Emanuel’s predecessor as mayor, as Chief of Staff to replace Emanuel.
The machine has moved into the White House.
God help us all.
Dave Wendt says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:41 am
“…Mossberg 12 gauge…”
When I hit the old Hush Puppies I typically use my Mossberg .410 bolt action with 3 shot internal clip. Bolt action being slightly slower than a pump usually allows me to stop at one shot.
In short ever ONE that does not agree with me is mad and bad, and I know this to be true becasue I said so.
At first I thought this article was called “Dump Hillary Day”
Not sure what Mooney would make of me. Politics generally to the centre, maybe left leaning, an environmentalist who looks after the wildlife around me, help create butterfly habitats and a keen wildlife photographer. But I don’t believe in the AGW scam because i don’t believe real science is being done. After seeing the money involved, the data hiding and fiddling and the nastiness of the whole business, I am a true skeptic.
It has nothing to do with politics to me, I just have a very strong sense of right and wrong and hate the corruption of it all.
I have not read the book and so it would be unfair to comment, but a couple of pointers.
The incubation of a neonates brain with testosterone/dihydrotestosterone causes profound changes, including handedness (hence a complete switch of hemisphere specialization) and 3D/2D spacial ability.
There is more difference between the brain architecture and skills of males and females, than there is within the sexes.
In any tested mental skill the variance within female POPULATIONS is much smaller than in male POPULATIONS; women, as a population, cling to the mean and men have more individuals at the left and right hand sides.
Thus, you will always find more males, as a % of the population, who are brilliant and more who are crap.
Males are mental extremists, and women mental conservatives. There will always be more male grandmasters and more male criminals.
In real terms the split in humans isn’t between the political left and right, but between males and females.
Anyone who writes about the functioning, data processing and predictive simulation modeling performed by the brain, without mentioning this point, is a first class asshole.
Had Mooney written his masterpiece a few years ago, I would bet that one of the “wrong” things he would have poked fun at, that conservatives believe in – was that the European single currency would never work. Certainly, in the UK, this was the voiced – and ridiculed – opinion of many right wingers. How Mooney would have hoisted them up for ridicule, had the book been written then.
I wonder how many other “wrong” things will turn out to be not so wrong given the passage of time? But who cares – Mooney will be laughing all the way to the bank either way.
mkelly says:
November 9, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Dave Wendt says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:41 am
“…Mossberg 12 gauge…”
When I hit the old Hush Puppies I typically use my Mossberg .410 bolt action with 3 shot internal clip. Bolt action being slightly slower than a pump usually allows me to stop at one shot.
Stopping at one doesn’t appear to be one of Mr. Mooney’s goals. He’s already hit both feet and looks to be working his way up to the knee on both legs.