Guest rant by David Middleton
Science denial not limited to political right
September 19, 2017
In the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.
[…]
That’s like saying in the wake of [insert random words], many claims have been made that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right.
The article actually gets worse as it goes along. It’s based on a “publication” by a grad student and psych professor. Unsurprisingly, the “paper” cites the following “references”…
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222. Link
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622–633. Link
Mooney C. (2011, 9 30). Newt Gingrich deceives on stem cell research, mocks evolution. Retrieved on March 15, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/30/332730/gingrich-deceives-stem-cell-research
Mooney C. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—And reality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Mooney C. (2014, 9 11). Stop pretending that liberals are just as anti-science as conservatives. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines
The “funny thing” about politically oriented skepticism, is that scientifically literate liberals are more likely to buy into the Gorebal Warming scam than scientifically literate conservatives:
Of course, this divergence could simply be due to the nature of the scientific literacy. Geoscientists are nearly three times more likely to think that climate change is natural than government employees are.
Featured Image
… that science denial, particularly as it relates to climate change, is primarily a problem of the political right…
Enlighten me, as I can’t see a problem in there.
Scepticism is a problem? Not for me.
When you increase the temperature more at the high latitudes, you decrease the meridional temperature gradient. This is what global warming has featured.
Meteorology 101 tells us that the atmosphere does not need to work as hard to balance the disparity between excessive heat accumulating in the lower latitudes from a high angled powerful sun and less heat coming in from a low angled to no sun at the highest latitudes.
This decreases the energy and many types of extreme weather.
Imagine if our planet had a uniform temperature…….same temperature everywhere?
Helps you to imagine what path the atmosphere is taking right now with modest warming, more so at the higher latitudes(especially the coldest places in the coldest times of year).
Global cooling(in the highest latitudes) is what increases extreme weather the most.
There are exceptions based on the region or type of weather(pattern) but this idea that warming the planet increases the energy for weather systems is exactly wrong.
Speaking of social commentary on things so stupid they hurt:
http://www.thestupidithurts.org
(Mod: this is a shameless plug of a personal W.I.P. and adds absolutely nothing to the current conversation.)
So, conflation of logical domains, extrapolations from isolated observations to global proportions, and assertions about process and character outside the solar system, to the edge of the universe, and beyond are a common fault?
And babies are not delivered by stork at the time of viability?
Oh, and a model is a hypothesis, and its skill is only as good as its underlying characterization and ability to manage the data at the requisite resolution?
Perhaps we can also acknowledge that the [soft] boundary of the scientific logical domain is defined by the self-evident conclusion that accuracy is inversely proportional to time and space offsets from an established frame of reference.
Another way to distinguish between “believers” and “deniers/skeptics” is education…. Those who were taught WHAT to think versus those who were taught HOW to think. Sadly it seems modern education is heavily tilted in favour of the former.
Strange that so many of you “sceptics” are totally convinced that you’re right . . . My scepticism is a much simpler thing altogether. It cuts both ways. I’m not a CAGW believer because the logic and evidence don’t convince me – primarily because it seems to me that the problem is too hard for us to solve with our current tools and wit. But I have to admit that they could be right, by chance or because they might actually be right to place so much emphasis on the power of a single element. All the same, climate history and the simple fact that we don’t know what the climate would have done through this period without the addition of some extra Co2 and all the other factors in the equation we’ve amended by tilling the soil and chopping down trees etc., lead me to suspect that we really don’t know nearly enough to reach firm conclusions . . .
As for political position and scepticism, real sceptics won’t be firmly or blindly committed to any of the common political or even religious beliefs for obvious reasons. As someone else on here once said, humans are belief machines and want to believe what they hear and read, but experience in some cases helps immunise us against unjustified beliefs.
I’m kinda libertarian left but pro market economics to a degree, because the market mostly works, and because I care that not all people are born with the same abilities or chances and think that the state should do something about evening out the playing field – without killing some to carry others, though those who are strong and are possessed of compassion will surely be glad to help those who are weak and/or disadvantaged and don’t seek to exploit them, and those same strong people surely don’t want to exploit anyone, weak or strong.
Some politicians lie, exploit, and seek to serve themselves, and some CEOs do the same. Dishonesty, the urge to exploit, the tendency to be corrupt, and narcissism and psychopathy are not exclusive to politicians (of whatever stamp). They are just as common in other walks of life away from the corridors of government. Humans are the problem. Some of us are good and some of us are not so good. Some are vulnerable to ideologies and false beliefs and some are impervious to them and some are in between.
Too often though, we see what we want to see, and that usually boils down to believing that people like us and who have similar beliefs to us are good, and that those with different beliefs or who oppose us are evil, unworthy, dangerous or liars or scum, or mainly stupid . . . Human nature. . . . it’s all in there. We really try harder to work together as none of us knows all the answers . . .
Just when you think the left couldn’t get anymore stupid
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/910101399052210176
Yes climate change now causes Earthquakes. Griff believes any random article on the internet so long as it links climate change to bad things, so he will be on this one next.
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K., Gignac G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing— and irony was the percentage of people who though the moon landing was faked was higher for AGW proponents than AGW skeptics . Lou’s ‘paper ‘ proved supporters of his own outlook are more likely to see ‘conspiracy’ behind ever door than others , which given the constant claims of ‘evil fossil fuel conspiracy ‘ and skeptics ‘being the pay of big oil ‘ is no surprise at all.
Another fine study from the University of Illinois at Chicago (used to be the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle; the only university in the USA named after a traffic interchange).
This is the same school that gave us the original 97% study based on a survey by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser Peter T. Doran.
The alarmists admit they were wrong.
The warming is natural after coming out of a little ice age ending just 175 years ago.
There has been much warmer periods in relatively very recent history.
But it’s not too late to save the planet.
All the poor has to do is go without affordable electricity so we can be granted the billions of dollars to save it for their grandchildren.
Yes. It’s what I keep saying about space aliens. People are so “sure” they don’t exist and aren’t planning to take over our planet. I myself don’t believe it, but what if they are? We just don’t know enough about space aliens yet to know.
Over the many years of trying to understand people’s points of view, I have become aware that there are (at least) two very distinct styles of “thinking” – and this leads to much of the liberal versus conservative points of view on climate change. Now I am simply reflecting on observations, but it is helpful once you are aware of the differences.
Liberals (not all but most) tend to approach problems on the basis of how they feel about the issue. If the issue seems to be aligned with their preexisting beliefs, they begin to filter out any data or discussion that causes cognitive discourse. This is not a conscious decision, but a human trait. It doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence is presented, they will not change their “feelings” easily. Liberals are more likely to adopt popular beliefs, and tend to attack anyone outside of their belief system (again, because it is emotional to them). This makes their actions seem like that of a priesthood reacting to heresy rather than a scientific disagreement.
This is especially true of the mentality of the herd – which I mean the tendency to surround oneself with people who agree, and to put distance between those that disagree. Herds are much more likely to act aggressively and extreme egged on bu its members.
Skeptics more often tend to be so-called conservatives, which can mean almost anything depending on the context. Weeding out the nut cases (and there are always some of those in any group of humans), skeptics tend to rely on a data-driven belief system. They will tend to change points of view only as long as the data supporting that new belief is available and reliable (again, in their own minds). Skeptics don’t care how people “feel” about the issue, they only care on getting at a the underlying truth based on the data. Skeptics are much more likely to rebuff herd mentality, don’t care if their beliefs makes them less popular, and have a difficult time understanding why others cannot see the same conclusions (because it isn’t an emotional issue to them).
People don’t actually come in black&white – they are shades of gray when considering these thinking styles. Young people are much more likely to think emotionally than older people, so there is some plasticity to this thinking style. I also think that universities are acting as “enablers” in teaching young people its good to think with your emotions rather than using logic and discipline.
Assuming my conclusions are correct, the war over AGW will not end suddenly, but instead slowly wither out as the herd moves on to a new emotional objective. As the herd stops talking about AGW, their membership will slowly become uninterested. Skeptics will not have won anything except for perhaps some well deserved peace of mind. Science will have taken a beating, but given the state of how many published papers seem to fail attempts at reproducing the results, maybe this too is a good thing.
Sorry, stopped reading at “psych professor”. Has about as much expertise in the topic of climate change as, say, an actor. Probably less, when I think about how many people I know in the psychiatric professions, and how many of THEM should avail themselves more of their own treatment.
David Middleton:
The BBC has recently been forced to withdraw the campaign mounted by one of its journalists against Graham Stringer MP because Stringer – like me – opposes the global warming scare; see https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-reprimands-science-presenter-for-campaign-against-labour-mp-graham-stringer/
Graham Stringer and I are Members of the same socialist political party.
Only in the US is support and opposition of the scare aligned with left vs. right politics.
Richard
Reporting by cliches is catching on. They no more define what “climate change” is, than they define what “political right” is.
I really don’t see what David is complaining about here? The linked article states that in general people disagree with established scientific beliefs when the said beliefs disagree with their own personal beliefs and political opinions. The article makes the point that this is true for both people with both left wing and right wing beliefs. Different people appear to choose which bits of science to believe in based on their political opinions something which is abundantly clear from many studies.
I’m a climate change denier
I believet for 4.5 billion years that that the climate has never changed isn’t changing or ever will change.
But I’m a climate denier believing that there is no such thing as a climate so the first paragraph is null and void.
Im a lifelong left Democrat.I stay in the closet as much as possible because all of my friends are believers.
The left believes whatever the NYT and PBS relay from the liar activist scientists.The left is brainwashed unwittingly.
When I do have a confrontation about climate with a leftist believer ,Im astounded that they know next to zero information about climate science.Other than poles melting.polar bears extinct.sea rising.
One friend thought Monoxide was what the issue was about.Another actually put his hands over his ears rather than learn climate facts.
Believers need deprogramming.
As much as I despise the orange IL Douche,I hoped he would enlighten the climate issue.Instead he made his entire reality a lie ,so no leftest would believe anything he espoused.
Has anyone ever observed Griff do anything other than make an asinine comment and then disappear into the sunset while a flurry of activity attempts to desperately rebut whatever inanity has been spouted? Is it really worth the energy? Is anything from that source ever an actual attempt to engage in conversation or debate?
Hey Griff and Nick Stokes and any one else who believes that carbon dioxide controls the climate .I am putting this challenge to you to just prove one little bit of your beliefs about global warming .Prove to me that the methane emissions from livestock can warm the planet more than .ooo5 degrees C in say the next ten years . When you have come up with some proof I will debate it with you .Rice paddies produce large amounts of methane but that is called natural and ignored Methane emissions from livestock was snuk into the Kyoto accord by activists and the scientific community has ignored this instead of throwing it out and concentrating on fossil fuel emissions which are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.The warmists are counting on positive feed backs to enhance warming to fulfill their agenda but this is an unproven theory.
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything the IPCC or its minions say.
I have two engineering degrees in earth sciences and have studied this subject since 1985, and I have found NO evidence of dangerous humanmade global warming, and ample evidence that it does NOT exist.
The debate on global warming alarmism concerns one parameter – the climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”). Global warming alarmists falsely suggest that ECS is high, yet their estimates of ECS have been declining for the past decade and are still far too high to be credible. There is ample evidence that ECS is low, probably <=1C/(2*CO2) and possibly much less than 1C.
Here is just one of many lines of evidence that ECS is low:
The ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940, even as fossil fuel consumption sharply increased, adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures, as atmospheric CO2 continued to increase.
That is why the global warming alarmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.
There was a ~22 year period of global warming starting about 1975, but much of that warming period was a natural recovery from two major volcanos, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. Real global warming probably did occur after the Great Pacific Climate Shift, circa 1977.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2613373
Conclusion:
Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Regards, Allan
It IS frustrating to see politicians make really foolish decisions about energy. Most politicians are far too uneducated to even opine on the subject, let alone formulate energy policy. For example, it was obvious from the start that hydrogen-as-fuel was a dead end, because of very low energy density. Corn ethanol is also a poor and destructive idea, as are most food-to-fuel schemes, which have contributed to excessive drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer in the USA and widespread rainforest clearcutting in the tropics. . It was also obvious that grid-connected wind and solar power schemes were costly and ineffective, primarily due to intermittency.
In general, green energy policies have been a costly disaster for society, causing great environmental damage, increasing energy cost and reducing grid reliability. This damage has been high in the developed world but even higher in the developing world, where green energy nonsense has denied struggling populations access to cheap, abundant, reliable energy systems.
Fossil fuels comprise about 85% of global primary energy, whereas green energy provides less than 2%, despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies. Imagine how much better the world’s poor would be if these vast sums had been spent intelligently on clean water, sanitation and efficient energy systems.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple. When politicians fool with energy policy, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of global warming alarmism.
Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
Thank you David Middleton for publishing this. Social psychology professor Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Brian Flood also from UIC are worthy naming here now.
The validity of Linda’s psychological study conclusions are resting solely on the assumption she knows the truth in scientific disciplines beyond her competency. For this reason the title “science denial not limited to political right” sounded initially like a concession, but then they decided to quote Linda at the end as follows:
“Before assuming that one group of people or another are anti-science because they disagree with one scientific conclusion, we should make an effort to consider different motivations that are likely at play, which might have nothing to do with science per se,” she said.”
Presumably these psychology experts can interpret my glance at them, resembling the following.
[snip . . . try writing it again but this time leave out calling everyone who disagrees with your views a denier. . . mod]