Climate Study: Conservatives Aren't Insane, They're Just Ignorant

Professor Matthew Hornsey, University of Queensland

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.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/may/08/its-all-about-vested-interests-untangling-conspiracy-conservatism-and-climate-scepticism

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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
283 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NW sage
May 7, 2018 4:24 pm

It seems that by their definition, “ignorance building strategies” are, in really scientific proof of real facts. I get more ignorant every day!

David Grange
Reply to  NW sage
May 7, 2018 4:33 pm

Me too! this fellow is a deluded fool. Cod science claims another victim.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Grange
May 7, 2018 11:41 pm

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

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

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  David Grange
May 7, 2018 11:59 pm

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.

Reply to  David Grange
May 8, 2018 3:14 am

“Komrade Kuma May 7, 2018 at 11:59 pm
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”…”

Excellent summation Komrade! ++++

ghl
Reply to  David Grange
May 8, 2018 7:14 pm

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.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  David Grange
May 9, 2018 8:35 pm

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?

Kristi Silber
Reply to  David Grange
May 9, 2018 8:55 pm

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?

s-t
Reply to  David Grange
May 10, 2018 7:21 am

“People who won’t vaccinate are jeopardizing others”
Complete lunacy, and an excuse for fascism.
My body, my choice.

hunter
Reply to  David Grange
May 15, 2018 10:58 am

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?

philincalifornia
Reply to  NW sage
May 7, 2018 8:08 pm

“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)

Trevor
Reply to  NW sage
May 7, 2018 10:25 pm

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 !

Bryan A
Reply to  Trevor
May 7, 2018 11:43 pm

Psychological Transference
The ability to see your own worst shortcomings projected onto others

Ellen
Reply to  Trevor
May 8, 2018 10:47 am

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.

Goldrider
Reply to  NW sage
May 8, 2018 6:04 am

Facts don’t matter to these people. Which proves it has nothing to do with science.

Gums
May 7, 2018 4:26 pm

Well, the professor got one thing right!
‘It’s all about vested interests’: ”
Gums sends….

barryjo
Reply to  Gums
May 7, 2018 6:02 pm

“vested interested interests”. Is that someone who wears a three-piece suit????

Bryan A
Reply to  barryjo
May 8, 2018 9:30 am

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

Reply to  Gums
May 7, 2018 7:57 pm

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…

John Endicott
Reply to  Writing Observer
May 8, 2018 5:59 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Writing Observer
May 8, 2018 6:28 am
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2018 3:03 pm

One of the more idiotic comparisons I’ve seen. Not apples to oranges – more like apples to potatoes.

wws
Reply to  Gums
May 7, 2018 8:27 pm

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!

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
May 7, 2018 4:28 pm

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.

Latitude
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
May 7, 2018 5:45 pm

..nothing seeds doubt more than the day you realize if they hadn’t told you…you wouldn’t have noticed

Reply to  Latitude
May 8, 2018 3:24 am

“Ben of Houston May 7, 2018 at 6:10 pm
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…”

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
May 8, 2018 6:30 am

And much of that warming occurred long before there was any significant buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Reply to  Latitude
May 8, 2018 10:26 am

The 1° may be less than 1° due to the often discussed corruption of the temperature record (adjustments, UHI etc.).

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
May 7, 2018 6:10 pm

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.

Craig
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 7, 2018 10:55 pm

Did the lecturer fail you on the account of you being a heretic?

HotScot
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 8, 2018 2:41 am

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.

HotScot
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 8, 2018 2:43 am

Ben
‘Snowflake’ generation.
Stupid autocorrect, other than it saves the rest of you from my lousy spelling 😁

Bruce Robertson
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
May 7, 2018 6:50 pm

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.

JLC of Perth
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
May 8, 2018 1:50 am

Me too

D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 4:30 pm

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.

commieBob
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 5:28 pm

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

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  commieBob
May 7, 2018 5:46 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  commieBob
May 8, 2018 2:53 am

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.

BCBill
Reply to  commieBob
May 8, 2018 10:32 am

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.

Randy Stubbings
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 5:43 pm

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?

HotScot
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 8, 2018 3:00 am

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 🤣

EdeF
Reply to  Randy Stubbings
May 8, 2018 3:17 pm

Same here, degree in Electrical Engineering, 30+ years experience in aerospace, mainly running very large simulations. Hey, but what the hell do I know.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 6:05 pm

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.

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 8, 2018 6:12 am

Settled non-science?

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 11:10 pm

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.

Blacksmith
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 1:01 am

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

bobl
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 1:52 am

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

HotScot
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 3:14 am

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.

Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 4:11 am

sailor2014’s ad hominems, writing and specious claims resemble that of past credibility bankrupt trollops.
New ID, old persona?

“sailor2014 May 7, 2018 at 11:10 pm
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.”

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.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 4:28 am

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.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 5:28 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 6:36 am

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.

commieBob
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 2:14 pm

Second, what particular expertise does an engineer bring to this debate? You know nothing about climate or the study of same.

What the heck makes you think you know the extent of an engineer’s knowledge of science and math?

MarkW
Reply to  sailor2014
May 9, 2018 7:08 am

He’s got a fake degree in Ecology and Evolution?

Mike
Reply to  sailor2014
May 13, 2018 1:25 pm

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

J Mac
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 11:19 pm

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….

Patrick MJD
Reply to  J Mac
May 8, 2018 1:07 am

“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.

foton
Reply to  J Mac
May 8, 2018 12:05 pm

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

J Mac
Reply to  J Mac
May 8, 2018 9:08 pm

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!

rogerthesurf
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 8, 2018 2:31 pm
Alan Tomalty
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 8, 2018 11:00 pm

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.

johnrmcd
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 11, 2018 4:27 am

See my comment on your site.

hunter
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 15, 2018 11:43 am

Great website!

Roger Bournival
May 7, 2018 4:33 pm

From insane to stupid, eh? That’s progress!

May 7, 2018 4:35 pm

Damn, my degree in geophysics from UC Berkeley and my MBA from Wharton ain’t werf nuffin’.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Max Photon
May 8, 2018 11:06 pm

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.

Latitude
May 7, 2018 4:36 pm

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………

commieBob
Reply to  Latitude
May 7, 2018 5:44 pm

… it rubs their worldview up the wrong way.

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.

Latitude
Reply to  commieBob
May 7, 2018 6:37 pm

…the left keeps trying the same tactic….Hillary did recently
Insult the holy crap out of the very people you need their support

Reply to  commieBob
May 8, 2018 12:26 pm

“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.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Latitude
May 7, 2018 6:17 pm

Lat: So we’ve been manipulated and kept ignorant by entrenched, powerful interests… and WE’RE the “conspiratorial” type?

Latitude
Reply to  Paul Courtney
May 7, 2018 6:29 pm

..me thinks they project too much

Reply to  Paul Courtney
May 7, 2018 11:13 pm

Your comment is simply perfect, Paul.

HotScot
Reply to  Paul Courtney
May 8, 2018 3:26 am

sailor2014
It isn’t a comment, it’s a question.
When you learn the difference, you might start learning something.

paul courtney
Reply to  Paul Courtney
May 8, 2018 8:29 am

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).

Sara
May 7, 2018 4:38 pm

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.

WXcycles
Reply to  Sara
May 8, 2018 3:06 am

So the bats know where to aim.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  WXcycles
May 8, 2018 11:10 pm

Bats dont need light to navigate. Sonar does the trick

John Robertson
May 7, 2018 4:41 pm

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.

BobM
Reply to  John Robertson
May 7, 2018 8:09 pm

Pardon the question, but is the “University of Queensland” a real university? Does it have other than this dumbo working there?

Reply to  BobM
May 7, 2018 8:55 pm

University of Queensland, beautiful one day, stupid then next.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BobM
May 7, 2018 11:49 pm

“Steve B May 7, 2018 at 8:55 pm”
Dumb one day, dummer the next. They have been practicing for some time.

Reply to  BobM
May 8, 2018 4:10 am

Patrick, I was using a well worn advertisement for Queensland. Beautiful one day, Perfect the next.

johnrmcd
Reply to  BobM
May 11, 2018 4:37 am

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.

May 7, 2018 4:41 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Latimer
May 8, 2018 6:47 am

They show up for work on time 3 days out of 5 and just don’t understand why they aren’t rich yet.

Edwin
May 7, 2018 4:45 pm

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.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Edwin
May 7, 2018 5:31 pm

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.

Reply to  Edwin
May 7, 2018 11:25 pm

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.

JLC of Perth
Reply to  sailor2014
May 8, 2018 1:57 am

Lucy Turnbull felt charmed and flattered by the compliment
And so would I if it was applied to me.

Susan Howard
Reply to  Edwin
May 8, 2018 12:31 am

I suspect, given their choice of conspiracies, they only polled English speakers.

oregonbill
May 7, 2018 4:52 pm

So instead of conservatives being conspiracy theorists, he postulates a conspiracy theory that conservatives are being brainwashed into ignorance by “vested interests”.
Seems legit …

Tom Halla
May 7, 2018 4:57 pm

Oh yeah. i have learned nothing, because I disagree with the consensus. Riight!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 7, 2018 5:18 pm

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.

Patrick MJD
May 7, 2018 5:04 pm

University of Queensland, nuff said! Complete and utter tosh!

Michael 2
May 7, 2018 5:07 pm

“… from the utterly absurd to the merely badly mistaken. ”
Chuckled out loud 🙂

Greg61
May 7, 2018 5:14 pm

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.

Reply to  Greg61
May 7, 2018 6:40 pm

comment image

DeLoss McKnight
Reply to  Greg61
May 7, 2018 7:12 pm

5 hours later and he’s resigned!

Reply to  DeLoss McKnight
May 7, 2018 8:56 pm

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/

Reply to  DeLoss McKnight
May 7, 2018 9:00 pm

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!

MarkW
Reply to  DeLoss McKnight
May 8, 2018 6:50 am

#MeToo

Editor
May 7, 2018 5:15 pm

I never knew that unknown vested interests made me the skeptic I am today.

Gamecock
May 7, 2018 5:17 pm

‘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.

Reply to  Gamecock
May 8, 2018 6:36 am

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.

Javert Chip
May 7, 2018 5:23 pm

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.

RobR
Reply to  Javert Chip
May 7, 2018 7:23 pm

Javert: Just what we need – more sycophants in the climate debate. Fixed it for you.

hornblower
May 7, 2018 5:28 pm

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.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  hornblower
May 7, 2018 6:24 pm

Welcome.

Latitude
Reply to  hornblower
May 7, 2018 6:34 pm

….the other choice was Hillary

meltemian
Reply to  Latitude
May 7, 2018 10:01 pm

Exactly.

meltemian
Reply to  Latitude
May 7, 2018 10:01 pm

Exactly.

meltemian
Reply to  Latitude
May 7, 2018 10:03 pm

Sorry for the double entry……phone nodded off!

HotScot
Reply to  hornblower
May 8, 2018 3:57 am

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. 😁

John Endicott
Reply to  hornblower
May 8, 2018 6:18 am

“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.

nn
May 7, 2018 5:34 pm

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.

Timo Soren
May 7, 2018 5:35 pm

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?”

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Timo Soren
May 7, 2018 5:56 pm

Mothers can ask the most uncomfortable questions…

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
May 7, 2018 7:08 pm

… the mother of all uncomfortable questions …

Finegan
May 7, 2018 5:35 pm

I feel terrible that all of you incredibly intelligent, scientifically trained individuals are being lumped in with…..
me.

Felix
Reply to  Finegan
May 7, 2018 5:37 pm

Which entrenched, vested interests have so bent your mind to such ignorance?

observa
May 7, 2018 5:42 pm

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.

Bear
May 7, 2018 5:43 pm

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Bear
May 7, 2018 7:55 pm

The phrase “tease out” is the one that does it for me. Every time.

Freedom Monger
Reply to  Bear
May 7, 2018 8:55 pm

One major conspiracy theory that CAGW believers blindly embrace – “Trump colluded with Russia and stole the election!”

HotScot
Reply to  Bear
May 8, 2018 4:08 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bear
May 8, 2018 6:22 am

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”).

Davis
May 7, 2018 5:46 pm

I thought we were deplorables? What will we be next week? Probably still God fearing, hard working, family supporting, our country loving people.

John Endicott
Reply to  Davis
May 8, 2018 6:23 am

“What will we be next week?”
The ones clinging to ours guns and bibles apparently.

drednicolson
Reply to  John Endicott
May 9, 2018 1:00 pm

And the ones paying most of the taxes.

DMA
May 7, 2018 5:51 pm

“vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity with “ignorance-building strategies”
This seams to be a common thread used to explain my alleged derangement and ignorance but I have not ever seen an example given with the accusation. There must be some reason to keep beating this drum but they ought to be able to demonstrate it by finding actual skeptics that have been persuaded and by the exposing the perpetrators of the ignorance building strategies.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  DMA
May 7, 2018 7:17 pm

If we offered them $100,000 to identify the “perpetrators of the ignorance building strategies”, it would keep some of them busy for a year or two. Keep the world a little bit safer for a while :).

HotScot
Reply to  DMA
May 8, 2018 4:12 am

DMA
Oooooooh! Dangerous. Were they to actually meet a sceptic they know they run the risk of being converted and that would never do.
I mean, I wonder how often Anthony Watts has been interviewed by these people.
I rest my case M’lud.

MaryLS
May 7, 2018 5:58 pm

“vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity with “ignorance-building strategies”
Complete bafflegab.

Reply to  MaryLS
May 7, 2018 6:06 pm

Great word.

Pauld
May 7, 2018 5:59 pm

It has always seemed to me that liberals such as Al Gore very much want catastrophic global warming to be true because it provides meaning to their lives and justification for very large scale government intervention in favor of green technologies that they are predisposed to support for a variety of independent reasons. On the other hand, conservatives who generally oppose large scale government intervention apply normal scientific scepticism to climate science and are therefore sceptical of the catastrophic claims.
I personally accept the scientific consensus as reflected in the IPCC , but think that the likely climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range proposed by the IPCC. I also firmly convinced that renewable technologies cannot now or in the foreseeable future reasonably replace fossil fuels. Government intervention s that attempt to do so are costly wastes of money that are doomed to failure.
I don’t believe in any conspiracy theories although I think climate science is thoroughly infected with group think. I think I am fairly typical o f politically conservative learners who I know.

HotScot
Reply to  Pauld
May 8, 2018 4:17 am

Pauld
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy theory, I think it’s out in the open. I mean, Maurice Strong and Christina Figueres have articulated it rather explicitly.

Reply to  Pauld
May 8, 2018 3:06 pm

“I personally accept the scientific consensus as reflected in the IPCC”
Why ? I always took ‘scientific consensus’ as an oxymoron. Besides, who reads the scientific reports ? Everyone is treated to ‘position papers for governments’ and the ‘facts’ must reflect that position.

Felix
May 7, 2018 6:03 pm

Breaking news: the lowest rated Fox show beats the highest rated CNN show.
Without its corrupt international airport contracts, CNN would have gone BK long ago. There isn’t room for both MSNBC and CNN in cable news viewerspace, with only 20% of Americans being “Progressive”. Especially with CNBC, ESPN, etc in the mix.

Jtom
May 7, 2018 6:30 pm

More breaking news. I tried to post this in tips and notes, but that page crashes my old-model iPad.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-york-ag-eric-schneiderman-accused-of-abusing-women-report-2018-05-07
The title of the link tells it all.

Menicholas
Reply to  Jtom
May 7, 2018 6:40 pm

I was about to share this gem regarding our fave AG on the Submit Story page.
All I could think was “But he seems like such a NICE man!”
Not.

Felix
Reply to  Menicholas
May 7, 2018 6:52 pm

Tom Halla
Reply to  Menicholas
May 7, 2018 8:49 pm

Schneiderman resigning evokes schadenfreude.

Jer0me
Reply to  Menicholas
May 7, 2018 11:03 pm

Schneiderman resigning evokes schadenfreude.

“schnadenfreude”?

Felix
Reply to  Jtom
May 7, 2018 6:50 pm

Birds of a feather flocking together: Algore, masher of masseuses, Patchicootie, child sex abuser and now this sterling character. Skeptics are known by the baseness of their opponents.

David S
May 7, 2018 6:30 pm

As an engineer I’ve studied physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. But what would I know about climate science compared to someone who studied psychology?

Reply to  David S
May 7, 2018 7:00 pm

The Greenhouse Effect. There is the LW radiation intercepting theory of CO2 and water vapor. Then there is the fact that 99% of the atmosphere are not LW radiation intercepting molecules but still absorb energy from the surface by colliding with it about 6 billion times per second for the molecules close to and at the surface. Absolutely ridiculous numbers.
I don’t think you need LW radiation intercepting molecules at all to have a Greenhouse Effect.
A strictly N2 and O2 atmosphere only is going to reach an equilibrium with the land surface temperature simply by exchanging energy with it. Sun comes up in the morning, heats the land surface, atmosphere of N2 and O2 warms up by colliding with it at ridiculous fast rates and the 2 metre atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface within let’s say 3 seconds. At night, the Sun goes down and the land surface cools off and the atmosphere of N2 and O2 gives back the energy by colliding with it at ridiculous numbers and the land cools off very slowly at night with a tiny surplus of energy being emitted as LW radiation straight through the atmosphere to space but it is constantly replenished by the N2 and O2 collisions.
Temperature up slightly in the day as the Sun comes up, temperature down slightly at night as the Sun goes down.
Now that is physics.
Global warmers think N2 and O2 play no role at all. Because they have brainwashed by bad physics.

HotScot
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 8, 2018 4:29 am

Bill
Thank you for that. I have often wondered why no atmospheric gases other than CO2, methane and (the unmentionable) water vapour, seem to influence the climate, according to the conventional CAGW rhetoric.
In my opinion, no matter how begnin their influence, they must have some influence with all that energy available.
Every days a school day. 😁

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 9, 2018 12:25 am

The other side of the equation is that on the 70% of the earth surface that is oceans the water evaporates, thus heat from the sun that got to the water is then stored as latent heat in the water molecules in the air. . Some of that heat comes from the water itself in the oceans and some of that comes from the atmosphere. If that wasnt the case then the atmosphere would always be too hot for evaporation to stop. Of course this is a local phenomena repeated millions of time all over the surface of the oceans and affected by the many different ocean oscillations around the globe. Winds are the carriers of this water vapour. Now when the water vapour that is carried by winds higher in the atmosphere finally condenses, the latent heat is released. Some of that latent heat escapes to space and the rest gets reflected back down. However the amount of latent heat that was originally taken out of the atmosphere upon evaporation, is counterbalanced by the amount that doesnt get lost to outerspace when condensation happens. However after condensation the air becomes cooler only inside of the local air parcel that condensed.
https://www.thoughtco.com/condensation-and-evaporation-3444344
The effect of condensation on the overall atmosphere is that it warms it.
To have equilbrium
However as I said above, the original heat that the H2O stole from the atmosphere upon evaporation is exactly matched by 1/2 of that portion of the latent heat being released upon condensation. The other part of the latent heat escapes to space upon condensation but the part that doesnt escpae to space is exactly equal to the heat that was stolen from the atmosphere in the 1st place because of evaporation. So think of it this way. With evaporation the H20 gets latent heat ( a % from the oceans and a b % from the air above the oceans. Call that latent heat L. therefore L = heat a + heat b
Upon condensation (heat a + heat b ) / 2 gets lost to space but (heat a + heat b ) / 2 also stays in the atmosphere. Call that C. The amount of heat C = (a + b) /2 But that C is exactly equal to the original b that got stolen from the atmosphere upon evaporation. That is necessary in order to have an equilibrium or else you would either have runaway global cooling or runaway global warming. That means b = (a+b) / 2 OR 2b = a+b
OR b =a Therefore the amount of heat from the oceans ( a) that gets turned into latent heat upon evaporation is exactly = to the amount of heat b ( which also turns into latent heat in the water molecule) stolen from the atmosphere during evaporation. So everything in this water cycle from ocean to atmosphere and back,is then in equilibrium. So if there is equilibrium on the oceans atmosphere equation there must also be equilibrium on the land equation as well ; as Bill Illis has explained in the above post. For CO2 to upset that equilbrium you need Mr. Cloud’s cooperation. However as Christopher Monckton has testified before US congress he cited papers which proved that the global warming observed from 1990 to 2000 was almost completely caused by increased global insolation from the sun because of reduced cloud cover . However that would only occur in the land side of the equations. So it seems that CO2 is finding a lesser and lesser role to play in any warming. By my calculations even if you doubled CO2 and all of that extra CO2 absorbed its maximum energy it would only warm the earth surface by 0.4C Hardly anything to worry about.

ME
May 7, 2018 6:32 pm

So it,s only US sceptics who are hardened and befuddled? We feeble idiots outside North America will be easier to manage? I can see why the Guardian publishes that ,as they seem to think British subjects are complete fools judging by their reported opinions. They are behind more than a pay Wall Of course the professor writes this guff it,s his job .Queensland University likes this sort of thing. Though in New Zealand, I read Quadrant On Line. Australian publication.

Menicholas
May 7, 2018 6:37 pm

*yawn*
What, ANOTHER case study in cognitive dissonance and psychological projection?
They have convinced me by this point, they are all deluded almost beyond all hope of any return to reality.

David Walton
May 7, 2018 6:37 pm

Re Eric Worrall’s statement: “…I see this shift as progress, an attempt to move psychological thought on climate scepticism from the utterly absurd to the merely badly mistaken.”
I beg to differ (slightly). Asininity is still asininity and horse pucky is still horse pucky. Movement from the ridiculously asinine to the asinine is not really progress. It is the same self indulgent, arrogant, snotty stupidity wearing a different style of hat.
Sadly, I expect no less from “academia” these days, which depresses me no end. I wonder if this Hornsey fellow ever actually listens to himself. (Or maybe that is his problem, he only listens to himself.)

Joel O’Bryan
May 7, 2018 6:58 pm

To write garbage paper lime this one from Mr. Hornsey, he had to ignore the recent literature in his field.
WUWT reviwed this is 2015.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/
From this 2015 paper:
The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change
“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
And from 2012 in Nature mag.
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
“We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547
“ Polarization was the greatest” is a nice way of saying “they rejected the climate change as a concern.”
No, Mr. Hornsey demonstrates an ignorance (willfull or otherwise) of the literature in his own field. That ignored literature refutes his assertion and has demonstrated that climate skeptics tend to be better informed on science and better educated in technical areas.
And that makes Mr. Hornsey a charlatan.
Joel O’Bryan, PhD

Alan Mcintire
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 8, 2018 6:13 am

When I originally read that paper, my immediate suspicion was that those doing the study hoped to find a positive correlation between climate skepticism and ignorance of science. When the study in effect showed a slight POSITIVE correlation between skepticism and scientific knowledge, they went off on that ‘polarizatin’ tangent. If degree POLARIZATION was being studied for its OWN sake, there would have been studies on NON climate issues like sports handicapping, etc.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 9, 2018 12:37 am

Dont you feel that we are now living in the World of OZ? That 1939 movie was the most prophetic movie of all time. From Wiki
“The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (/ɒz/) is an American children’s novel written by author L. Frank Baum and illustrated by W. W. Denslow, originally published by the George M. Hill Company in Chicago on May 17, 1900.[1] It has since been reprinted on numerous occasions, most often under the title The Wizard of Oz, which is the title of the popular 1902 Broadway musical adaptation as well as the iconic 1939 musical film adaptation.
The story chronicles the adventures of a young farm girl named Dorothy in the magical Land of Oz, after she and her pet dog Toto are swept away from their Kansas home by a cyclone.[nb 1] The novel is one of the best-known stories in American literature and has been widely translated. The Library of Congress has declared it “America’s greatest and best-loved homegrown fairytale”. Its groundbreaking success and the success of the Broadway musical adapted from the novel led Baum to write thirteen additional Oz books that serve as official sequels to the first story.”
This raises a serious question
Why hasn’t Hollywood come out with 13 sequels?

joelobryan
May 7, 2018 6:59 pm

To write garbage paper like this one from Mr. Hornsey, he had to ignore the recent literature in his field.
WUWT reviewed this is 2015.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/
From the 2015 paper:
The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change
“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
a ailable here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
And this from 2012 in Nature mag.
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
“We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547
“ Polarization was the greatest” is a nice way of saying “they rejected the climate change as a concern.”
No, Mr. Hornsey demonstrates an ignorance (willfull or otherwise) of the literature in his own field. That ignored literature refutes his assertion and has demonstrated that climate skeptics tend to be better informed on science and better educated in technical areas.
And that makes Mr. Hornsey a charlatan.
Joel O’Bryan, PhD

HotScot
Reply to  joelobryan
May 8, 2018 4:44 am

Joel
So good you had to say it twice. And I happily read it twice. 😁

Joey
May 7, 2018 7:19 pm

Psychology, like “CO2 causes climate change” is pseudo-science. Those who believe that “CO2 causes climate change) are ignorant of the truth of the matter and their minds are easily controlled by propaganda. There….fixed it.

May 7, 2018 7:25 pm

I am just not smart and educated enough to believe that every person who measured every temperature reading before 1950 was so short that they measured day time high temperatures 1 degree too high and so imprecise that they measured every single night time low at the wrong time and therefore reading it 2 degrees too high, thus requiring every historical record to be cooled significantly in the past.
I am way too ignorant to think that urban temperature effects are a negative impact on temperatures requiring even today’s electronically controlled climate system measurements to be adjusted upwards.
I am just too much a denier and am unable to fathom why when they go to homogenize the data, the urban heat island corrupted data somehow causes pristine wilderness data to become just like it rather than the other way around.
Yup, it is because I am an stupid, uneducated, ignorant denier. And damned proud to be one!

joelobryan
May 7, 2018 7:26 pm

More evidence that the insanity is on the Left, Drudge Report and multiple media outlets are now reporting that NY. AG schniedermna (of Sue Exxon fame) just resigned after reports surfaced of his sexual misconduct.
The Left continues to eat its own, in its own PC culture.trap. HooYaaa!

Reply to  joelobryan
May 7, 2018 7:42 pm

Soylent Greenie

drednicolson
Reply to  joelobryan
May 9, 2018 1:15 pm

One more off the plank and into the Sarlacc pit.
(Which resembled a certain portion of the female anatomy in a way that’s impossible to explain in a family-friendly manner.)

John
May 7, 2018 7:29 pm

The CAGW crowd, their flair for the dramatic and their conspiracy theories. What else is new?

Albert
May 7, 2018 7:34 pm

Framing this as “skeptics are conservatives” reeks of identity politics and is not necessarily true. This is science topic.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 8, 2018 12:27 am

“Left wing” is probably overstating it. He’s more of a moderate Democrat, who is nevertheless a clear thinker on climate change and CO2.

May 7, 2018 7:45 pm

This is yet another illustration of the fact that conspiracy ideation is much more prevalent on the Left, where it afflicts even “mainstream” liberals like Hillary Clinton and her supporters, than it is on the Right, where it is common only among very-far-from-mainstream figures like Alex Jones and the JBS.
It is equally delusional in both cases:
● There was NO “vast, right-wing conspiracy” smearing Bill Clinton
● There’s NO secret Illuminati conspiracy pulling the puppet-strings of governments
● Climate realists are NOT paid shills of “big oil”
● Fluoridation and vaccines are NOT government plots to poison you or make you docile
● Free market think-tanks like Heartland Institute are NOT plotting with evil industries to deceive the public
● 9-11 was NOT an “inside job”
● There is NO conspiracy of “vested interests” reshaping the conservative identity with insidious “ignorance-building strategies”
On the Right, the conspiracy nuts are marginalized.
But on the Left the conspiracy nuts get professorships at the University of Queensland, and even nominated for President of the United States.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  daveburton
May 7, 2018 10:18 pm

And awarded all myriad of prizes, the Nobel Peace being just one of them. For example:
Paul R. Ehrlich
Awards and honors
The John Muir Award of the Sierra Club
The Gold Medal Award of the World Wildlife Fund International
A MacArthur Prize Fellowship
The Crafoord Prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and considered the highest award given in the field of ecology
ECI Prize winner in terrestrial ecology, 1993
A World Ecology Award from the International Center for Tropical Ecology, University of Missouri, 1993
The Volvo Environmental Prize, 1993
The United Nations Sasakawa Environment Prize, 1994
The 1st Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (with Anne Ehrlich), 1995[42]
The Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, 1998
The Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences, 1998
The Blue Planet Prize, 1999
The Eminent Ecologist Award of the Ecological Society of America, 2001
The Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2001
Ramon Margalef Prize in Ecology and Environmental Sciences of the Generalitat of Catalonia, 2009.
Fellow of the Royal Society of London 2012 [1]
2013 BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Ecology and Conservation Biology

BrianJ
Reply to  daveburton
May 7, 2018 10:37 pm

Dave I think you have a few things wrong.
*There was a right wing conspiracy but rather than attack the Clinton’s were trying to expose them. The Clinton Chronicles.
*The Illuminati is not a secret it is real and very powerful.
*Correct, climate realists (sceptics/cool dudes) are not paid shills of ‘big oil’. They know CO2 is beneficial
*Fluoride is a toxic poison. Governments want it in the water. They will not listen. They are either stupid or it is a put up job. Both. There is a conspiracy. Prof. Paul Connett says No to fluoride
*Heartland Institute run with the science
*9/11 was an inside job as was the Oklahoma bombing
*The Right deal in facts. There a very few nuts to marginalize. The Left on the other hand are psychotic see Kerry Bolton
In addition
Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. A marksman was involved
Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot Bobby. Possibly the security guard. Bobby shot behind the ear.
James Earl Ray did not shoot King see William F Pepper, Orders To Kill
Timothy McVeigh’s truckload of chicken shit did not take out the Murrah Federal Building see Stephen Jones

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 12:52 am

“BrianJ May 7, 2018 at 10:37 pm”
The Titanic didn’t sink either. Movie at 11 is fake.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 12:55 am

“BrianJ May 7, 2018 at 10:37 pm
Timothy McVeigh’s truckload of chicken shit…”
Ammonium nitrate, look it up. Explosive stuff. The IRA used it many times on British targets.

John Endicott
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 6:42 am

BrianJ probably thinks that there was not IRA, that the attacks attributed to the IRA came from the British government or something. There’s no reasoning with conspiracy nuts.

MarkW
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 7:00 am

BrianJ, the dose makes the poison. All things are poisonous in high enough concentrations.
There is not and never was any evidence that either 9/11 or OKC were inside jobs.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a marksman.

paul courtney
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 10:25 am

BrianJ: The right worked together to expose (and attack) both Clintons, but that’s not a conspiracy- the way you state it feeds into Hillary’s meme. Won’t bother with the rest, you’re entitled to believe the items in your list, but please don’t present as a conservative, you embarrass us.

J Mac
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 10:15 pm

BrianJ May 7, 2018 at 10:37 pm,
In 1970, terrorist leftists bombed Sterling Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison, using 2000 lbs of fuel oil soaked ammonium nitrate commercial fertilizer packed in a stolen van. A similar technique, 5000 lbs of nitromethane soaked ammonium nitrate commercial fertilizer was used by Timothy McVeigh in 1995, to destroy the Murrah Federal Building. Neither used ‘chickenshit’.
What is ‘chickenshit’ is the person that would in anyway make light of these murdering domestic terrorists.

drednicolson
Reply to  BrianJ
May 9, 2018 1:37 pm

Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine (dishonorably discharged). Last I checked, the Marines do teach their recruits how to shoot.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  daveburton
May 9, 2018 12:51 am

The important point is that in all of the 1001 conspiracy theories on the internet not one of them has any support above ~ 20% and never will unless one of them turns out to be true. However the global warming hoax is supported by 66% according to latest polls. So if you view it as a conspiracy of the climate scientists which I do then it means, that of all of the conspiracy theories; this one is in the lead. However to look at it the other way, 80 % of the public are right to not believe in the 1001 conspiracy theories but 67% of them are wrong to not believe in the climate scientist conspiracy. Global warming has revived conspiracy mathematics!!!!!!!!! i am still sure we will get a whistleblower on this yet. The fallout from this will be never to trust any government agency ever again. I shudder to think what the fallout for science will be.

s-t
Reply to  daveburton
May 9, 2018 5:53 pm

“vaccines are NOT government plots to poison you or make you docile”
Vaccines are not. Mandatory vaccination probably is: it isn’t about selling more vaccines, but about breaking the minds of parents, breaking families, making children denounce their parents, sue their parents, etc. Classical n@zism by Président Macron.
http://www.rolandsimion.org/spip.php?article404

Tom Halla
Reply to  s-t
May 9, 2018 6:18 pm

You clearly don’t know much about medical history. Infectious diseases were a serious problem, and a combination of sanitation and vaccination mostly dealt with most diseases.
What is left with infectious diseases are the remainder, like malaria or the common cold, that do not have vaccines, or vector borne diseases like Lyme disease, again with no vaccine. AIDS is one of the few viral diseases treatable after contracting it, but another disease with no vaccine.
Andrew Wakefield was a classic quack, just more successful than most.

s-t
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2018 6:23 pm

I’m afraid you’re the one who doesn’t know much about real history (not fake history written by vaccine fanatics). There is no evidence for the case of almost all vaccines. Most diseases decreased before vaccine introduction, where vaccines were not largely available, and many disease decreased mostly by change of definition at the time (notably “polio”).
There is an explosion of what would have been called polio in India, following mass vaccination.

Tom Halla
Reply to  s-t
May 9, 2018 6:53 pm

Diseases that reduced in incidence before vaccines were available were mostly those prevented by sanitation, as with cholera or typhus. There are a good many ways a disease can be spread, and vaccines are mostly needed for arbovirus or droplet spread diseases. But that is oversimplifying the issue.

s-t
Reply to  s-t
May 15, 2018 5:20 pm

In devastated Haiti, without sanitation, the super vaxxers of WHO didn’t [see] the risk, or didn’t warn UN peacekeepers?

Neo
May 7, 2018 7:49 pm

I love how the idea of “independent thought” never is considered (probably because independent thinkers can’t be controlled).

drednicolson
Reply to  Neo
May 9, 2018 1:50 pm

In their minds, they’re the independent avant-garde thinkers and everyone else happens to be the backward-thinking, anti-intellectual Sheeple who are in need of enlightenment. ;|

Shano
May 7, 2018 8:03 pm

After ten years of visiting this site and appreciating the time, hard work, and dedication of AW and the many knowledgeable contributors here, I have no doubt which side of this argument has withstood the test of time and moral high ground. I don’t need some two bit pseudo professor whose livelihood depends on Climate Psychology (WTF that is) to insult my intelligence. I would argue that attending his class is the true “ignorance building strategy” in play here.

May 7, 2018 8:07 pm

Conservatives are usually people who think for themselves, collectivists are the ones who will believe anything.

drednicolson
Reply to  Steve B
May 9, 2018 1:39 pm

Especially about conservatives.

jpatrick
May 7, 2018 8:32 pm

What is it called when you take a premise that might be false, presume it to be true, and then write a paper about it?

Steve C
Reply to  jpatrick
May 7, 2018 10:25 pm

Fiction!

HotScot
Reply to  jpatrick
May 8, 2018 4:51 am

Psychology!

BrianJ
May 7, 2018 8:34 pm

Eric Worrall is a Left Wing jerk. Suggested reading, The Psychotic Left by Kerry Bolton.
The Little Ice Age ended around 1880. Of course the planet warmed, about 1degree and we welcomed that warmth and yet there are jerks who demonise the extra warmth. The earth is still 2degrees cooler than the Roman Warming. The burning of fossil – sorry – abiotic fuels with the additional CO2 created a bonanza for the earth and those who dwell on it. Sadly we are about to tip into another mini Ice Age to last about 200 years and starting now! refer Habibullo Abdussamatov. The warmist alarmists have done an unbelievable amount of damage to this planet and are responsible for squandering billions upon billions of dollars. Long story short. Wind turbines do not generate 50/60Hz electricity. They do however produce ample harmonics which through smart meters are fraudulently added to consumers power bills. PV solar panels may heat ones own water but does not have the capacity/grunt/oomph to push to the boundary along the street and into a neighbours property to heat theirs. No one should be paid to supply solar into the grid.

Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 12:34 am

Brianj wrote, “Eric Worrall is a Left Wing jerk…”
and also, “9/11 was an inside job… [etc.]
Just wondering… do you own a cat, sir?

saveenergy
Reply to  daveburton
May 8, 2018 1:38 am

Love the cat link…faecesnating.

MarkW
Reply to  BrianJ
May 8, 2018 7:02 am

Worrall doesn’t believe in your insanity, so he’s a left wing jerk.
Nice.

lewispbuckingham
May 7, 2018 8:40 pm

. ‘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.’
It would be interesting to see what people in the ‘big emitters’ countries think.
Think China India Japan Pakistan Russia.
Their governments are producing plenty of CO2.
They just see grant money and a licence to burn as the important issues.
The rest is sophistry.
‘By their deeds you shall know them’.
PS not having looked at the numbers, the US is big on theories about the assasination of JFK.
But asking people in other countries, most of whom were not even born then, would make any associations
tenuous anyway.
Its not as if they have been arguing about this for half a century.

jclarke341
May 7, 2018 8:57 pm

Just like the climate models, the conclusion of this paper is derived primarily from the initial assumption that the skeptics are wrong, the science is settled and both are as obvious as the Earth is round. Those are huge assumptions to make with so much evidence to the contrary.
What will all of these psychologists do when it turns out the skeptics were right all along?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  jclarke341
May 7, 2018 10:24 pm

You have the answer to that already.
The sceptics are right, so what do they do?

ScienceABC123
May 7, 2018 9:23 pm

I’m not an expert in psychology but doesn’t psychology tell us that the weak and ignorant blindly follow the consensus?

Grant
May 7, 2018 9:27 pm

Almost all the people I know who are conspiracy believers are liberals. From UFO ti Kennedy, 911 and Sandy Hook. This is a pathetic attempt to lump sceptics with nut jobs. Typical of these haters.

Geoff Sherrington
May 7, 2018 9:33 pm

Notice the sly way that the New World Order is thrown in as an example of an unbelievable conspiracy theory.
The reality is that the New World Order is alive and well, as numerous official reports show.
My take would be that this paper has a secondary aim of trying to take focus away from the NWO because it does most of its insidious expansion in the dark.
BTW, I attended University of Queensland, which used to have an enviable reputation for excellence. These days there are just too many events, like some related to Great Barrier Reef research, plus some related to data secrecy, plus some about treatment of climate change disbelief, that give cause for pause. It is apparent that non-scientific emphasis has increased in the last 30 years as soft faculties have grown. The questions are whether the UQ can reverse its course and when. Geoff

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 7, 2018 10:02 pm

If the UQ did that it would lose it’s funding.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 8, 2018 7:09 am

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller
“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”
David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994.

I’m sure it was by sheer coincidence that a seminal conference greatly influencing the CAGW movement (the “right major crisis”?) was held at David’s estate just outside of Rome (The Club of Rome).
Yes, the New World Order is an unbelievable conspiracy.

Hokey Schtick
May 7, 2018 9:45 pm

This is the very acme of idiocy, the summit of stupid, the Everest of ignoramus. Gosh if I had a large funding grant, I would write a paper about it.

Trevor
May 7, 2018 10:20 pm

Hello everyone !
The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY in the USA is ACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS
regarding TRANSPARENCY IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
CHECK IT OUT for yourselves and MAKE A SUBMISSION PLEASE !
It is an initiative of the newly (Trump) Appointed Mr Scott Pruitt !!
EVEN A LETTER OF CONGRATULATIONS for ACCEPTING the principle
THAT ALL DECISIONS ON EPA LAWS PERTAINING TO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT
MUST PASS PUBLIC SCRUTINY would be a help !!
Submissions CLOSE on May 30th. 2018.
Regards , Trevor.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Trevor
May 7, 2018 10:40 pm

this belongs in the “submit story” or “tips and note” tab, you find at the top of page

Trevor
Reply to  paqyfelyc
May 10, 2018 12:57 am

NEVER-THE-LESS…………………………..HOW about MAKING A SUBMISSION !!!??

paqyfelyc
May 7, 2018 10:22 pm

yes, conservatives are ignorant. And they KNOW it. Liberals are just as ignorant, but they think they know.
The only sure thing for a conservative are
* trust only god
* politicians lie. Hell, that’s literally their job
* business lie, too, but at least in a capitalist country, if unhappy of a business, you can quit.
* young are idealistic and gullible, they follow the easy path with anyone promising to right the wrongs of the world. When they understand they were lied, they turn conservative. When not, they stay liberals.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  paqyfelyc
May 7, 2018 10:30 pm

“If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain”
Your last sentence explains why. Thanks for that. I keep learning.

MarkW
Reply to  paqyfelyc
May 8, 2018 7:04 am

I’ve known conservatives who did not believe in God. But there aren’t a lot of them.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2018 5:26 pm

That appears to be one of the principle divides between conservatives and liberals.
The morals, and therefore the actions, are governed by weather we are Darwin’s evolutionary products, or weather we are God’s children. Doesn’t matter which God either; it’s the morals behind the idea that governs our actions and responsibilities. The Left don’t have such hang-ups, and don’t believe in consequences.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 1:00 am

I am an atheist. Show me the data ! Where is his throne? And I am just as Conservative as any one of you.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 7:16 am

Alan, how exactly does your statement refute mine?
BTW, I’m willing to bet you believe in a lot of things that can’t be seen directly.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 10:17 am

I didn’t say that conservatives believe in god (implicit: the biblical god). I said that they would trust only god. Whether he exists or not.

Jim Heath
May 7, 2018 10:30 pm

Does his hypothesis explain climate change on other Planets?

paul courtney
Reply to  Jim Heath
May 8, 2018 10:39 am

Jim Heath: No need for ‘splainin’, we can simply state it thusly: “Are conservatives who deny the science of man-caused climate change on other planets conspiracy nuts, or just ignorant?” When the conclusion is “Yes”, your grant is approved! See how easy, and that way you don’t give them any ammo for their “ideations”, so thoughtful.

John Hardy
May 7, 2018 10:49 pm

….”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….”
Any study that confuses a positive correlation with a causal relationship is bunkum. We have sadly come to expect this kind of ignorance from journalists but not from professional scientists.

MarkW
Reply to  John Hardy
May 8, 2018 7:05 am

Given the low number of people in the study, it’s unlikely that there were enough people from any one country to form a valid opinion regarding that one country.

Alasdair
May 7, 2018 11:39 pm

CAGW is the biggest conspiracy theory of the lot. History is littered with failed consensus opinions. He who controls the consensus controls the power.

May 8, 2018 12:11 am

Accusing of “willful ignorance” those you perceive as threatening your self-righteousness… Where have I seen that recently on these pages?

tom0mason
May 8, 2018 12:18 am

UQ Professor Matthew Hornsey is just plain wrong.
Conservatives are independent in nature, and not easily stirred to making rash decisions.
That is to say most conservative people are in the main people have the courage and drive to formulate their own ideas independently of any consensus. They mostly do not need, or seek the approval of others (that is what the ‘left’ is all about).
They may seek the advice from others but that does not necessarily mean they have to agree with them. They may form friendships and bonds with many others but that does not mean they have to agree with all or any of them — having colleges and friends that get thing done is what it’s all about.
For most conservatives a half pound of observed verification trumps a ton of theory.
If you are good at herding cats then you may be good at trying to herd bunch of independent thinking conservatives.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tom0mason
May 8, 2018 12:59 am

“tom0mason May 8, 2018 at 12:18 am
UQ Professor Matthew Hornsey is just plain wrong.”
I am sure he knows it. I am confident he has tenure. Also, pretty sure he has a “compliant” state Govn’t and a pliable federal Govn’t to help him in to retirement on the back of the “climate change” scare.

Phoenix44
May 8, 2018 12:41 am

The whole point of scepticism IS ignorance – a belief that we know very little and that what is claimed as fact must be proven.
One of the main reasons I am sceptical about AGW is that our understanding of climate appears to be very rudimentary. I am ignorant and see little that suggests climate scientists are not ignorant too,

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 8, 2018 12:58 am

It’s all about the learned professor himself being clueless.

May 8, 2018 1:06 am

It’s always nice to hear about psychologists assuming they know all about climate https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

Louis
May 8, 2018 1:24 am

Vested interests in government and politics have managed to reshape the liberal identity with “ignorance-building strategies” into believing the climate consensus with little evidence to back it up.
Fixed it for him.

Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 1:42 am

The fundamental crisis of conservatism means that it can react so slowly to the most pressing problem in the world. Meanwhile, the rest of the world made an important step forward with the Paris Convention.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 2:20 am

Forward with the Paris COnvention?
Rather, the politicians who signed the Paris Accord, trying to get as much guilt/gilt money from the West and America as possible for themselves and their sponsors, are only stepping forward off of the cliff into deliberate hardship for billions, and slow agonizing death for hundreds of millions to energy restrictions.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 8, 2018 6:51 am

The Paris Convention does not preclude essentially reducing population indices in some regions, which is the worst source of poverty on Earth.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 8, 2018 7:08 am

How do you propose killing off the excess population?

MarkW
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 7:07 am

We are still waiting for you to come up with evidence that climate change is a problem, and that man is responsible for it.
If conservatism means we want you to prove your claims, then the world needs more conservatives.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 4:44 am

MarkW “How do you propose killing off the excess population?” Surprisingly, there are some of us who have not yet met the concept of contraception.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 7:17 am

You’re into mandatory sterilization. How liberal of you.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 7:50 am

Anticonception does not mean sterilization, sterilization is a form an anticonception, if it is voluntary can be a very good thing. You’re probably twelve years old.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2018 12:51 pm

The problem is that in order to get the reductions you want, voluntary simply won’t get you there. Hence MarkW’s comment.

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 7:19 am

Fools rush in…….

paul courtney
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 10:53 am

Mihaly says “the fundamental crisis of conservatism….” The rest got a bit gibberishy, but moving slowly on problem you conjure up is not a crisis, nor a bug- it’s a feature! What does scientist J. Hansen think of the “important step”? Don’t bother telling us how it’s an important step forward, tell Hansen.

Steve Borodin
May 8, 2018 1:44 am

Just friendly advice Professor Hornsey: get a little science and you may stop looking like a dumb jerk.
Steve BA BSc MSc MPhil, MRes FIET

rishrac
May 8, 2018 1:44 am

I think the two words that describe “climate science” and M. Hornsey is … He Believes .

SAMURAI
May 8, 2018 3:39 am

All that’s is required for conservatives to accept the CAGW hypothesis is for hypothetical projections to match reality within 2 standard deviations for a statistically significant duration.
The reason rational and logical conservatives are extremely skeptical is that all CAGW projections have become miserably failed to refl3ct reality:
1) Global Warming trend: stuck at 0.05C/decade since 1850, and just 0.13C/decade since satellite data became available. FAIL
2) Sea Level Rise: stuck at 7”/Century. FAIL
3) Antarctic Land Ice Mass: INCREASING at 80 Billion tons/year FAIL
4) Global Severe Weather Incidence/frequency: No increasing trends for the past 60~118 years for:hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, tropical storms, subtropical storms, thunderstorms and hail. FAIL
5) Global Crop yields: have increased over two fold since 1960–FAIL
6) Air pollution: fallen 30~99% (depending on pollutant) just since 1980–FAIL
7) Ocean pH: fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 over the past century. Still too alkaline…FAIL
8) Arctic Sea Ice: 9 out of the past 11 years have been larger than the 2007 Minimum. (Was supposed to be ice-free by 2012…FAIL.
Conservatives are not the ones being ideological, we’re simply being logical.
Leftists are the ones that continue to delude themselves that CAGW is a viable hypothesis, even though all empirical evidence emphatically show it to be disconfirmed.
I like to call Leftists being aggressively ignorant..

Steve O
May 8, 2018 5:13 am

I don’t suppose the study tried to actually measure the study subjects’ actual familiarity with the science, the concepts, the issues… No?

Original Mike M
May 8, 2018 5:18 am

Psychology is a pseudo-science. They do not use equal signs in their “equations” so their theories can never be subject to definitive experimentation, they are not falsifiable. This is the reason they resort to statistics as a means to support their theories and surreptitiously inject their theories into the lexicon with fancy labels for a given behavior they believe is bad or good or otherwise requires them for their esteemed opinion. That enables them to place themselves above us, refereeing the boundaries of their own Venn diagrams they use to box us into herds and brand us.
Climate science has become a pseudo science now resorting to statistics and unfalsifiable claims so it seems quite natural that a majority of psychologists would feel a sense of kinship with climate scientists and have an instinctive desire to defend it because they realize that if people are able to sink the sophistry of the pseudo science of climate modeling – they might next come after the pseudo-science of psychology demanding proof which psychologists cannot provide any more than can climate scientists.
I contend that psychologists such as this Matthew Hornsey are the ones who are in fact ignorant of what science is. They are willfully ignorant to the very idea of truth being immalleable because it is an entirely foreign and frightening concept to them that something they believe could ever be disproven. So we can conclude that, like their climate science brethren, psychologists are afraid of real scientists who require proof thus rendering “studies” such that from Matthew Hornsey of no more value than a whimper in the dark of night.

Sheri
Reply to  Original Mike M
May 8, 2018 6:44 am

This may be in part true. There are “rules” for falsifying statistical projections and predictions that are similar to “real science”. Some psychologists lean in said direction.
This has far more to do with marketing than anything else. Climate science failed, so the new problem is how to sell the failed science (because they are not going to change the theory, obviously). That’s where the psychologists come in—Cook, Lew, etc. “How to Market a Failed Theory”. They leave out science because that failed and include a lot of surveys, appeals to authority, etc in an effort to market the failing theory as true, necessary and not to be ignored.

drednicolson
Reply to  Sheri
May 9, 2018 2:25 pm

Their Big Lie has become Too Big To Fail

May 8, 2018 5:35 am

It is curious that Nature keeps plumbing for new depths for irrational claims and bad science.
I bolded waffle terms and curious assumptions:

Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations, Matthew J. Hornsey
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.”

Need, I point out that Hornsey is from the same University that Cook hails from?
Or that Hornsey cites Lewandowsky?
Throughout Hornsey’s abstract, he coaches statements with waffle terms. Apparently to give his claims an appearance of scientific foundation; but effectively to minimize reality.
Indeed, Hornsey built his alleged study around his “confirmation bias” assumptions that mirror false claims of Lewandowsky and Cook.

“Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations, Matthew J. Hornsey
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”

may be“, ergo meaningless.
reflects something“, that is meaningless.
N.B. Hornsey’s assumption that “idealogical nature” is solely CO₂ and CAGW skepticism and does not refer to the very religious CAGW global warming or climate change belief structures.

“Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations, Matthew J. Hornsey
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.”

“positive correlations”, again, meaningless without proof. Instead Hornsey phrases and frames correlation as linked to causation and claimed results.
N.B. Hornsey’s global assumptions based upon what?
Hornsey’s first research papers in his “references” cite Lewandowsky’s synthesized results based on blogs, bloggers and comments. Research shown to be decisively erroneous with author assumptions contrary to data collected.
Hornsey also loves to cite his own research as supporting his current research. A house of cards built upon bias, assumptions and baseless conclusions.

“Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations, Matthew J. Hornsey
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.”

Pure baffle gab with waffle terms apparently needed to confirm Hornsey’s claims.
Here is a snapshot of Hornsey’s “supplemental data”.
N.B. Hornsey’s standard deviation manipulations based on “25 samples”. Apparently, each country is one “sample”.
One must pity University of Queensland students that are subjected to this specious pseudo science.

May 8, 2018 5:38 am

Mods:
Please check the spam box?
If you find my missing posts, please rescue one of them (a duplicated repost)

Reply to  ATheoK
May 8, 2018 7:16 am

Thank you Mods!

ResourceGuy
May 8, 2018 6:02 am

Australia has a unique pathos in its academic psychology community. Did they invent the strategy of debate has ended based on a manipulated survey? They are certainly equipped for it.

MarkW
May 8, 2018 6:25 am

If not believing in a manufactured, mythical consensus is proof of ignorance, then I plead guilty.

Sheri
May 8, 2018 6:29 am

If you don’t have convincing science, try brainwashing, bullying, name-calling, etc. The most ignorance lies in the believers, who think we vote for the truth of science.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  Sheri
May 8, 2018 6:57 am

There is such a high risk that there is no need for scientific evidence, a one percent probability is enough.

MarkW
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 7:10 am

CO2 levels have been above 5000ppm in the past.
Where’s the evidence that going from 280ppm to 500ppm has even a 1% chance of being catastrophic?

paul courtney
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
May 8, 2018 11:06 am

Mihaly: Thank you for proving that your complete unfamiliarity with stuff like risk analysis won’t act as any sort of brake on your urge to speak on it. Let’s us know in advance of the incredible lightness of being… one of your posts.

Editor
May 8, 2018 6:57 am

This is a PSYCHOLOGY study — therefor unlikely to be reproducible by any other researchers (see the studies by John PA Ioannidis). Neither the study report itself or the SI give any of the questions asked to determine any of the data — failure to disclose the actual questionnaire is inexcusable.
But the major tell is this (quoted from the paper itself):

“For example, we used a single-item measure of climate
scepticism
, which focused entirely on beliefs about the causes of climate change.”

To determine who is a climate skeptic, they asked a single question.
To make matters worse, the “conspiracy theories” they questioned people about — remember, they are asking these questions in 24 countries — were:

“We measured people’s endorsement of individualist and hierarchical
ideologies, as well as their belief in four internationally recognized
conspiracy theories (surrounding the assassination of John F.
Kennedy; the death of Princess Diana; the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and
the existence of a New World Order).”

It is no wonder that the US scored so high on the conspiracy theory holders.
In other words, like so many psychology studies, it really made sense to the authors — but is silly beyond belief to any rational being.

Editor
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 8, 2018 8:55 am

CORRECTION: It is possible to find the Methods, including (sort of) the questions used in this study. “Methods, including statements of data availability and any associated
accession codes and references, are available at
Methods, including statements of data availability and any associated
accession codes and references, are available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
The climate change question used was:
“‘Thinking about the causes of climate change, which of the following best describes your opinion?’” “We analysed the data by treating climate change scepticism as a continuous
measure. People who said that climate change was ‘entirely caused by human
activity’ were coded as 1, ‘mainly caused by human activity’ as 2, ‘mainly caused
by natural processes’ as 3, and ‘entirely caused by natural processes’ as 4. As only
a very small number of respondents clicked the option saying there was ‘no
such thing as climate change’, and because we were mindful of not skewing the
distribution, these participants were also coded as 4.”
The skewing comes from assigning the first answer “entirely caused by human
activity’ were coded as 1” — in other words, that answer is considered the “right” answer and in most support of the scientific consensus….as readers here know, THAT IS NOT THE CONSENSUS!
The true consensus position is answer #2 “mainly caused by human activity” (more than 50% of warming since the mid-20th century….etc). Thus even believers in the IPCC Consensus are ranked as a little bit skeptical.

Editor
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 8, 2018 8:57 am

[ apologies for the wonky formatting — I was carefully “copy-and-pasting”.]

MarkW
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 9, 2018 7:18 am

copy and paste, the blessing and curse of our generation.

May 8, 2018 7:14 am

“tackling climate change will require broad interventions from governments”

— That maybe so, but it was nothing to do with why I find ‘The Consensus’ so obnoxious. I think their analysis is weak and too speculative (The Science), their solutions work badly (renewables), it costs way too much (in both capital and recurring costs of less efficient and more unreliable energy systems), I suspect their motives (they are too close to degrowthers in content and spirit).

Dave Anderson
May 8, 2018 7:53 am

Why should AGW skepticism automatically be linked with conservatism? Maybe because liberals walk in lock step on every possible issue so if you aren’t in sync with one of their dogmas you are automatically conservative?

May 8, 2018 7:58 am

Oddly, there’s very little skepticism about conspiracy theories regarding Exxon, which become actual criminal investigations.

beng135
May 8, 2018 8:10 am

The so-called professor demonstrates a classic case of psychological projection.

May 8, 2018 9:20 am

Did I read that right? They are proposing that belief in conspiracy theories spawns ignorance? And their “proof” is a conspiracy theory? “Matthew instead believes that Conservatives have been manipulated through vested interest “ignorance-building strategies” – one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard.

Richard
May 8, 2018 11:37 am

Yes. I admit to being ignorant. So please enlighten me by answering a few questions:
1) If global warmists are speaking the truth, why must they alter data, both past and present?
2) Since when is computer model output considered “data”? It doesn’t pass the test as ‘data’ in any other discipline besides modern climate science.
3) If climate science is actually science, why is skepticism vilified, when skepticism is, in every other field of science, critical for forwarding the cause of knowledge?
4) If climate science is actually science, why do its adherents act like fundamentalists for particularly intolerant religions?

Jacob Frank
May 8, 2018 11:58 am

My degrees are in Political Science and Computers. I spent about 15 minutes in 2003 researching on the internet on the subject and concluded the sun and water vapor we not going to be overridden by a puny amount of C02. Even a child could imagine looking down on the earth from space and see a few specs of vapor coming out of some smoke stacks and be doubtful they were driving the temperature of the earth. Even a brainwashed liberal should be able to listen to the claims and rhetoric coming from CAGW and realize something is seriously amiss.
I have continued to study the issue and at this point I am literally shocked this crap show has gone on this long and simply will not die. And that I have blood relatives that still believe it angers me constantly.
All this does reassure me though that this species has absolutely no chance of ever really making its way out of it’s own ass so there is reason to just not have hope and be happy for now.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jacob Frank
May 8, 2018 3:13 pm

Jacob, I’m sceptical of CO2 warming bringing catastrophe to the earth. However, it is an error to view CO2 as being inconsequential in its effect because of its small percentage of the atmosphere. This “puny” substance is responsible for for creating and sustaining the remarkable biosphere that greens and populates the planet, fills the oceans with life and gives you and I such joy. It is an illogical thread held by many sceptics that I’m surprised doesn’t get tugged more often.

Jacob Frank
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 14, 2018 12:32 pm

Feeding plants and creating an IR blanket are two different things. I am not enlightened by your critique.

Joel Snider
May 8, 2018 12:13 pm

Lack of susceptibility to indoctrination equals ‘ignorance.’
Got it.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
May 8, 2018 12:13 pm

Kind of an ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ thing right there, isn’t it?

sonofametman
May 8, 2018 2:06 pm

I made the mistake of following the link to that Guardian article. One commenter called DizGuzted said:

The stupid minority is taking the majority down with them.
This isn’t politically correct, but the situation is becoming so dire that I think the only solution is to remove the sceptics from the gene pool,
something like the French did with their appalling aristocracy. It is becoming a matter of survival.
There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere already to lock in our own extinction, and I see zero serious efforts to truly curb emissions
or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. You don’t need to be a scientists to work it out from here. You don’t even need an IQ in triple figures.

When challenged he went on:

The climate-denialism of these folks is removing my descendants (and yours…) from the gene-pool. I am simply responding in kind, if you think about it.
Do you have another workable solution? I’d love to hear one, seriously, but all I seem to hear is the same denialist “opinions”, loudly brayed from every orifice.
The time for intentions is now gone, the time for action has arrived. What do YOU propose?

And

At 410 ppm we have locked in at least 6 degrees (and maybe in excess of 10 degrees with the flow-on effects).
6 degrees is extinction. MASS-extinction.

How could anyone reason with someone who is so badly worked up?
Most of the comments were more polite, but the emphasis always on action-now-or-we-are-toast.
The alarmists have really done a good job. And it shows in how people they have convinced just cannot
cope with the idea that someone might, and is actually allowed to, disagree on something important.
Time for a beer.

Gary Pearse
May 8, 2018 3:00 pm

When you include a New World Order movement in your group of conspiracy theories to scoff at, you are bound to arrive at totally invalid conclusions. What if a new world order would only be rejected by conservative ideology. Practioners of the corrupted social ‘sciences’ are all for a NWO that excludes the world view of free enterprise conservatives. Good Lord. The corrupted don’t have to be stupid too.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 8, 2018 3:02 pm

Hey mods it’s on topic and will get buried for comment with too much delay.

willhaas
May 8, 2018 3:55 pm

There is no “climate consensus”. Scientists have never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had, the results would be without significance because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not substantiated through a voting process.
After evaluating the paleoclimate record and the work done with models. one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.

Gunga Din
May 8, 2018 4:09 pm

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.

In other words, Conservatives aren’t drunk on the Kool-Aid he loves so much?
Heads up to Professor Matthew Hornsey, there are many who don’t fit into the pigeon hole of “US Conservative” who also abhor the CAGW the Kool-Aid.
PS What the hel-l is a “A climate psychology study”?!?!
Sounds like something an advertising company might do to sell a product they wouldn’t buy themselves.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 8, 2018 4:12 pm

Did C”ool-Aid” put me into moderation?

David Cage
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 9, 2018 10:26 am

UQ :- Un Qualified ?

s-t
May 8, 2018 4:50 pm

Usually “conspiracies” involve people getting together, and conspiring. They make a plan (or rather someone makes a plan and others accept it, otherwise they might end up with a criminal plan that’s the criminal variant of a horse designed by a committee), and everyone does its part of the unified criminal plan. They have to agree before the crime.
What if people don’t get together, there is no plan, and they don’t know each other? People just play along, pretending they see something that doesn’t exist, for huge benefit. For example, medical doctors might pretend they see evidence that vaccines are useful and safe, when there is none. It’s hugely beneficial for the whole health “care” industry.

Gunga Din
Reply to  s-t
May 8, 2018 5:07 pm

OR … a smaller group with a common goal does “studies” in their quest to how best to manipulate the gullible?
In some political/ideological realms, I believe they have been refereed to as “useful idiots”.
The number of letters one can put behind ones name does not not exclude one from being a “useful idiot”.
(Actually, the more the letters, the more the usefulness.)

s-t
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 8, 2018 6:19 pm

“BS, MS, MA, PhD, and ScD”
https://youtu.be/ZJvqSbsPRj8?t=3s

David Cage
May 9, 2018 10:25 am

Show me a climate scientist with a post grad qualification is signal analysis who accepts their idea of the climate normal behaviour. More so if you add the demand he or she has access to the latest in military grade signal analysis software. The climate scientists idea of normal is so inadequate it is an insult to the intelligence of any of my generation who passed the eleven plus.
What right does this pathetic ignorant bigot have to judge those who do or do not accept the work of a self centred and introverted group who refuse independent assessment of the work by their superiors in other fields?
As I often point out we engineers refuse to accept the data quality simply because in a normal engineering quality assurance program for bottom end commercial work it fails with the lowest category possible of reject this supplier for this and any future quotation unless the supplier shows evidence of retraining and revision of its practices. A category never actually experienced in any of its assessments as none have failed to understand that mixing primary, secondary and tertiary data and treating all as equal is not an acceptable practice. ( Here primary is defined as tested against a calibrated standard: secondary as measured using uncalibrated equipment: and tertiary as inferred from other data.)
Sorry but I frankly despise climate studies more every day as I find out more of its disgraceful behaviour in data adjustment as they like to call it but swindling is what it is called when engineering companies like VW do it on an infinitely more trivial level.

Howard T Crawford
May 10, 2018 8:25 am

There was a time when people humorously remarked that “Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it”. It was humorous because the thought of a puny species of beings capable of changing nature was ludicrous. The Earth’s atmosphere weighs 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons; good luck trying to change it.

Tom T
May 11, 2018 11:51 am

Chalk another one in the climate denial is a massive conspiracy.

JS
May 13, 2018 8:44 am

How about this – I am not a “conservative”, just a rational, educated person who has slowly come to a reasoned position that the global warming hysteria movement is at least 75% – well, hysteria. Any warming happening is clearly mild, any sea level rise happening is minor, not catastrophic, and the end results may be partly beneficial as well as problematic.
But if I mention any of my well thought out, reasoned hypotheses on this to my liberal friends they react like the girl in the exorcist. People have stopped talking to me when I have been honest about it, called me a “brainwashed Fox News victim” and many other unkind things simply for questioning.
The kicker for me is how the “cure” for a supposed apocalypse on the horizon due to AGW is to… send billions to Third World nations. If they really believed this was an imminent crisis that could kill us all, they would actually be funneling that money into research to find a way to solve the problem.