I was almost going to write a serious critique of a bunch of lunatic socialists parading as scientists, but the more I read their assertions, the more I started laughing at them. The delusions these people are suffering under is simply amazing. There’s a new paper out. Boy, it’s a doozy!. (PDF) One would think that after the psych world has been rocked by retracted papers, fraud, and malfeasance, these people would be a bit more judicious when writing papers. It starts like this……
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science.
Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ‘ :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.
This group of people can’t possibly be that insipidly stupid! Oh, wait, they are psychologists, so yes, yes they can be. And, we note that papers in the psych world are of questionable credibility. Why anyone would quote a silly psych paper against this backdrop is beyond me, but that’s alarmists for you. No one can legitimately accuse them of being rational.
It is the lunatics inability to interact with critical thinkers which allow these incredibly vacant ideas to permeate. It’s like when I write about temps in the arctic and the delusional lunatics think I’m writing about global temps. They simply lack the capacity to understand what is being stated.
So, they start with a lie which any rational thinker knows and understands it’s a lie. The authors source Anderegg and Doran. Now, this alone is fascinating. Even if one accepts the subjective conclusions of Anderegg, we know the study isn’t about the percentage of scientists but rather, their level of expertise and agreement with certain views. Anderegg’s study is a laughable bit of sophistry, but it says nothing towards the actual percentage of scientists who agree or disagree with anthropological climate change. But, if one does read Anderegg, we see that their raw numbers break down to about a 2/3 agreement with anthropological climate change. So, this paper’s contrivance of over 90% is destroyed. This leaves the oft ridiculed paper of Doran with their seventy something respondents. Does Lewandowsky assert that 75 or 77 respondents are representative of larger body of science in climate and climate related areas? Is this what passes for Psychological Science? Here are the cold hard facts about this imaginary consensus. It has never been demonstrated.
Then we move to the conflated areas of free-market thought and these conspiracies. Now, I’ve been involved in the climate skeptic blogs for several years. And, while I accept that this blog isn’t representative of skepticism by numbers, it probably fairly represents many in thought. But, it also likely has an equal number which it doesn’t. In my view, the broad spectrum of skeptics can probably be mostly represented by 3 distinct blogs. If anyone wants to actually understand what the make up of skepticism is and who they are and what they believe all they have to do is go to these 3 very diverse blogs.
Climate Audit, WUWT, and Real Science. But, the paper was from Australia so Jo Nova could have been an obvious place to turn to. Now, what is interesting is that the authors, instead of being inclined to actually read what was stated sent out surveys. In all the years I’ve been engaged with climate skepticism, I’ve never once seen the moon landing challenged on any skeptic blog. Nor have I seen the firsthand smoke cancer link challenged. And, I’ve never seen the idea that MLK was assassinated by the CIA advanced. Being a free market capitalist, I also see that the thought of MLK and moon landings decidedly advanced by leftist nuts, not capitalists. The AIDS/HIV confusion is another laughable irrational tie to free market ideas. It wasn’t conservatives reluctant to accept that HIV causes AIDS. Even more hysterical in the paper is that they actually mention the truthers, but fail to connect them to the leftist nuts so prevalent in our society.
So, what does free-market economics have to do with conspiracy theories? Nothing in the minds of rational thinkers. However, in the delusional minds of alarmist psych academics, the tie is as obvious as the accelerating rise in the rates of major tornado events, or hurricanes, or flooding, or sea level rate rise…… etc.
We could, and maybe someone else should delve deeper in this paper and continue to make a mockery of what passes for Psychological Science, but, when I find papers which creates its foundation on demonstrable lies, I deem it not worth my time to go much further and address the laziness of the authors and their lack of ability of reading comprehension.
They talk about a conspiracy notion to eliminate thermometers, yet, it has been demonstrated that many have been eliminated from the data set. The fact that they’re gone isn’t arguable. The fact that the original temp values have been altered in interpretation isn’t arguable, either. These are objective observations.
This paper simply provides more nuts to point and laugh at.