why don't republicans understand climate change?

cassandrabandra · Mar 31, 2012

The answer can be found in Chris Mooney's book, "the republican brain"

you can't argue with died in the wool conservative, because they are always right. they will never let factual information stand in the way of this certainty that they must be right.

In a nationally representative survey—only 18 percent of Republicans and Tea Party members accepted the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans, and only 45 and 43 percent (respectively) accepted human evolution.

In other words, political conservatives have placed themselves in direct conflict with modern scientific knowledge, which shows beyond serious question that global warming is real and caused by humans, and evolution is real and the cause of humans. If you don't accept either claim, you cannot possibly understand the world or our place in it.
Click to expand...

At least since the time of Ronald Reagan, but arcing back further, the modern American conservative movement has taken control of the Republican Party and aligned it with a key set of interest groups who have had bones to pick with various aspects of scientific reality—most notably, corporate anti-regulatory interests and religious conservatives. And so these interests fought back against the relevant facts—and Republican leaders, dependent on their votes, joined them, making science denial an increasingly important part of the conservative and Republican political identity….Meanwhile, party allegiances created a strange bedfellows effect. The enemy of one's friend was also an enemy, so we saw conservative Christians denying climate science, and pharmaceutical companies donating heaps of money to a party whose Christian base regularly attacks biomedical research. Despite these contradictions, economic and social conservatives profited enough from their allegiance that it was in the interests of both to hold it together.

In such an account, the problem of right-wing science denial is ascribed to political opportunism—rooted in the desire to appease either religious impulses or corporate profit motives. But is this the right answer?

It isn't wrong, exactly. There's much truth to it. Yet it completely ignores what we now know about the psychology of our politics.

The environmental account ascribes Republican science denial (and for other forms of denial, the story would be similar) to the particular exigencies and alignments of American political history. That's what the party did because it had to, to get ahead. And today, goes the thinking, this leaves us with a vast gulf between Democrats and Republicans in their acceptance of modern climate science and many other scientific conclusions, with conservatives increasingly distrustful of science, and with scientists and the highly educated moving steadily to the left.

Right-wing science denial is ascribed to political opportunism—the desire to appease either religious impulses or corporate profit motives. There's much truth to it. Yet it completely ignores what we now know about the psychology of our politics.

There's just one problem: This account ignores the possibility that there might be real differences between liberals and conservatives that influence how they respond to scientific or factual information. It assumes we're all blank slates—that we all want the same basic things—and then we respond to political forces not unlike air molecules inside a balloon. We get knocked this way and that, sure. And we start out in different places, thus ensuring different trajectories. But at the end of the day, we're all just air molecules.

But what if we're not all the same kind of molecule? What if we respond to political or factual collisions in different ways, with different spins or velocities? Today there's considerable scientific evidence suggesting that this is the case.

For instance, the historic political awakening of what we now call the Religious Right was nothing if not a defense of cultural traditionalism—which had been threatened by the 1960s counterculture, Roe v. Wade, and continued inroads by feminists, gay rights activists, and many others—and a more hierarchical social structure. It was a classic counter-reaction to too much change, too much pushing of equality, and too many attacks on traditional values—all occurring too fast. And it mobilized a strong strand of right-wing authoritarianism in US politics—one that had either been dormant previously, or at least more evenly distributed across the parties.

The rise of the Religious Right was thus the epitome of conservatism on a psychological level—clutching for something certain in a changing world; wanting to preserve one's own ways in uncertain times, and one's own group in the face of difference—and can't be fully understood without putting this variable into play.

The problem is that people are deathly afraid of psychology, and never more so than when it is applied to political beliefs. Political journalists, in particular, almost uniformly avoid this kind of approach. They try to remain on the surface of things, telling endless stories of horse races and rivalries, strategies and interests, and key "turning points." All of which are, of course, real. And conveniently, by sticking with them you never have to take the dangerous journey into anybody's head.

But what if these only tell half the story?

As I began to investigate the underlying causes for the conservative denial of reality that we see all around us, I found it impossible to ignore a mounting body of evidence—from political science, social psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and genetics—that points to a key conclusion. Political conservatives seem to be very different from political liberals at the level of psychology and personality. And inevitably, this influences the way the two groups argue and process information.

Let's be clear: This is not a claim about intelligence. Nor am I saying that conservatives are somehow worse people than liberals; the groups are just different. Liberals have their own weaknesses grounded in psychology, and conservatives are very aware of this.
Click to expand...

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we're right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation's defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.
Click to expand...

but we can't win.

republicans have closed minds. they just see information that reinforces what they already believe.

....

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/chris-mooney-republican-brain-science-denial?page=3

MisLed · Mar 31, 2012

factual. LoL

Climate change artists (I'd hardly call them scientists) have damaged themselves with their tactics. It doesn't take too many times of being shown that they have manipulated the data and conspired among themselves to cause people to doubt their veracity.

cassandrabandra · Mar 31, 2012

MisLed said: ↑

factual. LoL

Climate change artists (I'd hardly call them scientists) have damaged themselves with their tactics. It doesn't take too many times of being shown that they have manipulated the data and conspired among themselves to cause people to doubt their veracity.
Click to expand...

you wouldn't call them scientists because either

(a) you have insufficient education to understand what a scientist is, or

(b) you have a republican brain, and are unable to consider any information, no matter how factual, which challenges what you believe you know.

take your pick.

Anarcho-Technocrat · Mar 31, 2012

cassandrabandra said: ↑

you wouldn't call them scientists because either

(a) you have insufficient education to understand what a scientist is, or

(b) you have a republican brain, and are unable to consider any information, no matter how factual, which challenges what you believe you know.

take your pick.
Click to expand...

And what would you call the 700 or so dissenting skeptical scientists who aren't Republican? It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science for those on both sides of the coin namely Republicans and Democrats. Cass, have you ever carried out an experiment before, been in a lab, written a lab report, done a research paper, collected data, or performed data analysis? Are you familiar with philosophy of science? Karl Popper, Kuhn, Duhem, Van Fraassen, feyerabend, or Hempel? If not then how can you sit here telling people that if they don't believe in global warming they are uneducated and stupid?

dujac · Mar 31, 2012

this is a trailer for the movie, 'cool it'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo[/ame]

it's a documentary film based on :

'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming' is a book by the Danish statistician and political scientist Bjørn Lomborg. The book is a sequel to The Skeptical Environmentalist (first published in 1998 in Danish), which in English translation brought the author to world attention. Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars without the same return on investment, often are based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may have very little impact on the world's temperature for centuries. Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World as well as subsidies from the First World to the Third World to help fight ongoing humanitarian crises.

“In his short new book, “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” Mr. Lomborg reprises his earlier argument with a tighter focus. He tries to puncture more of what he says are environmental myths, like the imminent demise of polar bears.” — The New York Times

“He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."
I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling.” — Sharon Begley, Newsweek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming

Panzerkampfwagen · Mar 31, 2012

MisLed said: ↑

factual. LoL

Climate change artists (I'd hardly call them scientists) have damaged themselves with their tactics. It doesn't take too many times of being shown that they have manipulated the data and conspired among themselves to cause people to doubt their veracity.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you've been shown that they didn't manipulate, that they didn't lie, that trick in science means method, etc, you just won't change your mind, because you're a conservative and you won't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

The Lepper · Mar 31, 2012

Anarcho-Technocrat said: ↑

And what would you call the 700 or so dissenting skeptical scientists who aren't Republican?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? You'd call them scientists. Just because they are skeptics doesn't mean they have to be republicans. That's crazy talk.

cassandrabandra · Mar 31, 2012

Anarcho-Technocrat said: ↑

And what would you call the 700 or so dissenting skeptical scientists who aren't Republican? It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science for those on both sides of the coin namely Republicans and Democrats. Cass, have you ever carried out an experiment before, been in a lab, written a lab report, done a research paper, collected data, or performed data analysis? Are you familiar with philosophy of science? Karl Popper, Kuhn, Duhem, Van Fraassen, feyerabend, or Hempel? If not then how can you sit here telling people that if they don't believe in global warming they are uneducated and stupid?
Click to expand...

yes I am familiar with the philosophy of science.

I suspect Karl Popper would be turning in his grave if he knew you were dirtying his name by pretending his theories are in any way linked to climate denialists.

If you also read the link I posted, you would see that Chris Mooney does not say non republicans DON'T think like this - or even that all republicans do .... just that is is more prevalent among republicans.

cassandrabandra · Mar 31, 2012

dujac said: ↑

this is a trailer for the movie, 'cool it'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo

it's a documentary film based on :

'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming' is a book by the Danish statistician and political scientist Bjørn Lomborg. The book is a sequel to The Skeptical Environmentalist (first published in 1998 in Danish), which in English translation brought the author to world attention. Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars without the same return on investment, often are based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may have very little impact on the world's temperature for centuries. Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World as well as subsidies from the First World to the Third World to help fight ongoing humanitarian crises.

In his short new book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming, Mr. Lomborg reprises his earlier argument with a tighter focus. He tries to puncture more of what he says are environmental myths, like the imminent demise of polar bears. The New York Times

He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."
I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling. Sharon Begley, Newsweek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming
Click to expand...

lomborg is interesting:

According to his website, Bjorn Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his Ph. D. in Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

He is best known as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It. Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in the area.

Lomborg has been documented for numerous errors, reported by many sources. Here's a notable website dedicated to documenting Lomborg's errors, which also maintains a timeline documenting the events leading to Lomborgs fame, and how he is regarded among his fellow Danes.

Lomborg has recently been pioneering the potentially unrealistic idea of geo-engineering to solve the issue of climate change. Lomborg envisions a fleet of 1900 robotic ships that will patrol the ocean while releasing massive spouts of ocean water than will reflect the sun's rays and keep us cool. [2]

Geoengineering research proponent Ken Caldeira has said "the vision of Lomborgs Climate Consensus is 'a dystopic world out of a science fiction story Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, its pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly'." [3]

Stance on Climate Change
In a 2010 report in The Guardian, Lomborg acknowleged that global warming is "a challenge that humanity must confront." Lomborg goes as far as calling for a carbon tax and a $100 billion investment in clean technologies. [4]

But Lomborg's "new" view on climate change, presented prominently in his new book Smart Solutions to Climate Change, isn't exactly new. He still argues that it would be too expensive to implement any major carbon reduction policy, and that "drastic carbon cuts would be the poorest way to respond to global warming." [5]

At this point, Lomborg appears to be directly contradicting himself.
Click to expand...

http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg

Bowerbird · Mar 31, 2012

Anarcho-Technocrat said: ↑

And what would you call the 700 or so dissenting skeptical scientists who aren't Republican?
Click to expand...

A lie made up by a Republican - no seriously!

Where do you find that list? Well it was compiled by Marc "Weasel Words" Morano and posted on the Minority Senate Report by James Inhofe - check it out for yourself

It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science for those on both sides of the coin namely Republicans and Democrats. Cass, have you ever carried out an experiment before, been in a lab, written a lab report, done a research paper, collected data, or performed data analysis? Are you familiar with philosophy of science? Karl Popper, Kuhn, Duhem, Van Fraassen, feyerabend, or Hempel? If not then how can you sit here telling people that if they don't believe in global warming they are uneducated and stupid?
Click to expand...

Because what is missing is critical thinking and analysis of twaddle. People post THE most ridiculous papers and then claim they "disprove" global warming

Show me some solid science that disproves it

cassandrabandra · Mar 31, 2012

Bowerbird said: ↑

A lie made up by a Republican - no seriously!

Where do you find that list? Well it was compiled by Marc "Weasel Words" Morano and posted on the Minority Senate Report by James Inhofe - check it out for yourself

Because what is missing is critical thinking and analysis of twaddle. People post THE most ridiculous papers and then claim they "disprove" global warming

Show me some solid science that disproves it
Click to expand...

when the only truth someone knows is a lie ... there is no way they can be convinced.

Bowerbird · Mar 31, 2012

cassandrabandra said: ↑

when the only truth someone knows is a lie ... there is no way they can be convinced.
Click to expand...

Agreed it is depressing really and is also discussed in the "Debunking Handbook"

The third and arguably most potent backfire effect occurs with topics that tie in with peoples worldviews and sense of cultural identity. Several cognitive processes can cause people to unconsciously process information in a biased way. For those who are strongly fixed in their views, being confronted with counter-arguments can cause their views to be strengthened.

One cognitive process that contributes to this effect is Confirmation Bias, where people selectively seek out information that bolsters their view. In one experiment, people were offered information on hot-button issues like gun control or affirmative action. Each parcel of information was labelled by its source, clearly indicating whether the information would be pro or con (e.g., the National Rifle Association vs. Citizens Against Handguns). Although instructed to be even-handed, people opted for sources that matched their pre-existing views. The study found that even when people are presented with a balanced set of facts, they reinforce their pre-existing views by gravitating towards information they already agree with. The polarisation was greatest among those with strongly held views.
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-4-Worldview-Backfire-Effect.html

In a way we all fall for confirmation bias as I know I will definitely trust NASA and the BOM Australia over say, an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Tallbloke" (and you really should read that last it is a hoot of a "misunderstood science site" try this for example

It is rare to find direct photographic evidence of antimatter but an Italian team from the University of Pisa, Anguilla Marinate Observatory in association with the CERN facility have managed this feat.

Dr Antonio has since his 1964 paper theorised on the existence of a parallel inverted universe, it was just a matter of technological advance before the direct evidence became available. The critical breakthrough came indirectly from Lucas Film morphology developments and CERN providing the critical timing via the second tunnel carrying anti-neutrinos.

In a nutshell the solar surface is matter and antimatter annihilation. By luck a fish in the as yet unnamed solar ocean must have surfaced where Hubble was looking at the time. This is the intersection of the anti-neutronic beam directed from Pisa.
Click to expand...

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/antimatter-marine-life-photographed-on-solar-surface/

And I have replied to more than one right-winger quoting that site!!

bugalugs · Mar 31, 2012

MisLed said: ↑

It doesn't take too many times of being shown that they have manipulated the data and conspired among themselves to cause people to doubt their veracity.
Click to expand...

No - it would probably take once.

Let us know if that ever actually happens OK.

bugalugs · Mar 31, 2012

Hoosier8 said: ↑

Isn't it refreshing to see the AGW religion trying to define the heretics? It is so 13th century.
Click to expand...

Isn't it refreshing to see the persecution of science by the people who don't understand it and feel threatened by it? It is so 13th century.

SiliconMagician · Mar 31, 2012

Many of us understand climate change.

The problem is the solutions all involve crippling the Western Economy.

Bowerbird · Apr 1, 2012

SiliconMagician said: ↑

Many of us understand climate change.

The problem is the solutions all involve crippling the Western Economy.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...ll-jobs-during-hard-times.html#post1061093140

cassandrabandra · Apr 1, 2012

Bowerbird said: ↑

Agreed it is depressing really and is also discussed in the "Debunking Handbook"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-4-Worldview-Backfire-Effect.html

In a way we all fall for confirmation bias as I know I will definitely trust NASA and the BOM Australia over say, an anonymous internet blogger calling himself "Tallbloke" (and you really should read that last it is a hoot of a "misunderstood science site" try this for example

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/antimatter-marine-life-photographed-on-solar-surface/

And I have replied to more than one right-winger quoting that site!!
Click to expand...

conservapedia and the theory of relativity could be worth a laugh ... if it wasn't so sad.

cassandrabandra · Apr 1, 2012

bugalugs said: ↑

Isn't it refreshing to see the persecution of science by the people who don't understand it and feel threatened by it? It is so 13th century.
Click to expand...

I guess this mindset has always been there ...

and scientists such as copernicus, galileo, keppler and many others have spent centuries being denounced by such people.

cassandrabandra · Apr 1, 2012

sablegsd said: ↑

Why can't liberals learn?

It's all bunk, bull(*)(*)(*)(*) bogus "science" designed to make jackasses like algorical and "brilliant professor types" RICH. It's a way to control the population.

How many times does it have to be debunked before you get it?
Click to expand...

the shoe is actually on the other foot.

why can't those conservatives with closed minds and a fear of new information learn?

why do they not know that debunking actually means that something is proven false, not that some people disagree with it, therefore make up lies to demonise scientists and confuse people?

cassandrabandra · Apr 1, 2012

efjay said: ↑

You cant put brains in sh!t cans mate, that is why these braindead freaks keep banging on about AGW, Its their new religion.
Click to expand...

or more accurately, if people have closed minds and a fear of science, they are impervious to information that conflicts with their preconceived ideas.

thats why the denialists keep pretending that scientists are the ones telling lies.

efjay · Apr 1, 2012

cassandrabandra said: ↑

thats why the denialists keep pretending that scientists are the ones telling lies.
Click to expand...

Climategate emails...read them.

Climategate 2 emails read them.

cassandrabandra · Apr 1, 2012

efjay said: ↑

Climategate emails...read them.

Climategate 2 emails read them.
Click to expand...

people who persist in bringing up climategate are only demonstrating that they have the kind of mindset referred to as a "republican brain".

check the facts.

understand them.

you'll see what I mean.

efjay · Apr 1, 2012

cassandrabandra said: ↑

people who persist in bringing up climategate are only demonstrating that they have the kind of mindset referred to as a "republican brain".

check the facts.

understand them.

you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

I HAVE read the emails, and i UNDERSTAND what they were trying to do. You on the other hand....

The emails clearly show that the IPCC and UEA engaged in a campaign of LIES, and corrupt behavior.
AGW is a POLITICAL agenda, you should stop treating it like your new religion...

Panzerkampfwagen · Apr 1, 2012

Yes, it's a money making hoax. This is why climate scientists are all filthy rich, instead of earning next to nothing.

bugalugs · Apr 1, 2012

efjay said: ↑

The emails clearly show that the IPCC and UEA engaged in a campaign of LIES, and corrupt behavior.
..
Click to expand...

Do they really!!!!! Could you show us the email or emails that does this please.

Cut and post it here - we could all do with a laugh.

You seem to know all about it - why don't you show us the evidence of these "LIES, and corrupt behavior."

Please post it here or apologise for posting a lie

Log in or Sign up

why don't republicans understand climate change?

cassandrabandra New Member

MisLed New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Anarcho-Technocrat New Member

dujac Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

The Lepper New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

bugalugs Banned

bugalugs Banned

SiliconMagician Banned

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

efjay Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

efjay Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

bugalugs Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

why don't republicans understand climate change?

cassandrabandra New Member

MisLed New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Anarcho-Technocrat New Member

dujac Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

The Lepper New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

bugalugs Banned

bugalugs Banned

SiliconMagician Banned

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

efjay Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

efjay Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

bugalugs Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches