Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A climate psychology study by UQ Professor Matthew Hornsey suggests evidence that Conservatives are all conspiracy nuts is weak; Matthew instead believes that Conservatives have been manipulated through vested interest “ignorance-building strategies” into doubting the climate consensus.
‘It’s all about vested interests’: untangling conspiracy, conservatism and climate scepticism
Graham Readfearn
…
Academics have suggested that people who tend to accept conspiracy theories also underplay or reject the science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change.
But a new study that tested this idea across 24 different countries found the link between so-called “conspiratorial ideation” and “climate scepticism” only really holds in the US.
University of Queensland psychology professor Matthew Hornsey and colleagues surveyed 5,300 people to test the link between climate “scepticism” and acceptance of four internationally propagated conspiracy theories around the assassination of President Kennedy, the 11 September terrorist attacks, the death of Princess Diana and the existence of a new world order.
…
Conservatism and climate
The study also tried to tease out the links between the rejection of human-caused climate change and the ideologies that people hold.
It’s here that the study offers the greatest cause for hope, Hornsey says. He has developed a form of “jiujitsu” persuasion technique that he thinks might work.
There’s been a general acceptance that people who have broadly conservative or rightwing ideologies tend to rail against climate science because it rubs their worldview up the wrong way. That is, that tackling climate change will require broad interventions from governments.
But Hornsey’s study finds that “there is nothing inherent to conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes people to reject climate science”.
Instead, it suggests vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity with “ignorance-building strategies” in two countries – the US and Australia.
…
The abstract of the study;
Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations
Matthew J. Hornsey, Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding
Studies showing that scepticism about anthropogenic climate change is shaped, in part, by conspiratorial and conservative ideologies are based on data primarily collected in the United States. Thus, it may be that the ideological nature of climate change beliefs reflects something distinctive about the United States rather than being an international phenomenon. Here we find that positive correlations between climate scepticism and indices of ideology were stronger and more consistent in the United States than in the other 24 nations tested. This suggests that there is a political culture in the United States that offers particularly strong encouragement for citizens to appraise climate science through the lens of their worldviews. Furthermore, the weak relationships between ideology and climate scepticism in the majority of nations suggest that there is little inherent to conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes people to reject climate science, a finding that has encouraging implications for climate mitigation efforts globally.
Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0157-2
Sadly the full study is paywalled, but in a sense I see this shift as progress, an attempt to move psychological thought on climate scepticism from the utterly absurd to the merely badly mistaken.
The author of the study Professor Matthew Hornsey doesn’t appear to consider the possibility that Conservatives might be right. But Hornsey’s criticism of Lewandowsky’s extreme climate psychology claims seems rather courageous.
Any criticism of extreme climate claims, even a critique as mild as Hornsey’s suggestion that Conservatives might not be completely irrational, has the potential to incur academic ostracism and strident accusations of climate denial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems that by their definition, “ignorance building strategies” are, in really scientific proof of real facts. I get more ignorant every day!
Me too! this fellow is a deluded fool. Cod science claims another victim.
Hmmm
Sounds a lot like a classic Conspiracy Theory to me
A conspiracy of “Vested Interests” using “Ignorance Building Strategies” to sway the opinions of Conservatives
What gets me is on what basis does the Professor make his judgement?
“Why do people resist apparently reasonable messages?” is a quote from his CV page. The operative word there is “apparently”.
A lot of climate alarmism I suppose is apparently reasonable to your average jo/anna at first glance if you reflect on the crap that we (advanced, western society) humans have done but then asking leading, gotcha quastions like have you stopped bashing your wife/children/dog/employees also appear reasonable because we implicitly trust the questioner as some sort of authority figure. And that perhaps bells the cat.
The climate alarmists have utterly destroyed their initial authority through the agency of Mann et al, Al Gore, Moonebeam Brown, Bill Nye, and closer to the good professor the likes of Lewandowsky etc not to mention the inimitable Graham Redfearn.
The psychology of what has happened is hardly PhD stuff. This paper by the prof seems to me to perhaps be an LPU (a lest publishable unit). An LPU is unit of commodotised academia, sort of like a pound of sugar or a barrel of oil, just nowhere near as usefule but quite valuable in a niche market.
Excellent summation Komrade! ++++
I believe that they are missing the obvious. The more familiar you are with Al Gore and the PR and Advertising industries, the easier it is to see a conspiracy. Business as usual chasing a dollar.
Imagine a think tank develops an economic assessment of the likely consequences for residents of developing countries if they used 10% vs. 50% solar and wind energy.. The press release is posted here, indicating the research says the 50% rate was bad for people in the long run. Imagine I then wrote a post saying the study was by the Cato Institute, and so I assumed the methods were biased, the data skewed, the report junk and the writers biased fools who could never understand the third world and were only interested in making sure the fossil fuel industry thrives. Wouldn’t you think that was typical CAGW ranting on my part?
………………………………..
Now I see, “What gets me is on what basis does the Professor make his judgement?”
This is a very important question/statement! It gets to the heart of the matter.
But the strange thing is, it doesn’t make a difference to the many people here who feel knowledgeable enough to dismiss his research and call him a fool despite not having any idea whether the research is quality or not. Is this not analogous to the scenario I started with? Does this not indicate a disregard for science, evidence, methodology and results, if people are willing to ASSUME that it’s wrong and poorly done? And if this isn’t because people don’t want to face the results, why else would everyone assume it’s wrong?
What does this say for the way people choose what climate science studies to believe?
If people don’t believe “mainstream” science because they think it has an agenda, logic dictates that they shouldn’t believe skeptic science, either, since that has an agenda. Readers are left, it seems, with nothing to believe, and nothing on which to base conclusions concerning climate change. If people don’t accept the science behind climate change, there’s no reason to accept any science. We are left with a society in which half the populace think they know better than scientists, and/or believe them corrupt.
This is a national threat. People who won’t vaccinate are jeopardizing others. Health threats of things like pollution from the burning fossil fuels and surface coal mining are written off as part of the CAGW alarmism. The dismissal of science also can lead to ever-increasing ignorance of it. Why should people learn about science if it’s corrupt in the first place? This leads to a backlash against some types of science being taught in the schools, and the result is perpetuation of false beliefs, such as creationism, and a general dismissal of science. Over the generations, this could result in a disparity in scientific understanding between the left, which accepts the consensus of science, and the right, which more often fights it.
If we could stop thinking in terms of faceless groups, the members of which all have the same attributes, and instead started thinking of each other as people, maybe we’d all stop making so many errors in judgement. We might be able to see the merit in each other’s views instead of writing them off. We might think in shades of gray, rather than black or white. Neither all fossil fuels nor no fossil fuels is any good, since each situation must be addressed according to the needs, desires, resources and direction of development of the community. Does that not make sense?
Konrade Kuma:
“The climate alarmists have utterly destroyed their initial authority through the agency of Mann et al, Al Gore, Moonebeam Brown, Bill Nye”
Let me get this straight. By “alarmists” are you including the mainstream scientific community? If so, you are going to base your trust in science on the behavior of two politicians, a TV personality and “Mann et al.”? If this describes the situation, do you see anything peculiar about this?
“People who won’t vaccinate are jeopardizing others”
Complete lunacy, and an excuse for fascism.
My body, my choice.
Kristi,
So if people believe, despite the science, that GMOs are bad, they should reject all science.
Why do so many climate extremists rely on insultingly stupid argument strategies?
“the science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change.”
Why is it that whenever you read a sentence like this, it’s never followed by any science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change?
I’d ask Eric Schneiderman, but it looks like he’s changed his career path.
(Which is the real reason I put this close to the top. Hoping to get an invite to the Exxon party)
Sorry !
I was always told that the FIRST SIGN OF INSANITY WAS THE ABILITY
TO SPOT IT IN OTHERS !
Perhaps IGNORANCE is similar !
As Prof Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro would put it :
“You have to be HIGHLY EDUCATED to be THIS STUPID ! ”
Hornsey fits the description !
Psychological Transference
The ability to see your own worst shortcomings projected onto others
When you are dead, you don’t know you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
It is the same when you are stupid.
Facts don’t matter to these people. Which proves it has nothing to do with science.
Well, the professor got one thing right!
‘It’s all about vested interests’: ”
Gums sends….
“vested interested interests”. Is that someone who wears a three-piece suit????
One made of such finely spun thread that only the truly faithful can gaze upon it’s magnificence, the unworthy only see that the emperor has no clothes
Well, true. I have a vested interest in myself, and my children. I want them to live a life that is better than that of a medieval serf.
BTW, only slightly off topic – Schneiderman, the ringleader of the “Exxon knew” scam, has resigned. Not due to his abuse of the law and his office, but due to finally being brought to account for violent sexual acts. One of the “nobility” down, a few hundred to go…
While I’d love to see Schneiderman get his just deserts for his abuses as AG, I’m just glad he’s no longer in a position to continue those abuses. Recall that Capone was brought down on tax charges, not due to his crimes.
Oddly enough, I saw this on Drudge this morning:
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-average-american-worker-puts-in-more-hours-than-a-medieval-peasant
One of the more idiotic comparisons I’ve seen. Not apples to oranges – more like apples to potatoes.
Evidence is in tonight – Leftists aren’t insane, and they aren’t misinformed – they are E*V*I*L!!!!
Schneidermann, one of the leading leftists and Global Warming crusaders, tonight has suddenly resigned because, surprise surprise – he gets off by beating women up behind closed doors!
THIS is the guy who has been at the Head of the “Exxon Must be Sued for Global Warming!!!” scam.
OUT. Schneidermann is OUT!!! Like a Bolt from the Blue!!!
Now I finally know how Nimitz and his staff felt when they first got the news that Yamamoto’s plane had gone down!
It is funny because in the beginning I was a “climate believer”, but as I started to read more and more stuff on the subject the contradictions and holes became ever more apparent and the seeds of doubt were planted for good.
..nothing seeds doubt more than the day you realize if they hadn’t told you…you wouldn’t have noticed
Recognizing, of course, that the alleged 1°C warming has occurred over a period of time several times longer than our lives.
A change in temperature every one of us experiences every morning with a similar cooling period every nightfall.
As Latitude inconveniently reminds us, a temperature increase most of are incapable of identifying without the MetO, NOAA, BOM number riggers and their frightfully precise inaccuracies masked by clumsy ham handed adjustments.
And much of that warming occurred long before there was any significant buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The 1° may be less than 1° due to the often discussed corruption of the temperature record (adjustments, UHI etc.).
I think most of us are. I discovered this site back when I was a senior in college. My final project was on carbon sequestration (Chemical engineering course), and when I presented the actual data (most, notably, fact that we have had only 1 degree of warming) there was a murmur through the class. I was asked afterwards if the number I had said was right. It was pretty eye-opening that almost no one had even looked at the numbers.
The sheer energy cost involved in compressing CO2 to liquid is insane, and the amount of warming that CO2 has caused is blatantly trivial to anyone who looks at it for a moment. People, even the educated, mostly just assume that the “experts” are correct. However, it doesn’t take much of a look to make the “obvious” conclusions seem nonsensical.
Did the lecturer fail you on the account of you being a heretic?
Ben
You seem to be one of the ‘snowflakes generation I have a great deal of faith in. When more actually take to questioning the CAGW proposition and discover they have been lied to about it, as inevitably happens when an entire generation matures, there will be an enormous backlash.
You my friend, are in the vanguard.
Ben
‘Snowflake’ generation.
Stupid autocorrect, other than it saves the rest of you from my lousy spelling 😁
Same here. Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski and I toured Alaskan glaciers in 2005, where he explained the whole global warming and ice-free arctic concept to me. I remained firmly in the AGW camp for another ten years, when I just couldn’t ignore my doubts any longer. After much reading, I’m firmly convinced AGW is a bust, a minimum is upon us, and eventually widespread glaciation will return — to the northern US states.
Me too
So, with 154 credit hours of engineering education, 40 years in various industries, and a being a licensed Professional Engineer, the explanation for my views on climate is – ignorance. Yessssssss, let’s go with that, shall we.
It might be argued that you are an outlier. 🙂
In fact, there’s some evidence that skeptics in general are more knowledgeable about climate science than are the alarmists. It’s not a huge effect but it sure gives lie to the ignorance argument. link
commieBob,
From what I see on this blog, I would tend to agree with your second paragraph. And, in the outside world, I have yet to come across an alarmist who can match my science expertise and knowledge about the debate. Indeed, THE conversation recently came up over dinner at a symposium I was attending and when the person who claimed to have changed from a skeptic to a believer became aware that I knew what I was talking about, he suddenly became quiet and wouldn’t look at me. This also speaks to why alarmists won’t accept challenges for public debates.
Clyde
My family now groan and apologise for me as I trample yet another friend/relative/guest AGW ‘expert’ into the dust with what I have learned on WUWT.
Nor am i a scientist, engineer or even well educated, but it only takes a little common sense to realise that over my 61 years of life, there have been no climate catastrophes. Nothing but good has been observed of increased atmospheric CO2 with the only empirical manifestation being that the planet is greening.
No matter how the alarmists distort science and politics, nothing they have observed comes close to the net benefit to mankind of that greening.
I would go further and suggest that the most rabid layman AGW believers also believe in the healing power of crystals, still believe fats are bad for you, and practise yoga while taking aroma therapy. Most did not complete grade 10 math and have never read a single scientific paper in their lives. There is absolutely no foundation for arguing a science topic with them.
I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering and have 40 years’ work and study in signal analysis, probability, statistics, and several branches of physics. I just now realized that I have been unable to distinguish human influence from natural climate variability in many gigabytes of climate data only because I am a financial conservative who hates it when governments spend my tax dollars on solutions to non-problems and on creating problems that apparently only more tax extraction will solve. Who knew?
Randy
Sorry, but non of that compares to a psychology degree. I mean, nothing you can say, can disprove what the professor says. Mind you, nothing he says can be proven either. It’s not like we can stick our fingers in a plug socket to prove if the powers on with psychology, we just have to take his word you are a bit muddled in your old age.
Where’s the #sarc button on this site anyway 🤣
Same here, degree in Electrical Engineering, 30+ years experience in aerospace, mainly running very large simulations. Hey, but what the hell do I know.
It’s their answer to the “Not Evil, Just Wrong” theme.
The issue I have is that they conflate disagreement with ignorance. They don’t consider any contrary views to be valid, so any disagreement is ignorance. It’s insidious in it’s own way.
Settled non-science?
First, it is telling that you choose to provide “appeal to authority” i.e.your own in providing your credentials than in providing any counter to the fact the earth has warmed only slightly and well within normal and usual patterns. You provide zero data to support your opinion.
Second, what particular expertise does an engineer bring to this debate? You know nothing about climate or the study of same. It would be like a proctologist claiming to be an expert on brain surgery. Sorry, different fields entirely and your expertise in one area does not translate to an expertise in another scientific area.
It is sad that you cannot transfer the scientific method we all hope you use in engineering to a scientific field such as climate, a subject about which we know far less than engineering. Engineering is a piece of cake compared to this and, as we recently saw in Fl.and have seen elsewhere, engineers often get wrong that which they sure as heck should get right.
You do not need to be an “expert” in the field of “climate science” to form a valid opinion. You simply need common sense an a fairly coarsely tuned “BS” filter
So, I am an accomplished Electrical Engineer, and I can confirm that renewable energy sources cannot replace fossil fuel energy generation and on a lifecycle basis Solar and Wind Power do not save any CO2, and you would accept my word because I’m an Electrical Engineer and this IS my field of expertise? Sailor, that’s so nice to know, or do you think perhaps that climate scientists might know more about renewable energy than an Electrical Engineer?
The problem is Sailor that most of this debate is about Electricity and Energy which absolutely is the domain of engineers, yet we have these upstart environmental science grads without even one semester of physics trying to tell us how energy generation should work?
I suggest that next time you try to reimagine the world, ask an Engineer to help
sailor2014
And your credentials are?
The CAGW alarmist community have got nothing right since their predictions of an ice age in the 70’s (yes, I did read the papers then and can confirm it was predicted) so what value do climatologists contribute to society if they can’t get anything at all right?
Meanwhile, your life is made possible by engineers. Without them you wouldn’t have the ability to tap out your nonsense, on a computer, in your remote part of lala land.
And I’m sorry if that seems rude, but you have just insulted every engineer in the world, so consider it less than you deserve.
sailor2014’s ad hominems, writing and specious claims resemble that of past credibility bankrupt trollops.
New ID, old persona?
Right there is the typical, and all too common, response from alarmists and CAGW religion believers.
“First, it is telling that you choose to provide “appeal to authority” i.e.your own in providing your credentials than in providing any counter to the fact the earth has warmed only slightly and well within normal and usual patterns. You provide zero data to support your opinion.”
1) Fling ad hominems,
2) Demean the commenter,
3 peciously demand nonspecific data while simultaneously denying the data you were given.
“Second, what particular expertise does an engineer bring to this debate? You know nothing about climate or the study of same. It would be like a proctologist claiming to be an expert on brain surgery. Sorry, different fields entirely and your expertise in one area does not translate to an expertise in another scientific area.”
1) Fling more ad hominems
2) Make absurd analogies using personal opinion.
3) Fling more ad hominems while pronouncing your personal opinion.
“It is sad that you cannot transfer the scientific method we all hope you use in engineering to a scientific field such as climate, a subject about which we know far less than engineering. Engineering is a piece of cake compared to this and, as we recently saw in Fl.and have seen elsewhere, engineers often get wrong that which they sure as heck should get right”
1) Make more absurd claims based on… zilch!,
2) Make specious claims while demeaning the entire Engineering field,
3) Make an absurd claim that Engineering/engineers do not use the “scientific method”
4) Again, demean the engineering field,
5) Blame all engineers for errors that a few people made; without providing evidence for your specious claim.
A) sailor2014 flagrantly demonstrates absolute ignorance for what is needed to achieve an engineering degree.
B) sailor2014 ignores those engineering, re scientific, skills every engineer must use, every day.
C) sailor2014 demonstrates it’s total lack of knowledge for business, legal and professional rigor demanded of engineers. Who, unlike climate whatever, are held legally, financially, professionally and morally to designs engineers produce.
Typical, very typical of consensus climate believers and alarmists.
A proctologist might not be an expert on brain surgery, but they are still a doctor and would be qualified to say something is horribly wrong if a “brain surgeon” demanded a hemispherectomy for a patient who is still in command of all their faculties.
As a layman, you might not know exact masses of celestial objects or returns on investments, but if I told you that the moon weighed 25.2 tons or that an investment would routinely pay 40% annual interest, you would tell me that I’m a charlatan. You don’t need to be an expert in that precise field to see when something is seriously wrong.
As an environmental engineer, it’s my job to put these proposals into practice, and I see how difficult it is and how hard we’ve hit diminishing returns.
Sailor boy,
I guess you are unaware of the great feedback controversy discussed at length at WUWT. It is straight from the EE wheelhouse – unfortunately misunderstood and misapplied by the climate alarmists.
First off, there is no such field as “climate science”, it is a hodge podge of various other fields.
Secondly, you don’t have to study atmospheric physics to read a chart and realize that the earth has been warmer in the past and CO2 levels have been way higher in the past, all without the catastrophic results being predicted.
Finally I find it amazing that you start out rejecting “appeal to authority”, but in reality, that’s all your post is.
What the heck makes you think you know the extent of an engineer’s knowledge of science and math?
He’s got a fake degree in Ecology and Evolution?
sailor2014
“…… what particular expertise does an engineer bring to this debate?”…..
Wow! You really grabbed me by the ‘attentions’ with that one!
A substantial part of my degree ( Engineering Science) involved Thermodynamics, the study of Energy, the sine qua non of Climate. Heat and Electricity are two forms with which you are probably familiar, among others are Potential, Kinetic, Geothermal and Nuclear, and then there’s Dark Energy which they haven’t found yet but we know has nothing to do with night lighting. If, what you call “this debate” is about climate study and those who study it, then it has everything to do with Thermodynamics and hence engineers, who are etymologically related to engines, the machines that convert energy (joules) into useful work (ergs) propelling cars, locomotives, aeroplanes and such. Not to be confused with social engineers whose laws are legion and whose art (its not a science) depends on probability not precision when predicting outcomes. The Earth’s climate is a steam engine, heated by the sun, doing work driving winds and ocean currents and exhausting waste heat from the poles.
Cheers
bahamamike
I hear ya, DJ!
My BS and MS in Metallurgical Engineering + 30 years in Aerospace engineering are merely the hallmarks of ignorance, according to some weenie prof from University of Queensland. M’thinks he needs to be introduced to some old fashioned American ‘iron worker persuasion techniques’, as I learned in my hard knuckle blue collar days before college. There are all kinds of education, in this world!
Gods – I’m sick of these insulting little prigs….
“J Mac May 7, 2018 at 11:19 pm
Gods – I’m sick of these insulting little prigs….”
Indeed. However, these insulting types permeate every level of power in this land. Every level. And they are not little prigs at all. They are very big PIGS scoffing at the taxpayer trough. Some local councilors here in Australia, say Sydney City Council, are paid more than the federal PM of Australia.
sailor2014,
I have a PhD in aerospace engineering with a minor in mathematics and studied computational modelling algorithms as well as control theory toward my doctorate with an undergrad study heavily influenced with fluid dynamics. I understand all of this I read here. I am not a climate scientist because I want to make real money.
All of the work in climate science is based upon mathematical models that suffer from the limitations of numerical integration of nearly unstable to marginally stable systems. You cannot numerically integrate (simulate) an unstable or marginally stable system. The numerical algorithms will add energy to the states within the model and the states within a model will require “natural damping” greater than the algorithm divergence. The mathematical grids, boundary conditions between elements in grids and the integration of time of these model approximations with unknown unknowns make the whole approach an impossible task. The system is too complex for numerical round-off and integration algorithm error growth to not impact the result of the model. Furthermore, any model is limited to the space/domain and boundaries of the model. Outside the range where the data is collected, i.e., the future, the model outputs are technically and mathematically invalid. Finally, all of the modifications to make a mathematical model fit the data do not account for other variabilities not included the models. In other words, the models are tweaked with user specified constants that make their “model of the day” fit the data. Then they tweak the data to make the source data no longer even real.
The whole global warming effort is a way to control you by controlling your access to energy. All hail the powers who saves us from ourselves.
Foton
foton said “Furthermore, any model is limited to the space/domain and boundaries of the model. Outside the range where the data is collected, i.e., the future, the model outputs are technically and mathematically invalid.”
Spot On!
D.J. Hawkins,
If you know about science, then please comment on my post at
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Cheers
Roger
We all know this . The problem is that the climate scientists invented a new field called Climatology. Then then took over the Atmospheric Science faculties at all the universities and turned them into global warming faculties so that they could coerce funding to study a problem that only existed within the software code of a computer. If everyone knew (including all the alarmist side) that mankind can’t affect the climate to any significant degree then everyone would stop worrying about it and the funding for climate science would dry up. As it stands now, the funding for climate research dwarfs all other research funding. Since the field of climatology is researching a problem that doesnt exist, it is like searching for the unicorn. One will never find it but if disaster is supposed to be just around the corner then the funding wont stop and governments wont stop this new tax on breathing. It is all madness perpetrated by one single profession that worships climate models. They are holding all of the world to ransom. Around about the year 2000 reason seems to have disappeared from most of humanity. It is only because skeptics think for themselves that they are not fooled. I was always the kid in class who asked a lot of questions some of them very inconvenient.
See my comment on your site.
Great website!
From insane to stupid, eh? That’s progress!
Damn, my degree in geophysics from UC Berkeley and my MBA from Wharton ain’t werf nuffin’.
Max You didnt answer my question in another post. I asked you if you would ask all your cousins, all those Photons how many does it take to raise the temperature by 1C? Max it seems that you and your cousins are at the center of this whole controversy.
so we are the ones that have been manipulated
“There’s been a general acceptance that people who have broadly conservative or rightwing ideologies tend to rail against climate science because it rubs their worldview up the wrong way.”
lying communists tend to do that………
That’s true on both sides of the issue. If you know people’s attitudes to CAGW you can guess their political affiliation most of the time. The left generally supports alarmism because it accords with its worldview. That knowledge alone should inspire skepticism in a disinterested observer.
As many WUWT posters have noted, superior facts and science aren’t adequate to move the left from its alarmist convictions.
…the left keeps trying the same tactic….Hillary did recently
Insult the holy crap out of the very people you need their support
“If you know people’s attitudes to CAGW you can allege their political affiliation most of the time. ” Fixed that for you. I know of no other topic where scientific fact is deemed a political decision.
Lat: So we’ve been manipulated and kept ignorant by entrenched, powerful interests… and WE’RE the “conspiratorial” type?
..me thinks they project too much
Your comment is simply perfect, Paul.
sailor2014
It isn’t a comment, it’s a question.
When you learn the difference, you might start learning something.
Hot Scot: I thought sailor’s initial comment above was misread, and sailor had initially misread an engineer’s lament that alarmists think we’re ignorant. In any event, sailor complimented my post and didn’t misread it. So I say, sailor is all right! But I’m a sucker for flattery.
Point is folks here have no trouble seeing that Hornsey et al wrote an article on conservative conspiracy ideation (he thinks it’s possible, but maybe it’s manipulated ignorance and there’s no evidence of manipulation but we all know that’s what it is here in the social sciences) that is obviously based on his own conspiracy ideation! And if I confronted Hornsey on it, he would be at a loss, befuddled, at how I got THAT from his article. Probably I’ve been manipulated again, he would conclude. Well, I was pretty worried that it was the “insanity” thing, so “manipulated ignorance” is relatively better for me. I’d rather have that than whatever he’s got (bet he’d have a fancy name for it if he detected it in someone else).
Nice to see that arrogance has not yet tucked its tail between its legs and hobbled away.
Perhaps a night outside in cold weather (tonight? my front lawn) might give Mr. Hornsey some kind of pause.
I’ll leave the light on for him.
So the bats know where to aim.
Bats dont need light to navigate. Sonar does the trick
Asking to see the evidence is just so ignorant,at least in academia, University of Queensland style.
Is it something in the water?
Or something in the bureaus of grant gifting?
Cause conservatives are just so easily programmed, marching in emotional lockstep at all these rallies they attend…feeling the emotional glow of being one with the good and righteous of society..What a mouthful this clone of Lew Paper produces;”Ignorance building strategies”
What does this mean?
Anything like policy based evidence manufacturing?
The indulgence by our bureaucracies in that particular little game has produced a stunning amount of ignorance, in public policy.
Pardon the question, but is the “University of Queensland” a real university? Does it have other than this dumbo working there?
University of Queensland, beautiful one day, stupid then next.
“Steve B May 7, 2018 at 8:55 pm”
Dumb one day, dummer the next. They have been practicing for some time.
Patrick, I was using a well worn advertisement for Queensland. Beautiful one day, Perfect the next.
I graduated in 1964 from the U of Queensland as an engineer. For 50 years I worked all over the world in the mining industry. When I retired (fro the second time) at 70, I was looking to do something for my old school. This ran straight into the BS which had started to bury the place. There is no way I would do anything to stop the place burning to the ground, looking at the people who inhabit the place today.
A Lifetime of self examination and the development of an extremely effective Bullshit Meter has made me a millionaire in Business, many times over.
Ah, but I am ignorant…
No, they are jealous and they want to take it away.
They show up for work on time 3 days out of 5 and just don’t understand why they aren’t rich yet.
This is getting to sound a lot like Hillary Clinton’s list of excuses why she wasn’t elected. Yet again another probably well funded study looking at ways to some how convince doubters about AGW. Just like Hillary they are in total denial especially in academia. In academia they tend to believe everyone else are ignorant peons when the truth is many in academia today are incapable of critical thought. Sadly they are indoctrinating an entire generation. Having done polling, in-depth polling, only polling 5300 people in 24 countries is one heck of a tiny sample size. A small sample size might work if selected properly and it is a two choice answer to a question, but in-depth polling requires a far more robust sampling. And as soon as you start translating between languages you really run into problems. Heck just in Florida at least three different styles of Spanish are spoken. I know I held public hearing throughout the state and my translator caught all kinds of grief for his translation of specific and one would have thought common words.
Edwin
Speaking of polling, I won’t even ask how you feel about the “97% of scientists agree” based on a sample size of 73.
Look at all the trouble Macron just got into by saying the Australian’s Prime Minister’s wife is “delicious”. In French, delicious is synonymous with delightful etc. Yes, many boobytrap exists in translations. You are quite correct. Some of us have even had the misfortune of personally experiencing it in foreign countries. I have a relative who is an interpreter for the deaf. She was very happy she checked out the differences between sign language in Europe and the US. Had she not, she would have made many a ribald comment.
Lucy Turnbull felt charmed and flattered by the compliment
And so would I if it was applied to me.
I suspect, given their choice of conspiracies, they only polled English speakers.
So instead of conservatives being conspiracy theorists, he postulates a conspiracy theory that conservatives are being brainwashed into ignorance by “vested interests”.
Seems legit …
Oh yeah. i have learned nothing, because I disagree with the consensus. Riight!
Ah, you thought that questioning the consensus was independent thought. Asking questions, searching for answers yourself, doing the math, looking into claims, watching as their predictions of impending doom failed to materialise. All this you did because “vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity”.
One must be impervious to rational thought to not see that one man’s consensus is another man’s “vested interest”. He is accusing conservatives of falling for vested interest, while he himself falls for consensus and appeal to authority. Amazing stuff.
University of Queensland, nuff said! Complete and utter tosh!
“… from the utterly absurd to the merely badly mistaken. ”
Chuckled out loud 🙂
Kind of on topic, this liberal is one of the AG’s suing about CAGW.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/05/07/holy-sht-four-women-accuse-metoo-crusader-ny-ag-eric-schneiderman-of-violent-physical-abuse/
Sounds like this liberal has mental health issues and he’s ignorant.
5 hours later and he’s resigned!
NY AG Schneiderman does seem like he’s a few Fruit Loops short of a bowl. Here he is lying outrageously about a group of pro-lifers that he was persecuting:
https://www.facebook.com/ThomasMoreLawCenter/videos/10156374596048841/
The very restrained young attorney with Thomas More Law Center who was interviewed in that clip is Mr. Tyler Brooks, who is in a Primary Election tomorrow for the Republican nomination to challenge the Democrat who currently represents me in the NC House… and who, strangely enough, has a lot in common with Schneiderman:
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2018/03/01/witnesses-elaborate-alleged-sexual-misconduct-rep-duane-hall/
Clarification:
It’s the Democrat that currently represents me in the NC House who has a lot in common with Schneiderman. The Republican candidate, Tyler Brooks, has nothing in common with Schneiderman.
Sorry if that was unclear!
#MeToo
I never knew that unknown vested interests made me the skeptic I am today.
‘Academics have suggested that people who tend to accept conspiracy theories also underplay or reject the science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change.’
Wut? What science is he talking about?
It’s a “no true Scotsman” argument.
The irony is, if I recall correctly, the actual raw data Lew used showed exactly the opposite; it was only when he applied his special brand of statistics to small numbers could he tease out his desired conclusion about conservative conspiracy ideation.
Surely Prof. Hornsey knows money can be terribly corrupting. And only the CAGW crowd is making money on this nonsense.
Just what we need – more psychologists in the climate debate.
Javert: Just what we need – more sycophants in the climate debate. Fixed it for you.
I am not a conservative and I do not believe in any of the conspiracy theories promoted by Fox News and those wackos on the AM talk shows. And I also think Trump is an idiot and has no business being in any high office. That said I believe that climate change is exaggerated and that time and technology will deal with any problems that may arise in the future.
Welcome.
….the other choice was Hillary
Exactly.
Exactly.
Sorry for the double entry……phone nodded off!
Hornblower
What did Einstein say about it only taking one person to prove a theory wrong.
Well, my friend, you have the honour of being that person in this case. 😁
“And I also think Trump is an idiot and has no business being in any high office”
and the other choice was Hillary, a corrupt politician who mishandled classified information (an offense that would get most people fired and possibly even sent to jail) was a failure as secretary of state (bengahzi ring any bells?), lead the attacks on the woman who reported on her husbands sexual abuses (so much for women have to be believed) and has no business being in any high office.
bad as anyone might think Trump is, Hillary would have been way worse.
It’s not American conservatives who conflate logical domains. It’s not conservatives who deny individual dignity, including color judgments (“diversity”). It’s not conservatives who deny lives deemed unworthy, including selective-child (“Pro-Choice”). It’s not conservatives who assume, assert, with liberal abandon, to the edge of the last near-observation at the edge of our solar system, and to the absurd beyond in time and space, backward and forward. People want to believe. The consensus wants us to believe in order to exploit a prophecy that will establish monopolies of capital and control.
As a professor, I am continually embarrassed as what passes for cogent thought.
Or as my mother asked of me, “Is there a class on common sense, or is no professor capable?”
Mothers can ask the most uncomfortable questions…
… the mother of all uncomfortable questions …
I feel terrible that all of you incredibly intelligent, scientifically trained individuals are being lumped in with…..
me.
Which entrenched, vested interests have so bent your mind to such ignorance?
As usual I have no ideation what he’s talking about but he strings big words together and he’s called a Perfesser so he must be getting paid as an academic to do that because you wouldn’t if you didn’t.
When I read “ideation” my bs meter went off. These so called scientists just create studies (either by intent or ignorance) just to prove their theories. Where’s the data showing how the CAGW believers fare against similar conspiracy theories. Guess what, I know plenty of liberal CAGW fanatics who still believe that Kennedy was assassinated by conservatives, LBJ, Hoover ect.
The phrase “tease out” is the one that does it for me. Every time.
One major conspiracy theory that CAGW believers blindly embrace – “Trump colluded with Russia and stole the election!”
Bear
With apologies to credible psychologists, the subject is far to big, with too many variables to reach meaningful conclusions.
A bit like climate change itself.
So the good professor created a project to study the phenomenon of Conservative bias and, surprise, surprise, he found it.
A bit like climate change itself.
Many CAGW buy into the conspiracy of “Big Oil Money is behind skepticism of CAGW”, so from what I can see it’s the CAGW believers that are into conspiracy ideation, not the skeptics (most of whom have never gotten a single red cent from “Big Oil”).