Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#887980 - 05/10/2010 14:54 The psychology behind climate science denial
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Cognitive scientist and psychologist Stephan Lewanosky visited Melbourne recently and gave some interesting presentations. You can download a pdf here:

Essentially he investigates why (and how) people believe what they do, and why some people are pre-disposed to rejecting climate science.

Some of my additional comments are based on attending one of the presentations. Lewanosky speaks of the Overton window and its application to scientific debate. The consequence of this is that media will often place itself in the middle of the 'debate' thereby framing what sorts of statements or ideas are considered acceptable. So a NASA scientist who provides data regarding sea level change will be considered an 'extremist' by the media as they lie outside to Overton widow, even though all they are doing is delivering scientific data.

Part of his presentation centred on studies which proof that what scientific data we 'accept' is based upon our ideology. In one slide he cites Heath and Gifford, Free Market Ideology ...2006 (pdf) link who studied free market ideology and environmental considerations.
Originally Posted By: "Heath and Gifford"

Support for free-market ideology indirectly influences disbelief in global climate change, by fostering environmental apathy. Because relatively few studies have investigated a limited number of factors associated with risk perception of or beliefs about global climate change, these results further the understanding of laypersons’ beliefs about global climate change

Kuhn (2000) also pointed out that when the risks from a certain environmental hazard are uncertain, many people use the uncertainty to justify their discounting of the seriousness of any possible threat:

Perceived knowledge about global climate change was a significant predictor for two of the three beliefs about global climate change (i.e., that it is occurring, and that its consequences are negative). However, in the current study, it was not a significant predictor of behavioral intention, nor was it significantly associated with the behavioral intention at zero order. This suggests that the intention to take ameliorative action does not necessarily arise from greater perceived knowledge about global climate change. Rather, one’s value orientations, such as ecocentrism, support for free-market ideology, and the belief in self-efficacy of cooperation, may be more important factors that promote the intention. ed - this is important as it shows that you can't just continue to bash people over the head with more scientific data and expect to win them over, as it doesn't change their internal values

Free-market ideology has been pointed out as a culprit of various forms of environmental degradation (e.g., Gladwin et al., 1997). However, the current study is the first to our knowledge to empirically demonstrate the association between the construct and the perception of environmental problems. With respect to beliefs about global climate change, results from a correlational analysis indicate that those who value the free market system over environmental quality tend to believe that global climate change is not occurring, that the causes of global climate change are more natural than human caused, and that its consequences will not be negative. It was also a significant predictor of not taking action to address the negative effects of global climate change. ed - in other words you can predict whether or not someone accepts the science of AGW purely by assessing their attitudes towards free markets.

These findings also lend support to the existence of egocentric bias in beliefs about the causes and consequences of climate change. As noted earlier, the same scientific facts may be interpreted in very different ways according to one’s interest. For those who support a free-market system, it appears to be more convenient and self-serving to believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon and that its consequences will not be negative. An example of this situation may be seen in the recent unwillingness to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by the United States, with its heavy reliance on the use of fossil fuels.

As a last comment, we believe that trust in the free-market economy system itself is not necessarily harmful; it is important for stimulating economic prosperity. Especially in the developed world, it is deeply embedded in the fundamental values about how the world should operate. What may require correction is the seemingly widespread assumption that economic development and environmental protection often conflict. It is sometimes forgotten that many (although not all) environmental problems can be addressed through technological innovation. However, unless the commonly held assumption that environmental protection often leads to a lower standard of living (e.g., job loss, inconvenient lifestyle, or limitation of personal freedom) is dispelled, individuals may not be willing to take action to protect the environment. For example, O’Connor and his colleagues (O’Connor, Bord, Yarnal, & Wiefek, 2002) found that egoenvironmentalism (the belief that environmental protection efforts do not threaten jobs, limit personal freedom, or hurt the economy), but not income, strongly predicted support for actions that require a cash outlay for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


Another study which showed a similar effect was
The Second National Risk and Culture Stu...ale Law School)

In this study, a survey group were given two news articles containing exactly the same climate data. One article was titled 'Scientific Panel Recommends Anti-Pollution Solution to Global Warming.' The other article was titled 'Scientific Panel recommends Nuclear Solution to Global Warming'. The result showed that 'free-marketeers' were more likely to accept AGW science when framed in a context that was favourable to their ideology (i.e. lots of new technology, opportunities to make money, plundering the planet etc.)

Originally Posted By: "Kahan et al"

The “anti-pollution” and “nuclear” versions framed the factual information in the report in a “threatening” and “affirming” way, respectively, for individuals culturally predisposed to dismiss global warming risks. Hierarchs and individualists tend to resist information on environmental risks, the former because it seems to imply restriction of market activity and the latter because it implicitly challenges governmental and business elites (Douglas & Wildavsky 1982; Kahan et al. 2007a). The demand for greater “anti-pollution controls” accentuates these connotations, and thus increases the disposition of these persons to dismiss information relating to global warming. Individualists and hierarchs, however, support nuclear power development, which is a symbol of industrial markets, human mastery over nature, and the power and competence of scientific and industrial elites. Accordingly, when they are told that increased investment in nuclear power is the appropriate response to global warming, individuals with these orientations are less threatened. As a result they are more willing to accept the factual claims that suggest that global warming is really a problem (Kahan et al. 2006).


This phenomenon is not of course solely the domain of AGW. Lewanowsky showed in survey on nanotechnology conducted by Kahan et al from the Yale Law School (Nature Nanotechnology 2009) showed that a 61% of a survey group supported the ideas of nanotechnology when not supplied with much information. Providing more information about the potential benefits and risks split the survey group along ideological lines (or "cultural worldview"). 86% of 'Hierachical Invididulatists' - i.e. Free-marketeers supported it, while only 23% of 'egalitatarian communitarians' - i.e. Hippies supported it.

Lewanosky concluded that you can't change people's idealogies (or very slowly at best), however people's behaviour is much easier to change, and he cited several studies on people's perceptions of energy usage and their desire to remain within 'societal norms'. Even little things like putting smiley or sad faces on people's energy bills have shown to have an effect on people's behaviour. You can think of recent examples of this close to home, e.g. reusable shopping bags at supermarkets, council recycling bins etc.

Lewanosky also provided lots of good examples about conspiracy theorists and AGW. Belief in Conspiracy Theories, Goertzel, Political Pyschology Vol 15, No. 4, 1994 showed that conspiracy theory is not isolated, i.e. if you believe in one (e.g. FBI assassinated Martin Luther King) you are more likely to believe in others (e.g AIDS created by the US Government).
Originally Posted By: "Goertzel"

The tendency to believe in conspiracies is correlated with anomia, with a lack of trust in other people, and with feelings of insecurity about unemployment. Volkan (1985) suggests that during periods of insecurity and discontent people often feel a need for a tangible enemy on which to externalize their angry feelings. Conspiracy theories may help in this process by providing a tangible enemy to blame for problems which otherwise seem too abstract and impersonal.Conspiracy theories also provide ready answers for unanswered questions and help to resolve contradictions between known "facts" and an individual's belief system.

Likewise, the study by Swarmi et al, Unanswered questions: A pr...Volume 24, 2010 showed that 34.6% of the variance could be prescribed to a single factor, and a model including demographics, personality and individual difference variables explained over 50% of the variance in 9/11 conspiracist ideas.

This of course helps to explain why conspiracy theorists are so attracted to AGW. Lewondosky showed the example of Joanna Nova, a popular climate 'skeptic' who recently spoke at the Heartland Institute Pac-Rim Conference on Climate Change. Her presentation was entitled "Defeating the Witchdoctors of the Twenty-First Century and Why Global Warming Is About Power, Money, and Sex". I'd love to see the slides for that presentation.

Joanna Nova has also called the September 11 attacks a "building accident". She also thinks that an emission trading scheme is another example of a corrupt fiat currency, she is a large gold investor, which is useful when you think that Greens and Bankers are colluding to create carbon markets and that Global Warming Alarmists are asking us to create another fiat currency (carbon credit). Of course, this all ties together with the common conspiracy (sprouted here at the Science and Public Policy Institute..the same mob who employ Anthony Watts and Christopher Monkton) that fluctuations of the business cycle are deliberately caused by the banks themselves, and the paper aristocracy will soon seize all our assets after initiating hyperinflation and subsequently returning to a gold standard as they have acquired all the gold.
Which makes you wonder, would Joanna Nova accept climate science if a simple carbon tax was implemented?


Lewanoskwy himself recently created an on-line survey (available here), entitled 'Attitudes Towards Science'. As expected, endorsement of the great AGW conspiracy was linked to some real and pretend conspiracies (e.g Area 51, Roswell, faked moon landings, Iraq WMD) and indeed the conspiracy factor alone predicts rejection of climate science. The belief that the Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) from Iraq correlated negatively with climate conspiracy.

Finally, Lewanosky made the point that skeptics rely on pushing the barrow that 'there is no consensus.' The denialists gain legitimacy by destroying the idea that there is scientific consensus w.r.t AGW. This point is made in his on-line survey, where lists the following questions:
Out of 100 medical scientists how many do you think believe that the HIV virus causes AIDS?
Out of 100 medical scientists how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer?
Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change?

BTW recent surveys among actual climate scientists (not just anyone who posts on a blog) that 97 out of 100 currently active climate scientists support the theory and observation of AGW.

Top
#887993 - 05/10/2010 15:59 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4271
Loc: Brisbane
Are you trolling? I suspect so.

About what I might expect from an AGW proponent. Discuss anything other than the science and focus on ad hominem attacks on those that don't support your view.

I was a staunch AGW supporter until challenged to actually take a closer look at the science. My experience from both sides of the fence is that one side encourages open debate and the other doesn't.

And please spare me your "a recent survey among actual climate scientists..." crap. I've seen enough of such surveys to know they are are absolute rubbish. They are always carefully constructed to guarantee only the result being sought by those conducting the survey.

And by "Actual climate scientists...." I assume you mean those who've managed to get past the hopelessly corrupted peer review process that weeds out everyone who doesn't accept AGW.

The whole attitude of the climate change movement can be summoned up by the peice of filth that was put out by 10:10 in the UK over the weekend (then quickly withdrawn and replaced by a lame ass apology when they realised what a horrible mistake they'd made).

Top
#887996 - 05/10/2010 16:04 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Well PG, with your posting of this material I gather that you also subscribe to the view that if somebody who perhaps can just possibly think for themselves and who will not and does not just mindlessly follow some self styled expert or does not believe the latest green cults and AGW doomsters claims is thereby classified as mentally retarded or of low intelligence and therefore as in the environmental snuff video, No Pressure, you have to be wiped from the face of this planet.
That seems to be the crux of the message you are putting up here.

If you want to use numbers, some 32,000 scientists from all scientific disciplines were prepared to put their names on the Oregon Petition which states that they do not believe that AGW CO2 has any more than a minimal impact on global temperatures.
And for some of those scientists that was likely to be a career destroying choice as the sheer fanaticism of the far out left wing control freak global warmers prevents them from allowing anybody to challenge their cult like beliefs and as many are in positions of power in the science world, there are numerous recorded instances where scientists who expressed reservations about the claimed effects of CO2 and any resultant global warming were stopped from publishing papers and had their careers and chances of promotion seriously compromised by the cult believers.
Read the Climate gate E-mails for confirmation on this

Fortunately there are also a lot of climate scientists out there who were firmly commited to ,the warming from CO2 scenario but are now admitting that there is still a vast area of unknowns associated with any perceived warming and even the prestigious Royal Society has partly backed off in it's restatement on global warming within the last week and admitted that there is a very large gaps in our knowledge of the climate and how it behaves and even tacitly admitted that there may not be any warming.

ALL, repeat ALL of the predictions for the supposed warming come from Global Climate Models[ GCM's ]
For a rundown on the veracity and verification of these models and just how other modellers from other professions regard the GCM's and their prediction accuracy I suggest that you go to Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc in which these models are thoroughly dissected.
To say the least, the judgement on the accuracy of the GCM's by other modellers in other professions is scathing.
Judith Curry is firmly or was firmly in the AGW camp but possibly could now be classed as a luke warmer and is trying very hard to build bridges between the two camps.

Even the IPCC says that AGW CO2 has only a very minor impact on global temps and it is the feedback effects from CO2 in the GCM's that supposedly give rise to increasing temperatures.
The IPCC has selected papers that state that all the feedbacks are positive, they continue to raise global temps which if true would led to ever increasing and a runaway global temperature where we would finish up like Venus with melted rock the only thing left on the surface of the planet.

There is any amount of geological and proxi based data to suggest that CO2 levels have been many times higher than the present and no such runaway global temperatures have ever been seen in geological history.
In fact the single biggest climate item in the global climate history has been the very long and very cold ice ages right through at least half of the geologic history of this planet covering some 4.5 billion years.

There is now a very large and increasing body of climate science papers saying that the IPCC's positive only feedback scenario is seriously wrong, not only wrong but physically impossible and a lot of climate feedbacks, possibly most such as clouds, water vapour, the two main ones are actually negative feedbacks that stabilise the global temperatures within quite close limits and have done so for most of our geological history.

For information of climate feedbacks go to Roy Spencer's blog site
Roy Spencer is the highly regarded scientist in charge of NASA's satellite based global temperature unit which is regarded as more accurate in global temperatures than the very corrupted Global Historical Climate Network of surface recording stations.

Top
#888000 - 05/10/2010 16:08 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Locke]
Dave-Wx Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/08/2001
Posts: 4950
Loc: Heritage Park, Brisbane, QLD
While I am loosely what seems to be termed a 'denier'...in all seriousness now that we've had Climategate etc etc, I think we all need to settle down for a while and keep researching, as I don't think anyone has a definitive case for or against the whole AGW thing just yet. Yes this also means I am open to being proved wrong further down the track should my opinion on the matter be the wrong one poke but thats what science and life is all about isn't it...as the phrase goes, "you learn something new every day!"

Top
#888002 - 05/10/2010 16:11 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Locke]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
What an odd response.

Firstly, where have I engaged in 'ad hominem' attacks? Re : Joanna Nova, all I have done is link to her own comments and images from her own website.

Secondly, it has been proven that there is no point in discussing 'the science' with people whose ideology prevents them from reaching an independent conclusion based on scientific data alone.

I presume that from the tone of your post that you are against any form of action regarding AGW and carbon emissions? Why is this the case? Are you against clean energy? Do you not want to build 21st century energy infrastructure? Why do you want the Europeans and Chinese to attract all the investment dollars and make lots of money?

Top
#888008 - 05/10/2010 16:33 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4271
Loc: Brisbane
See there you go with a whole heap of assumptions.

Whilst disputing engaging in ad hominem attacks your most recent post contains another. Ad Hominem is defined in the dictionary as:

"appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason"

Your comment "Secondly, it has been proven that there is no point in discussing 'the science' with people whose ideology prevents them from reaching an independent conclusion based on scientific data alone." illustrates you view anyone not supportive of your position on climate change as fitting into this category which is most definitely not the case.

You have already formed your opinion on what my positions might be on renewable energy even though you have no idea who I am and no valid basis on which to form those views.

I am wholly supportive of investment in renewable energy in fact I believe it is absolutely vital that we do so whilst our reserves of fossil fuel allow it. I don't support a carbon tax as there is a growing body of evidence that such a tax will be perverted by banks and governments as a means of wealth redistribution and control. Fraud on a grand scale has already been seen in Europe in connection with Carbon Trading.

No I don't believe action is needed to address AGW or carbon emissions. I don't believe we should put the lives of millions of people at risk for something that scientists at the moment are grappling to understand. I would be more worried about preparing for the possibility of much cooler conditions in the coming decaades as both the PDO and AMO turn negative (which they havent done concurrently since the 70's) at a time when solar activity is at its lowest level in 100 years.

Top
#888016 - 05/10/2010 16:54 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Locke]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Originally Posted By: Locke

I don't support a carbon tax as there is a growing body of evidence that such a tax will be perverted by banks and governments as a means of wealth redistribution and control.

Can you provide links to this growing body of evidence?

Top
#888019 - 05/10/2010 17:05 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3906
Quote:
ed - in other words you can predict whether or not someone accepts the science of AGW purely by assessing their attitudes towards free markets.


Quote:
The result showed that 'free-marketeers' were more likely to accept AGW science when framed in a context that was favourable to their ideology (i.e. lots of new technology, opportunities to make money, plundering the planet etc.)



I'd say its more than likely that those who DON'T accept the science have a good nose for crap. Which believers in the free markets tend to have.


Can I ask (if I may)... are you doing a similar study?
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#888020 - 05/10/2010 17:05 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6846
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
I think the psychology has two components, which can be experienced in various degrees, at different times:
  • Those who are happy with the way things are and choose not to worry too much about what might go wrong; who are essentially comfortable with the ups and downs of life as they are and do not concern themselves with complaining and getting wound up by what is conveyed in the media.
  • Those who associate with the opposite of the above.

This is not to say one is better than the other, just that they both have their places and contexts.

I would say in relation to AGW on the above:
  • GW science is a well-established fact (point one above).
  • The degree of the human contribution to climate warming is uncertain (point two above).

While I am all for action on climate change, I am highly-sceptical of the benefits of a carbon tax as such. What is needed more is an increased awareness of what it is possible for us to do locally, that will have a greater impact globally. I suspect we need less money, not more, to make a difference. Clearly economic growth is unsustainable without limitations placed on that growth.

It is all very well getting excited about becoming greener in our practices, however simply picking up a head of steam on this without community discussion and input is probably not the way to go about it.


Edited by -Cosmic- (05/10/2010 17:06)
_________________________
*Kindness is our ally.

Top
#888028 - 05/10/2010 17:45 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
What an odd response!

The immediate assumption by the AGW doomsters is that those who don't agree with the AGW activists are opposed to all the other things that can make the world a better place for all of it's people.
The whole of this AGW thing would be of no consequence if it was just an argument between a few dozen climate scientists over a possible global temperature increase of from nothing to 5 or 6 degrees ,[ depending on which of the 23 IPCC's GCM's you would like to quote and they can't even agree on that! So if you are a climate Doomster which model of impending doom do you want to refer to? ] in the next 100 years.

But when the Doomsters got hold of it they have attempted to made it appear that the world is going to come to an end if the temperature rose by a now politicly selected figure with no basis at all in science of 2 degrees again within a 100 years.[ This 2 degrees was the result of the desperate attempt to get an agreed figure on the limits of global temperature rise following the Copenhagen break down and 2 degrees was selected by the POLITICIANS under the lobbying by the Cap and Trade financial corporations as a figure that could be accommodated by all without unduly frightening the public horses and so preventing the the imposition of C & P and the loss of gross financial profits from the enforced imposition of carbon credits trading. They reckoned they could get away with declaring 2 degrees as a catastrophic limit to global temperature rise and so could get C & T imposed with the consequent very profitable outcome ]

If this whole AGW thing that is now assuming a cult like status did not impact on our entire global society then nobody would give a damn about it.
And who in the hell needs immediate action as of NOW as the AGW doomsters constantly screech about.
2 degrees rise in a hundred years time. What of it?
We got 3 or 4 times that between the maximum temps of the last couple of days and about 6 or 7 times that over the few hours of today.
We just adapted as the day went on just like we will when this evening cools down again.
If I drive from Horsham to Mildura I will get that change in average temperatures and think nothing of it.
And it is most noticeable that holiday makers from the cooler southern climates all head north to where the heat is, a far bigger temperature change than the dangerous tipping point 2 degrees change postulated by the AGW Doomsters.

And where do most of the world's peoples live, around the warm to hot equatorial regions where it is warm all the time and much warmer than the 2 degrees that we might see [ if there is any truth at all in the claims of global warming ] in the next 100 years.
And are the Doomsters so misguided and so ignorant of history that they can't understand that there will be immense changes in technologies that are beyond our imagination even within the next 30 to 40 years [ who envisaged the world wide internet 40 years ago? ] and do they believe that the future generations will be utterly incapable of handling or organising themselves technologically for a mere 2 degree rise in their temperatures.

If the current solar activity levels stay down through the next couple of solar cycles until 2030 as is increasingly being suggested by solar physicists, the world's problems will not be with warming but a desperate need to find enough cheap energy to combat the cold global climate and the cold temperatures in industry, transport, particularly in food production, health and just to make it liveable in many parts of the world in a cold climate.

For cleaner energy lets start by cutting down on fossil fuel consumption by starting to build the Gen 3 nuclear power plants such as the late generation Candu heavy water reactors or the thorium reactors or even a whole series of distributed grid transportable reactors designed by Americans and to be built in China because of the stupidity of the green cult's resistance to anything nuclear.
These small reactors are totally sealed, transportable and are passively safe, ie; if there's any problem, their design is such that they automatically shut down without any outside response needed.
When they have run their life cycle they can be returned to their manufacturers after their 20 year life cycle for reconditioning.
A distributed grid nuclear reactor network also reduces the chances of a major state or continental power failure if one very large key reactor goes off line due to transmission line, or reactor problems or even terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately a movement that was intended for the good but has increasingly turned into a Green cult is preventing Australia as a stand out example, from going right into a clean nuclear energy while at the same time demanding that we are supposed to suffer a serious decrease in our living standards by restricting our energy useage and taxing anything that requires energy to move, heat or cool ourselves and prepare our far more expensive food from the heavily taxed carbon emitting rural sector if it survives in Australia at all under a farm hating green cult.

That is to be the lot of the common people under a green regime.
The green elites and leadership of course would be too important to have any such restrictions imposed on them.

All the other so called alternative energies are just a sheer waste of limited resources with very bad low power productivity levels requiring immense tax payer subsidies that go straight into some wealthy off shore investors bank accounts and are only good for few remote areas and that is about it for all the so called alternative energies are good for.

With wind turbines, when I see them erected in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne or the equivalent areas in other capital cities I will accept them and all their seriously bad impacts in our rural areas.

Top
#888033 - 05/10/2010 18:00 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: __PG__]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4271
Loc: Brisbane
Originally Posted By: __PG__
Originally Posted By: Locke

I don't support a carbon tax as there is a growing body of evidence that such a tax will be perverted by banks and governments as a means of wealth redistribution and control.

Can you provide links to this growing body of evidence?


Do a simple google search on carbon trading scams or carbon trading frauds. Its not hard. And were not talking small amounts rather billions of euros.

Here's one to get you started:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam

Alternately try looking into the background of Pachauri, his connections with TATA energy and the money he and his company have made by influencing governement policy on climate and energy consumption.

Try looking into the background of Ross Garnaut a key advisor to the government on climate change issues and tell me he doesnt have major conflicts of interest.

And heres the ironic one. Do a little research into which of the major oil companies are supplying massive funding to pro-AGW organisations. I think you'll find "Big Oil" puts far more funds into the pro-AGW side than they provide to skeptics.

Easy to dismiss anyone who suggests sinister motives with the tag "conspriracy theorist" but guess what some conspiracies are actually real.

Top
#888067 - 05/10/2010 19:33 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: ROM]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
IMO the name of this thread should be changed to read "The psychology behind this weird crazy crack-pot thread called "The psychology behind climate science denial"!!!!!!! By golly, people have strange imaginations and strange ways to try and stiffle debate!!!!!!!

Top
#888142 - 05/10/2010 23:15 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: bd bucketingdown]
TrenthamStormchasers Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 15/04/2001
Posts: 6258
Loc: Trentham 705m
can't work out why everything and every motive has to be 'labelled' and placed neatly in a box....I gave up on threads about global warming / climate change because most people seem to have 'a position' and won't shift from it.....can't have a discussion when people are too busy trying to prove other people to be wrong.....

Top
#888165 - 06/10/2010 01:36 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: TrenthamStormchasers]
ColdFront Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/06/2008
Posts: 17242
Loc: Wide Bay..Near the beach
I'm with you there. It's pointless.
_________________________
How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

Top
#888171 - 06/10/2010 06:55 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: ColdFront]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Another thread could be started titled "The psychology behind natural climate change denial"?

Top
#888187 - 06/10/2010 09:10 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Simmosturf]
Vlasta Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/01/2008
Posts: 972
Loc: Melbourne Seaford
He he , why 99% members of this forum are " Holocaust Denialists " as it was described by alarmistas to the ones who dont believe in AGW , and should be locked up for that comparison .
Or a funny one from current IPCC chairman , " some people still believe the Earth is flat "
Yeah , right I give you 2 weeks to resign . And your best friend Al Gore , will tell you later .
We should give the Nobel prize back voluntery , before they take it from us by force .


Edited by Vlasta (06/10/2010 09:15)

Top
#888189 - 06/10/2010 09:47 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Vlasta]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
There are deniers in both camps. On one hand you have sceptics denying that AGW climate modelling/reasoning is accurate/unbiased and rightly so considering the climategate scandal... On the other hand you have AGW proponents denying that mankind and life as we know it cannot survive this impending doom despite us having survived climatic swings in the past... Not to mention denying quite tangible benefits of a warmer climate through increased growing seasons and less deaths brought on by the stress of cold to name but a couple.

Kind of ironic isn't it? I know I would rather have faith in the adaptive mechanisms of the living species on this planet than subscribe to some theory that climate as we know it right now is some form of never ending utopian existence that we are somehow stuffing up beyond repair!

I do think however that constructive discussion can happen between the opposing sides so long as people remain focussed on the bigger picture instead of nitpicking half degrees and modelling data to suit a particular outcome.

As to the psychology of all of this, human society has progressed/regressed to this point based on the net outcome of people who support a consensus and those who oppose it. It's a natural check and balance. At the end of the day though, people who propose that a sceptic is a 'world is flat' believer are really just showing how desperate the tactics can get when a believer feels that they are backed into a corner. If proponents are really about proving their worth, they should first start repairing the damage done by the climategate scam and bring about processes which make research completely transparent and accountable.

Finally, climate debates should not be PR battles, they should be based on factual reasoning where possible and with politicians sticking their fingers in it, it's hardly helping to clarify the issue, it's muddying the waters if anything. I read a very interesting note in a land management publication put out by the government that will be sure to raise some hackles, I'll scan it and upload it when I can next lay my hands on it... it will be sure to have ROM seething!!! It's a very interesting insight into the psychology of government and their approach. I just hate the fact that there are so many people out there just waiting to sink their claws into the money swapping hands trying to contain a colourless, odourless gas. What does BHP's Kloppers stand to gain from pushing an ETS thing? You can guarantee those guys are not going to push something that doesn't benefit them somehow, that's also psychology!

Top
#888205 - 06/10/2010 11:44 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Andy Double U]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Gee Andy, it sounds like you actually read some of my stuff. [ rants?? ] grin

Top
#888209 - 06/10/2010 11:51 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: ROM]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
ROM, I don't like to think of them as rants, I would rather think of them as a passionate display of opinion! grin

I'm looking forward to stoking your fire with this particular piece of writing that I had the displeasure of reading over the weekend... Mate, you would not believe the barrow they are pushing when it comes to agriculture and a price on carbon and how they go about legitimising the whole exercise... It's wrong, and it's pure BS!!!

Top
#888224 - 06/10/2010 12:49 Re: The psychology behind climate science denial [Re: Andy Double U]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3906
Did anyoone read the self-serving crap that's in the Stephan Lewanosky .pdf that --PG-- linked at the start? According to it there are two key categories of denialists: Those that are “free-marketers” and those that are conspiracists. LOL!

Jo Nova on Lewanowsky (linky

And OOOH AAAH - Jo Nova has the temerity to make up cartoons of the pollies as "eco-heroes" beholden to the banking industry that WILL make billions out of an ETS or Tax. So I suppose that in your world --PG--, we should look at things like this and do the mushroom consensus thing ... eh ... ?


What do you think of this --PG--? No pressure! wink
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
12 registered (Snowies, Steve777, EddyG, snowforus, DaveM, willitrainagain, PeteM, Donzah, Multiversity, Cheers, Listy, 1 invisible), 306 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Darumbal, SteveD
Forum Stats
29298 Members
32 Forums
23627 Topics
1454324 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image