Sciencesciencedeniertinfoilconspiracynuts

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 05:33 PM

Climate change deniers are mostly conspiracy theorists. Studies:

Funny. Peer Reviewed:

Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets 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, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/622.short

Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

And my favorite, the study of the Denier conspiracy theories about the conspiracy studies:

Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial

A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS.
http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443




39 replies, 2817 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Climate change deniers are mostly conspiracy theorists. Studies: (Original post)
EGTrise Jul 2015 OP
nolidad Jul 2015 #1
Gunslinger201 Jul 2015 #2
EGTrise Jul 2015 #3
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #14
EGTrise Jul 2015 #15
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #16
EGTrise Jul 2015 #17
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #22
EGTrise Jul 2015 #25
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #27
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #4
marmot84 Jul 2015 #7
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #26
marmot84 Jul 2015 #31
rahtruelies Jul 2015 #33
marmot84 Jul 2015 #34
nolidad Jul 2015 #5
EGTrise Jul 2015 #6
nolidad Jul 2015 #11
EGTrise Jul 2015 #13
Paradigm Jul 2015 #8
EGTrise Jul 2015 #9
Paradigm Jul 2015 #10
MountainDew Jul 2015 #12
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #20
MountainDew Jul 2015 #28
AZ0 Jul 2015 #18
EGTrise Jul 2015 #21
AZ0 Jul 2015 #23
EGTrise Jul 2015 #24
AZ0 Jul 2015 #30
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #19
NotWhoUThink Jul 2015 #29
EGTrise Jul 2015 #32
Transcendence Jul 2015 #35
EGTrise Jul 2015 #36
Transcendence Jul 2015 #37
EGTrise Jul 2015 #38
Transcendence Jul 2015 #39

Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 06:05 PM

1. Free markets make you a climate denier???

These folks need those nice white jackets with the very long arms!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 06:28 PM

2. Yale Study, Tea Party members more scientifically literate

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5168

I'm skeptical, damn right I am

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 06:47 PM

3. I recommend you read this article from beginning to end and then reconsider your post.

An excerpt:
...The data were gathered from a large U.S. study of how people perceive the risk of vaccination. And when Kahan crunched the numbers, they revealed a small correlation between science comprehension and political leaning. One finding: Those who identified themselves as “liberal” tended to have greater scientific comprehension than those who self-identified as “conservative.”

Or, as Kahan put it: “The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction--i.e., the more ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat,’ the more science comprehending.” Statistically, the effect was small—a correlation coefficient of r = 0.05—and only weakly significant, with a probability of p = 0.03. That is just under the traditionally accepted threshold of p = 0.05 that researchers use to identify a correlation that is unlikely enough to be the result of chance alone.

Many studies of people’s ideological leanings and ability to parse scientific information have found similar correlations. It has added up to the widespread perception that politically conservative beliefs go hand in hand with poor scientific understanding.

But Kahan cautions that this interpretation, known as the asymmetric hypothesis, is itself an example of the misinterpretation of scientific information. And he argues that the available data instead supports the symmetric hypothesis, which holds that such biases apply equally to liberal-leaning people.

To push back against the tide of misunderstanding and dampen the polarization, in his blog post, Kahan pointed out that survey participants who self-identified with the libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement also showed a slightly higher affinity for understanding scientific concepts. Again, the effect was tiny (r = 0.05) and even less significant (p = 0.05).

“he relationship is trivially small, and can't possibly be contributing in any way to the ferocious conflicts over decision-relevant science that we are experiencing,” Kahan wrote. But he hoped that pointing out the Tea Party factoid would dampen the political polarization, perhaps giving readers pause before making generalizations....http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/10/statistical-fluke-researchers-observations-tea-party-and-science-spark

Professor Kahan wasn't saying anything like what you thought he was saying, due to the misleading reporting by the RW source you cite. GIGO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:39 PM

14. I recommend that you find out what a bunch of bullshit "peer review" is, then get back to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:43 PM

15. Your choice of words indicates that you are also conspiracy-type Denier.

Once again, thanks for checking in.

It's nice to see the evidence here matching up so nicely with the studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:45 PM

16. What you know about my views on Global Warming couldn't fill a thimble.

But thanks for making one giant conclusion based on your shitty understanding of peer review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:49 PM

17. Bonus insults.

They add nothing to the discussion, but thanks anyway. I think I've categorized you pretty accurately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:36 AM

22. You started with the insults. Now you cry foul? How precious.

You might want to check out my posts on peer review before you talk smack again. Research is your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 08:06 AM

25. No insults from me. Just factual observation.

You seem quite happy to talk about the peer review conspiracy. But it's not ok to point that out?

How odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:55 AM

27. It's not a peer review conspiracy. It's a proven fact that the system is fatally flawed.

All you would have needed to do was search under my name and peer review to get many news articles that reveal the truth about this sham. But you are apparently too lazy to do that. You also made a giant presumption concerning my views on global warming. But don't let your ignorance get in the way. Just blast out you opinion and call it pointing out facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 07:04 PM

4. at the end of the day MMGW is still Leftist PC BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 07:44 PM

7. Please explain why you think so

Honestly, I want to know what you think and why you think it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:34 AM

26. because I don't see much actual science from the MMGW 'scientists'

Nor would a warm earth be such a bad thing. Worry much more about global cooling which seems to be an equal possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:39 PM

31. So full disclosure...

I'm very much on the other side but I am honestly intereting in your thinking on this topic. So do I understand you? You think that:

1. The science is not settled or perhaps that the scientists who claim it is are incompetent or otherwise compromised.

2. Global Warming actually wouldn't be that bad a thing anyway.

3. The chances of "Global Cooling" are about a high as those of "Global Warming" and it is all natural cycles anyway so we shouldn't do anything about it.

Have I honestly captured your position. If not please explain further. I'm honestly trying to grasp your position. Do you have any evidence that any of these statements are rigorously true? Do you have expert opinion to back up these statements or is it something else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 06:43 PM

33. RE:

1. The science is not settled or perhaps that the scientists who claim it is are incompetent or otherwise compromised.............CORRECT

2. Global Warming actually wouldn't be that bad a thing anyway..................WITHIN THE NATURAL LIMITS WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE, CORRECT

3. The chances of "Global Cooling" are about a high as those of "Global Warming" and it is all natural cycles anyway so we shouldn't do anything about it....................MORE LIKE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL WEATHER. MITIGATION SUCH AS KEEPING NEW ORLEANS SEAL WALLS IN GOOD ORDER OR MAINTAINING FOOD RESERVES AGAINST CROP FAILURE- OF COURSE ITS PRUDENT TO DO THAT.

Have I honestly captured your position. If not please explain further. I'm honestly trying to grasp your position. Do you have any evidence that any of these statements are rigorously true? Do you have expert opinion to back up these statements or is it something else? I HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO CONVINCE ME WHICH IS ALL I NEED. GOING THRU LIFE I FIND MORE AND MORE THAT 'EXPERTS' ARE ANYTHING BUT. The Scientific Method is the most powerful tool mankind has to learn about the physical world. Scientists on the otherhand are as a group no more trustworthy than used car salesmen and DC politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rahtruelies (Reply #33)

Sat Jul 11, 2015, 01:53 PM

34. Thanks for your candid respose

If you will permit me I would like to respond in detail sometime later. I will however agree that "experts" in many fields tend to be compromised and I agree that mistrust of "authority" tends to be a good thing.

In my future post, I will attempt to show you however that these truisms should not be generalized to this specific case.

Thanks again for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 07:33 PM

6. Another RW link to a misleading article. Same study as Gunslinger's. Same distortions in the article

Sourcing your opinions from RW articles is a sure way to end up looking foolish. This has all been covered in my post #3. I suggest you read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 09:23 PM

11. Didn't know that discover magazine was a RW trumpet!!!!

But he still reports conservatives more science savvy than left wingers even if by a small pct!

That is from your excerpt as well

Sorry the truth hurts!!!! Try not to be too sad!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:29 PM

13. Allow me to assist you here.

This thread is about the correlation of climate change Denial with conspiracy thinking. This subthread, including this reply to you, is irrelevant to the OP.

Your first link is to a RW source that references exactly what I said it did in post #3.

Your second link is to a Discover magazine online blogger who is referencing a different data set about science literacy. Here is the only sentence you apparently read: "Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are."

Here's the really funny thing: You stopped reading there and ignored everything else in the article. Because a little further down, the blogger points out that "liberal" and "conservative" are different than "Democrat" and "Republican". And the results are not the same for those categories. Conservatives do not do better than liberals in this data set. Feel free to check it yourself. Try not to cry.

The Politico article you linked to is the exact article that the good Professor references when he points out the incredible stupidity of the RW and political media that misrepresent his results. Feel free to go to my post #3 and click on the link and actually read that article so that you can verify how thoroughly you've been suckered by the garbage you use for information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 08:52 PM

8. Climate doomers are hell bent on standing up for their hoax, as long as

they're wasting taxpayer (those who choose to work for a living) money and not doomer (those who choose to not work and live on the government tit) money to keep the hoax alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paradigm (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 09:02 PM

9. Your choice of words indicates that you are one of the Deniers these studies talk about.

Additionally, from your argument you identify as the "free market" conspiracy denier type that Nolidad simply couldn't believe existed.Thanks for checking in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 09:11 PM

10. Correct. I deny an obvious hoax perpetrated by 1%ers to get themselves rich. Your

choice of words indicates you're one of the doomers who refuse to face facts and reality when it's right in front of your face.
Thank you for checking in as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:04 PM

12. You Purveyors of DOOM are a funny lot.

 

Isn't it about time to develop a new AlGoreithm or tweak your models to explain your hysterical predictive failures.

Hell, we got some rain today and it barely broke 70 degrees. Just a few days ago it was over 100 degrees. Rain in July is very rare in these parts. So in the span of 10 days we were told that Global Warming caused the high temperatures. What are the chances that you doomers will blame the cool wet weather on global cooling/warming, climate change/disruption or cow farts -- we do have a lot of livestock in the area so maybe it really is the cow farts causing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:08 AM

20. Are they working on a cure for the condition that causes flat earthers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:02 PM

28. It was already cured in most

 

non scare mongering people. You may want to check with your doctor and get a the pill. Maybe you were busy Letting Only Your People Vote and missed the news.

PS -- Are your copy/paste keys broken? Good to see your other keys are working for a chance.

WE ARE DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:51 PM

18. Lewandowski & Cook are certifiably

conspiracy conspirators by far. Read this from Duarte before you but any stock in Lewandowski's "scholarly" publications...
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:10 AM

21. Mr. Duarte seems much better at blogging than at actual research.

And it's quite predictable that his blogger polemics would appear here. But don't take my word for it; here is his publishing history:

http://www.joseduarte.com/research.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:39 AM

23. Yes

He has few peer reviewed papers, but he is still a PhD candidate. I am sure he will publish more peer reviewed papers if the scientific community and academia truly search for the truth in our chaotic earth. More likely, his academic career will be squashed like a bug under the heel of those that toe the line of the 97% consensus myth. His evaluation is solid and raises good questions, that is what science is about. EG Trise, I'm guessing you are of the position that the "science is settled" and let's make policy decisions based on scary co2 emissions. You might want to read papers and essays from Curry, Tol, Pielke Jr & Sr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 08:02 AM

24. His career will be destroyed by the conspiracy.

Got it, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:40 PM

30. Do you actually follow both sides

of the climate scare debate? I do. Curry is a great source but vilified as being a denier. Duarte will be to as does not toe the line.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/05/what-exactly-is-going-on-in-their-heads/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:07 AM

19. Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

Being a flat earther is evidently a mental condition (I hope that they are looking for a way to treat this disease so as to cure the flat earthers) http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3043

A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.

Motivated rejection of science

Three years ago, social scientists Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac published a paper in the journal Psychological Science titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.

The paper detailed the evidence the scientists found that, using survey data provided by visitors to climate blogs, those exhibiting conspiratorial thinking are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change. This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same resultlinking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial.

Of course science denial and conspiracies go hand in hand

This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAA published a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, nobody likes being characterized as a conspiracy theorist, and so those in the denial blogosphere reacted negatively to the research of Lewandowsky and colleagues. Ironically, many of the attacks on the study involved conspiratorial accusations, which simply provided more data for the social scientists to analyze. For example, the authors were accused of everything from faked data to collusion between Lewandowsky and the Australian government....

Conspiracies and skepticism don’t mix

Given that those denying a 97% consensus among scientific experts must find a reason to reject that consensus, it’s not at all surprising that conspiratorial thinking is common among those who deny climate science. Conspiracy theories have even become a prime argument against climate policy among some top Republican presidential candidates like Ted Cruz, who said in a recent interview,

I think the data is driven by politicians who have always supported more government control.
However, Lewandowsky explains why he believes the results of his study are important, if not surprising,
I am hoping that they are working on a cure for this defect or condition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Original post)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:04 PM

29. Looking over some of the responses in this thread

and elsewhere makes me wonder, what intersection there may be between CT, AGW, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Anecdotally there does seem to be a strong connection worthy of further research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotWhoUThink (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 10, 2015, 06:18 PM

32. It's remarkable.

The urge to CT must be overwhelming. I think it is a coping mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Transcendence (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 11:50 PM

36. The journal retracted due to the threat of legal action.

Good science really, really pisses Deniers off. And they have deep pockets. The paper was subsequently republished. Several times.

The "debunking" paper was itself "debunked" by yet another peer reviwed paper.

But that was a really good try. Total fail, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:50 AM

37. Do you have any proof of that?

Or is it like your prophecies of doom--no proof required, just faith?

Here is a link to an article explaining everything wrong with the paper:

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud

Out of 1145 participants, only 16 reject the claim that HIV causes AIDS. Out of 176 free marketeers*, only 9 reject the HIV-AIDS link – that is, 95% agreed that HIV causes AIDS. There were fake participants in the study that can be identified by their response patterns – those trivial 9 and 16 figures will drop when we delete the fakes.

Out of 1145 participants, only 11 reject the idea that smoking causes cancer. Out of 176 people who endorsed free markets, only 7 rejected the claim that smoking causes cancer. 96% of them agreed that smoking causes lung cancer. (They should've said "increases the risk of", because some intellectual types will be sticklers on that, might struggle with their answers – see the footnote.)

They didn't disclose this in the paper. They didn't tell us. Nor did they clean the fakes from their data, fakes which end up driving some of the key results. They did the opposite – they claimed effects based on these numbers, in their headline, their abstract... Their effects were artifacts of improper statistical inferences, driven by variance between "agree" and "strongly agree" answers to those science items – the opposite of "rejection".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:25 PM

38. Jose is a Denier grad student.

Deniers are pretty silly. Fail again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EGTrise (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:20 PM

39. Ad Hominem Fallacy

Don't attack the person making the argument, attack the argument he makes. Tell us why what he is saying doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencesciencedeniertinfoilconspiracynuts