The new climate spin: trying to reach conservatives by making fighting climate change 'patriotic'

Framing discourse around conservative values shifts climate change attitudes


Conservatives’ attitudes toward climate change and other environmental concerns shift when the issues are reframed in terms more closely aligned with their values, a new study from Oregon State University indicates.

Researchers found that people who identified as conservative were more likely to support “pro-environmental” ideals when the issues were framed as matters of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature and demonstrating patriotism.

The study underscores the ways in which discussions of important topics are informed by a person’s moral and ideological perspective, said the study’s lead author, Christopher Wolsko, an assistant professor of psychology at OSU-Cascades.

“We think we’re just discussing issues, but we’re discussing those issues through particular cultural values that we normally take for granted,” Wolsko said. “If you re-frame issues to be more inclusive of those diverse values, people’s attitudes change.”

The findings were published in the latest issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Co-authors are Hector Ariceaga and Jesse Seiden, who are alumni of OSU-Cascades.

Wolsko studies ecopsychology, a field that examines the relationship between humans and the natural world from both a psychological and ecological perspective. The goal of his latest research is to better understand the widespread political polarization occurring around environmental issues such as climate change.

“This political polarization has been a big issue, even in the current presidential campaign,” Wolsko said. “Why is that? What, exactly, is going on psychologically?”

Moral foundations theory suggests that liberals and conservatives respond differently to broad moral categories. Liberals respond more favorably to moral issues involving harm and care, or fairness and justice, and conservatives respond more favorably to issues framed by loyalty, authority and respect, and the purity and sanctity of human endeavors, Wolsko said.

In a series of experiments, the researchers tested how shifts in moral framing affected attitudes toward environmental issues such as climate change. They reframed questions about conservation and climate change around ideals of patriotism, loyalty, authority and purity and paired them with imagery such as flags and bald eagles.

They found that reframing the issues around these moral foundations led to shifts in attitudes for conservatives, who were more likely to favor environmental concerns in that context. There was no noticeable shift in attitudes among liberals, which isn’t a big surprise, Wolsko said.

Environmental issues are typically framed in ideological and moral terms that hold greater appeal for people with liberal views. Conservatives may not so much be rejecting environmental concerns, but rather the tone and tenor of the prevailing moral discourse around environmental issues, he said.

That does not mean people should reframe critical discourse to manipulate attitudes about environmental concerns, Wolsko said. Rather, the goal should be to find more balanced ways to talk about the issues in an effort to reduce the polarization that can occur.

“The classic move is to segment people along these ideological lines,” he said. “But if we’re more inclusive in our discourse, can we reduce the animosity and find more common ground?”

Future research should look at messaging that is considered more neutral and appeals to people with both liberal and conservative ideologies, Wolsko said.

“I’m really interested in the extent to which we can bring everyone together, to be more inclusive and affirm common values,” he said. “Can we apply these lessons to the political and policy arenas, and ultimately reduce the vast political polarization we’re experiencing right now?”


221 thoughts on “The new climate spin: trying to reach conservatives by making fighting climate change 'patriotic'

  1. I would look very closely at this study. It sounds to me like he faked the data in its entirety. It matches the biases and prejudices of the reader far too closely.

      • Regardless of one’s “moral” leanings, for many of us it comes down to “Show me the evidence.” Since the models are at such odds with observations they can’t even “prove” the past let alone the future, many of us have rightfully concluded the “evidence” at this time is insufficient.
        For all the PC yawp, I have to conclude this is the real-world, mainstream conclusion. Else we would be living very differently–telecommuting, all non-essential travel strongly discouraged, as well as all non-essential consumption. In fact, there would probably be a heavy consumption tax, especially on the energy and transportation sectors. Think WWII style rationing. This is not now, nor has ever been, on the table.
        Therefore one is correct to conclude they’re not “really serious” about man-made global warming being any kind of a threat to the industrialized way of life. Sophistry, Kool-Aid served up to the many by the few for their own financial advantage.

    • I wouldn’t call it faked data as much as heaping biased measures on top of biased moderators. It’s really easy to get people to self-select into groups where the within-group outcomes are predetermined.

    • It matches the biases and prejudices of the reader far too closely.
      It is the “new science”. Only look for examples that confirm your theory.
      The problem is that most people believe that if they can find an infinite number of examples showing something to be true, then it must be true. But this ignores the fact that we live in an infinite universe. There are plenty of false ideas that have an infinite number of true examples. This is how pseudo science develops.
      For example, consider the statement: any number divided by itself yields 1
      There are an infinite number of true examples to support this:
      for example: 1/1, 2/2, -1/-1 …
      However, the statement itself is false, because 0/0 is not equal 1. It is undefined because it can have any value.
      And this is the trap that modern science, including climate science finds itself. Funding is driven by positive results. Which ultimately means that most positive findings in science will eventually be found to be false positives. Thus the crisis in replication.

      • Well Ferd, the way you have posed the problem, your answer is not correct.
        It is certainly true that 0 / 0 is indeterminate.
        But you said ANY number divided by ITSELF (my emphasis).
        So the limit of epsilon / epsilon, as epsilon tends to zero, is still in fact one.
        If the two zeros got to be zero by different unknown processes then the result is indeterminate, but so long as numerator, and denominator are by definition always equal to each other, no matter how small, then their ratio is still one.

    • I would too if it wasn’t paywalled. It can be yours to read for the small price of $35.95 USD.

    • Anyone stating this –
      “Researchers found that people who identified as conservative were more likely to support “pro-environmental” ideals when the issues were framed as matters of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature and demonstrating patriotism.”
      has a problem. Conservatives aren’t prone to “obeying authority,” that’s a liberal trait. We also aren’t prone to “defending the purity of nature,” that’s a greenie thing, and also far left. As for responding to “demonstrations of patriotism,” well I don’t think you could find a way to pitch high costs of energy and more taxes with less living in any form that would strike a conservative as patriotic. Sounds like someone just wrote “stuff” to fulfill a grant.

      • Tom O wrote: “Anyone stating this –
        “Researchers found that people who identified as conservative were more likely to support “pro-environmental” ideals when the issues were framed as matters of obeying authority, defending the purity of nature and demonstrating patriotism.”
        has a problem. Conservatives aren’t prone to “obeying authority,” that’s a liberal trait. We also aren’t prone to “defending the purity of nature,” that’s a greenie thing, and also far left.”
        Leftists tend to do a lot of projection, Tom.

      • Tom O … yup, you pretty much said what I thought when I read that. And, it sounds like they are reverting back to their same old bigoted memes regarding Conservatives as [members of the 3rd Re!ch, which the mods frown upon]. Obeying authority … Purity … Patriotism? Egads, these people just can’t help themselves, can they?
        Apparently, they’ve given up on science. Now, it’s all about how they can fool us with their psycho-babble and brain-washing techniques. Very disturbing trend.

      • If you divide all specialties up into enough sub-specialties, eventually you will reach the point where everybody can be the world’s leading expert in something.

      • If there are research institutes and journals dedicated to it, then it must be real and important. Same goes for “nanomedicine.” While I’m an MD by training, I have never been able to understand the need for that term, but I know several grown-up physicists and chemists who assure me that nanomedicine is a thing. Personally, I think the tooth fairy is more real and relevant.

      • Well Mark that is exactly why you get a PhD. Mostly, you then are the world’s leading authority, because your Mentor told you to pick something nobody else had written on.
        Unfortunately it often turns out, that you are also the only person on the planet with any interest at all in your specialty subject.
        That makes it difficult to find a paying job in your specialty.

      • Michael Palmer
        The dream is to have tiny robots with analysis gear and chemotoxins to identify and kill cancer cells. After expending their toxins precisely at the appropriate cell membrane receptors, the robots withdraw to the bladder or bowel for removal from the body. Precise elimination of the cancer cells without damage to healthy tissue could save a lot of lives. I can see it working for anything but brain cancers, as the blood brain barrier is difficult. We’re not there yet, but that is the dream, and it may stay as science fiction forever.
        (mods: I am posting from a different computer so may have typo’d the username, but I think I got it right – not meaning to be a sockpuppet)

      • MarkW, academic expertise can be deacribed mathematically precisely. It is knowing more and more about less and less, until eventually the professor knows everything about nothing.

      • @ fossilage, 10.28 am, your question: ” What just what the heck is ecopsycology” ( My spell checker has rejected the word many times now btw and I refuse to add it to my dictionary). That was the first question that came to my mind. These people seem to invent a term nobody has ever heard of and then form a whole new “science protocol” around it rather than the other way around. ( and of course it then needs more “research” $$$). I would laugh but it is truly a sad state of affairs.

    • Did they mean “Echo-psychology”? Where what the researchers say/think is what they hear the participants saying/thinking? LOL 🙂

  2. “…balanced ways to talk about the issues in an effort to reduce the polarization that can occur.”
    Since when do these Decepticons (liars) pursue a ‘balanced’ approach.

    • by “reduce the polarization” he means agree with our liberal values and theories … he doesn’t mean find a middle ground … he means change your mind and agree with me …

      • I agree. The assumption appears to be made that man-made climate change is well under way.

      • In the save vein, I have noticed that bi-partisanship always involves Republicans agreeing with Democrats. Never the other way around.

      • Yes, notice that they didn’t attempt to re-educate those who already had the desired beliefs.
        Why didn’t they see what sort of psyops could deprogram a liberal?
        The bias couldn’t be any more clear.

      • The real howler is that the authors see conservatives as those who tend to “obey authority”.
        Which side in the debate is the one incessantly pointing to the “consensus”, an argument that is entirely an Appeal To Authority. The sole purpose of bringing up that trope is to suppress dissent and ensure conformity with the official view. Which side is persuaded by that argument?

  3. ..You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig !! Conservatives are all well aware that liberals will lie at the drop of a hat if it means getting what they demand ! To them, the end justifies the means …They DO NOT compromise..

    • And conservatives do compromise? Please give examples of how the Republicans in the House and Senate have compromised with Obama.

      • Chris….to a degree, you are correct, but IMO, a prolific Dem. politician has taken the course in ‘The Art of the Lie’.

      • ♦ TPP
        ♦ Amnesty
        ♦ ObamaCare.
        ♦ and Common Core.
        And that’s just for starters.. He could have been impeached long ago !

      • the TPP … Dodd Frank … every budget since Obama has been in office … I can go on … maybe you should stop getting your information from the Daily Kos …

      • Lol, they have caved on almost everything Obama has asked for over the past few years. That’s one reason Trump is so popular with Republican voters. But then again, I guess caving is not compromise, so maybe you are technically correct…

      • Chris
        It’s more like the “Republicans” rolled over for a belly rub.
        By the way, calling oneself conservative doesn’t make it so. Typical claim by most rinos.

      • It’s kind of hard to compromise, when they lock the doors to keep you out.
        As to examples of compromise, just check every single budget resolution that has been passed. Invariably they are almost exactly what Obama has demanded.

      • ♦ TPP – voting for something you already agree with is not compromise.
        ♦ Amnesty – ? on what?
        ♦ ObamaCare. – 0 Republican yes votes in the Senate:
        0 Republican yes votes in the House:
        That’s the exact opposite of compromise. Not to mention 44 votes since then to overturn Obamacare
        ♦ and Common Core – Nope, the Senate voted 54-46 along party lines to substantially weaken Common Core:

      • “There is no compromise between truth and a lie.”
        That has no meaning as it relates to government legislation proposed by Obama and whether Republicans were willing to compromise on it.

      • Snort!
        So negotiating to reach a final agreement you can vote for is NOT a compromise!!!
        So being frozen out of ObamaCare negotations by the Dems is a sign of bad-faith …by the GOP!
        So proposing and passing legislation, signed by Obama, putting more power back in the States re implementation of Common Core is NOT compromise?
        Re the last:
        “Obama signed a **bipartisan** bill that easily passed the Senate on Wednesday and the House last week — long-awaited legislation that would replace the landmark No Child Left Behind education law of 2002, now widely viewed as unworkable and overreaching.
        Obama, referring to the **bipartisan** nature of the bill, called it “a Christmas miracle.”
        “This is a big step in the right direction, a true **bipartisan** effort,” he said.”
        QE EFFING D

      • One recent Act changing the law that allows Common Core to stay for ever and ever. Intertwined into the fabric of Washington DC Dept of Education. Called the ESSA. 2012 Introduced into the House by Paul Ryan, 1000 pages allowed 2 days before vote. Passed. Now we can find out what is in it – Sounds very familiar. Progressive mentality – only the chosen will rule the world – NWO. Common Core will down size the ability of common mass children to the lowest common denominator placement – Core Standard testing. Elite (chosen) will attend selected education facilities. Prior to ESSA there were laws that prohibited the Federal government from controlling testing standards for the individual states. Currently the above 12 grade level, the testing standards are be developed by the same work shop’ that controlled the common Core testing.
        Any law legislatively enacted laws are susceptible to back room non floor debated alteration. For better or worse. Testing standards are by reason tested over and over before application. Not a single test for the Common Core testing criteria. Saturn Five first stage separation micro switch installed and never tested. Not one test done. Sound familiar?
        Not for the Saturn 5 to the moon – only a progressive idiot would have engineered a part with no testing. Every part was tested over and over until a failure occurred, then the fix was applied and retested over and over (this is an overly simplified version of a guided tour of Huntsville Rocket Center).

      • Well, Marcus, you’ll need to reconsider Obamacare. I’m proud to say not a single Republican voted for it. When that all comes crashing down, there will be no sharing the blame. We can stand back, point our fingers, and laugh, saying “I told ya so!”.

      • ‘A Dismissal of Safety, Choice and Cost: The Obama Administrations New Auto Regulations’
        Named in this 46 page Congressional Report are:
        Natural Resources Defense Council
        Sierra Club
        Union of Concerned Scientists
        Fossil fuels + the auto industry are involved in the present situation.
        There are some individuals and organizations that think they run the whole of the U.S. and have a right to do so.

      • Chris,
        Republicans in the House and Senate don’t need to compromise with a President that will just do what he wants by executive order anyway. 🙂

      • Well they just stood a side, and let him do his bidding. That’s mighty co-operative if you ask me.

      • Me: “There is no compromise between truth and a lie.”
        You: “That has no meaning as it relates to government legislation proposed by Obama and whether Republicans were willing to compromise on it.”
        Chris, you are clearly confused how government works. When it comes to questions like “Both sides agree on spending tax money on “X” now we can proceed to Ways and Means to COMPROMISE on how much money should be spent on “X”.
        There’s no question that compromise is possible AFTER both sides have agreed to proceed with a given action. But compromise is NOT possible when one side does not want the action and the other does. Compromise is NOT possible between good and evil, or truth and lies or …(per Mark Steyn) ice cream and dog feces. Go ahead Chris, describe to us exactly how federal government should ~compromise~ between obeying the Constitution and its own laws … or just ignoring them and doing whatever it wishes?

      • Chris, April 26, 2016 at 8:53 am wrote: “And conservatives do compromise? Please give examples of how the Republicans in the House and Senate have compromised with Obama.”
        You are kidding, right?
        The House and Senate Republicans have passed every budget Obama has wanted. Obama has had a free reign his entire two presidential terms.
        The Republicans are scared to death that opposing him will get themselves called racists (and it would), so they don’t oppose him. They talk a lot, but in the end, they go right along with Obama. That’s one reason conservatives are in the “throw the bums out” mode this year.
        The national debt, after all, is almost $20 TRILLION. About double what it was when Obama took Office, less than eight years ago. The Republicans in the House and Senate approved that spending (except Obamacare).
        To turn it around: Name something Obama wanted that was denied him by the Republican Congress. No Republican voted for Obamacare, but Obama got that passed anyway, and I believe that is the last time the Republicans challenged him.

      • Carrie, Obama still has 9 months left. There’s plenty of time for the Republicans to cave on that issue as well.

  4. Off Topic:
    If you’re going to take in “Climate Hustle” this comming Monday, it may be a very good opportunity for lots of people who share a common view of Climate Change/Global Warming to connect with one another. Bring a notebook and a pack of calling cards. Most theaters these days have cafes of some sort for people to gather before or after the show.
    I bought my ticket in person a week or so ago, and I asked what the turnout was so far. Very good for a one time presentation I was told.
    Maybe Bloggers could run a “Sticky” from now until showtime Preplanning is always good.

  5. The patriotic thing to do is support fracking so we don’t have to buy oil from folks who hate us and are dedicated to our destruction.

    • Which does not in the least support the notion that all patriots are scoundrels, though some would prefer to believe that.

  6. Read the history of the German Volk movement. Best documented in Anna Bramwell’s “A History of Ecology in the 20th Century”.

  7. The new climate spin: trying to reach conservatives by making fighting climate change ‘patriotic’
    In other words, “How can we create effective propaganda?”

    • Or marketing works better when it aligns with the vocabulary of your target. Duh.
      FWIW, this has been where the skeptic side in large part has failed. It’s assumed that demonstrable facts and logical argument win hearts (ie, emotional agreement). By not framing the challenge to the erroneous “consensus” in language that emotionally resonates, the general public goes with what feels right (save the planet) even if it’s a bald-faced lie.
      Of course, getting a venue for making a pitch is another matter. The “consensus” has the educational system, the media, and the government in it’s firm grip. Other avenues to tell the truth to much of the population are second tier.

      • When it’s “facts” vs. “emotions,” unfortunately “emotions” win every time. The modern world is wired to feed on drama, the facts be damned.

    • imagine a similar study that proposes how to best twist the question & language, in a manner that will get Liberals & Democrats respond differently towards the concept of “climate change”; that they will “recognize” climate change issues are mainly hysterics. Imagine that, and the fallout that would be associated with it.

    • CPI – Committee for Public Information. 1917 Woodrow Wilson appointed a good writer to convince the public that the War in Europe was the ‘just war’. Patriotic thing to do.

  8. How is ‘patriotic’ to send $500 million dollars to a UN agency (Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ) that supports Palestinians, who have declared their hatred for us and sworn to annihilate our allies in Israel?

    • All UN agencies and UN personnel hate USA. It’s the reason why all the anti-mondialists or alter-mondialists (or whatever they want to be called today) love that abject organisation where Libya can be in charge of the Human Rights Commission, and Saudi Arabia can be chair of a United Nations Human Rights Council panel.
      And these enviro-leftist anti-capitalist buffoons would like the ultimate authority of the Internet to be transferred on the UN!

  9. The study is geared to manipulating the right to move left. Nothing about manipulating the left to move right. It is always the way. When liberal talk about closing the political polarization they mean the right must accept their liberal values. In Washington “crossing the aisle” means Republicans supporting Democratic legislation — never Democrats supporting Republican legislation. (I am certain that the authors of this study would have no difficulty framing the persecution of climate skeptics under RICO laws as “patriotic”,
    Can’t the authors of this study see how bias they themselves are? No comparison group of Liberals influenced to move make this study even the least bit “sort of sciencey”. (I intend that spelling.)
    Eugene WR Gallun

  10. This isn’t surprising.
    I’m a radical centrist and I find when talking to conservatives and liberals about issues, if you tailor the discussion to their ideological perspective, it’s easier to get them to agree.
    For conservatives, an example is housing for the homeless. “Housing for the homeless?” they say. “Those lazy bastards can get a job.” So you appeal to their preference that governments save money. You point out that in places where the city ends homelessness, the economic costs and expenditures on emergency services cause the cost of homelessness on the government to go down by up to 80%, and the homeless people are now treated and get back to work faster, meaning not just greater savings long term, but economic productivity. It takes a lot of evidence to prove that this is what happens, but inevitably, they agree that ending homelessness by ending homelessness is the best course of action, simply because it is cheaper, morality be damned.
    Another example is transgender people in bathrooms. Instead of talking about rights, I talk about reducing harm. I point out that despite being such a small percentage of the population, they are obscenely overrepresented in assault cases, especially in bathrooms. The perverts that they are trying to “protect the children” from would find a way to be perverted anyway, either by dressing up and getting away with it already or by having someone else do their dirty work for them. Nearly every case reported was disproven by Snopes or shown to have been possible without allowing transgenders into their bathroom of choice. So allowing them into their bathroom of choice is the best way to reduce harm (which in turn also saves money due to reduced policing and health care costs).
    For liberals, it’s appealing to their senses of decency and fairness rather than greed and justice. An example is the minimum wage and other tactics for helping the poor. A high minimum wage is nearly universally recognized as being a bad idea by economists, but liberals want to help the lower income class. The example to show them is Denmark, where there is no legal minimum wage and a union can’t stop you from being fired. But there is up to two years of unemployment benefits and free education (not just free – you’re paid to go to school). Because businesses are unfettered rather than forced to be a social service, the economy is a powerhouse and the country has the money (they have a national surplus and are owed more money than they owe in debt) to fund the social programs that reduce poverty, something we can’t do in North America.
    Whether we like it or not, ideology plays a huge roll in how we think. We don’t come to it through logic and reason like most of us seem to think; we come to it with emotion. In fact, studies show that disproving someone’s beliefs with logic, reason and evidence tends to reinforce their incorrect beliefs rather than changing them. You have to make an emotional appeal based on their ideology.

    • You are hardly a Centrist ..In your little speech, you attacked Republicans and praised liberals…you are only lying to yourself.

      • That has been one of the big lies of the last 20 years. Liberals have been taught to always refer to themselves as centrist, middle of the road types.
        On the other hand, in most college campuses, socialists are considered conservative.

      • First, radical centrist, not centrist. Centrism offends me.
        Second, I attacked no one, and your response proves my point about ideology coming first and being based in emotion, not logic nor reason.
        I pointed out functioning systems and why the two sides are opposed to such systems and how to frame arguments for those systems. I’m still working on it because while I may be a creature of logic and reason and look through the evidence before coming to a conclusion (as well as changing my position regularly as new evidence is presented), the vast majority of humanity is the exact opposite. You prove that here.
        I stated very right wing positions (no minimum wage, weaken unions, reduce tax expenditures, justice, etc.), but due to your right wing ideology blinding you, all you saw was the positions that you take as left wing and oppositional to your worldview. If you can realize this, you’re on the first step to recovery from ideological blindness. If you can’t realize this, you may very well be incurable.
        If you need more evidence, I fully embrace Watts’ position on climate change; the evidence isn’t there to talk about catastrophic climate change nor to state that humans are the primary cause, only that we are one probable cause of many. Reducing CO2 output is best handled by nuclear power rather than so-called “green” tech (most of which is more environmentally damaging than CO2 by far), and planning for the change is more important than trying to halt something that we probably can’t halt. Besides, it gives us insight into terraforming.

      • Did anyone notice that Yehudi tried to turn the trans-genders in bathroom into a “reducing harm” thing, when it is first and foremost a PRIVACY thing??
        Go poll a hundred women whether they want men who CLAIM to women listening in on one during one of their most private and most vulnerable moments. You’ll get an overwhelming response: NO!
        As to his argument, in essence, that “well, they’re going to do it anyway…”: if pervs do it now, they do it ILLEGALLY and can be prosecuted for it.

      • The fact that you consider all of those to be “very right wing”, just goes to prove that you are no centrist.
        You are pushing the left wing line completely.

      • The “radical” in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[3] The “centrism” refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4] Thus one radical centrist text defines radical centrism as “idealism without illusions”.

        “Idealism without illusions” sounds like an oxymoron.

      • ..Yehudi…”For liberals, it’s appealing to their senses of decency and fairness rather than greed and justice. “….Ummm, that pretty well states what you think of Right minded people !

      • Liberals seem to fall for this crap easier than conservatives…
        Obama did the same thing with his campaign….if you listened to him…you could hear anything you wanted to hear…
        ..he changed his position depending on which group he was talking to
        If you wanted to hear up is down…he said it….if you wanted to hear down is up…he said it
        …to the embarrassing point of “Obama’s going to pay my mortgage”
        Academic ‘Dream Team’ of behavioral scientists advised Obama’s campaign

      • Mr. Roman has spoken well. I agree with his arguments although I haven’t taken time to verify claims.
        Myself? I’m disappointed that OSU allows its name to be attached to this gibberish.

      • Yehudi Roman April 26, 2016 at 9:42 am
        I’m still working on it because while I may be a creature of logic and reason and look through the evidence before coming to a conclusion (as well as changing my position regularly as new evidence is presented), the vast majority of humanity is the exact opposite.
        First we’ll start with that logic, part In your examples you present conservative ones, in so far as you see them These are assumptions, not facts. You did not take them most basic step and “ask” what those concerns really were. There is no logic to that. As a matter of fact your failure to find out and except the true reasons & concerns of conservatives on these issues, has rendered further conversation difficult and problematic at best. Learn this: do not put words in your opponents mouth if you are trying to have a dialog with him. That tactic is only used when trying to influence the uncommitted.
        As for your ” You prove that here”. statement, all you have proven is that you are not as adept in the art of communication as you fancy yourself .
        Now, can you learn? “as well as changing my position regularly as new evidence is presented”.Can you change? Can you admit you insulted and condescended to many of the conservatives here by by offering up a false historical dialectic of them. Can you make amends to them and retry?

      • Well, got back from my day out, and I must say, the conservatives did not disappoint!
        When I talk to liberals, I get all the same accusations; except I’m far right instead.
        You’ve all proven my point perfectly.
        As for what a radical centrist is, it is someone that points out that there are merits to numerous ideas from various political viewpoints, but most ideologies get most things wrong. Various areas of the left have good ideas and various areas of the right have good ideas. They also all have a lot of very bad ideas.
        You’ve all proven my points, yet you’re too ideologically blinded to be able to see it. The very fact that conservatives think I’m a leftist but liberals think I’m a rightist is proof of the ideological blindness. And yet none of you seem to have the mental capacity to understand it.
        You all ignore the right wing positions I take (which yes, have been described as far right to me by leftists) and only focus on what you perceive to be my left wing traits. It’s an interesting reaction, one entirely based in emotion without reason.
        Did anyone notice that Yehudi tried to turn the trans-genders in bathroom into a “reducing harm” thing, when it is first and foremost a PRIVACY thing??
        Privacy is created by bathroom stalls. This doesn’t make sense on the face of it. Besides that, if you think privacy is more important than assault, it’s more than a little obvious that your sense of morality is broken or worse.
        The fact that you consider all of those to be “very right wing”, just goes to prove that you are no centrist.
        I was using “very” to add emphasis, nothing more. Those are right wing positions, nearly libertarian in some regards. Given that I used to be a libertarian… I’ll let you finish the thought. If you’re capable.
        “Can you admit you insulted and condescended to many of the conservatives here by by offering up a false historical dialectic of them. Can you make amends to them and retry?”
        I can admit that people with inferiority complexes that are afraid of their own flaws would find what I said insulting, but anyone secure in themselves and are honest with themselves would not. As I explained, it has been proven quite conclusively that when someone is faced with facts disproving their beliefs, they tend to double down on their beliefs instead of changing them. This is why ideas like Young Earth Creationism still survive to this day, but also why the left wing only listens to left wing scientists pushing an environmentalist agenda. I’m sorry if you are others are offended by my statements of fact, but that quite literally is your problem and not mine.
        As for my communication skills, I already know they are poor. As I said, still experimenting, but I have had success with appealing to ideological points over logic and reason, and this is true with both the left and the right, liberal and conservative.
        And yes, at this point I’m being deliberately condescending. People attacked me, and I have replied in kind. You’ve all proven my point quite thoroughly, and I’m sitting at home smirking. As said, I’ve been called far right on numerous occasions by liberals. This just adds another time where a conservative has called me far left.
        But like I said, we can’t all be creatures of logic and reason, can we? The ones that eschew ideology will always be derided. The reality is that left and right wing ideologies are now being connected to genetics. I managed to overcome such baser instincts. Too bad you can’t do the same.
        Have a nice life. I hear ignorance is bliss.

      • I don’t know. Check here:

        But Clugston said more people are seeking a bed to spend the night at the city’s Salvation Army.
        Despite that, Medicine Hat’s mayor maintained the community is still on the verge of ending homelessness.
        The city gained international attention last year when word spread the municipality was on track to become the first Canadian city to wipe out chronic homelessness after the city launched an ambitious five-year plan to end homelessness by March 2015.
        The deadline came and went without any proclamation that chronic homelessness had ended.
        Clugston said in May that targets established under the plan were being met, but he wanted to ensure they were sustainable before an official announcement about the feat was made.
        “We’re close to announcing (homelessness has ended). We’re on the verge of announcing.”

        They had been working on that for last 5 years. All they needed to do is to get free housing to about 900 people. And 5 years later they still didn’t get there.
        And as soon as this becomes widely known, how many more people looking for free housing are they going to get?

      • For the record, Moose Jaw , Saskatchewan , has a population of roughly 33,000. Medicine Hat has 63,000.
        Poor Yehudi wants us to believe that two small Canadian towns’ approach to homelessness can be scaled up to handle the situation in places like New York City or San Francisco. AS IF the “homeless” have not already made those places into Meccas for “free stuff”.
        And if the solution is so simple and easy to solve, then why haven’t the uber-libs running those cities already done so?

        • If you want pigeons, throw out bird seed. If you want homeless, hand out free money.
          There’s your solution to the “homeless” problem. There is a direct corellation between the benefits handed to self-professed “homeless”, and the number of homeless in a city.
          You would think that the homeless numbers would be a much greater percentage in cities in Florida, or Los Angeles than in frozen Canada. But the fact that there’s a homeless problem on the tundra indicates that they’re being paid to be homeless there.
          People are rational, even the crazy ones. If you pay them to not work, they won’t work. If you pay them to be homeless in a particular area, there will be homeless folks there.
          Before Big Government came along to save everyone, people down on their luck had friends and family for a safety net. If not, there were always organizations like the Salvation Army. But then the gov’t stepped in, and for merely exhorbitant tax increases on the taxpaying workers, a new class of bureaucrats was established, which handed out food stamps, cash EBT cards, free housing, free medical, and so on.
          That ‘solution’ only cost about ten times more than the old system — and as a direct result, the number of people on the dole grew exponentially. Naturally, this required more bureaucrats.
          No wonder the number of “homeless’ has skyrocketed.

      • MarkW-
        I prefer to look at it as “homefullness” is at an all time high…”in recorded history”. More people own or rent “homes” today than they ever have at any point in human history. More people live indoors, in planned structures built on purpose than in caves, poles covered with leaves, plumbing, heat, and preventative shelter from nature than ever have on Earth….ever. There are still a lot of homeless people. But the number of people living in caves or primitive conditions is infinitely small in comparison. At least in countries that practice some form of capitalism…..:)
        And there’s plenty of empty “homes” that could house all the people who are on the street too….it’s not a space or building or “sheltering place” shortage at all.

    • Here are some simple solutions not based on ideology:
      If you have male organs you use the men’s room, if you have female organs use the ladies room. That is easy and unambiguous.
      The real minimum wage is $0.00, no matter where the hourly rate is set that will not change.
      Most homelessness is caused by mental disability. Treatment cannot be forced on someone who will not accept it so more housing is not the immediate solution because you can’t force people into it. Do we deny personal liberty to force treatment? Not really an ideological question.
      CO2 is not the primary driver of earths climate. No matter what ideological bent you place on the CAGW argument it is still false. Flags & Eagles are nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

      • GTL; Question for you on public restrooms. If you go into a convenience store that has two restrooms, both restrooms have one water closet, one lavatory and locking doors, why should those restroom be sexually segregated?

      • Did you notice how Yehudi attempted to “frame” the bathroom issue as one of “reducing harm”?
        NEVER MIND that women don’t enjoy using public restrooms because they think urinating and defecating in the presence of others is an embarrassing situation. MANY women just “hold it in” until they get home.
        So…it’s PRIVACY that’s being invaded here. Big Time. By people who CLAIM they are not the sex they were born as. Yehudi argues that pervs are, to paraphrase, “going to figure out a way to get in anyway”, but the situation NOW is that doing so is ILLEGAL.
        He might as well argue that door locks are useless, because the burglars will still…you get the drift.
        This trans-gender thing is really an assault against intelligence.
        If a few years ago I announced that (even though born a man) I believed with all my heart I am the reincarnation of Queen Nefertiti, people would say, “Uh uh….and nervously look for the room’s nearest exit, just in case.
        But today, all I need say is, “I feel I am really a woman”, we’re supposed to let them into ladies room.
        Bullbleep of the purest kind.
        In a rational world, mentally/emotionally disturbed people don’t get to make the rules, or to demand we share and approve of their insanity.

      • I have a much simpler solution. One person, one rest room. So have a bunch of them, and let anybody of any one of the 57 known sexes, use any one of them they like; BY THEMSELVES !

      • The issue here is not about bathrooms which only one person at the time can use. It’s about bathrooms where many people can be at the same time. Those are and should be sexually segregated.

      • BrianK April 26, 2016 at 10:28 am
        why should those restroom be sexually segregated?
        Two reasons Brian, first zoning laws.
        Second where such laws don’t apply , public safety and for the comfort and mental well being of the costumers .

    • For liberals, it’s appealing to their senses of decency and fairness rather than greed and justice
      I have no idea what “radical centrism” is, but it is clearly involved with believing that liberals believe in decency and fairness and conservatives are greedy bastards who for some strange reasons think that justice is important.

      • ..Radical Centrist = very confused liberal stew… aka SLOP !!
        However, most commonly cited influences and precursors are from the political realm. For example, British radical-centrist politician Nick Clegg considers himself an heir to political theorist John Stuart Mill, former Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George, economist John Maynard Keynes, social reformer William Beveridge, and former Liberal Party leader Jo Grimond.[17] In his book Independent Nation (2004), John Avlon discusses precursors of 21st-century U.S. political centrism, including President Theodore Roosevelt, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, and African-American Senator Edward W. Brooke.[18] Radical centrist writer Mark Satin points to political influences from outside the electoral arena, including communitarian thinker Amitai Etzioni, magazine publisher Charles Peters, management theorist Peter Drucker, city planning theorist Jane Jacobs, and futurists Heidi and Alvin Toffler

      • 99% of the time, whenever you find someone who is proudly proclaiming himself to be a centrist, you will find that he is actually a hard core liberal.

      • “””””…… and African-American Senator Edward W. Brooke. …..”””””
        So which is he; American, or African ??
        Gotta be one or the other.
        I suppose from wayback we are all African, so no need to publicize that.

    • Oh logical and rational Yahudi….*cough* Wow. Where to start.
      In order to make any of your arguments, you did the most illogical and cognitively biased thing possible-you determined that “all” people-be they left or right, believe in, want, understand, and agree with exactly the same things. You blanket stereotyped. You took a vivid, complex rainbow of individuals, beliefs, cultural issues, and political preferences and boiled them down to “red” and “blue”. And then pronounced your judgement. Only narrow minded, bigoted, illogical and non-critical thinkers do that.
      “For conservatives, an example is housing for the homeless. “Housing for the homeless?” they say. “Those lazy bastards can get a job.” So you appeal to their preference that governments save money.”
      First-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Conservatives don’t want the government to “save money”, they want the government to get their grubby, mismanaging, lying, thieving hands OFF OF everyone’s money. That is not the equivalent of “saving money”. Conservatives are the ones who run the numbers, see the math, and yell the loudest that the “money” given to the government has always been handled poorly and on stupid, idiotic things when its not being embezzled and passed under the table! That your understanding of how conservatives feel about “government” + “money” is that they “prefer that governments save money” is hilarious as well as inaccurate in every way.
      “Whether we like it or not, ideology plays a huge roll in how we think.” That statement is completely relative. It can be true for the most part depending upon WHAT it is that we are thinking, talking, learning about. Unimportant, unprovable things like opinions and beliefs and moral codes…yep. But not ALL of us allow our ideologies to alter/influence every single thing we think, or discuss. Scientists should be even more vigilant about their biases…but studies like this demonstrate they aren’t always.
      “We don’t come to it through logic and reason like most of us seem to think; we come to it with emotion.”
      Who is “WE” here? YOU don’t have a logical foundation upon which to build ANY argument for or against a “WE” simply by saying the word! Some people DO come to “it” through logic and reason. Some don’t. And there are a million shades between the do’s and the don’ts. Putting all people in the same bucket labeled WE, and declaring that because you are a part of that we, that YOU can speak for all…or even any of the rest of “we”…is a foundationally illogical concept. You don’t get to put me or anyone else in your “we” unless we tell you we belong there.
      In fact, studies show that disproving someone’s beliefs with logic, reason and evidence tends to reinforce their incorrect beliefs rather than changing them.
      Those studies were done by “researchers” with a preconceived notion that what THEY offered to the subjects as “logical, reasonable evidence” actually WAS logical, reasonable and evidence based. They then ASSUMED that when certain subjects rejected the data it could ONLY BE because their cultural, or political, or personal idealogies MUST be experiencing emotional dissonance within them, and thus they HAD to reject “the truth” rather than change their minds!!!! When there are so many other answers….including a very simple to understand, natural one….
      “Well I’m not sure my opinions are correct, but I’m not sure the stuff those people just said is correct either, and since I don’t know them personally, and have no way to empirically verify what these people are telling me, so I’m going to trust in my own gut instinct rather than what they are saying”.
      It could be nothing more complex than just trusting your own instincts/feelings/thoughts rather than what someone else is telling you. It’s called normal and trends to the intelligence side of the IQ scale whereas people with lower IQ’s and self esteem issues tend to trust in “the authority” of the researchers simply because of their position.
      “You have to make an emotional appeal based on their ideology.”
      Which is exactly why more and more Americans become skeptical every day. It’s PERFECTLY logical and reasonable too! Scientists declare something as fact to the public with press releases-later are proven wrong. Trust in science goes down at little. It happens over and over and over. Trust drops. Skeptics make logical, reasonable demands for evidence, facts, data, methods used…so they can verify, validate, and accept. They get ignored, called names, lied to, or eventually figure out how flawed the studies actually are-the public SEES this as well. Surveys show that “trust in science and scientists” is at a record LOW-for good reason.
      So then, after having no evidence, being proven wrong, being secretive and immature when confronted, “scientists” start using emotional appeals on people…..and for someone who stated they try to be logical and reasonable, you should KNOW that emotional appeals make the TOP TEN in Logical Fallacies/false reasoning/cognitive biases!!! They are a distinct no-no! Anathema to logic. They are the last resort of “scientists” who cannot change your mind with evidence, facts, formulas, or measurements. Emotional appeals=emotional manipulation….and only someone with something to hide, or an agenda outside of your own, needs to manipulate others emotionally.

    • So the way to deal with conservatives is to try and manipulate them?
      Ever try reasoning with one instead?

  11. “Future research should look at messaging that is considered more neutral and appeals to people with both liberal and conservative ideologies”
    I, personally, respond well to reason and the scientific method backed up with honest data.

  12. Stoppit you guys. Scientific data can be changed with a bit of moral framing, don’t you know ?

  13. Let me get this straight. The OSU researchers think they can apply a patriotic meme to convince conservatives, to support a strategy that will ultimately cede our country’s sovereignty, to make way for a world government.
    It must be nice living in a bubble

  14. Sales pitch—not science. Was there a follow-up to find out if people still loved environmentalism when their power bills went up, they lost their jobs due to regulations, etc? In other words, does the sales pitch last when reality intrudes?

  15. “Moral foundations theory suggests that liberals and conservatives respond differently to broad moral categories.”
    Obviously rigged data, garbage models and an inability to follow scientific methods have nothing to do with it as it’s really about moral perception. How true of globull warmists because otherwise most would have to look for another job and based on the many examples of their competence as shown here, most would immediately be on the dole (or serving hamburgers).

  16. The only thing demonstrated here, is that liberals really do believe in the stereotypes that they tell each other regarding conservatives.

    • That’s no joke, the Liberals really do believe in the stereotypes they have created of conservatives.
      To a Liberal, any leader of the Republican Party is the embodiment of Hitler. Bush was Hitler in their minds, and Trump will be Hitler. And the Liberals will really think he is as dangerous as Hitler. Imagine thinking Hilter is running your country. Liberals live in a very scary psychological world.
      To Liberals *all* conservaties are racists, bigots, homophobes, and imperialist warmongers.
      It’s hard for a conservative to get a dialog going with such people, don’t you know. 🙂

  17. Well just a quick read of the Prof’s statement, he doesn’t sound like any Psychologist to me. (I know a real one).
    He comes off sounding more like what Ricky Ricardo, on the “I Love Lucy.” show called
    a ” P-sick-eee-uhtrist, ” with the accent on the ‘sick’.
    I consider myself to be as concerned about the environment on this planet, as any person who has ever lived on this planet. And I firmly believe in the concept of personal freedom, and liberty (for everyone who wants it).
    For me, living as a guest in the USA, this means honoring and abiding by the laws of the land that are made under the Constitution of the United States, and opposing any deliberate circumvention of that Constitution, which in itself gives a formal recipe for changing itself.
    I’m also a scientist, having practiced that in an industrial engineering environment in the USA for more than 55 years. the e (or E) in my name, stands for efficiency, and I seek efficient ways of doing everything that I do in my life; in the sense of conserving resources, and energy.
    I have worked in and around the LED / solid state lighting science and industry for 50 years, and have a whole flock of US patents on that technology, including some quite fundamental ones.
    Well past employers put up the money to obtain the patents, and use them in their business. I never made any money out of it, like you can by simply coming up with ways for people to waste their time, and everybody else’s sending idiotic garbage back and forth. But I di get to work on some really great things.
    So I have actually worked at improving the environment, unlike Wolsko, who just pontificates about something he has no fundamental understanding of.
    And that real Psychologist ( and his equally gifted and qualified Psychologist wife) , that I mentioned has done more good for the betterment of more persons on this planet, by orders of magnitude, than I will ever do, or any pretenders, like prof Wolsko.

    • “So I have actually worked at improving the environment, unlike Wolsko, who just pontificates about something he has no fundamental understanding of.”
      I am proud to sorta know you. It is folks like you that make the world a better place. Bravo!
      All I ever did was help a few thousand kids go on to become engineers by teaching them a little of the required math skills. Never the less, I have tried to teach every student I came into contact with the real scientific method. It is scientific thinking that helps us through life no matter our station in life. At least it helps us not be the victim of a con job.
      ~ Mark

      • I gave the academia thing a shot to begin with. Actually it was Optics and Atomic Physics at a freshman pre-med level. I had a class of 200 (as in two hundred) students, and the lecture hall would only seat half of them, so I had to teach half of them for an hour, then take an hour break, and then come back and teach the same course to the other half. No particular math pre-requisite, so no calculus aloud. Had to try and teach Physics, with no calculus.
        Well I used it anyway; I just calculated the derivative as a limiting process, right in front of their sweet little faces on the chalk board; and never ever even breathed the words ‘differential calculus’.
        Talk about frustration. 50 of them were there for the social life, but the other 150 were potentially very good doctors, dentists, or veterinarians. 150 sat the end of the year finals and 100 got excellent passing level grades.
        Unfortunately only nine (9) of my students got accepted into the medical school. I had more students in my class, that all five of the other university colleges put together, but the medical school (only one of them) took 75% of its first year students from the students who did their first year pre-med at that one school; which usually meant daddy was a lawyer or doctor who could send his brat to the college with the medical school. Which meant, that they were among the weaker students anyhow.
        The rest of my kids, either had to do a repeat, and try again next year, or change their career goals.
        Me; I packed up and went the Industry route. Fortunately my alma mater now has its own very successful med school. I was embarrassed to talk to my students, after they got the grim news.
        That’s why I am happy to try and teach whatever I can to anyone who wants some help in learning.
        Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it. But stupidity has to be taught, and there are plenty willing and able to teach it.

      • “Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it. But stupidity has to be taught, and there are plenty willing and able to teach it.”
        Wonderful quote. I’ll use that with my students. (never had an original thought in my life — I am a collection of good ideas given to me by others) … 🙂

      • Cite it often in the classroom Mark, with my blessing.
        Ignorance is just a $3 word for ” I don’t know that; I guess I should learn about it. “

    • Don’t ask a Nez Pierce fellow I know about eagles and wind power….
      The study has no idea how anyone who really cares about the land
      thinks or feels.
      He assumes the common prole is stupid, and needs his superior
      thought processes to react..

  18. Ah, the liberals are trying to reduce conservatives down to the same feel-good-but-doing-stupid-things level that liberals idolize.
    Why would anyone support government policy regarding the real world that is not based on real world principles? Educated people should demand that policy be based on SCIENCE, not the junk science liberals want conservatives to support.

  19. As Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds says, “I can remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism.”
    Of course, that’s when there is a conservative in power. Then, you have to fight the power. When you GET the power, you obviously get a pass from dissenters. How dare you. Its racist (when its Obama) and sexist (when its Hillary).

    • What we’ve got here is yet another posturing psychobabble merchant peddling the latest in comparative uncle sizing crap. “Ecopsychology” doncha know. A discipline firmly rooted in …. well I guess relativity!
      Zeitgeist surfing: relative to any fleeting preconceived notion, however non-objective, as and for as long as it appears to maintain a populi$t per$pective. Next up this newly coined disciple-line will be proclaimed to be science. More relativity, what’s not to like?

      • He must have read some of Lew’s and Cookie’s work and decided it was easy money.
        If you’re a liberal you can make up and sell any lies you want about people with whom you disagree.

      • Toddlers always do.
        As someone who has spent a great deal of time around preschoolers, it is funny how much alike their behavior, and that of CAGW proponents are.
        Child-“I want the use of fossil fuels to stop”
        Adult-“I know. But you can’t have everything you want.”
        Child-“But I NEED it!”
        Adult-“No you don’t.”
        Child “If I don’t get it, something bad will happen!”
        Adult-“No, something bad will not happen”…..*explain to child in simple terms, why nothing bad will happen*
        Child-“You’re a liar! Billy’s scientific club says that’s a lie!”
        Adult-” Billy’s science club can say what they want to, but they are wrong.”
        Child-“You just want me to suffer!”
        Adult-“No, no I don’t want you to suffer.”
        Child-“You are the meanest, meaner, meanie!”
        Adult-“Why do you say that?”
        Child-“Because you don’t care if the whole world dies!!! All you care about is YOU.”
        And on and on
        Some of my favorites:
        “Oh yeah? Well MY scientists SAID SO…that’s why!”
        “Oh yeah? Well YOUR scientist is so dumb all the other scientists laugh at him!”
        “Well, your graph looks funny!”
        “My teacher, Mr. Mann, says that people like you only care about money!”
        “I heard from Jackie’s mom, who heard it from Jenny’s sister, who heard it from Jake’s aunt, that your mom gets paid to LIE about global warming by BEOC!” (Big Evil Oil Companies)

  20. Hoo-boy. This brings eco-quackery to a new level!
    Simply disregard the facts that WE portray, and frame them for those we believe are not on the same eco-imperialist level as WE are!
    Xanax all around!

  21. With the next grant installment they will show how to make conservatives believe in bad science, poor predictions, and biased or under-specified climate models. I think it will require re-education camps and re-programming to get there. If successful we would expect the converts to cheer and wave little green books in the air during every speech by the President, especially those speeches supplied by GreenPeace.

  22. Speaking for myself, I’m at my most amenable when they come at me from a feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research perspective.

  23. Thankfully we have a lot of people like Dr. Christopher Wolsko out there trying to fix the broken people.
    Please help us!

  24. This is quite simple: All that has to be done is to tell several large, steaming lies about climate and print them on paper with flags and eagles. I have seen this tactic used by leftists many times over the years — misrepresenting ideas, people or even offering false “facts” to try to win over people to a political position. With the left, the first casualty is almost always the truth.

    • Mark Johnson,
      The Left has always used that same “flags and eagles” subtrefuge. In the 1930’s, during the Spanish civil war Communist recruiters fanned out across the U.S., enticing teenage farm boys (and girls) to join outfits with names like the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade”, to fight the Fascists.
      They were Communist front organizantions, using American kids as cannon fodder. The kids were ordered to charge machine gun emplacements, just like you see in the movies. The American kids were slaughtered by the thousands, as the royalists won.
      This fits the same pattern: using Orwell-type language to try and shift attitudes. With the government’s .edu factories dumbing down the population, they could well be successful with this latest propaganda.

  25. Yup the “professor” is a progressive.
    Never listen to what opposing people say,just assume you know what they mean.
    Sadly the “Ecosychologist” would not understand patriotism if it bit him.
    A certainty, this legend in his own mind, considers himself a world citizen first and an American citizen a long second.
    Pretty tough invoking patriotism when you do not know what patriotism is.
    Of course in liberal speak,words mean whatever they need them to mean today.

  26. Patriotism has been used to sell some of the worst atrocities in human history, most of maybe.
    This smacks of one Mr Schmidt’s talk on using other methods than science to hide the decline.. in belief in CAGW

  27. I’m thinking that NOT spending my neighbor’s money FOR him is patriotic.
    I’m thinking that economically prosperous societies pollute less than economically depressed ones.
    I’m thinking that anyone who assumes conservatives are automatically more obedient to authority doesn’t know the first thing about conservatives.

  28. Oregon State does some decent research on vitamin supplements at the Linus Pauling Institute, but then again that is not FDA approved product either.

    • …..and fortunately there remains a double standard canyon of difference between research accountability in health research vs. climate research.

    • Oregon State has produced some of the most destructive crack pots to roam the planet.
      This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer. When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide. Sound familiar? It sounds like the climate plan.
      Pew’s Conquest Of The Ocean By David Lincoln
      OREGON CONNECTIONS – Source of the Wave

    • Well my wife likes to shop at this “whole foods” grocery store; that place is just dripping green from the rafters.
      Over in “that corner” you can buy “organic” milk, which I suppose contains carbon; but it is three times the price of just “milk” milk (which I don’t believe that store even carries).
      But not to worry; over here “in this corner” we have a collection of all of the 97 known natural elements (no trans-Uranics) and chemical compounds from A to Z as in Astatine to Zirconium. 57 brands of omega 3 and omega 6 fish oils or krill oils, and you can just add your own chemical poisons to taste. Talk about pretentious; I can’t bear to go in there with her, and look at all the ethnic yuppies, all trying to look ‘Mercan !
      Only reason I do go in there is they actually carry a selection of New Zealand Marlborough Pinot Noirs, and some other Kiwi reds. I’m not a white wine drinker, but sometimes my wife buys a kiwi Pinot Grigio or such like. Unfortunately they don’t carry fresh live NZ green shell mussels. We used to be able to buy them vacuum packed, and they all woke up when you opened the package to the air.
      All of their meats are of course mercifully slaughtered; maybe the say please, before wringing the chicken’s neck.
      G PS I’m not much of a wine drinker anyway.

  29. Anthony, sorry to go off topic but my files have been corrupted and I am trying to find the series of articles about energy density and I cannot remember the author’s name. I know you are busy, but maybe someone here can help me out.
    [The mods recommend you use the WUWT Search feature for the text you are looking for: “energy density” will yield many hundred results. Look through those results to find the Postings you need. .mod]

  30. I think this prof’s believe that conservatives believe and respect Authority automatically disqualifies his research, no matter what it shows. Conservatives generally tend to respect the law, that is true. That does not transform into respecting authority at all, especially if that authority appears to be abused or not based on greater laws, like Constitution.
    Self-reliance is much more prominent, as in desire for authorities to leave us the heck alone.

  31. It’s mostly a political issue and this is just more on the politics of that issue.
    What other field in science generates even a fraction of the non scientific importance, which dwarfs the science in climate science?
    OK, maybe social sciences and psychology are sciences with constant relevancy in climate science ……..but what small fraction of authentic hard science based on the objective, scientific method gets dialed into discussions intended to win over or appeal to groups being targeted for persuasion?

  32. Yes. Defrauding the public, raising taxes to a catastrophic level, and reducing individual rights to a level reflecting Stalin’s finest ambition, is a patriotic duty to which every freedom loving citizen of all countries should aspire.

  33. Its so freaking hilarious!!! All every single climate related “social psychology” paper/idea/campaign/study does is make people feel MORE and MORE manipulated!! That branch of the “sciences” alone is responsible for more doubt, more skepticism, more hesitancy than any thing that skeptics or the supposed secret “anti science/fossil fuel conspiracy empire” could possibly cause!!! The absolute BEST way to undermine the CAGW Church is to just let the social scientists KEEP talking, publishing!! I love it.
    It’s ALL emotional manipulation, and even your basic, down to earth “common folk” can FEEL when they are being manipulated even if they can’t exactly pinpoint how or who is doing it. The emotional tactics so far:
    *Fear-the world will burn and we’ll die! (looking completely false)
    *Guilt-you don’t care about your children or climate refugees! (logical fallacy)
    *God-the Pope says you’d better do this or you’re a horrible sinner (irrelevant)
    *Compassion-the polar bears! The penguins! Mother Earth! The Maldivians! (proven wrong)
    *Hatred-you are evil, nasty, selfish, insert-derogatory-term-of-your-choice-here (nothing new there)
    *Stupidity-conservatives just aren’t smart enough to understand the science (proven wrong)
    *Sexism 1-female iceburgs and scientists are exploited somehow (WTH?)
    *Sexism 2- Men will get less sex if it gets any warmer (again WTH??)
    *Peer pressure- Consensus! You’re not in THE CLUB!
    And now…..drum roll-
    *Patriotism-what kind of an American Yankee Doodle person would allow this to happen?
    What else is left? I’m sure we can think of the remaining areas in which they will surely attack from at some point. They are nothing if not completely predictable.
    HEY….social scientists…..we have been TELLING YOU all these years exactly what would make us change our minds, incline us to join the CAGW army, and create complete agreement between both sides. Take notes!:
    EVIDENCE….empirical, examinable, incontrovertible, inescapable, UN-manipulated,verifiable EVIDENCE.
    Facts. Measurements. Repeatable, replicate-able experiments. You know…the stuff REQUIRED by the Scientific Method. (not YOUR method, or his method, or her method, or our method…THE method.) And no…the crap spit out of models that cannot replicate actual world systems precisely-does not count and should never ever be mistaken as “evidence” of any kind.
    SOLID UNIFIED METHODS- in which the most logical, mathematical, scientific, and agreed upon by all-formulas, calculations, studies, research methods are used over and over again and produce the same results no matter what the personal agendas, or funding, or employers, or political leanings of the “scientists” involved is.

  34. Modern progressives really are the total bigots – they live in a world of absolute stereotypes and project charactertures of who they think we are, and then behave as if it’s true. It’s really how they deal with everything – deal with the projected fiction rather than reality. It’s patronizing, arrogant, and ignorant all at once.

  35. I apologize to the mods for all the capitalized words in the post being moderated currently. I actually was yelling. In person as well. No >/b could accurately portray my emotions while I wrote that. I’d be happy to edit…but if that’s why it’s caught in moderation and it’s not ok….I understand. 🙂

    • ..The mod probably took a while to get back up off the floor from laughing so hard…in a good way…
      Excellent post as always
      + 1,000,001

  36. I am willing to accept AGW if real science can prove it to be true.
    Falsified models and pseudo-science are not going convince me no matter how patriotic or authoritarian the warmists want to make their argument appear.

      • Which should be linked directly to this thread-
        In which SCIENTISTS use “real science” to prove that the more educated about the actual physical characteristics of the climate people are, the LESS concerned they are about it! The study basically says:
        “Hey…there have been a lot of pseudo social science studies lately saying that “conservatives” or some other social grouping is NOT concerned with climate science because of their cultural biases or political leanings or the color their houses are painted. We collected and examined the data, removed all of the cultural diagnostics out of it, and found……TA DA….that when people become more educated in the physical science of climate, they either stay the same amount of “concerned” or they become LESS concerned! It does not result in them becoming MORE concerned.”
        The study concludes with “And this is a GOOD thing, and should make educators happy to know that educating people on the actual SCIENCE is not a lost cause at all! It alleviates their fears!”
        I mean seriously….they could NOT figure it out! It goes like this:
        We (social scientists) placed them in self identifying social groups of some kind, and gave them terrifying “newspaper” articles (some real and some fake) about what will happen (except intelligent people know that “will” and “might” are two very different things) if the globe warms up, and for some reason….certain particular groups simply did NOT buy it. (republicans, conservatives, skeptics…whatever). So THEN we tested their intelligence….and what? The conservatives and Republicans were “just as educated….and even often more so” than their leftist, Democrat counterparts….so humm…..if its NOT that they are stupid, and they actually understand “the science behind climate change”….WHY aren’t they buying the horror, the panic, the impending doom scenario that is obviously “true”??? The only other thing we can think of it-
        it must be their “cultural biases!”
        Really? THAT was your next choice Captains of Human Understanding? It couldn’t possibly be YOUR HYPOTHESIS??? YOUR biases? Your complete ineptitude with regard to what other human beings MUST be thinking? It appears that some of your colleagues ALSO thought your research/conclusions were a tad….er….um….disconcerting. And illogical. And worthy of being torn apart and examined. And refuted.
        But I’m just a non-academic, unpaid, average female observer who somehow figured out the same thing the moment I read your idiotic papers over the past few years. Gut instinct? ESP? Magic? Protege? Or just stinking common sense oriented, logically thinking,former farm girl who grew up paying attention and learned the difference between facts and opinions, neutrality and bias, when I was in Jr. High School?

  37. “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism”
    “Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”

    • englandrichard,
      Unfortunately, Göring was right. But now it’s not lack of patriotism. Now, it’s lack of concern for the environment. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the eco-fascists is the enemy.
      Dissent within the ranks is not tolerated. That’s why no one in the alarmist crowd can be a skeptic. If they questioned CAGW, they would be ostracized. Banned. Shunned.
      So they jettison the one thing that has moved us out of the Dark Ages: scientific skepticism.
      Why? Because they want to be liked and accepted. So they’re willing to sell out civilization just to be liked. But in truth, no one likes them. No one on either side of the debate.

    • englandrichard wrote: Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country”
      One good thing, in this information age, we, the People, have a little bit easier time figuring out whether we are really being attacked by something or not, and what the true facts of the situation are. Our leaders telling us something, does not automatically cause us to believe what they say. We are always skeptical. 🙂

  38. When exactly did metaphysics morph into climate psychology and climate science? Was it some expiration date on a past fad or a rational decision to move sideways toward better job prospects with similar credentials?

    • Bruce,
      Hilarious is the fact that the same people have been screaming at us for 20 years that our “patriotism” is nothing more than elitism and that it’s BAD. That our love of country is “ostracizing” and “ignorant” and “bigoted”….so it’s not politically correct any more to BE “patriotic”. Oh the irony just flies over these people’s heads in mach speeds doesn’t it?

  39. Basically research state global warming is settled science (97% concensus). So how does the left manipulate conservatives in believing it.

  40. The author could not be more naive.
    He actually thinks CAGW is about science, not politics. The leaders supporting CAGW have made it abundantly clear this is about left wing agendas / socialism & one world Govt , and CAGW is just a means to an end. I don’t think you will get any conservatives on that bandwagon, no matter how many bald eagles & flags are employed

  41. Many conservatives support the principles of Conservation. The problem is that the climate change alarmists are hiding information about climate change, making it difficult for the average person to know the right information upon which to base a decision. Trickery in order to achieve a desired decision does not mean that the decision was the proper one.

  42. This is advanced research in Oregon. It helps with annual research evaluations, academic promotion, and vitas. Organizing sessions around this topic adds to the list of academic activity. Quality is not part of the criteria.

  43. “They reframed questions about conservation and climate change around ideals of patriotism, loyalty, authority and purity and paired them with imagery such as flags and bald eagles. […] They found that reframing the issues around these moral foundations led to shifts in attitudes for conservatives, who were more likely to favor environmental concerns in that context. There was no noticeable shift in attitudes among liberals, which isn’t a big surprise, Wolsko said.”
    Presumably there was no “noticeable shift in attitudes among liberals” because they are seen or portrayed or believed to be already patriotic (all flags and bald eagles)??? Anyone else see “smug” in that line? Or is it just me?

    • It’s not just you, it jumped at me as well.
      The which isn’t a big surprise line reeks of it. The “liberals” are too smart to have their opinion shifted, I guess.
      Although, in all fairness, he might have meant that “patriotism” line doesn’t work on liberals as they don’t really care about it. But my first reaction was “smugness”.

  44. Every time a politician starts to talk about how “America is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth”, you just know there is a “wallet-ectomy” in progress.

  45. Patriotism tends to be aligned with nationalism. Real Climate Change would not be a national issue but rather a global issue. Given that the Chinese commitment in the Paris Accords is to continue to pollute, the obvious blow-back of such an appeal to patriotism would most likely create a drive to make the Chinese cleanup their act first.

  46. America is a scientific, religious/moral society. American conservatism does not indulge in liberal inference from progressive frames of reference, or routine conflations of logical domains for purposes of creating leverage and marginalizing competing interests in order to establish a new orthodoxy.

  47. “Moral foundations theory suggests that liberals and conservatives respond differently to broad moral categories. Liberals respond more favorably to moral issues involving harm and care, or fairness and justice, and conservatives respond more favorably to issues framed by loyalty, authority and respect, and the purity and sanctity of human endeavors, Wolsko said.”
    So there has been research that gave data that indicated – after statistical calculations I would think – this different response between “liberals” and “conservatives”.
    Comes in “The end of Average”.
    If you leave out any averages, your statistics become questionable, if not impossible. This goes as well with other basic statistical measures besides averages. And if you – because of this – cannot apply statistics anymore, most social science becomes – by its own research practice – pretty hampered, if not impossible.
    Why leave out say averages when dealing with human beings? Well, the “average human being doesn’t exist” – it is nothing but a statistical entity, an abstraction. A pretty useless abstraction in many practical situations. Well demonstrated by Gilbert Daniels.
    “Social” science is mainly based on statistics – so mainly deals with abstract entities. Not with real human beings. Shocking.

  48. Here in the US “conservatives” tend to want to preserve individual freedoms. (I’ll spare you all and not quote from the Declaration of Independence.) They can be slow to realize that also means others can do and say what they like as long as it doesn’t infringe on their own individual freedoms. (Here in the US, liberals tend to not just do that but want to make saying and doing what they don’t agree with some sort of crime, or at least a “micro-aggression”.)
    Conservatives in the US also tend to be patriotic.
    It’s no surprise that the liberal-spin put to climate hype is trying to frame the polical power grab as “patriotic”.
    They need the votes in the upcoming election.

  49. “conservatives respond more favorably to issues framed by loyalty, authority”
    Loyalty to what? The family? or the “familia”?
    Which authority? Or did he mean authoritah?

    The guy must be seriously confused.

  50. Thinking some more about this inherent social engineering aspect of the social sciences and the non-existence of the average human being. I see a positive and a negative.
    The positive is the social sciences, in targeting mostly statistical entities and not real human beings and situations, are pretty much out of touch with reality. This may protect us from their follies.
    The negative is once these follies spill over into politics, they can and will result into disasters, as history shows abundantly.
    The rules for radicals have a bigger companion here. The social engineering aspect of the political sciences gives us the “rules for dictators”.

  51. Wonder if it works the other way; do those that self identify as liberal shift their position on say abortion depending on whether it’s framed as pro-choice or pro-feticide?
    What about us that self identify as independent and generaly just try to make decisions based on the best available information regardless of framing?

  52. If you talk about conservatives not responding to climate alarmism, you damn well ought to address the feelings of those same people being controlled and directed by an unresponsive Federal bureaucracy, and about “science” and “research” being tendentiously re-purposed into political propaganda by left-leaning academics, social engineers and political socialists. I’m sure these authors cannot even fathom the questions needed to tease out these issues. I hope this study wasn’t funded with my tax dollars.

  53. The standing joke,that is Climatology, the failure to define the terms.
    Just as the Dreaded Climate Change has no meaning, I am quite certain the Eco-phsychologist did not and cannot define what he means by “Patriotism”.
    Climate Scientity for sure.

    • Failure to stick to a definition of terms is a big factor.
      When I talked to a student familiar with the paper (yes, here in Bend, OR) I was told that after linking protecting the environment to patriotism, more conservatives agreed that humans were causing climate change.
      I responded that it was all in the wording of the questions. The respondents thought they were agreeing with one thing while the questioners thought they were agreeing to something else. I said that if they had asked the conservatives if they thought it was patriotic to ban fossil fuels and convert our power plants to renewables, they would not have agreed.
      I also stated that, based on my experience during my college years that the student body at my science college was overwhelmingly conservative, while the student body at liberal arts colleges were, well…liberal, it seemed to me that conservatives were, as a group, more scientifically literate and thus less likely to believe in CAGW without scientific evidence.
      The student became angry, accused me of having no standing to be denigrating a scientist and fled the scene.
      Let’s see, anger at someone with a different opinion, ad hominem attack, appeal to authority..yep, – liberal.

Comments are closed.