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.
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.
There is such a high risk that there is no need for scientific evidence, a one percent probability is enough.
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?
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.
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):
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:
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.
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.
[ apologies for the wonky formatting — I was carefully “copy-and-pasting”.]
copy and paste, the blessing and curse of our generation.
— 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).
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?
Oddly, there’s very little skepticism about conspiracy theories regarding Exxon, which become actual criminal investigations.
The so-called professor demonstrates a classic case of psychological projection.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Feeding plants and creating an IR blanket are two different things. I am not enlightened by your critique.
Lack of susceptibility to indoctrination equals ‘ignorance.’
Got it.
Kind of an ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ thing right there, isn’t it?
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.
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.
Hey mods it’s on topic and will get buried for comment with too much delay.
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.
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.
Did C”ool-Aid” put me into moderation?
UQ :- Un Qualified ?
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.
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.)
“BS, MS, MA, PhD, and ScD”
https://youtu.be/ZJvqSbsPRj8?t=3s
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.
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.
Chalk another one in the climate denial is a massive conspiracy.
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.