Wrapped in Lew Papers: The psychology of climate psychologization – Part3

Guest essay by Andy West

∙Third of 3 posts examining papers by Lewandowsky & co-authors before ‘conspiracy ideation’ claims. These papers warn of cognitive bias effects, all of which occur in the CAGW Consensus, confirming it is heavily biased. Can’t admit this? Skeptics exposing the dilemma? So… push skeptics beyond the pale, minimizing cognitive dissonance.

From the first post in this series, and summarized as warnings for an individual seeking to avoid bias, the various papers by Lewandowsky and associated authors (see refs at end) include the following wisdom:

Type 1: Beware of the bias from one’s worldview.

Type 2: Beware of the bias caused by explicit emotive content.

Type 2A: Beware of implied emotional content, which via a powerful type 1 reaction may

enhance or attenuate Type 2 (essentially an interaction of 1 & 2).

Type 3: Beware of the bias from the CIE, which can never be wholly eliminated.

Type 3A: Beware of information that does not come with health warnings.

Type 3B: Try to be aware of corrections / retractions; be suspicious if these are not on a par

with the vigor of the original information transmission.

Type 3C: Be healthily skeptical; suspicions based on innate skepticism reduce the CIE.

Type 4: Beware of the ‘third person effect’, especially for oft repeated / saturating information.


Post 2 showed how each of these warnings is highly applicable to the CAGW Consensus. Yet before we continue regarding the fuller implications of this truth, there is one more important finding from the Lew papers that is important to know about. This finding concerns a psychological tactic employed by both the Consensus and the skeptics, while also providing an excellent candidate explanation for the ‘riddle’ of public inaction on climate change (also described in post 2), which so many in the Consensus obsess over.


Bias warning type 3C says: Be healthily skeptical; suspicions based on innate skepticism reduce the CIE. Yet knowledge about innate skepticism and its effects opens up the possibility of attempting to subvert this healthy characteristic. I.e. one can theoretically trigger the mechanism in people by casting false (or at least highly speculative and unverified) suspicion upon a source of the information one is attempting to counter. Both sides in the climate debate have followed this course. On the skeptic side, this is essentially the tactic of the ‘hoax’ and ‘liberal conspiracy’ arguments. On the Consensus side, the tactic is manifested by the ‘evil Big Oil’ argument, plus the ridiculing and demonization (e.g. ‘deniers’) of skeptics. Yet for both sides attempting to induce false suspicion has resulted in only partial success, and has caused some damage to the home sides too.


For skeptics, the main thrust of their argument has always stayed pretty close to science issues (e.g. the use of questionable statistics, or the divergence of models and observations), hence conspiracy theories have been secondary. And those shouting ‘hoax’ have tended to damage the skeptic position rather than enhance it. Yet more subtle leftwing conspiracy arguments have likely found some purchase with the public, more so of course with right-wingers and it seems also in particular countries, probably where politics is already more polarized. Skeptics adopting the milder tactic of merely pointing at the leftwing / redistributionist worldview alignment of certain Consensus heavy-weights, may not technically be inducing false suspicion, because at least where quotes are provided (see the example quotes in post 2), this alignment is self-proclaimed. Such an alignment does not imply conspiracy though, only a heavy cultural bias, i.e. from an initial political platform now heavily juiced by the culture of catastrophe, which itself is based upon the misinformation of certainty. Nor of course is there anything inherently bad about being leftwing, only in being extreme (to left or to right) or through bias improperly amplifying or leveraging climate worries for political ends (which therefore quotes should show). However, despite some climate justified left activisms that are becoming more obvious, plus the fact that various secondary intrigues and agitations will accompany any major movement from whatever origin on the political spectrum, it seems too easy a step to make from highlighting alignment, to incorrectly deducing a global conspiracy. Quite a few skeptics don’t resist this step, with mixed results when their deduction is then broadcast. Overall, the attempt to induce false suspicion may well have gained skepticism barely more supporters than it has lost them, yet it has almost certainly contributed to a stronger alignment of sides in the debate, with pre-existing political poles. (Likewise to above, deducing rightwing conspiracy only from rightwing alignment, is incorrect).


Overall, the media punch of the skeptic side, whether broadcasting genuine information (e.g. about real uncertainties), or indeed false suspicion, is still very weak compared to the public pile-driver deployed by the Consensus. It was weaker still until the recent official acknowledgement of ‘the pause’. Hence as noted before, Consensus information (whether true or false) continues to dominate. Yet at first sight curiously considering the vast efforts pumped into them, Consensus attempts at inducing false suspicion have also achieved only a relatively modest payback. Tellingly, the impact of the technique is domain-orientated. In what might be considered the core domain for the Consensus, i.e. the elite science and policy circles, the environmental NGOs, plus the majority of the mainstream media organizations, the de-legitimization and demonization of skeptics has worked pretty well, despite some blowback from a few more moderate Consensus adherents. However this is largely preaching to the converted, and it is in this very domain that the message originated in the first place. Hence what we’re really looking at here is a consolidation and entrenching process. While certainly very significant, for instance in largely locking skeptics ‘out of the system’, the main audience that the Consensus-orientated media are actually aiming at, i.e. the general public, seem surprisingly resilient to this tactic.


The Consensus seems to acknowledge this major failure to eliminate the credibility of skeptics in the public domain. There seems to be plenty of angst in the ranks expressed via phrases like ‘the deniers are winning’, or even ‘the deniers have won’. A wide range of reasons is cited, some of which conflict and at the extreme end of which (I guess simply as a comfort blanket), invoke the very technique that has failed, e.g. a ‘Koch conspiracy’ and / or nasty propagandist techniques by skeptics. Yet considering how little skeptic messaging actually makes it past the orthodox Consensus gatekeepers, we must be talking about incredibly potent stuff here. And considering too the deluge of demonization over decades, skeptics must surely be super-cyborg Teflon ducks for this all to simply slip off their backs – the public is still listening to them! OR, there’s another explanation, a much simpler and less fantastical one.


And surprise surprise, psychologists already know about this alternate explanation, or at least the surface evidence for it; even Lewandowsky and his colleagues know. Yet after welding together a hotchpotch of potential reasons and still ending up puzzled, they haven’t turned to this much more obvious explanation, because that would seriously challenge their worldviews and cultural belief, i.e. a belief in the certainty of catastrophe that is practically synonymous with the Consensus. So what is the explanation? Well, in fact it’s something that skeptics have said all along, albeit gleaned from personal observation and experience rather than psychological knowledge. Check out the quote below from E2010 [underline mine]:

The literature thus suggests that suspicion may be capable of reducing the CIE. However, suspicion will be useful in reducing the CIE only in situations in which people believe that there are reasons to be suspicious in the first place, and, in many situations, it will not be feasible to plausibly induce suspicion. Moreover, as we discussed earlier, the effectiveness of induced suspicion may be moderated by a person’s level of skepticism, which may represent a stable personality trait (Lewandowsky et al., 2009); hence, it is difficult to manipulate.

In short this amounts to: there are some narratives folks simply won’t buy, no matter how hard the related issue is pushed at them and how much time and money is spent on it. At least within a generation or so. But it’s critical to grasp why (there is a highly plausible reason), and what sort of things they won’t buy. For instance the reason the majority of the public is still not buying the demonization of skeptics, or indeed are still not fired into action by the endless Consensus messaging about inevitable catastrophe, has very likely nothing to do with the skeptics themselves, and nothing to do with climate.


Before we delve into the why and what above, it’s worth just a little time to be entirely clear about what the E2010 quote really means. From post 1, the Lew and crew bias warning type 3C says: Be healthily skeptical; suspicions based on innate skepticism reduce the CIE. The Continued Influence Effect means that many people will still retain some belief in misinformation whatever is done to correct or mitigate it, yet being healthily skeptical does reduce this hold or grip of the CIE. However, in a situation where an organization (e.g. a government) attempts to subvert healthy skepticism, for instance by casting (false) suspicion upon sources challenging its misinformation, then as the quote notes this tactic won’t work too well unless there are pre-existing or ‘innate’ reasons to be suspicious in the first place. For completely or largely false suspicion, this will not be the case. It seems that there’s a level of skepticism which is too deep to be subverted, much too difficult to manipulate, which Lewandowsky posits is based on a stable personality trait, ‘an instinct for the truth’ if you will. Hence in our example the government in question will not find it feasible to induce suspicion about those who are questioning its misinformation. So indeed there are some narratives folks simply won’t buy. The attempted de-legitimization and demonization of skeptics falls into this domain, a majority of the public simply don’t buy it.


The answer to the question ‘what sort of things won’t the public buy?’ helps to reveal the most plausible reason as to why they are so resistant, and where the ‘innateness’ and ‘instinct’ come from. The full answers are a very long story, involving findings from other disciplines than psychology, most notably cultural evolution. I’ll attempt a very compressed and conditional summary here (see the note at the end of the post for a pointer to much more). Suspicion can come from many sources, for instance mere suspicion of one’s political opponents, but we’re interested in deeper, innate skepticism. Climate change is a good field to find this (calamity it is supposed to be ‘scientifically certain’, and for instance all the main political parties in the UK push the Consensus message), revealing the most notable characteristic of the public’s resistance to certain narratives, which is that this has little or no dependency on any of the actual facts of the topic. The public knows very little indeed about who the skeptics are or how the climate works. Their resistance to the Consensus undermining of skeptics cannot therefore be based upon domain knowledge; it is almost certainly based upon how the Consensus present their message. More generally, excess certainty and demeaning of the opposition and certain other characteristics embedded in the narrative, are what trigger public resistance. These features are independent of the actual topic, and whatever that topic, the public appear to ‘know’ (this will be subconscious in many cases) that these features mean there are fundamental problems hidden beneath the narrative. So the answer to ‘what sort of things won’t the public buy?’ turns out to be ‘things that are presented in too coherent, too certain, too forceful (e.g. suppressing other views), too emotive and too arrogant (e.g. demeaning the opposition) a manner’, whatever the actual topic is. These narrative features betray that the topic is not sound.


As to why, there is a great deal of evidence that this is an instinct resulting from our long co-evolution with cultural entities. While there’s an overwhelmingly large net advantage to the cognitive mechanisms that allow cultural alignment (civilization itself rests on such alignments), this doesn’t mean there aren’t serious downsides, including cultures with strongly negative aspects and indeed fully parasitical cultures. Hence we have developed instincts that counter cultural trends adopting too negative an aspect, and it is highly plausible that this underpins the ‘stable personality trait’ which Lewandowsky refers to. We cannot expect this effect to be a universal constant; a useful model is to think of negative cultures as viruses and the instincts countering them (which themselves can be bolstered by positive cultural traits and opposing biases), as conferring immunity. Just as the response of any particular population, or indeed individual, to a specific virus will vary depending upon all sorts of inherited or acquired immune factors, so it is with negative cultures. The immunities chase the negativities in an endless race throughout time and across populations. We have in fact been attacked countless times by heavily biased cultural contagions like CAGW. Ironically those individuals with the greatest domain knowledge, yet who are steeped in the orthodox bias of an associated negative culture, will be the least protected. The weight of their supposed knowledge suppresses their instinctive immunity; as part of the endless war negative cultures have developed various features to suppress our immunities (e.g. hitting emotional hot-buttons to override). [And cultures which start negative yet take generations to penetrate society, tend to become more benign over time, may end up being net positive; otherwise their hosts would be out-competed by other, unaffected populations].


Within the climate change domain, these skeptical instincts have implications far beyond the failure of the long and occasionally extreme Consensus campaign that attempts to discredit skeptics in the public eye, by trying to induce suspicion. As shown in post 2, at the heart of the Consensus is a major transmission of misinformation, i.e. the misinformation about the certainty of calamity. If we add in the targeted emotive campaigns that are freely admitted, plus the suppression of opposing views and demonization of skeptics and all the general characteristics of typical climate Consensus narrative, we indeed arrive at messaging which is too coherent, too certain, too forceful, too emotive and too arrogant. Completely independent of what is happening in the climate and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, plus completely independent of any knowledge or lack thereof about the players, these narrative features alone betray that the topic is not sound. And at some level, subconscious for many, more conscious for others, explicitly expressed for a few, the public will know this.


This fundamental suspicion that the CAGW narrative is flawed and so hides an unsound topic, is a very plausible candidate for the most major component of public disbelief and inaction, to explain which a large and improbable array of psychological factors have been welded together by Consensus aligned psychologists (see quotes / examples at the opening of post 2) with external factors such as the recession bolted on. While a few of these factors may still play to some extent, the mere fact that the issue remains highly puzzling to them, a ‘riddle’, is an acknowledgement that their welded array is not up to the job. Also, Consensus aligned papers and assessments explicitly acknowledge the general extent of this disbelief and inaction; not all folks in the Consensus are burying their heads in the sand when it comes to realizing their low (and declining) impact for what ought to be the ultimate cause (saving the planet). Which means they are at least perceiving their real problem, if not the true reasons for it. This extract from S&L2014 is one of many such assessments.

Americans have been somewhat concerned about global warming for many years, although in recent years, public concern about global warming has decreased. For example, in 2009 only 35% of Americans considered global warming a very serious problem compared to 44% in 2008. In a series of nationally representative surveys conducted between 2010 and 2012, Leiserowitz et al. found that fewer than 12% of Americans said they were “very worried” about global warming, an overall drop of 5 percentage points or more since 2008. A similar drop in public opinion has also been identified in comparable polls conducted internationally. Surveys conducted in the United Kingdom, for example, found that between 2005 and 2010, British public concern about the issue dropped approximately 10 percentage points. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this period of increased scepticism, including issue fatigue, the 2008 global financial crisis, and decreased media attention (see Pidgeon and Brulle et al. for reviews).


An irony in all this is that, as mentioned a few paragraphs above, skeptics were very probably right all along regarding this issue. Comments on skeptic websites have for many years speculated that the very nature of the narrative reveals how implausible is the subject matter at its core, i.e. a certainty of (near) catastrophe, and this often independently of particular climate knowledge or claims. The nature of the narrative itself reveals that the claims have been manufactured, reveal that somewhere inside the biased core of CAGW, unseen yet sensed by the public, there nevertheless must be rampant uncertainty about all sorts of foundational props for this narrative. The skeptics and the public nose both appear to have been proved right, as Climategate and ‘the pause’ have begun to reveal. Western government agencies and environmental NGOs have been defending their misinformation by ratcheting up the attempts to induce suspicion on skeptic sources, a policy which may win over some, but will only confirm in the minds of the bulk of the public, an original suspicion that something is very wrong with this whole global warming / climate change thing (hence the declining poll figures). This ploy has also opened a widening gulf between core Consensus fortresses (such as the ruling bodies of science councils and universities, the NGOs, some government departments etc) and the public. However, decades of misinformation will not be erased by mere suspicion and much of the public, some sectors more than others, will be subject to the tenacious bonds of the CIE for a long time to come.


So, repeating and extending slightly the summary paragraph from post 2 about warnings from the Lew papers as applied to the Consensus, we have: Regarding type 1, beware of the bias from one’s worldview: support for the Consensus is highly aligned to specific worldviews and this is self-declared; worldview endorsements will produce no less bias than worldview challenges. Regarding type 2, beware of the bias caused by (explicit or implied) emotive content: the Consensus is saturated with emotive messaging, both within itself and projected out to the public (within which its science and policy contributors are inextricably embedded). Deliberate and sustained emotive messaging campaigns have been carried out over decades, and the Consensus proposes to tune these for more efficient hits on the appropriate emotive hot-buttons, and continue hitting those buttons as hard as possible for the foreseeable future. This can only result in heavy bias. Regarding type 3, beware of the bias from the CIE (with subtypes): the Consensus has transmitted critical misinformation (primarily regarding the certainty of calamity), from the highest possible levels on downwards to every imaginable media channel and local interaction. It is hard to think of any other message in history that has received so much global attention from practically every nation upon Earth. The Consensus did not accompany their message with appropriate health warnings. Even when challenged by ‘the pause’, the Consensus has not promoted cautions, corrections or retractions at the same level of vigor as the original information; indeed it actively seeks to resist this activity and only acknowledges the absolute minimum adaptations, which are typically transmitted in the most obscure manner possible (while all along attempting to maintain undamaged the narrative of an inevitable looming calamity, which it still promotes). When healthy skepticism that might reduce the CIE is expressed, the typical response of the Consensus is to de-legitimize and in cases even demonize the skeptic voices. This is in fact an attempt to subvert healthy skepticism about false certainty by inducing suspicion, which while it has largely failed in the public domain, has certainly borne fruit within core science and policy circles. Overall this means that the CIE, which even in the best of circumstances can never be wholly eliminated, will continue to play a big role in biasing both the public and also the current core Consensus contributors themselves, the latter of whom are now still more entrenched as a result of the induced suspicion. Regarding type 4, the third person effect: the massed drums of the Consensus, amplified by authority, which for decades have repetitively beaten out the narrative of ‘the science is settled’, and ‘calamity is certain’, will indeed have had the effect of causing considerable bias in any scientist honestly struggling to uncover the truth, let alone in the public, who are far less armed to resist such false certainty.


Major, coherent social entities that drive high levels of bias via various mechanisms as described above, will tilt society itself towards their narratives, producing an envelope of responses in adherents (there will be a range of levels of belief), and tearing apart social bonds between adherents and cynics, which tears will often follow existing lines of weakness (though not exclusively), e.g. elite / public, religious / secular, pre-existing political divides etc. or some mix of these. This is certainly what we see regarding CAGW (and incidentally these characteristics, even when sustained over generations, are not unexpected or ‘wrong’ for a philosophical movement, say, yet they are for policies whose premise ought to be rooted in hard science), but we can look for deeper confirmation of the rampant cognitive bias effects that are super-glue for the Consensus, for instance at a personal level. If the social entity has not come into some sort of dynamic stability within society as a whole, and continues to evolve away from reality (i.e. the bias effects continue to strengthen), then considerable stress will eventually be experienced by adherents, especially those within the ‘core’ of the entity (for CAGW this is the science and policy hub). So at the more passionate end of the envelope of responses, we will expect to see expressions of this stress. Such expression will likely include depression, despair, desperation, excess personal identification with ‘the cause’, a gaming of the current system, illegal actions or calls for such, and so on. [NOTE: this does NOT mean Consensus folks are delusional or deranged! We are all subject to cultural influence and to stress; in the climate Consensus domain there just happens to be a lot more of those things right now].


To be counted as evidence, such things would have to be significant and systemic, not just one-off observations, and I’ve done no survey plus know of none assessing this area. However, I think the cache of Climategate emails reveals that gaming the system was certainly a systemic activity. While apparently an isolated incident, the Gleick affair reveals illegality at a personal level, yet rather more worryingly there is evidence of gaming the law itself in favor of CAGW (see note at end for refs). Staying with the personal, this series of letters from Australian environmental scientists (h/t WUWT), which show an astonishing level of personal revelation regarding thoughts about climate change, certainly seems to me to represent a slide into despair. Whether or not that’s formally true, the level of emotion here completely trumps reason, and the fears expressed seem to have lost touch with the science the IPPC itself presents in the AR5 technical papers. There is no attempt to conceal the level of emotive motivation, which implies utter belief, mainly in the misinformation of certainty, and these letters are simply laden with memes that have prospered in historic social entities, apparently now having found a snug new home within CAGW. Once again the false ‘riddle’ of public inaction, discussed above and also in post 2, appears as the incomprehensible and apparently insurmountable blockage to the noble cause of these scientists, abetted by betrayal of leaders, the media, vested interests, and you name it. The sense that ‘these guys know our doom and yet no-one lets them run the show’, is palpable, and quite evocative of old style Gnostic narratives such as found in the Cathar and Nizari Ismaili movements. Evidence such as this supports the likelihood that the core Consensus truly believes its own narrative about certainty, despite the increasing stress of maintaining this message within the same stable as rapidly diverging science. [For some in the Consensus, even big-wigs, self-consumption of recycled scare memes is far worse still, pretty much to the point of goblin fiction; see the great book review here, not written by a skeptic, exposing an example].


In another recent series of messages from environmental scientists in Lewandowsky’s homeland of Australia, at Scared Scientists (h/t WUWT),the emotive focus shifts from a sympathy-grabbing sadness and bewilderment to a straight pitch at fear, as one might gather from the label of these guys and gals. Each of 8 messages (1 from each scientist) is headlined in capitals ‘FEAR: XYZ’, where XYZ is the particular fear each scientist claims is their particular biggy. Aside from the usual parasitical memes of alarm getting a cozy living once more, overall the transmission of misinformation about the certainty of various dooms, plus the certainty in the simplistic solution, is quite something to behold. This is a very strong pitch indeed; it seems these scared scientists haven’t seen the research threads mentioned in post 2 (from within the Consensus!) pointing out that fear-based appeals don’t work and tend to turn people off. Or maybe they ignored that; the whole exercise has more than a whiff of desperation. The kind of desperation folks feel when the real world crashes into the serious cultural bias one has been soaked in for years, or maybe decades; in this case, the culture of catastrophe founded upon the misinformation of certainty.


In the article ‘a climate of despair’ from the Syndey Morning Herald, we learn that climate depression (aka “ecoanxiety” or “doomer depression” or “apocalypse fatigue”) is apparently not uncommon, and on the rise. Psychologist Susie Burke is quoted in the article:

We can be very sure that many people in the field of climate change are distressed – highly distressed – and it can have a significant psychosocial impact on their wellbeing.

The article highlights the case of one sufferer, biologist and ecologist Nicole Thornton, who slid towards some kind of breakdown after the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. In her own words:

“Every time I talked about environmental issues, I would start crying, which I think is a really unusual response,” she says. “I’m a scientist, so I like to break things down – to drivers and causes – but I was confused. I had never heard of anyone who had something like this.”

Fortunately Thornton sought help and is much improved, now using her experience to help others.

Thornton, 41, is currently on a break – of sorts. She is part of a fellowship program with the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, with 49 other aspiring change agents. She is using her time in that program to create an online health and wellbeing hub, catered to cases like her own. “Peers have talked to me about burnout, anxiety, panic attacks, complete disengagement, and frustration leading to despair and, when you think about it, this stuff is always around you in the environmental field. It’s notorious. They get so involved, and they’re so passionate and they don’t take breaks.


The really interesting thing is that there appears to be an awful lot of folks needing help, and some of the symptoms discussed in the article are serious. Yet this is exactly what one would expect from a clash of reality with cultural bias. ‘Apocalypse fatigue’ is a highly appropriate term. The Consensus has massively oversold the certainty of apocalypse, leading to bewilderment and despair, and worse, within its ranks as they perceive the world is not reacting sufficiently. In the minds of these unfortunate folks, we are driving towards a brick wall at high speed, why wouldn’t they be stressed?!


There is not a whiff of skepticism in this Sydney Morning Herald article; all is pitched from a Consensus viewpoint regarding attitudes to climate change. For instance early this year, Burke presented on mental health and the environment at one of Al Gore’s Climate Reality shindigs. Yet despite they are trying to help, apparently no professionals have even started to question, at a fundamental level, why their ‘weary campaigners’ are falling over like ninepins. Instead, they seem to be concentrating on sticking plasters:

Burke has gone so far as to release “tip sheets” to help people face the reality of climate change without a sense of dread – a kind of step-by-step guide for managing feelings and changing behaviour.

She and her colleague, Dr Grant Blashki of the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, have even been called on by organisations that need help dealing with the overall melancholy affecting their troops.


Actually sticking plaster is probably a very kind description. Most of the webpage for the tip sheets is about changing behavior to be more eco-conformant, not in any way that might address one’s actual psychological problem. The sticking plaster sections recommend taking a break from news and TV, spending time with loved ones (well fine, but this is a ‘sugar meme’), being optimistic (good) and being well-informed (great… but An Inconvenient Truth is suggested). Hmmm… given a high court judge ruled regarding An Inconvenient Truth that nine key errors arose “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration”, and that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial scientific analysis, does anyone think this would be a good cure for one’s eco-anxiety or apocalypse fatigue? Even if there were zero errors in it, would yet another apocalyptic vision be a workable cure? The ‘change your behavior’ parts of the webpage (by far the majority) include many eco-friendly things one is advised to do, plus other behaviors such as ‘associate with like-minded people’ and ‘encourage others to change’. Depending on the eco-policies supported this may or may not be good for the planet (some eco-policies seem to be causing more distress and damage than good, for instance the bio-fuel debacle), but either way this isn’t going to actually address a sufferer’s core psychological problem. And any cult leader would recognize a basic formula beneath the gentle and erudite words here: perform the acts of faith, associate with the faithful, convert the unfaithful. Even if all this was provably and unquestionably ‘right’ regarding the bigger picture, such advice is all about helping the cause, not about helping the individual.


Other supposed healers such as psychotherapist Rosemary Randall, take the same ‘change your behavior’ approach in an attempt to cure ‘climate anxiety’ using discussion groups:

Through conversation, we have a lot of material which we use in the groups which show people where the emissions are and what the actions are that they can do to affect that. We talk about what the obstacles are, and what the process is of making those changes.

This is all much too reminiscent of telling shell-shocked troops to simply pull themselves together, believe in the next big push, and get back in the trenches to carry on fighting; recommendations given before shell-shock became a recognized medical condition. There appears to be a similar and sizeable gap in understanding here; a major inconsistency with how mental trauma would be analyzed and addressed in non-climate domains.


There are other inconsistencies revealed by the tip sheets. For instance, and I’m sure by now coming as no surprise to readers, skepticism is no longer indicative of a stable personality trait that will help individuals resist manipulation and misinformation and the CIE. It is no longer Lewandowsky’s ‘key to accuracy’ as perceived in non-climate domains. Within the climate domain it is perceived negatively:

The caution expressed by climate change sceptics could be a form of denial, where it involves minimising the weight of scientific evidence/consensus on the subject. Or it could indicate that they perceive the risks of change to be greater than the risks of not changing, for themselves or their interests.


Yet if skepticism is a fundamental behavior, it must work in the same manner for CAGW and for WMD and for all other topic domains (at least when observed as a significant net effect over many individuals), i.e. only one way or only the other! If this is not the case, then skepticism must be dependent upon other variables and thus is not a fundamental behavior after all; in which case it can neither be used to explain innate resistance to manipulation and the CIE, nor ‘denial’ in climate skeptics and others. My own feeling is that the evidence presented by Lewandowsky and associated authors per type 3C here, is right, hence the oft-expressed skepticism in the climate debate is a sign of valid suspicions.


There’s a couple of major contradictions lurking on this tip-sheet page too. Some common feelings and reactions to climate change threats are cited: ‘People may feel anxious, scared, sad, depressed, numb, helpless and hopeless, frustrated or angry’. Yet much of the Consensus messaging, for instance that of the ‘scared scientists’ above, appears exactly geared to make folks feel sad and scared and frustrated and angry, i.e. in an attempt to motivate them (though ‘helpless and hopeless’ may I guess be an unintended consequence). It would be much better to remove the sources of fear-based messaging rather than stick plaster on the wounds, yet are psychologists clamoring for this messaging to stop? I think not! Likewise some good advice is given: ‘It is also important that people don’t over-react and start behaving as though catastrophic change is imminent’. Yet this advice emotionally contradicts the common Consensus story given by presidents and prime ministers on downwards, which is based upon the misinformation of certainty of catastrophe and amounts to: ‘only X days to save the planet’. I think with UK prime minister Gordon Brown in 2009, X was 50; apparently we are too late already. So are psychologists clamoring for this oft-repeated scare-story to stop? I think not!


There is more stress and climate depression here at Grist, with corresponding survival tips also. In this instance there does seem to be some slight inkling that all this emotion might be a cause of bias, yet this thought is immediately subsumed into a fear the mythical ‘enemy’.

Even if scientists did bring a little emotion to their findings — which raises questions about the importance of objectivity in the sciences — Kiehl worries that such honesty would just provide even more fodder for climate deniers.

My advice would be to forget about those survival tips and take Judith Curry’s advice instead:

But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus. That is I believed in the consensus, without having done a real detailed assessment of my own. Then when climategate triggered me to closely examine everything, notably the IPCC’s attribution argument, I realized that the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998. Once you raise questions about 20th century attribution, then your angst about impacts that you think are attributable to AGW becomes much less justified.


Lacking a survey about stress in the Consensus, from articles / websites like the above there does at least appear to be no shortage of evidence within easy reach that such stress is a big problem. Serious enough to be addressed at an organizational level (and bear in mind that all of the above evidence comes from solidly Consensus sources). This confirms expectations regarding a clash of reality with a highly biased culture, itself fostered by the misinformation of a certainty of catastrophe. But if the climate scientists / organizations and their ‘troops’ are so badly affected, how does all this impact psychologists who’ve entered the fraught social domain spawned by climate change worries? They after all, are the ones who are supposed to know what’s going on with respect to the interplay of competing social pressures and individual behavior. Yet given that the above cure (and similar advice) is at best sidestepping the problem, and at worst sending wounded troops back into an impossible fray with no serious help (merely a short rest and some more drafts of noble cause), then one can only conclude that psychologists aren’t looking in the right place for their understanding or solutions. In order to find out what’s really going on, they would have to delve deeply into the workings and psychological impact of the Consensus itself; so why haven’t they done that?


I suggest for the majority of the discipline at least, it’s not because they won’t, but because they can’t. Being themselves subject to all the biases detailed by Lewandowsky and associated authors as discussed in this series, they are blinded by these to anything that questions the culture of certain catastrophe, in some cases to the extent that their belief has left behind even the collective positioning of the IPCC, itself stretched to the point in AR5 whereby a large tear has appeared between the summary for policymakers and the technical papers. This also means that they’ll be subject to all the same stresses which they’re seeing in ‘the troops’.


I suspect that the long dominant ‘science is settled’ narrative has had a huge impact on the social sciences, who are I think somewhat conditioned to accept the output of supposed ‘hard’ science as unquestionable ‘truth’, which is a major mistake. The wicked problem of climate is mired in many complexities and many uncertainties, so very little within is unequivocal. The social sciences should have remembered, more than anyone else, that claimed certainty in output may not mean actual certainty or unadulterated output (nor does the use of physics and math on the more known parts of the system imply it is all known, nor deterministic either). There are many thousands of individuals and much social process between the input data and the output message, and the process of science itself has frequently gone off the rails due to rampant bias. The fact that the ‘science is settled’ narrative has now fallen victim to ‘the pause’ has not changed perceptions very much either, as yet; the Consensus is pivoting to stances which thus far are managing to preserve the perceived certainty of calamity, and as noted in Lew and crew warning 3, the CIE is very powerful and cannot wholly be eliminated, even if anyone was actually trying to.


Despite the above adaptation of the Consensus, the cultural space it occupies is under attack, is slowly shrinking and fragmenting, which of course is the cause of adaptation. The prior ‘science is settled’ message was very broad-brush, effectively underwriting yet also sealing every sub-topic. Hence every fundamental new question now arising, such as the lack of trend in most indices of extreme weather, or the record Antarctic ice, and of course ‘the pause’ itself, by implication challenges the central Consensus narrative of the certainty of catastrophe. As noted above some of the many explanations offered for these unforeseen real-world outcomes are theoretically still consistent with that narrative, but it is the very number of new explanations, plus the lack of prediction, which broke ‘the science is settled’. This change is leaving climate scientists who fail to adapt, who are putting out the same unjustifiable scare stories in the same old way, very exposed. The Consensus appears to be distancing from some of these individuals (e.g. see here at Bishop Hill). The shrinking cultural space will also impact any folks from other fields that have heavily committed themselves in defense of the Consensus, including psychologists, and Lewandowsky appears to be very highly committed indeed. Yet in the case of psychologists there’s a sense in which much more is at stake; these are the guys who should have see the bias effects within the Consensus, who should have warned us in the first place.


Lewandowsky in particular seems to have a long and productive contribution to the understanding of cognitive bias effects, a portion of which is referenced in this series. So for him, this raises the stakes still further. While the relative levels of various bias types occurring within the Consensus are debatable, the case for significant overall bias as outlined here using Lewandowksy’s own theories, is hard to refute. Even a case for overwhelming bias looks not unreasonable. For anyone so deeply committed to the Consensus, this represents a serious clash of ideals with reality, which could well have manifested in cognitive dissonance, a typically subconscious discomfort that may in turn lead to redoubled yet ever more strained contributions towards ‘saving’ the Consensus ideals from the various recent threats. While providing temporary relief, such efforts will likely worsen the long-term situation, also lessening the chance of a graceful evolution to a more accommodating position. And we have seen recent redoubled efforts from Lewandowsky, in three critical areas that are threatening the Consensus most: uncertainty, the credibility of skeptics and to a lesser extent the infamous 97%. Auditors have claimed that these latest contributions are not just strained, but worse; plus they all appear to be converging towards a hard line of defense that the mainstream Consensus itself seems unlikely to stand behind, increasing the likelihood that Lewandowsky will become isolated on an isthmus of his own making.


Taking these topics backwards, Lewandowsky frequently both defends and utilizes (e.g. regarding advice on climate communication) the storyline that ‘97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is man-made’, often quoting the paper purportedly proving this by his close colleague at the UWA school of psychology, John Cook. Yet quite apart from the fact that this paper has received very strong criticism, with still more here, both Cook and Lewandowsky’s messaging typically uses the 97% result to imply a certainty of catastrophe, when no such implication or corresponding question was included in obtaining the result. Any questions that do probe possibilities of catastrophe produce much more mixed responses. These basic problems have caused Professor Curry to declare the 97% consensus (on attribution to man) dead. While there is little doubt that milder positions, such as ‘does CO2 cause some warming (if all other things in the climate system remained static)?’ would indeed produce an overwhelming majority in the affirmative, perhaps even 100% of climate scientists, this would likely include 95% or thereabouts of skeptics too, so it would not be a particularly useful metric. However, Lewandowsky continues using storylines of overwhelming majority and reference to this paper in particular, to promote messaging about inevitable (absent severe emissions cuts, that is) calamity.


On the second topic, the credibility of skeptics, as mentioned at the start of the first post Lewandowsky’s attempted use of ‘conspiracy ideation’ to delegitimize skeptics has received withering criticism. His papers ‘Moon hoax’ and ‘Recursive Fury’ have prompted pretty much inarguable challenges to their detailed methodology and data collection, the legitimacy of such approval procedures as occurred, and even the ethics of the papers; essentially the entire validity of these works. Indeed ‘Recursive Fury’ was eventually withdrawn from the journal Frontiers of Psychology on ethical grounds. PhD candidate in Social Psychology Jose Duarte, has called out ‘Moon Hoax’ and ‘Recursive Fury’ in the strongest terms (‘this is fraud’, ‘wildly unethical’).


On the first topic, the papers described at Science Daily put forward Lewandowsky’s take on the uncertainty monster (I think credit is to Curry for this name). Find Uncertainty and unabated emissions Climatic Change (Stephan Lewandowsky, James S. Risbey, Michael Smithson, Ben R. Newell, John Hunter) here: Part 1, Part 2 (paywalled). These papers are also the backbone of an article in The Guardian by environment writer Dana Nuccitelli, aided by the above mentioned John Cook: The climate change uncertainty monster – more uncertainty means more urgency to tackle global warming . While an acknowledgment of significant uncertainty at last leaves behind the old and now broken storyline of ‘the science is settled’ (though I doubt the authors would explicitly admit as much), there’s a bold attempt to preserve and indeed to amplify the urgency of the more powerful component of the overall narrative, i.e. imminent catastrophe. The heart of Lewandowsky’s argument is [underline mine]:

in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation.


This appears to be a false application of the uncertainty principle, which Judith Curry, Professor of atmospheric science at Georgia Tech, explains in a post here. Below gives a flavor:

I have written two previous posts that address the idea that uncertainty increases the argument for action: Uncertainty, risk and (in)action , The case(?) for climate change alarmism .

As [Gregor] Betz points out, there is no simple decision rule for dealing with this kind of deep uncertainty.

Alarmism occurs when possible, unverified worst case scenarios are touted as almost certain to occur. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry frequently does this, as does Joe Romm (and Rachendra Pachauri). A recent example from Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky:

The climate change uncertainty monster – more uncertainty means more urgency to tackle global warming . [i.e. the above article based on the Lewandowksy et al papers].

The problems with this kind of thinking is summarized in my two previous posts (cited a few paragraphs above); in summary this is a stark and potentially dangerous oversimplification of how to approach decision making about this complex problem.

And in turn, part of the Betz quote Curry uses is:

Where even probabilistic prediction fails, foreknowledge is (at most) possibilistic in kind; i.e. we know some future events to be possible, and some other events to be impossible.

            Gardiner, in defence of the precautionary principle, rightly notes that (i) the application of the precautionary principle demands that a range of realistic possibilities be established, and that (ii) this is required by any principle for decision making under uncertainty whatsoever.

            Accepting the limits of probabilistic methods and refusing to make probabilistic forecasts where those limits are exceeded, originates, ultimately, from the virtue of truthfulness, and from the requirements of scientific policy advice in a democratic society.


My reading of all this is that it is not terribly truthful to pretend that the uncertainty can be described in statistical terms when it cannot. Doing so also tends to inappropriately emphasize the thin and possibly mythic tail that leads into the catastrophic. Given too that the models have pretty much parted company with observations, and even since AR5 a flurry of papers are suggesting lower climate (temperature) sensitivity to CO2 doubling (ironically decreasing uncertainty for this one metric that the IPCC have claimed for decades is critical), such a stance seems still less intuitive. Not to mention that some of the ‘insurance policies’ put forward under the precautionary principle are very costly indeed to society and/or damaging in their own right too. Yet whatever the merits of the different arguments about uncertainty it is very clear that Lewandowsky has stepped outside of psychology here, to directly help shore up a core though recently pressured storyline of the Consensus, one which clings to the catastrophic.


The above three topics together confirm a strained defense that appears to have long since lost objectivity regarding a psychological analysis of the full social landscape within the climate change domain. Actions appear to be about preserving worldview and preventing, at any intellectual cost, the clash of well-understood theory about bias with the hard reality of how the Consensus works (further confirmation is cited below). The latter is itself exposed by many threads of emerging and challenging new science, plus of course the increasing disagreement of Consensus theory with observations. And Lewandowsky has made further commitments to the Consensus that are outside of psychology. For instance contributing directly to Consensus aligned climate science in the paper Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase. And choosing questioners from the audience for climate scientist Michael Mann in the latter’s recent lecture at the Cabot Institute in Bristol, UK. Even if speculation that the questioners were filtered in some fashion is completely false, this is a very curious role to serve to a physical climate scientist whose adamant discourse sometimes raises eyebrows inside the Consensus, let alone outside it. While there is nothing in principle ‘wrong’ with these and similar connections, the increasing commitment of this kind will help to keep any blinds of bias fixed in place, will lessen objectivity still further regarding psychological insights on both the Consensus and skeptics.


There are clues as to how Lewandowsky arrived in what appears to be a heavily conflicted position. While laudably not giving a free pass to the political left in some papers, Lewandowsky shows much less flexibility within the climate domain and rarely misses an opportunity to point out that policies to fight climate change (which tend to imply large-scale government control) are resisted by those with strongly free-market or conservative views. Overall a strong ‘progressive’ leaning is not hard to detect. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it may have been the open door to self-latching bias within the climate domain. A strong association and shared works with John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science (despite its name an ardent support site for the Consensus), may have pulled Lewandowsky further away from objectivity regarding climate related issues, at the critical time when he had yet to be fully informed regarding this domain. A further clue: folks in fact often let slip their worldview alignment (and its relative strength) when they feel that they’re with a home audience, but rarely as explicitly as in the quote below. From the video associated with L2014, a lecture given to the Consensus aligned AGU Chapman conference (underline mine), Lewandowsky says:

The possibility that there might be some tacit acceptance by scientists, of a particular frame or narrative that was actually dictated by somebody else, outside the scientific community, who may not share our er, methods or worldview…’[starts at 4.22].

This is an admission of the belief that ‘scientists’ must all have a particular worldview, and one which Lewandowsky shares, hence also the implied flipside that those individuals with differing worldviews cannot by definition be scientists, which of course is wholly wrong.


Clues are not fact, but some route of this kind would explain subsequent actions. While it is true that some conservatives resist policies on climate change due mainly to their worldview, this is not an overwhelming truth. Skepticism is a very broad church and the most effective pews have always been those that present science-based, apolitical arguments, not least of which is the growing discrepancy between (largely model-based) theory, and observations. And anyhow, active skeptics muster tiny numbers compared to the Consensus, which also still acts to suppress part of the former’s voice. By dint of sheer numbers the worldview alignment of Consensus adherents is a far more important factor, and being a consensus, these views are more focused. The worldview of very many individuals within the Consensus, including it would seem Lewandowsky’s, will have been confirmed, amplified, flattered and warmed by the ‘logic’ they find therein, which is based on misinformation. As L2012 states:

Given that people more readily accept statements that are consistent with their beliefs, it is not surprising that people’s worldview, or personal ideology, plays a key role in the persistence of misinformation.


The approximate path Lewandowsky travelled (albeit partially speculated here) helps to inform what is happening now, as individuals will react differently depending on when they meet worldview challenges, relative to the occurrence of other cultural influences. Other clues of a likely path to, and also demonstration of, bias, are revealed by events such as Lewandowsky’s acceptance of super-zealous pro-free-market responses within his survey data for a paper, when these caricatures of ‘the enemy’ could, according to Steve McIntyre’s analysis, really only have been false responses. Where an alliance of worldviews exists, bias regarding one part of the alliance (e.g. anti-free-market), can lead to bias regarding another part (e.g. pro-culture-of-the-catastrophic, as fostered by the Consensus).


Regarding what is happening now, L2012 points out this about misinformation:

From a societal view, misinformation is particularly damaging if it concerns complex real-world issues, such as climate change, tax policies, or the decision to go to war. The preceding discussion suggests that in such real-world scenarios, people will refer more to misinformation that is in line with their attitudes and will be relatively immune to corrections, such that retractions may even backfire and strengthen the initially held beliefs (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

I couldn’t agree more. Right now Lewandowsky, like many others within the Consensus, appears to be immune to any corrections on the misinformation about the certainty of catastrophe (which has been broadcast for decades), because this misinformation is in line with his attitudes and worldview. I agree too that this misinformation has been highly damaging, both to society and the environment too. L2012 also emphasizes the backfire effect:

When the corrections were worldview-dissonant (in this case, for Republican participants),

a “backfire” effect was observed, such that participants became more committed to the misinformation.

I suggest that Lewandowsky himself is deep into a backfire effect. Far from updating his local copy of misinformation regarding the chances of catastrophe, as the climate domain widens and new science comes in and our observations improve, he is strengthening his commitment to initially held beliefs. This is the most plausible explanation for his increasing and increasingly strained defense of the Consensus, which indeed has tempted him out of psychology and into the domain of physical climate science and associated climate uncertainty estimation. I concede some imprudent bravery here however, leaping from the tower of psychology into the trenches at a time of danger for the Consensus. I doubt in the long run that this will rewarded. (I will just remind folks here too that no-one is completely free of bias, so of course including me, and via the mechanisms above it can sometimes self-latch. We must all be vigilant).


The questions raised by skeptics, and the corrections that very slowly are starting to seep into climate science (e.g. some acknowledgement of the weakness of models and some acknowledgement of a larger role for internal variability) are worldview-dissonant for most folks within the Consensus. This is why they are so fervently resisted, and why discussion of any science challenges to Consensus theory are so often deflected into ad-homs or argument from authority etc. Given that the emotive culture of certain catastrophe swirls constantly around the mainstream media (both paper and electronic), plus social media too, and has done for a very long time, dwarfing the voices of skepticism and moderation alike, corrective science faces a huge uphill struggle that has nothing to do with actual scientific content, and everything to do with its challenge to an established alliance of worldviews. L2012 says:

Whatever the underlying cognitive mechanism, the findings of Ecker, Lewandowsky, Swire, & Chang, (2011) suggest that the repetition of initial misinformation has a stronger and more reliable (negative) effect on subsequent inferences than the repetition of its retraction does. This asymmetry in repetition effects is particularly unfortunate in the domain of social networking media, which allow information to be disseminated quickly, widely, and without much fact-checking, and to be taken only from sources consonant with particular worldviews.

This in part also explains why even papers suggesting some divergence from core Consensus theory must genuflect to the catastrophic, as has often been noted by skeptics. Otherwise, they wouldn’t make it into the repeat loops of the dominant mode, and hence would simply not be read. Even if they were read, the amplified dissonance caused by leaving out the genuflect, would then result in the authors being labeled as heretics. Yet bear in mind that this isn’t a fully conscious process, deep bias will cause a belief in core values despite some results that counter those values. Hence science itself can be seriously skewed; while bias effects do not change the infra-red properties of CO2, for an infant science working on a wicked problem they can certainly change expectations about what total effect those properties imply, and may do so for decades and possibly generations, preventing a genuine understanding of whether good, bad, or indifferent climate may result.


Incidentally, Lewsandowsky agrees that active skeptics are small in number and that, despite he believes their voice is disproportionately loud and their motivation is tied to conspiracy theories, their impact is modest. From his blog Shaping Tomorrows World, in response to a question about ‘science deniers’:

In fact, our work shows that those beliefs are not exactly widespread: Not only is the number of climate “deniers” relatively small—and highly disproportionate to the public noise they generate—but conspiratorial thinking accounts for only a modest component of the variance in people’s opinions about climate change.

This ties to the discussion in the few paragraphs above, confirming that Consensus culture and Consensus aligned worldviews are dominant in the setting of world events, and hence any bias within this culture will also dominate, whatever level of opposing bias skeptics may or may not also foster. This confirms too that after decades of dire messaging from practically every source of authority including national leaders and the UN, it is not active skeptics that are holding the public back from concern and action on climate change, which inaction is revealed by many polls, but instead Lewandowsky’s key to accuracy, i.e. innate and healthy skepticism. And Lewandowsky himself clearly acknowledges the truth of these polls, believing indeed that the public are not concerned. From the video associated with L2014, he says:

…the public, and the so-called merchants of doubt, er are kind of, you know, of the firm belief that they know we have nothing to worry about.’ [starts at 2.46].


These posts arose from curiosity. I was very curious about how someone like Lewandowsky, who is so familiar with the mechanisms of cognitive bias, who indeed has contributed to current understanding of same, apparently cannot see or admit to these mechanisms operating within the climate Consensus; at least to an extent which compromises the high expectation of catastrophe and / or the need for urgent global action against catastrophe. I ended up being surprised. Not only at the high degree of accuracy with which the Lew and crew papers explain and characterize the various bias effects that over the years have become a major feature of Consensus culture, but also at the highly plausible explanation these papers provide regarding why Lewandowsky would be unable to see this. Constrained so tightly by his own findings, wrapped if you will in Lew papers, and yet also possessing a worldview that is highly challenged by any questioning of the climate change Consensus, results in an impossible internal conflict, and one which cannot be admitted! Failing a realization of internal bias and so a wholesale rejection of the climate Consensus, an unlikely kind of St Paul moment, the only other route for short-term comfort is to reduce cognitive dissonance by ratcheting up the defense of the Consensus itself, and attempting to push its main challengers, the skeptics, beyond the pale, reframing them as way-out conspiracy theorists whom no-one should listen to. Hence the release of the highly controversial (even among some Consensus commenters) ‘Moon hoax’ and ‘Recursive Fury’ papers. However, I suspect that this course can lead only to further stress and certainly to no meaningful victory, because despite all their hard work it is not primarily the efforts of the skeptics that have led to the current critical challenges, it is the climate itself. If it were not for ‘the pause’, at the time of writing between ~14 and ~18 years long depending upon which temperature series you prefer, I strongly suspect that skeptic challenges would still reside deep in shadow, rather than starting their slow emergence into the light.


Pretty much no-one is free of bias. And folks can often be severely blinded by it, an effect which also is domain orientated; so someone can seem completely balanced in most topic domains, yet (in extreme cases) be a complete slave to bias in just one other particular topic domain. Surely though it is an ultimate irony that for Lewandowsky, the topic he appears blinded to by bias is the excellent applicability of his very own bias theories to the workings of the climate Consensus. To avoid the obvious truth of this applicability, he practically has to turn the whole psychological analysis of the climate domain upon its head. And despite Lewandowsky’s papers plus stance are the primary example in this series, he is only one prominent practitioner among very many who are probing the psychology and sociology surrounding climate change, and this appears to be their general approach. Albeit dressed in erudite expression, the essential outcome is various versions of the old falsehood: ‘those who disagree with or even question our theories, must be crazy’.


Andy West : www.wearenarrative.wordpress.com


Notes, Plug, and Homework

As noted a few paragraphs above, these posts not only provide insight on prejudiced climate psychology and psychologists and climate depression and public inaction and such, they also open a window onto a major engine of Consensus culture, i.e. a positive feedback loop of rampant bias and misinformation. The workings of this ‘bias engine’ are straightforward to identify using standard literature and even, indeed as demonstrated, when one is limited almost exclusively to papers by Lew and crew themselves, of whom a subset at least are ardent advocates for CAGW (for instance Ecker, also from CogSci at UWA, has led a collaboration with Lewandowksy and Cook on work including a strong climate Consensus perspective).


However, the window on Consensus culture provided here is narrow, is only a part of the bigger picture, only a part of the way towards scoping an ultimate why all this happening. I have hinted at the role of memes and cultural co-evolution in a couple of places: the fact that emotive punch is rewarded more than veracity regarding narrative success, also with respect to ‘innate skepticism’, i.e. Lewandowsky’s key to accuracy. I’ve avoided follow-up on those hints because a) for this bounded and brief view which focuses on cognitive bias and Lewandowsky’s papers plus position in particular, this simply isn’t necessary, and b) because due typically to common misunderstandings about memetics, both in and out of academia, the very mention of that field can cause as much auto-defensive reaction as we see in the climate Consensus. I didn’t want to cloud with possible prejudice what is a straightforward reveal of cognitive bias here.


However for those who are not afraid for their souls, a much more comprehensive view on the workings of Consensus culture can be seen through the lens of memetics; see the (long!) essay here, published about a year back at Climate Etc and WUWT. This is hypothesis, by no means accepted fact, but the memetic explanation does have the advantage of not resting upon any political or philosophical positions as a foundation, only upon value-neutral mechanisms such as the penetration of memes into the psyche (in part via the bias mechanisms seen in this series) and the differential selection of successful narratives (which are not agential and not sentient). This doesn’t mean that, for instance, highly activist style politics isn’t an important factor, but it isn’t a root factor because this too is driven by value-neutral mechanisms beneath, which work in the same manner for any political stripe (and memetics is one useful way of perceiving those mechanisms). The memetic explanation also does not imply in any way whatsoever that Consensus folks are in the slightest degree deranged or delusional or ill or impaired. Due to common misunderstandings a lot of folks appear to vector down that path the moment they see the word memetics, and stop reading any further. Memeplexes are normal territory for all humans.


The linked essay includes a section on the law, covering personal and corporate responsibility regarding biased cultures, plus CAGW changing the law; the latter topic was mentioned in the main text of this post. The section is substantially built on a paper from Duke Law regarding memetic impact on law (see the essay for references). Regarding personal responsibility for those who have been heavily influenced by aggressive cultures, who in the terms of this series of posts are utterly lost to various bias effects, the conclusion of the Duke Law paper and my own (quoted) is in relative harmony:

…deal firmly with the wrong-doing influenced, albeit the emphasis should be on deterrence and rehabilitation rather than retribution, else the power of the law is undermined. In other words, the ‘culture’ of CAGW is not an excuse for arbitrary breaking of the law, and folks attempting this must be responsible for their actions.

However, straight law-breaking is the easier case to deal with, at least where the law has not yet changed to favor the biased culture. Gaming the system yet remaining inside the law is more difficult. How to deal with scientists and psychologists alike whose bias has led to this behavior? Very firm condemnation of poor practice such as expressed by Steve McIntyre and Jose Duarte is a good start, but when said practice supports a highly dominant culture, complaints of this nature tend to be drowned out.


Getting back to the bias mechanisms described in this series, one needs no buy-in at all of memetics to perceive that these are a major engine of Consensus culture. One does need some buy-in of mainstream psychology, including the papers on cognitive bias by Lew and crew, which discipline has over a long time become relatively familiar with these mechanisms. Some folks who distrust psychology altogether, or at least Lewandowsky altogether, may be uncomfortable with this. Myself I think it’s the ultimate irony. Consensus bias preventing the understanding that accepted, indeed championed bias mechanisms, are rampant within the climate Consensus. But this is also a fundamental warning, confirming that even in circumstances where the presence of heavy bias would seem to be almost bizarre, it very obviously can still grip us. More generally no-one is free of bias, though also, being relatively free within one domain appears to provide little or no immunity in other domains.


Given that heavy bias towards the certainty of catastrophe steers policy-makers soaked in Consensus culture as well as the great majority of climate scientists, then very harmful side-effects are occurring. There are far too many to list, yet a common theme of many policies is that the supposed reason for implementation, i.e. a significant temperature reduction, could not realistically be achieved by these policies anyhow. For instance the $1.7 trillion spent on windmills and solar over the last dozen years, for little contribution to energy output or emissions reduction, or indeed the whole bio-fuel debacle. These policies are harming people, and most likely killing people too (via raised food prices, and raised energy costs leading to more excess cold deaths) plus harming the environment too. It needs a transition from understanding rampant bias, to understanding that the biased culture becomes an end in itself and a promoter of itself, to perceive that human or environmental costs are simply not relevant to its growth. The culture has a (non-agential, non-sentient) agenda of its own, in the same way that primitive parasites do, and this agenda serves the culture, not us.


Homework: Lewandowsky and Cook based the methods in their Debunking Handbook on a subset of the principles of cognitive bias as presented in the various Lew and crew papers. While attempting a short generic guide based on foundational principles is ambitious regarding usefulness in the sophisticated cut and thrust of real debate, resulting (imho) in a rather clunky abc, it nevertheless is not without worth. An amusing exercise for readers is to see why the examples regarding climate change are wrong in the guide, and to employ the methodology minus these errors to debunk Consensus myths, a purpose for which I’m sure the guide was certainly not intended 😉


Main Reference Papers

L2014 = abstract for the video presentation Scientific Uncertainty in Public Discourse: The Case for Leakage Into the Scientific Community, by Lewandowsky. Video and text of the abstract at WUWT.

L2012 = Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing, by Lewandowsky et al.

E2011 = Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction, by Ecker et al (one of the other authors is Lewandowsky).

E2010 = Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation, by Ecker et al (one of the other authors is Lewandowsky). You may need to cut and paste this link into your browser: http://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FMC.38.8.1087.pdf

G2008 = Theoretical and empirical evidence for the impact of inductive biases on cultural evolution, by Griffiths et al (one of the other authors is Lewandowsky).

S&L2014 = The Role of Emotion in Global Warming Policy Support and Opposition, by Nicholas Smith and Anthony Leiserowitz, (Lewandowsky not a contributor).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 9, 2014 12:34 pm

I’ll say one thing for Loopy Lew, he has managed to provoke a large number of people who should know a great deal better into expanding a great deal of effort critiquing a load of old donkey droppings that should have been treated with the contempt it deserves.

Reply to  catweazle666
November 9, 2014 1:09 pm

You have to shovel up donkey droppings and place them where they belong – before a child steps in it.

Reply to  catweazle666
November 9, 2014 1:14 pm

Quite possibly, but as part 1 of this series explicitly mentions, these posts aren’t critiquing his um… ‘donkey droppings’. They show how Lew’s own theories on cognitive bias describe the rampant bias in the Consensus, and explain pretty damn well its bizzarre behaviour.

Steve Case
November 9, 2014 12:35 pm

Nearly 12,000 words to say what?

Reply to  Steve Case
November 9, 2014 1:07 pm

Steve – let me try:Lewandowski is a rent-seeking fraud who is too brazen to admit it, too dumb to realize his mistakes, prejudices and biases are plainly visible to anyone who cares to look and too well paid to care too much about … well, anything outside his comfort zone of yes-men and acadamia.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 9, 2014 1:38 pm

The summary is in the first 50 words of all 3 posts. The rest is optional for those who want to know how and why, with quoted evidence, and much else interesting along the way 🙂

John Devlin
Reply to  Steve Case
November 9, 2014 3:24 pm

…that people have an inbuilt bullshit meter.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 10, 2014 7:09 am

12,000 words to say quite a few things. If you are interested in knowing what was said, try reading the article. If you read it and did not understand it, try reading it again. If you still do not understand what the words are saying then I would just skip it all together, it is obviously not your cup of tea.

M Courtney
November 9, 2014 12:46 pm

Wow, long but interesting.

Overall, the attempt to induce false suspicion may well have gained skepticism barely more supporters than it has lost them, yet it has almost certainly contributed to a stronger alignment of sides in the debate, with pre-existing political poles.

This polarisation is a key factor in maintain the consensus. The Guardian often knows it is breaking its own moderation policy in order to hide counter-arguments – why? To maintain its market purity and so boost its ad revenue. If an advert will reduce the likability of a product, with some people, it must be hid from those people. Thus ideological purity of readership is a commercial benefit.
Even here I have found that some readers assume left-wing means ‘believing the consensus’. Yet no-one has shown how the proposed green policies that are enacted (as opposed to centralised international controls that don’t exist) are progressive.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 1:36 pm

It seems “Left Wing”/Right Wing” mean different things in different countries.
(Here, Today, I saw the term “Left Wing Libertarian”. To me, In the US, they’re mutually exclusive.)
In the US, Left Wing would be pro big-government where they believe the Government should solve all problems, even out all inequalities. Everyone has an equal outcome to their life.
The Right (including Libertarians) would lean more toward individual responsibility and believe that most inequities are the result of hard work or the lack thereof. Everyone has an equal opportunity for a successful life, ideally.(equal opportunity used to be the thrust of the civil rights movement.) It is up to the individual to succeed or fail.

M Courtney
November 9, 2014 12:54 pm

Of conspiracy theories (see how I break up my points to readable fragments, ahem)…
The 97% of scientist meme is wrong but well publicised. The 3% must be mad or bad – that is the implication.
Yet no country has definitively taken policy action that is in line with saving the world. Asian totalitarian countries, western free-market or Scandinavian socialists… all agree the green policies ain’t worth it. So is the whole world controlled by a secretive cabal (with large noses)? No!
The other conspiracy theory is implied by the consensus but never faced, explicitly.
That is confusing.
How can the “logic” be applied to scientists and not politicians?
Psychology won’t explain deliberate deception by the fragmented media in the internet age. (See my last comment).

Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 2:03 pm

You must be a “progressive” as demonstrated by your selective memory. Socialism in all of its form, including economic socialism, communism, fascism, imperialism, and religious fanaticism, is the greatest cause of unnatural death, greater then any disease. Progressivism, is the father of many extant forms, and a major influence on most of the rest. Progressives have been in control of education and the press for a century. The last 60 years or so, they have been engaged in programming students with Marxist-World-View version 2.0. The result is what you would see before you if you were not encumbered. No conspiracy needed. Just a bunch of people with a programmed world view that interferes with their cognition.
What is the main tenet of Marxism? Isn’t it that Free Market Capitalism is evil? What is the one guaranteed out come of green policies? Isn’t it the subjugation of Free Market Capitalism?

Reply to  DesertYote
November 9, 2014 6:54 pm

Totally unregulated Free Market Capitalism can be quite “evil”. Re child labor in the 1800’s, banking and wall street abuses in the 1920’s (where the mixing of “commercial” and “investment” banking resulted in conflicts of interest and fraud in many banking institutions’ securities activities. The Glass Steagall Act set up a barrier to these practices), the Savings & Loan Crisis of the 1980’s where deregulation allowed the S&L’s to basically do what the banks did in the 1920’s, the ENRON & WorldCom accounting & bankruptcy scandals, and also, after Greenspan kicked the last leg from under Glass Steagall, the 2008 debacle. Obviously “Free Market” types (especially politicians or bureaucrats, but then one can’t expect much genius or morality there) don’t learn much from history. Or maybe they are just under more corporate influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuyrBRUsu9A (Inside Job the movie)

Reply to  DesertYote
November 9, 2014 7:49 pm

Free Market Capitalism
organized crime is free market capitalism. the missing ingredient is rule of law and equal treatment before the courts. many countries have rule of law, but few if any have equal treatment before the courts. in most countries the legal system is not much different than the medieval practice of trial by combat, with right decided by the side best able to hire them ablest champion.

Reply to  DesertYote
November 9, 2014 7:53 pm

Mods, sorry but @BFL says: November 9, 2014 at 6:54 pm
should be: http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/history-child-labor

M Courtney
Reply to  DesertYote
November 10, 2014 1:01 am

DesertYote, the main tenet of Marxism – as much as there is one – is that the primary means of production in a society is the basis for all other societal constructs.
It isn’t that Free Market Capitalism is evil.
I’m not sure of any definition of Marxism that includes religious fanaticism.
As for the rest of your argument, I am unable to effectively counter your points because everything I believe can be dismissed as a brainwashed encumbrance.
Perhaps you could help by explaining how you have become enlightened?

Reply to  DesertYote
November 10, 2014 7:43 am

If you wrote all regulations regulating all businesses in 12 point type you could probably cover every highway in the U.S. in letter sized paper.
Free market is a misleading phrase. A more accurate term is a regulated market. Having a market without regulations is like having a footbal game without football rules. The referees and rule makers in the case of the marketplace being government.
Rules ensure the game is played within specific moral, ethic and practical boundries. To gain advantage over an opponent you must do so within the boundries of the Football rules, regulations do likewise for business. However capitalism has been corrupted, the government no longer acts as an unbiased referee, and has entered the game as an interested party in the field of play, picking winners and losers to further the interest of individuals in government and overall further expanding governemnt power. The market place I think is now best described as crony capitalism.
Greens are certainly exploiting this unholy alliance of governent and business to a remarkable degree, however in terms of capitalism and a healthy market place, the problem goes way beyond the greens.

November 9, 2014 1:20 pm

“On the skeptic side, this is essentially the tactic of the ‘hoax’ and ‘liberal conspiracy’ arguments.”
“Liberal Conspiracy” is the name that the Condenses has given to the belief that the major drivers in pushing the CAGW issue are individuals who have a desire to see the destruction of free market capitalism. They do this to discredit the notion. The sides are not symmetrical, just as the arguments of the thief and his target are not symmetrical.

Chip Javert
November 9, 2014 1:29 pm

At the risk of being a broken record:
(1) Psychology is a dismal “academic” discipline in search of a shred of legitimacy; just a step above gender studies.
(2) There is a reason there a so many goofy academic psychologists.
The sooner these guys go back to focusing on [carrier] pigeons, the better.

November 9, 2014 1:29 pm

“The truth goes on forever, but a lie always has an end”.
Sooner or later a lie must always contradict itself.
As I read the Lew papers: Skepticism in others is healthy, except when their skepticism contradicts my beliefs. Then it is no longer healthy skepticism, it is denial, which is unhealthy. Denial equals disease.
Thus, so long as other people are skeptical about the same things I am skeptical of, then they are healthy. But if they are skeptical of things that I am not skeptical of, then they are suffering some sort of mental illness. And thus need to be cured.
Psychiatric Treatment of choice? Electra-convulsive shock. Frontal lobotomy. compulsory sterilization. Ritalin. Eugenics. What could possibly go wrong?
“Today eugenics in the United States is still officially permitted. Between 2006 and 2010 close to 150 women were sterilized in Californian prisons without state approval.”

November 9, 2014 1:42 pm

This write-up was rather long but very interesting. Although there is a good deal of psychobabble and sociobabble around at least some psychologists and sociologists do try to adopt a scientific attitude. Morevoer, even in the world of psychobabble, Occam;s razor ought surely to still apply.
All psycholgists (whether unscientific or scientific) attempt to devise explanarions for observed phenomena and attempt to uncover its causes. And, if only they would apply Occam’s razor, their attempts to undertand the existence of a substantial amount of skepticism about CAGW would be much improved. The simplest (Occam’s razor compliant) explanation must surely be that the existence of scientific evidence in support for CAGW is paltry at best. How else is it possible to explain the surveys which show that 50% of metereologists and two thirds of geologists and engineers are skeptics.
Admittedly most members of the public are not scienfically trained but those who are do write op-ed pieces and letters to the editor which draw attention to scientific evidene – such as the 18 years without any warming – that cast doubt on the claims of CAGW supporters.
To put it another way, absent the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that contradiocts the CAGW hypothesis, there would be a vanishingly small number of skeptics on the ground.

November 9, 2014 1:59 pm

Hi mods, the post has lost its underlines which are in some of the quotes. If it’s possible to restore them, that’d be cool. If not, no worries.
[The underline formatting is not realistically (accurately) retrievable at this time. .mod]

Reply to  andywest2012
November 9, 2014 3:46 pm

ok, thanks.

James formerly from Arding
November 9, 2014 2:01 pm

I worked in a Psychology department as a technician at a university long enough to learn that most of the “scientists” there are full of extremely well honed minutely detailed verbose arguments about how to justify their own existence in this puzzling universe (aka BS*&!t). Very few of them ever seemed to have anything worth saying or more importantly doing that actually helped anyone else. These were the folks that we had to set up a tape recorder to record their departmental meetings so that they could accurately accuse their opponents of misinformation or getting the previous statements “out of context”. Very little was ever achieved in this crazy environment. I didn’t stay too long. Talk about wasted tax payers funds!
BTW Anthony I didn’t comment on your fantastically good news with your health problem. I suffer from migraine headaches and the problem is that not many folks understand how that can be socially isolating as well.
Your blog has been a shining light for many… Thanks.

November 9, 2014 2:27 pm

Sorry. For this linear thinker and proponent of only introducing three things, saying those three things, then summarizing those three things, this post is unreadable. However, it could just be me.

M Courtney
Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 9, 2014 2:35 pm

Pamela Gray, yes – it was cryptic, verbose and hard to read.
But when mined, the ideas were coherent and (to me, who has never studied psychology) original.
I found it difficult but interesting. So please don’t be so disparaging.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 2:39 pm

LOLOL! Not on a football Sunday and certainly not after a whiskey sour! Gees. On a Sunday, you must keep things simple!!!! And SF won in overtime! That’s waaayyy more important!
However, I will get serious Monday and read this again. Maybe something will rise out of the mumbo jumbo.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 2:40 pm

Thanks 🙂

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 9, 2014 2:39 pm

A shame. I always find your opinions interesting. On the bright side, at least you won’t need to wade through any more of those Consensus quotes that (understandably) so upset your tummy in part 2 😉

Reply to  andywest2012
November 9, 2014 2:41 pm

Sorry Andy. I will return to normal Monday after Sunday football. However, be forewarned. My grandpa was notorious for red-lining verbosity, which he did to anything I wrote.

Reply to  andywest2012
November 9, 2014 2:42 pm

Ah, so now I look forward to further comment on Moday!
[Yes, every day is Mod’s Day! Then again, Monday regularly follows Sunday as well. .mod]

Reply to  andywest2012
November 9, 2014 2:54 pm

Likewise Andy. Many of the AGW psycho quotes you refer to are seriously close to Mein Kampf. Disturbingly so. Your 3rd installment will likely lead me to further tummy trouble. But today is a day for peaceful thoughts and vigorous football. Besides, it’s colder than a witch’s tit here. So I relax into football, pleasant drink, and a warm fire. Tomorrow I will tackle your substantial work (which is STILL wordy but I digress) and it’s references to Kampf-like quotes. There are several translations and I offer just one of the many websites available. Eat lightly. Most stomachs will churn when they read the chilling similarities.
Enjoy the rest of this blessed day.

Margaret Smith
November 9, 2014 2:40 pm

“The Consensus seems to acknowledge this major failure to eliminate the credibility of skeptics in the public domain. There seems to be plenty of angst in the ranks expressed via phrases like ‘the deniers are winning’, or even ‘the deniers have won’. A wide range of reasons is cited, some of which conflict and at the extreme end of which (I guess simply as a comfort blanket), invoke the very technique that has failed, e.g. a ‘Koch conspiracy’ and / or nasty propagandist techniques by skeptics. Yet considering how little skeptic messaging actually makes it past the orthodox Consensus gatekeepers, we must be talking about incredibly potent stuff here. And considering too the deluge of demonization over decades, skeptics must surely be super-cyborg Teflon ducks for this all to simply slip off their backs – the public is still listening to them!”
Great stuff indeed – all this depression affecting the AGW crowd when they’ve always seemed so arrogant and certain of success.
Boys and wolves come to mind.

Ulric Lyons
November 9, 2014 2:42 pm

“These policies are harming people, and most likely killing people too (via raised food prices, and raised energy costs leading to more excess cold deaths) plus harming the environment too. It needs a transition from understanding rampant bias, to understanding that the biased culture becomes an end in itself and a promoter of itself, to perceive that human or environmental costs are simply not relevant to its growth. The culture has a (non-agential, non-sentient) agenda of its own, in the same way that primitive parasites do, and this agenda serves the culture, not us.”
Spot on. It also puts us in a worse position to deal a downturn in climate effecting food production.

November 9, 2014 2:49 pm

” And those shouting ‘hoax’ have tended to damage the skeptic position rather than enhance it.”
Without respect. I strongly disagree
To soft pedal and display a sycophantic sense of PC is one of the things wrong with the world today
This is NOT in any way, shape or form my “humble” opinion, i don’t bother with such tosh and as for GG, AGW and its pathetic sibling CAGW – a lie is a lie is a lie…
End of diplomatic part of reply STRONG retort following…

November 9, 2014 3:09 pm

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel

November 9, 2014 3:15 pm

Ever since my first encounter with this guy’s logic, I felt like he was borderline crazy. And after reading part 1,2, and 3 by Andy West, it might be worse than that. Either he is a liar, or just crazy. I took the original “moon landing” survey, and saw that his whole psychological (or whatever) argument was fabricated.
I don’t think he’s any crazier than the average a$’hole out walking around on the street. That leaves…what…?

Chip Javert
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 9, 2014 3:37 pm

Well, it’s an object lesson in that you’re going to be severely disappointed if you think these people approach CAGW in an intellectually honest and/or scientific manner.

Mickey Reno
November 9, 2014 3:34 pm

Well, though interesting, you began to lose me with this third installment. Particularly your claim that skeptical claims of “conspiracy” and hoax discredit the skeptical side of the debate.
There are many different such claims, and they have varying quality. But there is plenty of evidence of many small, but critically important conspiracies that have not and probably cannot be refuted. I’m talking about the cloistered attempts by “the team” to suppress critical papers in the peer reviewed record, to block such papers from being accepted by the IPCC, to subvert the editorial integrity of journals, to destroy or hide data, methods and evidence, and so forth. The Climate-gate leaks themselves are evidence that a conspiracy existed to suppress dissenting and alternate views, probably by an insider fed up with such BS. Then there’s the inbreeding at the EPA, wherein the agency director was using a false identity and private e-mail account to conduct government business, to Gavin Schmidt’s (a US government employee) refusal to answer simple conflict of interest questions regarding his participation in the endangerment finding process wrt public objections.
Now, you may argue that complaining loudly about such conspiracies makes one look crazy. I rather think such complaints and emotions exposed now will help us avoid an even more corrupt and entrenched bureaucracy later on. To claim “conspiracy doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be senseless or become unhinged. There really are conspiracies and the corrupt people in the alarmist side of this debate are coordinated and organized, and exercise much authority using taxpayer money. If we ignore that, we risk returning to serfdom. YMMV.

November 9, 2014 3:56 pm

You know, what all this environmentalist quasi-religious sick subculture reminds me of (including lengthy attempts of analyzing it)? The Island of Dr. Moreau.

John West
November 9, 2014 4:25 pm

So, in a nutshell, it comes down to an innate BS detector formed through our evolution that is especially wary of overly aggressive sales tactics. I have certainly suspected this myself but there are some problems with this being the main reason for inaction on climate change. Where was this innate BS detector throughout history? Did it prevent even one witch from being burned? On the contrary if anything our history and pre-history suggests that we are all too eager to accept superstition and pronouncements from established authorities as all the reason we need to act, sacrifice, and even die/kill for the cause that has been fed to us.
Evolutionarily speaking what would be the mechanism of preservation of the trait? Seems to me these auto-rejecters (i.e.: of shaman pronouncements) would be shunned by the majority, have less opportunity to mate, and therefore be a rather rare trait today.
Don’t get me wrong the early BS detector crowd is undoubtedly a significant portion of the inaction coalition. However, the inaction coalition probably is mostly made up of those that have a BS-detector that needs some activation agent. The activation agent in this case being climategate. Pre-climategate there was Kyoto and global agreement as well as significant US legislation looked imminent and pro-action forces counted their proportion of the population as a grand majority in many countries and probably on average globally. Post climategate the whole plan fell apart and they’ve been struggling to right the ship ever since.
I’d say the inaction coalition also includes the rest of the scientific community and those that trust them. The “consensus” can talk about consensus of a narrow field of scientists (no standing) all they want but a true scientific consensus (which still has only a little standing) includes all fields of science and engineering both in research and application. A consensus is not ‘we’ve convinced ourselves we’re right’ but that ‘we’ve collected, documented, replicated, and tested enough evidence to convince the rest of the scientific community’. The climate scientists can’t even convince the meteorologists they’re right and geologists are generally as skeptical as it gets. This may not seem like a large portion of the population but considering it’s not just us but also our sphere of influence that is affected by our opinion it starts to look pretty significant. I’d say I had at least 100 people (non-technical) come to my office to ask me for my take on GW between 2000 & 2009, they trusted me to call it like I see it and not feed them any BS based on my own politics (which is of course what I did).
Here’s the thing though, since climategate hardly anyone asks anymore. They don’t have to. They know what “hide the decline” means even if they don’t really understand the entire divergence problem issue or even whether that was what it was about. They know what a “trick” is even if the trickster explains it away as a nifty way to show something.
It’s thanks to climategate that their BS detectors are telling them there’s something wrong here, beware.

November 9, 2014 4:52 pm

These posts that “preach to the choir” about meaningless people are not real helpful or even interesting (to me). We should be studying and understanding Senator James Inhofe who will be the new face of climate and weather policy going forward. Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen, Schmidt, all the stars of ClimateGate, the talking heads at the Grauniad and the NYT are all discredited. Lew is reduced to Troll status except among his fellow trolls and ClimateGate stars. We’re now in post mid-term election mode and need to exploit the clout the election results suggest are imminent.
What do we expect and want from the incoming team in Washington? What is to become of the EPA? How do we rid our countryside of the bird shredding wind turbine blight and the feather-charring star wars solar reflectors and fields of solar panel bird traps? How do we put hydro-electric generation back on the renewables side of the ledger? How do we rid ourselves of wasteful subsidies to failed technologies and farms that feed automobiles instead of children? How do we put science back in the classroom?

Reply to  dp
November 9, 2014 5:20 pm

True, Let’s give Senator James Inhofe a forum here (who hopefully will replace Barbra Boxer) to show his views and be vetted by this crowd.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
November 11, 2014 5:53 am

Inhofe’s basket of bread turned miraculously to roses.

Stevan Reddish
November 9, 2014 5:33 pm

John West has it right when he says concerning the “consensus”:

A consensus is not ‘we’ve convinced ourselves we’re right’ but that ‘we’ve collected, documented, replicated, and tested enough evidence to convince the rest of the scientific community’.

When there is a true consensus, the average person will accept it, even though they don’t understand it. Think of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
An additional reason John Q. Public doesn’t accept CAGW is the failed prediction. People aren’t concerned about the nut carrying the “World ends tomorrow” sign because they saw him carrying that sign yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that…

Stevan Reddish
November 9, 2014 5:36 pm

Sorry, I left out quote marks delineating John West’s words. The paragragh beginning with “A [consensus]…” is his words.

Stevan Reddish
November 9, 2014 5:39 pm

I can’t type on this laptop worth beans, either.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 9, 2014 5:56 pm

It would seem that Physics-based i.e. fact buy measurement based investigations of Climatology and Meteorology have been superseded by theological-based, i.e. suspicion and rumor and hearsay climate science investigations.
Ah Ha. The real “war” going on is between Secular Investigations (Physics, Climatology, Meteorology) and Theological Investigations (Geography, Climate Science, Anthropology).
The Theological Point of View is “Man” created the “world” and Man is at the center of the Known Universe, and the Universe Revolves around Man. Man dictates the Fates and all therein.
The Secular Point of View in regards to the Theological Point of View asks “What!”
Just an observation.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 9, 2014 6:08 pm

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
November 9, 2014 6:12 pm

Sorry, first reaction

Gary Pearse
November 9, 2014 7:11 pm

“… In the minds of these unfortunate folks, we are driving towards a brick wall at high speed, why wouldn’t they be stressed?!…”
I’m disappointed that (I assume you are a psychologist) you didn’t consider the only serious plausible reason for these depressions. Here we have prominent practitioners most over half way through their careers during the golden age of climate science (the mice will play when the cats are away age of climate science – skeptics had only begun to have an impact in the second half, many of whom were initially believers in the AGW meme) and now nature decides to yank the rug out from under them. They are battling twinges of suspicion that they have wasted much of their efforts in vain. Their ranks have swollen into possible 100s of thousands of redundant workers and shrinking budgets are already in play in Australia and soon to spread.
The consensus has used the word denial so much that psychologists perhaps think it’s too tainted a term to use. Yet for over a century, it was a dominant causal factor recognized in the discipline that leads to depression and prevents is alleviation. Denial, as in avoidance of reality. The tension caused by fighting off suspicions of doubt that are trying to intrude into their consciousness. I’m not trying to express irony here.
A critique I would offer regarding the monolithic idea of worldview, certainly as it refers to serious skeptics, is the fact that many skeptics, if not most (not the knee jerk type who DO have a concrete worldview) actually started out believing that global warming was developing apace. I certainly didn’t see any reason to doubt that these scientists had done the science. Anthony Watts, too revealed that he wasn’t always a skeptic as many others have. IT WASN’T worldview that made me a skeptic. It was my taking an interest in this phenomenon and finding the soup a bit thin. The certainty, the hype, the UN (now there is the thoroughbred of worldview – one size fits all), the appearance of Ehrlich and others like him, the oh so beneficial to government coffers, the unabashed anti-capitalism and other baggage that has no place in science soon became obvious. The government funding of ‘mission-oriented’ research and the dependency it created in university and agency research – it was possibly the same kind of shock that Louis Pasteur may have experienced when he looked down the microscope and discovered a world of miniature monsters trying to wipe us out.
And yes the ideologues. The puppeteer that for some reason seems to have escaped notice is the Canadian socialist Maurice Strong who created the UN’s environmental agency and the IPCC which was charged with finding the connection to human culpability in dangerous AGW! This guy is not a scientist, but rather an elitist manipulator…… I better not go on but please, google this guy and google his quotes about being our duty to bring down western civilization and capitalist economies. And look at the ‘socialization’ of education and institutions in the west. Don’t point to Cameron as a right winger. EU right wing is still left of US Democrats by miles, although Obama has done his best to close that gap.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 10, 2014 1:08 am

Hi Gary. I’m most certainly not a psychologist. Degree in physics and a career in industry. I’m applying their own findings to highlight the rampant bias in the Consensus, because they won’t do it themselves. I think I mentioned in the series many of the things in your words above. For instance that though worldview exists in skepticism, it is NOT overwhelming, and science forms the core of their arguments. And that despite all the huge hard work of the skeptics, ‘the pause’ has done much more to damage the Consensus. And I included Maurice Strong in the quotes about Consensus worldviews in the Appendix to Part 2. It wasn’t worldview that made me a skeptic either. It was watching Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and realising it was very light on science and very heavy indeed on memetic content. I went off to check the science…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  andywest2012
November 11, 2014 4:10 am

Remarkable piece of work!

November 9, 2014 8:07 pm

I was felling more like this;

But apparently we’re all out of cigars, who know knew..

Doug Proctor
November 9, 2014 8:10 pm

The way the Sierra Club and Romm et al have criticized the latest IPCC report as too conservative strikes me as evidence of the “doubling down” response to the stress of cognitive dissonance felt these days in the CAGW community.
The IMMINENT catastrophe of CO2 was presented by the perceived prophets of CAGW, Gore and Pachauri and accepted with heartfelt enthusiasm by their acolytes. “Imminence” is a key part of their worldview; any delay, let alone uncertainty about the catastrophe happening, is shattering. Nobody voted to end cheap energy and a luxurious life because something maybe bad may happen at some uncertain point in the future. Very bad and soon are critical elements to the CAGW narrative.
Salinger successfully slipped away in Nee Zealand. Hansen is safe now that he is away from NOAA. Gore is insulated regardless of the outcome by his eco-green wealth: the entire world respects the self-made rich man. In Canada, Suzuki is old; we allow the aged to rant and rave even if they are delusional. Pachauri should have retired already; one wonders if no one is willing to give 100% support to his position on the upcoming planetary disaster. The disconnect between what was to be and what happened has no relevance for the self-image of these any more than it has for the failed predictions of Paul Ehrlich to Ehrlich: they are all out of the game. The problem lies with the fanatical (or career dependent) followers of CAGW like McKibben, Romm, Brune, Trenberth and Mann. What do they do unless the sky starts falling?
Another 18 months of “the pause” and refusal by China to curb its CO2 emissions (thereby giving the rest of the world an excuse to do nothing self-damaging) will bring terrible stress to the CAGW camp. If the science is no longer settled and the outcome certain, AND the majority of both voters and governors don’t care (believe strongly enough), there is neither a “consensus: nor anything to have a consensus about. What then?
Harold Camping’s imminent end-of-times a couple of years ago gives us a modern example worthy of study as to how apocalyptic beliefs and believers adapt to contrary outcomes. The ending of the witchcraft mania of the 15th to late 16th century would be an historic example to note. I’ve seen neither studied in the manner this excellent analysis pulls apart the Lewadowsky play-of-the-day. An “outcome” scenario would based on a “modelled” collapse of the CAGW alarm would be most interesting.

M Courtney
Reply to  Doug Proctor
November 10, 2014 1:17 am

Don’t forget the journalists.
Environmental Journalism was a subset of Science Journalism – then it flowered into a whole career in itself. But journalism is under financial pressure because news is cheap in the internet age.
The Environmental Journalists can’t report doubt on the importance of their work. So they have to knowingly hide the biggest scoop of their careers… that the world isn’t imminently doomed after all.
That must be difficult.

November 9, 2014 8:10 pm

Sometimes a cigar is a football

November 9, 2014 8:23 pm

Come sail away with me! it’s catchy lmao

November 9, 2014 8:35 pm

I may need to see a psychiatrist, but at least I don’t have to see a psychologist, they’re nuts…

November 9, 2014 8:58 pm

How about giving the full name of the acronym CIE (Continued Influence Effect) parenthetically the first time you use it, rather than burying it–almost as an afterthought–some 11 or so paragraphs into the article. If I recall correctly, you did define/discuss it in the first paper; but frankly, I didn’t commit the term to memory, and I’m guessing that I’m not the only reader that gave up seriously reading this loquacious paper in disgust.
CIE is not exactly a common “household” acronym. It is a shame. Showing that Lew and his colleagues are self-blind to the very cognitive distortions that they’ve made a great and self-righteous academic fuss over is a good point. Consider an editor.

November 9, 2014 9:04 pm

“Ye blind guides – straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matthew 23:24). This comes to my mind as I contemplate the self-same scientists who are so logical, realistic and “scientific” in their own particular domain but fail to see the science involved in a complex area where a lot of scientific disciplines are needed to comprehend the whole. All of a sudden there is a “cognitive dissonance” – and they become blind.

Alan Robertson
November 10, 2014 1:50 am

Listening to: The Road Goes On Forever– Robert Earl Keen

November 10, 2014 2:36 am

It is a lot of effrot to say Lew’s work in BS from top to bottom and in any other area it would be throw out has a joke .

Reply to  knr
November 10, 2014 5:12 am

It doesn’t say this. It says that much of Lew’s reasonable work before (joke) conspiracy ideation, on cognitive bias, shows that bias has to be rampant in the climate Consensus, and also explains much of the bizarre behavior of the Consensus. Given his worldview, he can’t admit this, so it also explains why he has to frame skeptics as ‘way out there’. I guess the 50 word summary that’s at the top of all the posts gives the game away 🙂 The effort part of the text provides full evidence, with all necessary Lew paper quotes and all bias characteristics etc. In other words, the stuff people would need to see to know you aren’t just making this up, especially folks from the Consensus who don’t want to believe this, plus provides some insights on related issues like climate depression and public inaction.

Reply to  andywest2012
November 11, 2014 5:58 am

Well, sure, Lewandowsky projects the architecture of his own bias onto skeptics. That was obvious on first gazing into his shabby straw hut.

November 10, 2014 4:54 am

Obviously I’m not the only one here who found all of this to be just a tedious bunch of horse pucky. I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs and started skimming. I’m now beginning to feel a little sorry for the alarmists, but not too sorry.. Maybe they can all find meaningful work as contortionists in the circus. Seems to me they have gotten some good practice lately.

November 10, 2014 5:04 am

Maybe it’s the weather itself is the reason most don’t buy into this. In my own world view, point of observance in my lifetime, I don’t buy into climate change because I’ve lived through the warmest and coldest winter in my lifetime in the last 3 years. I see it all averaging out. Maybe the next generation will fall for this CIE affect which I call a slow process of ‘conditioning’ or ‘brainwashing’ into believing this sort of thing. For me, I’m one who just will not buy into it sort.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 10, 2014 8:13 am

Lewandowsky forgot to glance in his own mirror. And now it’s too late. Surely he is becoming aware of it. The laws of nature, CO2, some montypythonian god-of-weather-now-appeased-but-who-until-so-recently-was-infuriated-by-the-sins-of-man or similar seems to be working on it.
At this stage my sentiments towards Lewandowsky, Mann, Gore, Kerry, Suzuki, Pachauri, Prince Charles and their ilks are limited to vicarious embarrassment. But cannot exclude that the anthropogenic mental climate depression victims submit a class action for compensation due to needless emotional stress as well as loss of professional reputation and future revenues.

November 10, 2014 10:31 am

A good serious of posts, though they are very long and really could do with a summary of the key points.
The irony and lack of self-awareness of Lewandowsky et al is quite remarkable, and I hope that one day social scientists will write papers about this.
In my latest blog post I have commented on the irony in his latest article at The Conversation, where he writes about people who are not very good at thinking logically but aren’t aware of the fact!

November 10, 2014 1:29 pm

…‘things that are presented in too coherent, too certain, too forceful (e.g. suppressing other views)

2 keys I take out of that statement.
1. Suppressing other people views.
People want to hear the full argument and make up their own mind. A majority of people are suspicious of someone telling them ignorance is bliss and to not read the contract before signing.
BTW contrary to alarmists claims, this is not about “flat-earthers” or keeping intelligent design out of class rooms. Intelligent design was presenting itself as an alternate theory to evolution, when it was not, not even close. Most people hearing the whole story caught on pretty quickly that “intelligence” was a code word for God. Sceptics are not presenting alternate theories, are not predicting wine and roses in the year 2070, are not claiming anything. They are just asking hard questions and poking holes in research (this is called science) which often is found to be surprisingly shoddy.
2. Predications.
Making predictions 50, 100 years or more into the future with 100% certainty stretches credulity, no matter how educated or uneducated someone is. Not even astrologers and palm readers while claiming to know the future, claim the future with the same specificity and certainty as climate science. On the other hand, cult leaders will use that same level of certainty and force…many people get this.

November 10, 2014 1:40 pm

I am not well versed in psychology but is not difficult to understand through this essay why Lewandonky fails to understand why the tactics and methods of the AGW movement, to which he does part, have faild to brink the public into the expected action and support to the movement and the cause.
I am not versed well in politics too, but anyway I will try to add another angle to the expalnation of the inaction puzzle, in hope that somehow it could help the AGW “mob” to consider some of its cardinal errors.
I think, for as far as I know, the AGW activisem while it did grow in power and support and help from even governments also, it lacked the most fundamental need it had when it got in the thick of the politics, the support and the political expertise and the political advice, …….or probably did not even wanted or ignored it as much as for lack of trust it may had held towards it.
While it may have had a lot of support from all or most of the branches of science it does not seem to have had any from the political science. It got in a very serious and heavy political affair without relying in the political expertise.
I called it earlier a mob, as actually that what the behaviour of the activists movement seems to be, not coordinated, not synchronized and in general very messy, caotic and too agresiv, despite the strugle to be shown as otherwise.
What I do truly fail to understand, is how people with tittles and Phd’s involved heavely with the movement in this modern age fail to realize that you can’t win but incontrary you will alienate the public once you get involved in agresive acts and affairs with the aim of destroying, demonizing, “killing” the opposition (mostly the sceptics in this case).
The public is an “animal” in its own, the most powerful one out there…..and any force that grows and comes to challenge it to act against its own interest and its own foundamental principle it will be seen and considered as a danger at least and at most a public enemy.
In a modern civic democratic society, the public’s main interest and governing principle is the balance of power, any force is and exist while it allows and respects a healthy and meaningful opposition, otherwise it will be considered as a dangerous and rejectable.
The Consensus fails to understand, that a “scientific” consensus while played in a political manner and in a political arena in a such agresive way it will be percieved as a political power influencing the outcome.
Political powers with a 97% certainty force attached to, in a democratic society translates to the public as a dangerous form of aotucracy and the Consensus itself will be percieved as the “autocrat”, something to what such a public will not be supportive.
To a danger as that a civic modern democratic public will respond by ignoring it at first and by the enactig of the power of the vote.
The only thing that stands between the public at large and the AGW actvist movement as a buffer preventing the public to consider that movement as a public enemy is the IPCC, the main official political arm of the whole AGW affair.
IPCC itself as been a political mechanism, has not commited itself to such a childish and stupid error.
And at times has even tried to control-damage the effect of the AGW actvism.
The latest and the most clearer one is the case of the “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft before publication. Amongs other things that “leak” showed and demostrated that IPCC had allowed a form of opposition in its mids and was not to be considered as an entity bent on “killing” the opposition, and also the language applied in its reports is not assosiated with agression towards opposition, and at times it propagates and shows tolerance towards it by allowing some form of correction as noted by the opposition.
Same times it even has “let go” (expelled, fired) also the hot heads from its mids.
But incontrary the activism seems totally blind to its very own mistakes and than expects some kind of miracle to happen and turn things in their favor.
Almost everything the AGW activisem has done has backfired badly thus far and they, the leaders and the wise ones amongs all this “mob” still fail to understand why.
Most amazing to me is that while they themselfs know, not to be involved in any conspiracy, still they can’t figure out why so much support from the “big bad, dirty”, whatever they name it, towards their cause, while in the same time they have to blaim the opossition as the one in such a conspiracy.
Perhaps they should be told that the “big badys dirtys” are and exsit as powerful entities because they are very good and experts at what they do, in politics and public affairs, and they know the strict rule not to be broken or even bended; ” do not try to “sofocate”, demonize or “kill” the opposition, competition or the opponent in pubilc”.
In public, no agression and a fair-respectful-tolerant attitude and behaviour toward the opposition is the main approach, unless the opponent is and seems to be a kinda of silly stupid short-sighted mob, in which case a lot of goods, mony and “support” is offered to drive it towards bold and agresive acts in public and therefor towards its own destruction and the destruction of it cause, which may have been percieved as a threat and a dangerous opponent for these “bigis” to start with.
No wonder why there is so much noice and no public action.
Funny enough, the Consensus has managed a public behavior change, but contrary to what they wanted or wished for. The public seems more worried and concearned about the AGW movement threat then the CAGW itself. Seems to be enacting its power of vote lately against the movement.
Lets hope it does not get to the point that the movement gets to be percieved as a public enemy.
And they did this all to themselfs and their cause, and still too blind to see it.
The public at the moment is in a kind of modus-operandi towards the Consensus in a line of something like:
“yes yes we belive you more and more with every day passing but we care less and less with every day passing about your message…liers”
hope that’s not a headache..:-)

Reply to  whiten
November 11, 2014 8:29 am

A religious juggernaut, but people are starting to think twice before throwing themselves under the carriage.

November 10, 2014 7:41 pm

If you think that the whole scientific community is part of a conspiracy, it’s the first sign you might be on the wrong side of history.

Reply to  Siberian_Husky
November 10, 2014 8:31 pm

Siberian_Husky Submitted on 2014/11/10 at 7:41 pm
If you think that the whole scientific community is part of a conspiracy, it’s the first sign you might be on the wrong side of history.

Sure. All 97% (er, 77 out of 13,500) government-paid so-called “climate scientists” have only their money, their reputation, their future, their funding an their precious pall-review at stake when they write something to promote their government’s chosen policies.
Method. Motive. Opportunity. Lack of moral restraint, coupled with a religious drive to promote their chosen faith? Of course they are expected to lie for their religion.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 10, 2014 8:51 pm

Yeah sure- just like CFCs and the ozone hole, SO2 and acid rain, passive smoking and lung cancer, vaccines and autism. It’s all a big conspiracy…

Reply to  Siberian_Husky
November 10, 2014 9:08 pm

Yeah sure- just like CFCs and the ozone hole, SO2 and acid rain, passive smoking and lung cancer, vaccines and autism. It’s all a big conspiracy…

Some of your snide remarks are real conspiracies – But, of the specific ones YOU listed? None are valid. All are hoaxes.
When BIG Government “Science” is demanding 1.3 trillion more money each year for their favorite Big Government Tax Increases, in return for ZERO benefits and massive harm to billions? But more billions each year to THEIR favorite corporate donors and non-government agencies? Yes.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 11, 2014 8:33 am

Meh, the grandest example yet of an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Herd’. Sure there are those who breathed and bellowed together. We note the rampant noise and bookmark the mad pawing of their hooves.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 12, 2014 7:30 am

“CFCs and the ozone hole, …”
The high risk and low cost of cutting CFCs meant it was worth taking action on. But the failure of the ozone hole to close much since CFCs have been drastically cut means that the worriers might have been wrong.
“SO2 and acid rain,”
That again was worth taking action on for the same pair of reasons–but the main benefit was the reduction of air pollution, not the threat of acid rain to the environment, which was over-hyped.
“passive smoking and lung cancer,”
Casual (in a restaurant, etc.) second-hand smoking has been over-hyped. (Although IMO it’s worth it if restrictions on smoking there deters people from smoking.) The initial evidence on the threat of intimate second-hand smoke was not strong and it was over-hyped. Skeptics then weren’t blameworthy of ignoring overwhelming evidence at that point.
“vaccines and autism”
Those who make that association are mostly on your side of the fence, not climate contrarians. (Ditto the threat of GMOs.)

Reply to  Siberian_Husky
November 11, 2014 1:11 am

hmmmm… I guess Husky you didn’t read the posts then, which point out that bias, even *rampant* bias, does not equate to conspiracy, and that deducing global conspiracy is incorrect. These posts show that the papers on cognitive bias by ardent Consensus advocates Lew and crew themselves, demonstrate that the Consensus has to be pretty much soaked in bias. Of course after decades this will produce in many, as RACook notes, financial dependancies and blind belief.

November 10, 2014 9:41 pm

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Reply to  Siberian_Husky
November 10, 2014 9:48 pm

Why are you asking that question?
And the answer to that question is: “The Encyclopedia.”
Hint: Start at page one. Read to the end.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 10, 2014 10:10 pm

So CFC’s don’t affect the ozone hole, SO2 emissions have nothing to do with acid rain, there is no relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, and vaccines cause autism. Care to add any more to the list? DDT? GMOs?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 11, 2014 8:35 am

It’s all settled, quite certainly.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 11, 2014 8:37 am

A perfect storm of an imperfect narrative. Sib Hus seeks refuge from the bad weather.

November 11, 2014 6:06 am

As you’ve pointed out, the resolution of all this climate angst is the destruction of the catastrophic meme. Once the world’s inhabitants come to understand that man cannot dangerously raise the temperature and that the warmer world man can generate will be a greener one, sustaining more total life and more diversity of life, then we can all progress further along with the healthy adaptation which is the norm for human society.
The Narrative, sad and insufficient simulacrum of Nature that it is, found roots in the vast and fertile need of humanity to fear, and to assume guilt. Once man’s contribution is re-characterized as good and as net beneficial, then praise and thanks can substitute for fear and guilt.
I consider that resolution almost inevitable, as it gradually replaces a socially destructive meme, a catastrophically destructive one, with a healthier meme. For the times, and the temps, they are a changin’.

Reply to  kim
November 11, 2014 10:58 am

Kim, thanks for your well-phrased sprinklings 🙂

Reply to  kim
November 11, 2014 4:53 pm

” a socially destructive meme, a catastrophically destructive one”, and a trillion $/yr and rapidly growing industry that the US president is personally invested in, kind of like defense contractors and wars.

Michael J. Dunn
November 11, 2014 12:44 pm

1) Cui Bono. People do look to see how the money-greasing is connected to the argument.
2) Ain’t happening. Check with ranchers, rangers, hunters, farmers, hikers, fishermen, and weathermen. Plus, some of us remember Global Cooling. And this argument has been going on long enough that IF IT HELD ANY WATER, WE WOULD SEE RESULTS IN DAILY LIFE. Like an ice-free Arctic Ocean. But in Amsterdam, there is no bull market in periscopes or snorkels, so we are not panicked.
3) Disgraceful behavior. The CRUTape Letters, etc. Basically, this long exposition is just a restatement of the fact that many people have an innate understanding of when sophism is being used. Which basically means that the CAGW position cannot last (as already remarked, in various pithy ways).
By the way, if the writer has scruples against skeptics pointing to a conspiracy, there should be no trouble about pointing to a CONSENSUS. It’s just that the consensus is at the policy level, and the “science” is only a pretext for the policy. The “consensants” are self-admitted, after all. They glory in their self-identification, so let’s give it to them. None of them advocate reliance on nuclear power as our primary energy source, with the synthesis of hydrocarbons for use in a closed-cycle transportation architecture. This would solve any CO2 “problem” definitively (though, to the detriment of plant and animal life)…but it would fail to achieve the actual policy objectives of the CAGW alarmists.
In short, the CAGW alarmists are “fullavit,” a very conspicuous and repellant social condition.

November 11, 2014 2:26 pm

Thanks for the replies. Backs up what the author was saying in spades.

November 13, 2014 12:05 pm

This is not a particularly good rejoinder to Lewandowsky. It is true that there are conspiracy ‘theories’ (actually, pseudo-theories) which are unfalsifiable because they can explain away any attempt at falsification. For example, if the government held an open inquiry into September 11th, and it concluded that the original, official explanation was the best one, conspiracy pseudo-theorists would call it a whitewash. Most readers here would be contemptuous of that conclusion. So it is reasonable to question automatically dissing official inquiries into Climategate as whitewashes. I happen to think they WERE whitewashes, but this has to be explained by carefully dissecting them. The basic logic of Lewandowsky’s argument isn’t fallacious.

Doug Proctor
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
November 13, 2014 4:03 pm

The tricky thing, Rod, is that the man who truly has enemies or his truly being lied to is neither paranoid nor cynical.
There are definite agendas being supported by CAGW. Even if only personal fortunes, though personal ego-stroking would be enough. So to say that one believes there is a conspiracy within or around or attached to CAGW is hardly unreasonable on a smaller scale. I hold that mutual self-interest often exists but is indistinguishable by the bystander from a conspiracy; the mutal support from different angles is suspicious. Lewandowsky pronounces from a position that there is truth and there is the lie, and there is nothing in between that looks, walks and smells like a lie but is just a useful position. So he cannot recognize that suspicion drives behaviour as well as belief in an enemy without.
So Lewandowsky comes from a non-fallacious position, exactly. But so do the “conspiracy theorists”. Dr. L. fails to admit that questioning is, in places, justified. If he did, he would not say us skeptics were loony Flat Earthers. But such is his committment to the CAGW narrative that he cannot admit even a sliver of reasonableness to those who disagree with him.
I’ll bet he is one of those who respond to disagreement with fury, distain and a refusal to continue the conversation. A sure sign that “power” is being threatened.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
November 14, 2014 1:22 am

Are you on the right thread? Did you actually read what this series of posts is about?

%d bloggers like this: