Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Photo

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:52 AM

This article is about the workings of the mind of a Ct'er

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the
world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scienti c evidence.
Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a
prominent and in
uential 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 nd 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 scienti c ndings, 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 scienti c
ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides
empirical con rmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to
http://websites.psyc...eConspiracy.pdf



#2 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 08:48 PM

Your posting of this abstract for this paper really only serves to reinforce the alarming decline in science today. It illustrates two points: the dismally poor standards currently prevalent in some branches of science; and your own inability to distinguish ideology from science, or conduct even elementary analysis.

Had you bothered to do even a cursory review of the Lewandowsky paper you would have discovered a number of very disturbing things:
  • The paper was peer reviewed and scheduled for publication in September.
  • Prior to publication, in July, the author engaged in “publication by press release” through “The Guardian” newspaper.
  • Real scientists reviewed the paper and found it to be politically motivated and riddled with methodological, statistical and scientific errors.
  • As a result of the abysmally poor quality of this paper, it has been subject to universal ridicule and contempt.
  • Given that this paper was subject to “peer review”, there has been universal condemnation of the “peers” and questions regarding both their competence and motivation.
  • In light of the demonstrable incompetence of the author, questions are now being asked as to how he was awarded a PhD in the first place, and how he has been able to maintain a faculty position at the University of Western Australia.
  • Currently a review is being conducted of the author’s previous publications with a view to determining whether or not they should be retracted due to incompetence or fraud.
  • The U of WA is currently in damage control while attempting to paper over its culpability in having such an incompetent faculty member on its payroll.
  • The issue of his competence and the university’s culpability has been put on the agenda for a formal governance review at the U of WA.
  • The paper has been withdrawn from publication, and has been removed from the publication schedule.
In future, I suggest that rather than embarrass yourself even more by posting more garbage, you make at least a cursory attempt at examining the facts and reviewing the science before posting.

#3 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:35 PM

Oh I know what you mean by real scientists. They have names such as Watts, Joanne Nova...
So far this is the only review I can find that isn't written by a climate change denier http://www.theregist...ve_denail_fury/

Upon searching further I found this too. People reading this thread may find this illuminating, bit I doubt you will.


IF the world's conspiratorial blogosphere was broken up into food items on a wedding buffet table, then an eclectic array of plate-fillers would surely be on offer.
There would be canapés topped with faked moon landings and hors d'oeuvres of Government-backed plots to assassinate civil rights leaders.
Sandwich fillings would come from US military staff at Roswell in New Mexico (cheese and alien, anyone?). The alcoholic punch would be of the same vintage as that which the British Royal family gave Princess Diana's chauffeur, as part of their plot to kill her. All of the catering would be provided by the New World Order.
Then there's the salad of human-caused climate change being a hoax, with the world's climate scientists, national academies and the declining Arctic sea-ice all in on the conspiracy.



http://www.desmogblo...mell-conspiracy


Let me give you some advice. When you try too counter an opposing position, statements that read like opinions don't count at all. On another forum I am debating another climate change denier and I swear to God you two are two peas in a pod.

I'm in a good mood and I want you to be also that's why I'm posting this just for you
High-Arctic heat tops 1,800-year high
"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought—we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news....-high.html#jCp

Edited by ohreally?, 06 October 2012 - 09:38 PM.


#4 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:43 PM

I'm in a good mood and I want you to be also that's why I'm posting this just for you

High-Arctic heat tops 1,800-year high
"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought—we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news....-high.html#jCp

P.S. On another forum I am debating another climate change denier and I swear to God you two are two peas in a pod.

#5 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:56 AM

Link wouldn't work....

But if the headline is correct then my question is What man-made event happened 1800 years ago to establish the previous high?
CaveRat......
Visit my website

#6 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

Link wouldn't work....

But if the headline is correct then my question is What man-made event happened 1800 years ago to establish the previous high?


It works. But here it is again. http://phys.org/news...r-high.html#jCp

#7 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:39 PM

You seem to have missed the point.

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.

#8 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:40 AM

You seem to have missed the point.

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.


So you again write stuff without citations. Inject personal evaluations. You must think we should just take your words for it. And you disparage what appears to be a university of renown because Lewandowski is a faculty member.
http://en.wikipedia....stern_Australia

Look my Canadian friend you are neither an expert or authority on climate change. What you are though, is someone that is opposed to any thought humans have through their activities any ability to influence the climate. The climate is changing and all the evidence which gets more convincing nearly everyday is pointing that these changes are being caused by us.

#9 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:59 PM


You seem to have missed the point.

The point is not to have a competition over which blog links most support whose viewpoint; the point is to behave like a scientist and investigate the facts for yourself. This would have required that you read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand the method and understand the results.

Clearly, you have done none of these things.

Had you done so, you would have learned that the paper was conceived as a political exercise with a preconceived ideological objective; then the study was structured to ensure that the results would support the original objective.

However, it turns out that Lewandowsky made such an incompetent hash of this, that even the most casual observers have found it to be a laughable embarrassment.

This study would have received a failing grade in a grade school science fair; it says a lot that Lewandowski is a faculty member at the University of Western Australia.

It says even more that the Australian taxpayer paid $1,700,000 for this “peer reviewed scientific study”.


So you again write stuff without citations. Inject personal evaluations. You must think we should just take your words for it. And you disparage what appears to be a university of renown because Lewandowski is a faculty member.
http://en.wikipedia....stern_Australia

Look my Canadian friend you are neither an expert or authority on climate change. What you are though, is someone that is opposed to any thought humans have through their activities any ability to influence the climate. The climate is changing and all the evidence which gets more convincing nearly everyday is pointing that these changes are being caused by us.


Which part of: read the Lewandowsky paper, analyse it, understand it, and draw your own conclusions do you need explained?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users