I am writing this article knowing full well that it will be used as evidence against me -- evidence that I have been duped by a powerful cabal, a vast conspiracy to... to do what? Well, take your choice. Perhaps to convince a naive public that NASA landed men on the moon? Or to hide the fact that our president is African? Or the fact that al Qaeda didn't mastermind 9/11? Or to falsely link HIV with AIDS, or smoking with lung cancer?
Conspiracy theorists have sounded alarms about every one of these nefarious plots and more, and many conspiracy theorists embrace several imaginary plots. None of these claims has ever been proven. Proof is not conspiracy theorists' strong suit. Indeed they tend to be highly suspicious of science and its methods, which is why, whenever conspiracy theorists are confronted with facts that refute their wild ideas, they simply seize on those facts as further evidence of plotters' ingenuity.
Psychological scientists are very interested in this particular brand of irrational thinking -- especially the link between conspiratorial thinking and anti-science world views. These plots and conspiracies may seem laughable at first glance, but they are not inconsequential. At the very least, conspiracy theorists waste a lot of time and money -- think of the "birthers" -- and at worst, they pose real dangers to society. Just think of how many parents, alarmed by the bogus link between vaccines and autism, have left their children unprotected against serious disease.
Or consider global warming. More than 90 percent of climate scientists agree that the global climate is shifting, largely as a result of human activity. Scientifically, this is essentially a closed case. Yet conspiracy theorists continue to spin wild tales of government agents surreptitiously destroying thermometers and burying contradictory evidence. What are the motives of these climate deniers, who reject even overwhelming scientific consensus? Do they have a specific agenda having to do with the environment or economics, or are climate deniers the same people who fantasize about the second gunman on the grassy knoll?
Cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia has been studying climate deniers and conspiratorial thinking -- and the link between the two. He suspected that climate deniers -- as opposed to climate "skeptics," who actually use the tools of science to verify facts -- are highly prone to unrelated kinds of conspiracy thinking, and also to a conservative, pro-business ideology. He decided to test these ideas by questioning people who write and read blogs related to global warming.
He chose blogs because people with an anti-science bias have found a welcoming home on the Internet. Science denial is difficult to practice in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, but such contrarian views can be freely expressed in the blogosphere, where conspiracy theorists can feed one another's feelings of persecution. Lewandowsky surveyed blog denizens about their views on climate science, other scientific propositions, and their environmental leanings; their perceptions of what scientific "consensus" means; their beliefs about free-market economics; and finally, their views on a number of well-known conspiracy theories. The conspiracies covered the political spectrum, from fears of a world government (a right-wing idea) to the belief that 9/11 was an "inside job" (typically embraced on the left).
The results were unambiguous, and unsettling. First, those who hold a laissez-faire view of unfettered free markets were much more likely to strongly reject climate science. Lewandowsky believes that, because the fundamental importance of fossil fuels (and CO2 emissions) to modern economics, climate science in general (and evidence for global warming in particular) is a threat to free market advocates. Free marketers were also more likely to reject other established scientific findings, even the (undisputed) facts that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV causes AIDS.
Second, conspiracy thinking was clearly linked to climate denial -- and to the rejection of scientific propositions in general. This was true even of conspiracy theories unrelated to the environment or climate -- the belief that NASA staged the moon landing, for example, or that the CIA killed Martin Luther King. In other words, conspiracy thinking is not simply a convenient way to dismiss a particularly bothersome scientific consensus. Instead, some people seem to have a general personality trait or cognitive style, which leads them to endorse any conspiracy. This paranoid thinking in turn predisposes them to reject completely unrelated scientific facts.
Lewandowsky's study will be published in a future issue of 'Psychological Science,' a peer-reviewed scientific journal, providing further evidence of a vast and ingenious plot to elevate enlightenment thinking and marginalize the unenlightened.
Follow Wray Herbert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wrayherbert
Is it a person who denies that climate exists?
Do they deny that climate changes?
I'm not a climate denier, climate change denier, or even and anthropgenic climate change denier, I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many scientists who work in fields related to climate science.
and (July 28, 2012 at 2:16pm),
Re: "Thanks for the laugh."
You're most welcome.
Re: "I am referrring to the Hansen study that you cited here, of course:"
Of course; you apparently missed my apology for poor memory.
The only drug approved, AZT, had been taken back into patent, for profit, by the US government. There was no cure. There was no political will to fix the problem. I felt alone, abandoned, and I was deeply suspicious.
However, I was also confronted with the possibility of de/ath. My response was to educate myself. And to take risks. One of the risks I took was to undergo the trials for triple therapy. These trial drugs eventually saved my life. Saved it so well that I have no trace of the disease, and look 10 years younger than I am.
I felt the compelling pull of the conspiracy. But this is just another religion...it gives your personal power over to unnamed and unfaced entites. We are so much more powerful than that. We can LEARN! I did.
I trust in the method of science. I trust in my ability to move beyond the pain and the fear. And I encourage all the believers in unfounded conspiracy to do the same.
“Climate change poses clear, CATASTROPHIC threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy...”
http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html
And Feb.2011:
"We have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so." http://tinyurl.com/74k6c4n
9 of the 10 world's wealthiest billionaires say man-made global warming is DANGEROUSLY real.
#1 Carlos Slim Helu ($74B, Mexican telecoms)
http://tinyurl.com/6umvcmj
#2 Bill Gates ($59B, Microsoft)
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Energy/Recommended-Reading-on-Climate-Change
#3 Bernard Arnault ($41B, LVMH,Louis Vuitton)
http://tinyurl.com/72ruta5
#5 Warren Buffett ($39B, Geico+BNSF railroad)
http://tinyurl.com/7vwg4wk
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35644956/page/2/
#6 Lakshmi Mittal ($31B, Steel)
http://tinyurl.com/7gwtk5y
#7 Amancio Ortega ($31B,Zara clothing)
http://tinyurl.com/852a8yc
#8 Eike Batista ($29 billion, Brazilian mining/oil)
http://tinyurl.com/7zwwmdz
#9 Mukesh Ambani ($27B, Indian petrochem)
http://tinyurl.com/7cyutdz
#10 Christy Walton ($26B, Walmart,Solar1)
http://www.forbes.com/profile/christy-walton/
http://tinyurl.com/7l2ux4c
They've committed multi-$billions to sustainable energy.
If you deniers grasp reality better, why are they orders of magnitude more successful than you?
Following is my partial assessment of your third reference:
All the text prior to the subtitle “RESULTS” seems to be a description of the tools used and methodology employed. Therefore, my assessment begins at that point.
The paragraph beginning, "In Figure 1" contains the following key words: "simulated, calculated, suggests and suggesting."
That could be an exercise in caution, but calculated would seem to indicate a mathematical construct.
The concluding sentence in that paragraph reads: "The 9.6 um ozone band has not been analyzed in any of these cases, since it is known to be highly variable and is outside the scope of this paper."
That could indicate that the data presented is lacking some element(s) that may or may not be significant.
The paragraph beginning, "In Figure 2" contains the following key words: "calculated, simulates and suggests;" and the phrase, "temporal and spatial limits."
Again, this may simply be an exercise in caution with another mathematical construct. The phrase quoted would seem to indicate a two-fold limitation which may or may not be significant.
The concluding sentence in that paragraph reads: "Since TES and IRIS have similar signatures in the window region, we assert that cloud contamination is not a predominant source of this signal."
The significance of cloud contamination is unclear to me.
The paragraph just prior to Figure 3 contains the following key words: "simulated and calculating."
That seems to follow the pattern above.
The rest will not fit.
Thank you for the complement. Keep in mind, it was Publicola who provided the three references and pushed the onus on me to pick the one on which to comment; the other two he provided were only available at unacceptable cost. The relevance of my commentary against all the published literature on the topic is obviously insignificant. However, it's my bet, any published documentation will provide additional opportunity for similar evaluation. You are more than welcome to provide me another reference on which to provide additional insignificant comment.
News flash: scientists calculate things using mathematics.
BC: "That could indicate that the data presented is lacking some element(s) that may or may not be significant."
Really. Provide a concrete example.
Nice attempt at doubt manufacturing, I'll give you that much.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
I can see how you'd be deeply confused by the Chen (2007) paper too.
Over the last 450,000 years the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere fluctuated between 200 and 280 parts per million.
CO2 concentrations are approaching 400 ppm, increasing about 2 ppm every year.
The higher CO2 concentrations correspond with warming periods and the lower with cooling, though causality has not been defined.
C02 is a natural insulator; it absorbs more energy than the 99% of our atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen.
Adding insulation to a house or a planet makes it warmer.
Over the last 150 years or so, humans have released exponentially more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature would on its own as part of natural processes and cycles.
Venus’s atmosphere is almost 97% insulating C02 resulting in surface temperatures of almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit, roughly 100 degrees hotter than Mercury. Relative to Mercury, Venus is almost twice as far away from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Venus is completely cloud covered with a very dense atmosphere, 90% of the Sun’s irradiance received by Venus is reflected back into space resulting in very little warming from the sun.
Unless you understand and accept these indisputable facts, you have no business discussing the issue of Global Climate Change.
Questioning supposed facts supplied by a government that has been known to lie a few times isn't a bad thing. However articles like this seek to suppress ciritical thinking and lump everyone into the same group of crazy people like Winston Churchill experienced. To the critical eye and the intelligent mind, any sort of argument you are trying to make regarding the absurdity of denying climate change is muted by your generalizations regarding those who question various theories.
Amongst this crowd of 'conspiracy theorists', there is an almost universal recognition of a financial cabal that controls the world's resources and monetary supply. So much in fact that they collude to set false interest rates.... Oh wait, this is actually really happening now isn't it? Some conspiracies are very much real.
Do you believe that the scientific evidence supporting *man-made* global warming is onverwhelming?
If not, why not?
Thanks for the article. On a personal level it's easy to see why people deny or down play the severity of human driven climate change. Lessening the effects of AGW is a hard burden people don't want to deal with. We're lazy. It's just so much easier to say what will happen you can't change. Why would anyone start make sacrifices to prevent AGW if it isn't talked about much in the news. Politicians who acknowledge climate change is happening don't use the words climate change enough. The effects of climate change to national safety and our comfortable way of living aren't discussed. Nobody likes to be told NO! Right? Yeah, we're just a bunch of spoiled kids.
I suspect that the willingness to defend one's faith is closely aligned to one's willingness to reject science.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the leading climate science denier in Congress, believes that per the Bible God protects us from global warming.
http://tinyurl.com/7fr6z36
Other prominent "skeptics" including Roy Spencer (a climate scientist favored by "skeptics"), Ross McKitrick (economist / purported "hockey stick" slayer), Joseph D'Aleo (weatherman/"skeptic" blogger), and other signatories of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" also preach that per the Bible God protects from global warming:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's Board:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/
More from the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God protects us from global warming:
-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...
We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6
See, this is the kinds of accusatory (and quite unscientific) allegations that perpetuate the problem.
Not to change the subject, but money won't solve the climate problem, in case this is just another "tax" rally.
In any case, it's clear that you're a follower of the conspiracy theory that the Government has been melting the Arctic and glaciers, and heating up the Earth, and accelerating the rise of sea levels, just so they can raise a few dollars on a new tax. It looks like this article is about you Milrepa.
Geoengineering: Destroying the Atmosphere - Rosalind Peterson
Re: "More than 90 percent of climate scientists agree that the global climate is shifting, largely as a result of human activity."
This brings to mind a couple of questions:
1. What is the basis for the position of the less-than-10-percent of the climate scientists who disagree?
2. Is the 90 percent considered a consensus? The reason for asking is that there was a time when the consensus view of scientists was that flies are generated from garbage.
Clicking on the "90 percent" hyperlink in your essay produced the following:
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists...[The] vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
While 3146 scientists may constitute 90m percent of something, does that number truly constitute 90 percent of climate scientists? What is the basis for "the opinions" of those 3146? How does the "...vast majority of the Earth scientists..." compare with 3146?
Your point number 2 is waffle - and looks like it is generated from garbage. In any case, consensus in this case has come over many years of work, and purely based on the amount and quality of the scientific evidence, which is overwhelming.
And you clearly have no idea of how a survey works.
Re: “They are just less certain than the rest.”
This is an obvious case of my lack of perception for not picking up that observation from the text.
Re: “...consensus in this case has come over many years of work, and purely based on the amount and quality of the scientific evidence, which is overwhelming.”
Please provide an example of the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Re: “And you clearly have no idea of how a survey works.”
This is an obvious case of my inability to determine how this particular survey works; please explain it for me.
You apparently don't understand what science is.
BC: "3146... does that number truly constitute 90 percent of climate scientists?"
Of course not, and nobody claimed or suggested otherwise.
You do at least understand what a poll is, don't you?
Re: “You apparently don't understand what science is.”
You're probably correct; please explain to me what science is.
Re: “Of course not, and nobody claimed or suggested otherwise.”
This is an obvious case of my misinterpretation of the text.