Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A climate psychology study by UQ Professor Matthew Hornsey suggests evidence that Conservatives are all conspiracy nuts is weak; Matthew instead believes that Conservatives have been manipulated through vested interest “ignorance-building strategies” into doubting the climate consensus.
‘It’s all about vested interests’: untangling conspiracy, conservatism and climate scepticism
Graham Readfearn
…
Academics have suggested that people who tend to accept conspiracy theories also underplay or reject the science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change.
But a new study that tested this idea across 24 different countries found the link between so-called “conspiratorial ideation” and “climate scepticism” only really holds in the US.
University of Queensland psychology professor Matthew Hornsey and colleagues surveyed 5,300 people to test the link between climate “scepticism” and acceptance of four internationally propagated conspiracy theories around the assassination of President Kennedy, the 11 September terrorist attacks, the death of Princess Diana and the existence of a new world order.
…
Conservatism and climate
The study also tried to tease out the links between the rejection of human-caused climate change and the ideologies that people hold.
It’s here that the study offers the greatest cause for hope, Hornsey says. He has developed a form of “jiujitsu” persuasion technique that he thinks might work.
There’s been a general acceptance that people who have broadly conservative or rightwing ideologies tend to rail against climate science because it rubs their worldview up the wrong way. That is, that tackling climate change will require broad interventions from governments.
But Hornsey’s study finds that “there is nothing inherent to conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes people to reject climate science”.
Instead, it suggests vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity with “ignorance-building strategies” in two countries – the US and Australia.
…
The abstract of the study;
Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations
Matthew J. Hornsey, Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding
Studies showing that scepticism about anthropogenic climate change is shaped, in part, by conspiratorial and conservative ideologies are based on data primarily collected in the United States. Thus, it may be that the ideological nature of climate change beliefs reflects something distinctive about the United States rather than being an international phenomenon. Here we find that positive correlations between climate scepticism and indices of ideology were stronger and more consistent in the United States than in the other 24 nations tested. This suggests that there is a political culture in the United States that offers particularly strong encouragement for citizens to appraise climate science through the lens of their worldviews. Furthermore, the weak relationships between ideology and climate scepticism in the majority of nations suggest that there is little inherent to conspiratorial ideation or conservative ideologies that predisposes people to reject climate science, a finding that has encouraging implications for climate mitigation efforts globally.
Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0157-2
Sadly the full study is paywalled, but in a sense I see this shift as progress, an attempt to move psychological thought on climate scepticism from the utterly absurd to the merely badly mistaken.
The author of the study Professor Matthew Hornsey doesn’t appear to consider the possibility that Conservatives might be right. But Hornsey’s criticism of Lewandowsky’s extreme climate psychology claims seems rather courageous.
Any criticism of extreme climate claims, even a critique as mild as Hornsey’s suggestion that Conservatives might not be completely irrational, has the potential to incur academic ostracism and strident accusations of climate denial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought we were deplorables? What will we be next week? Probably still God fearing, hard working, family supporting, our country loving people.
“What will we be next week?”
The ones clinging to ours guns and bibles apparently.
And the ones paying most of the taxes.
“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.
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 :).
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.
“vested interests have managed to reshape the conservative identity with “ignorance-building strategies”
Complete bafflegab.
Great word.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
He has resigned!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eric-schneiderman-new-york’s-attorney-general-resigns-amid-abuse-accusations/ar-AAwUuXp?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz
Schneiderman resigning evokes schadenfreude.
“schnadenfreude”?
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.
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?
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.
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. 😁
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.
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.
*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.
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.)
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
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.
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?
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
Joel
So good you had to say it twice. And I happily read it twice. 😁
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.
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!
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!
Soylent Greenie
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.)
The CAGW crowd, their flair for the dramatic and their conspiracy theories. What else is new?
Framing this as “skeptics are conservatives” reeks of identity politics and is not necessarily true. This is science topic.
Absolutely. Freeman Dyson is left wing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/12/freeman-dyson-democrat-supporter-climate-skeptic/
“Left wing” is probably overstating it. He’s more of a moderate Democrat, who is nevertheless a clear thinker on climate change and CO2.
Dyson said he supported Obama except on climate issues – that seems pretty left wing to me…
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.
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
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
“BrianJ May 7, 2018 at 10:37 pm”
The Titanic didn’t sink either. Movie at 11 is fake.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine (dishonorably discharged). Last I checked, the Marines do teach their recruits how to shoot.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
In devastated Haiti, without sanitation, the super vaxxers of WHO didn’t [see] the risk, or didn’t warn UN peacekeepers?
I love how the idea of “independent thought” never is considered (probably because independent thinkers can’t be controlled).
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. ;|
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.
Conservatives are usually people who think for themselves, collectivists are the ones who will believe anything.
Especially about conservatives.
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?
Fiction!
Psychology!
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.
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?
Love the cat link…faecesnating.
Worrall doesn’t believe in your insanity, so he’s a left wing jerk.
Nice.
. ‘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.
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?
You have the answer to that already.
The sceptics are right, so what do they do?