Climate Change: Why Do the Facts Fail to Convince?
Public opinion about the threat posed by global warming is also heavily influenced by the perceived social/cultural worldview of the person presenting the information, other Cultural Cognition Project studies show. If advocates are seen to share worldviews with their audience, they have far greater success in swaying people to their point of view on controversial issues such as climate change. If advocates are perceived to hold worldviews that contradict those of the audience, the information being presented is much less believed. This is the case even if a hierarchical-individualist is presenting views normally associated with egalitarian-communitarians. The latter group are less supportive of egalitarian-communitarians’ views if they are promoted by an advocate from the opposite “tribe.” In fact, on some issues such as the intense and highly polarized debate over compulsory HPV virus vaccinations for 11-12 year old girls, audiences completely switched sides to one opposing their default position when the advocate presenting the information was on the other side of the social/cultural divide.
Other studies from the Yale Law School group have shown that even the public’s perception of who is, and who is not, an expert in climate science is heavily influenced by whether or not the expert’s worldview is perceived to coincide with that of the listener. Clearly, we need more advocates for the climate realist position who are seen to subscribe to an egalitarian-communitarian worldview.
Although there was a small decrease observed in the public’s overall concern about global warming as scientific literacy increases, the issue became increasingly polarized as literacy rose, the May 27 Nature Climate Change paper showed. In other words, skeptics become more skeptical and alarmists become more alarmist as they learn more about science and mathematics. Regardless, researchers found that the impact of cultural worldview was far greater than the impact of scientific literacy. What matters most, researchers find, is who is advocating the position being presented and how they are presenting it.
These findings will dishearten traditional science educators who for years have focused on disseminating clear and well-supported descriptions of the way nature works in the hopes that the public will come to more rational conclusions on issues such as global warming. It will also disappoint those who, because of their perceived political and philosophical positions, have little chance of swaying segments of the population who hold opposing worldviews. This does not imply that their work is not important, however. For example, many people with hierarchical-individualistic worldviews still support the climate scare and clearly these individuals must be the primary target audience for think tanks and other groups who hold strong free-market and other capitalist views.
The Cultural Cognition Project research findings reinforce the importance of the non-partisan, worldview-neutral strategy of groups such as the International Climate Science Coalition. Such an approach helps make it “safe” for people from across the social and cultural spectrum to work together without threatening anyone’s values. This is critical if we are to expand the tent of those who want to finally end the expensive and highly divisive climate debate in favor of rational climate and energy policy.
How about this: individualists actually have a much stronger BS detector?
Exactly.
When 99% of the “climate change” crowd speak it is always about a “social” responsiblity to pay and fix it. They only offer “restrictions” and “taxes” to “offset” or “midigate” the problems caused by “warming” , then the demand the “rich” must “help” the “poor” catch up.
Green socialism is just socialism with a “cover”.
Exactly. I am constantly reminded of the movie “On Golden Pond” when the daughter’s (*Jane Fonda…I know, I know) is being screwed with by Norman (Henry Fonda) and he replies, “There is one thing…I know crap when I hear it.”
The warmists/globalists are so enamored with the “need” for a “just world” that they insist on forcing others to pay for their imagined utopia. Not only can it not be done, but it should not even be attempted by mere mortal beings whose moral compass comes out of a sit-com.
They needed a study to prove this? Why? The results of this study are clear in almost every election cycle.
I saw this already. I think this is cover for the left. It seems that studies have been done that show the more you know about science, the less concerned you are about global warming. Now this is just the opposite of what should happen if you are a warmist, because you religiously believe you are right.
So there must be a problem beyond the science and this is it. It’s not that people who know more about science and don’t buy the AGW hypothesis are correct, they are just overpowered by their world view.
Nuts to that. In the old soviet union they used to lock up dissenters in mental hospitals because you had to be crazy to dissent against a workers paradise. Here all you need to know is that science is not determined by majority rule and the left wants to lock you out of discussions on warming. That seems to be the major talking point of the AGW crowd.
A rational climate and energy policy?
No such thing.
Nice try. So many words, so little concise and compelling arguments. All that appeal to science and authority crap followed by “We need govt to save us”. No, we need govt to do the job enumerated in the original ratified and unadulterated Constitution of the USA. Other than that we don’t need no stinkin govt.
By 1969, there was so much water pollution in the Cuyahoga River that it actually caught fire.
How can a mess like that ever get cleaned up, if the government does not seize the initiative? Is there some laissez-faire market scenario in which the polluters would have had to clean up their act?
Assuming you’re serious, google free market environmentalism. It’s been around a while.
Yeah, there is. The Germans (as I recall) have use a market-oriented system. Works pretty well. Carbon credits got some ideas out of it. Obv. differences, but on the waterway problem you could trade costs and pay people down river.
But the other problem with the comparison is that one is a river you can test. Junk goes in here, it shows up in the direction of flow. Pretty simple.
But anthropogenic global climate chaos warming change is not quite so easily understood, and definitely evades direct empirical testing.
Scientists have another word for phenomena that “evade direct empirical testing,” but it isn’t used in polite company.
I am sure this is well intended but it comes across as another obligation we have with typical liberals to make them feel good about their crappy decisions for which they usually take no responsibility. These liberals are delusiional and think their ends justifiy the means which society must provide them. After listening to this crap and watching Nobel peace prize awards forgive me for wanting to rub their liberal noses in dog crap rather than reach across the isle.
So you have a scientific study saying that political ideology matters far more than “scientific literacy” in this insane debate drastically raises taxes in response to normal variations in the worlds weather patterns.
Good luck selling that to the crowd that has been deliberately perverting science for thirty years in order to gain power and control over most of the human race. I’m sure they’ll be real receptive to your study telling everybody what they already know.
How about we throw the “scientists” who took massive amounts of government money to concoct a pseudoscientific basis to oppress most of humanity into jail for fraud. Where does that fit on your scale?
Here HERE friend! There is ONE scientist that mankind needs and that is our Lord God. All these little men claiming to understand God’s creation are dangerous little apostates! “Scientists” love to claim how they make the world better, hoping we ignore their crimes. Let us not forget, abortion was created by man, not God.
There is one book of knowledge we need and it don’t have no PhD phonies telling you how to live your life. All these “experts” should be locked up.
Right! Let’s retreat into our caves and stare at fear at the night sky. Let’s live in squalor as our ancestors did because we need to eschew science. Let’s turn the power over to the shamans who claim to know “gods’s” mind. We’ve seen how well that works throughout history.
BTW, which “god” should we worship? There are so many and so many fairy tales that I lose track.
Best to live in a cave than burn in hell my friend.
Spare me the religious histrionics. Too long has irrational fear ruled man. Our history is rife with examples of religion being to used as a justification for murder (it continues to this day, does it not?) Your beliefs are nothing more than that. They are no more provable or believable than any other fairy tale.
And FYI, I am not a liberal. Being a conservative doesn’t imply that I descend into irrational thought to justify my existence. I also reject the pablum of organized religion which demonizes those who don’t not wish to participate in that particular fantasy system.
Also, FYI, I don’t believe in abortion, but it has nothing to do with religion.
Brilliant Mr. Grumpy…let’s spurn God and “rationally” worship ourselves. That has worked brilliantly every time the communists did it.
Sure…you’re “conservative”. With conservatives like you, its no wonder why we have lost our way. Either you are trolling (and quite lazy at it) or you are deranged because the comment that I am responding to makes no rational point and sounds like the mad rantings of a eugeni-…er I mean darminist.
Seems to me your problem is that you have studied ‘religion’ about as much as a warmist studies science.
Looks like this could be one those rarest of Modern Liberals who wants more “friends” and attention.
Beware of the “Like” button.
Who are you responding to? Your post makes no sense.
Attempting to understand the diseased aka “liberal” mind is a dubious effort at best. You are attempting to rationalize a belief set that values Atheism over Christianity, Communism over Freedom, and destroying America to fulfill President Barry’s dream of revenge for the Western World not doing even more for his home country of Kenya.
There is no understanding of the liberal mind. Like a rabid dog, at best you can offer is pity and do what you can to protect society from them.
The Rev. Check his comments out.
“Those identified as hierarchists believe that goods, responsibilities and rights should be distributed based on clearly defined and stable social status factors such as wealth and lineage.”
Say…what? Why on earth would a hierarchist be considered “right-wing”? Who do you think is in favor of Affirmative Action; the Left or the Right? Conservatives are individualists.
“Those identified as hierarchists believe that goods, responsibilities and rights should be distributed based on clearly defined and stable social status factors such as wealth and lineage.”
The definition is the opposite of what you seem to think it is. The hierarchists believe in unequal distribution of goods, rights and responsibilities. The wealthier you are the more of these three things you deserve to have.
Replace the word wealth in that construct with credentials and it fits the socialist left world view perfectly.
I disagree with the definition of “hierarchism” put forward here. It’s not that “hierarchists” are aristocrats who think only they deserve wealth; it’s that they believe that people are naturally unequal and thus will tend to have a life that corresponds to their natural abilities. It’s closer to the old concept of the “natural aristocracy” of the Founding Fathers than the the straight-up caste system of India.
I read it the same way Numerian. Seems to me the mindless Egalitarian at the bottom of the “Culturally Identifiable Advocates” should be juxtaposed against a Meritocratist, not someone who believes “responsibilities and rights should be distributed based on clearly defined and stable social status factors such as wealth and lineage.” Where the devil do they get that?
Then in reply to you, Eva makes it worse by talking about the “unequal distribution of goods, rights and responsibilities” as though this is somehow anything but egalitarian. I’m confused; maybe someone much brighter than I can help, because right now all I can see is three mindless leftist ideals offset by one thoughtful alternative.
… hierarchists believe that goods, responsibilities and rights should be distributed based on clearly defined and stable social status factors such as wealth and lineage. Egalitarians believe that distribution should be done equally ….
They blew it with that description. “Hierarchists” are more aptly described as realists. Who’s asking whether goods should be “distributed based on clearly defined and stable social status factors?” Surely it’s enough to recognize that is the way the real world generally works, and efforts to change that fact have typically not ended well.
Realists vs utopians is a far more honest framing of the basic dichotomy involved.
I can see it now; the dynamic at work is this. When the Liberal-Left is about to lose the argument, everything is about “compromise” and the need to make the losers feel good about themselves. When they win, its all about “we won” and shoving things down peoples throats. The hell with that. I’ve seen too much of that crap in my lifetime. We’ll never win back our freedom and liberty with that kind of approach. “There is no substitute for victory.”
Yea, it makes me think of Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ as to how the “planners” all want to manage some ideal life for us all. But the farmers don’t agree with the city folk on everything and nobody can come up with a single plan. Until eventually people start worrying more about agreeing to not disagree instead of standing up for the principles that made them different in the first place. And they all agree to let a strong man take over just for the sake of implementing one plan, equal suffering.
Please, social “science” is not science. Climate “science” is not science. No matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
It is not a matter of whether the climate either is changing or will change. The global climate has been changing back and forth dramatically for eons. Our ancestors adapted to it obviously or we wouldn’t be here. The problem is not climate change but a far left political creed that uses climate change as a bogus excuse to restrict the hard won gains in liberty we enjoy here in the USA. It’s freedom they hate and big government they love.
Let’s cut to the chase and make a couple of declarative statements. 1) Religion is a belief system which cannot be proven by any scientific method. 2) Environmentalism as a belief system is a religion. We could also postulate as a corollary that “utopianism”, the liberals’ general belief system, has never worked wherever and whenever it was tried, and has attained the status of “religion” within the liberal/progressive world. What “utopianism” has proven is that it always creates an elite power structure within a totalitarian system built on the total dependence and debasement of the serfs/vassals.
Actually, if you are going to cut to the chase, your first statement should be:
1) All ideologies, secular and religious, are belief systems that cannot be proven by any scientific method.
You then derive from that:
2) All political systems are derived from ideologies, based on the social order mores presented by those ideologies. As such, no political system can be proven by any scientific method.
And then of course:
3) All economic systems are structured by political systems in accordance with the moral values of their respective ideologies. Likewise, no economic system can be proven by any scientific method.
Only then can you proceed through subjective external observations to objective external conclusions, which approach, but do not become, actual scientific proof.
Of course few people are willing to make those leaps and accept their ideology is just as much as an act of faith as that of the guy next to them.
+1! Perfectly said!
Exactly. I was trying to figure out where on the scale you fell if you believed goods should be distributed based on a free market system, and that we all had the same rights and responsibilities. As soon as I saw this entire analysis was based on a liberal framework, I stopped reading and skimmed to the end.
Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts! We know the earth is warming, it’s undeniable but the deniers have orchestrated a conspiracy run from Dick Cheney’s secret location funded by Big Oil, Halliburton and the Koch brothers. WE KNOW the earth is warming, WE KNOW CO2 causes it and the lack of “facts”, as you call them, are clear proof of the conspiracy.
But I’m not really concerned about the deranged warministas, they’re religious zealots proselyting for their god “The State”. No, I’m concerned about all of the GOP politicians and pundits who jumped on the global warming bandwagon, who despite the lack of evidence that warming was occurring thought some government intervention was good and proper. I can accept the clowns the zealots voted for being idiots but I expect my clowns to be smarter or, at least, a bit less eager to feed at the corruption trough. Those of us in “Realville” know a con by the “act now! before it’s too late!!” yet our esteemed politicians are constantly taken by every “we must act now!” piece of legislation. It’s almost as if they want to be taken… it’s almost as if they’ve got a hidden desire to expand the size and scope of government at every opportunity, and if an opportunity doesn’t exist then they’ll make one. But that can’t be, they ran as “Conservatives”, they campaigned on “smaller government”… so if the warmistas are right then the lack of any Conservative governance must prove the Conservatism of the Party!
This is not news. Public controversies are always about personalities, psychology, attitudes – not facts. Scientists are not immune.
“For example, many people with hierarchical-individualistic worldviews still support the climate scare”
They don’t believe in global warming but I think some hierarchists support it since there is a lot of money to be made from selling or investing in everything from green household cleaning products to construction materials. Scaring people into buying things works, just ask Al Gore.
The libtards in my life could not care les about the facts. As a friend explained to me “Its the solution to global warming that is important”. In other words most libs understand that global warming is a hoax, the solution is communism, you know making life fair, ie. getting even with white European christians who stole every bit of wealth from the browns. And that is what the driving force behind the whole hoax. You see, we conservatives look at libtards and see misinformed idealists and we believe that if they just saw the facts that they would change their minds. We are sadly mistaken because libtards know the facts, for them its about the ends.
The one thing left out of the article is MONEY. Although there are some true believers in man made global warming there are many in the leadership of the movement that see global warming and the policies as a giant redistribution of wealth possibility. On the other hand there are some people who profit mightily from not caring about the environment at all. These people will never change their view because it is not in the best interest of their pocketbooks.
Although I agree with the tactics prescribed by the article in general; I am a realist enough to know that money in this case is the bottom line.
It is too bad this article about cognition and the effects of cultural and worldview bias was actually an unsupported argument for ‘climate realism’, which, as I understand from the text, argues that the climate changes all the time ‘naturally’ (which of course includes the activities of humans) and somehow capitalism is a cogent response.
This of course makes no sense unless you have a religious belief in capitalism. Such a view relegates human consciousness and creative intention to the scrap heap while also failing to recognize the role of the larger current human belief systems (in addition to the critically mentioned religious belief systems) in the way things actually are, right now. Things like our collective belief in money based on debt, never-ending economic growth, competition as the primary means of relationship, human separateness, America exceptualism and God-up-in-the-sky.
A deus ex machina will certainly take care of everything (consistent with the views of the article relying on resolution that needs not relate to the internal logic of the actual story) and, by definition, it will be absent a key aspect of the possible human contribution – one based on our higher capacities and nature. Instead our contribution will consist of the collective expression of the current lopsided deeper story expressed by the systemic amplification of our worst human possibilities.
Um…say what, now?
Silly socialist. As one of the best history teacher I ever had so succinctly put it, “the masses are asses!”
“Worldview” is not a scientific term. And what about of the bogus “science” surrounding “climate change.” Even the vocabulary is corrupt.
Speaking of corruption, just yesterday on NBC Nightly News, an announcer from the Weather Channel spoke of the “highest temperatures ever” in Chicago or some place; later near the end of the piece, he referred to “highest recorded” temperatures.
CO2 has been 10 to 15 times more concentrated in our atmosphere since multicellular life took hold. Not 10-15% higher, but 10-15 times. When that sinks in it’s hard to get very worked up about the distant third most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Given CO2s historically low level, if it were to drop at the same rate it’s increasing scientists would begin to warn of the coming green plant apocalypse.
European and American communists switching in droves to the Green Party was well documented back in the early 1990s. It’s no accident every ‘environmental’ action seems geared towards destroying what’s left of the free market.
Tell me more about what the earth was like when it had those elevated levels of CO2. I’m guessing (educatedly) that it had to be long before anything resembling humans walked the earth.
Given that “humans” have walked the earth for about 200,000 years, or a tiny blip in geologic time, you’d be both right and intentionally misleading.
The crux of the alarmist argument is that there is a tipping point somewhere around 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or a number just above where the level is today. A number selected to maximize hysteria, not based on science.
If the historical record shows numbers far in excess of the so-called tipping point, and it does, by a lot, then the speculative mechanism for climate catastrophe would have to be a recent invention. I think it’s tied to government funding far more than actual climate science.
I am asking what the world was like when it had these super-high CO2 levels. Clearly, they are not going to make the world end (the world is a lot tougher than we are) but if we had warm temperatures and ferns and forests growing from pole to pole, it would demonstrate that having a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to creating and/or simply being part of a climate, much different from what we currently live in. “Tipping points” are way above my pay grade, but if it is clear that there were these previously very high CO2 periods, is it also clear what the climate was like then?
The author seems to mistake the tool with its users. The scientific method is objective but like any tool it can be misused. Those who apply the scientific method in their work are by definition flawed human beings. They are subject to cravings for power, money, fame and social acceptance. For that reason work done done by scientists may lack objectivity. This is particularly true of the proposals that follow from the “scientific findings” in areas that have seen recent infusions of grant money or media attention. Anyone who fails to take this into account when analyzing the policy proposals of a scientist or group of scientists is a fool.
Exactly. Having spent many years in the biological research community, I can attest to the corrupting influence of money and fame on science. That is why the scientific method ideally includes the reproduction of results by multiple people/groups over time. Reproducibility is crucial. EVERY human being has bias. That must always be borne in mind when assessing results and papers.
I sometimes wonder if the science before industry and government financed it was “purer.” Sure there was still the corrupting influence of fame, but at least money played a lesser role.
Well said,I’m old enough to remember the “climate science” scare of the late 60s and 70s which claimed that we were in for global freezing which should have been well under way by now.
That, more than anything else is what popped up on my radar when this current round of “global warming” and “climate change” came around.
When it came out about the suppression of their scientific opponents along with the suppresion and falsification of the data – well the whole lot may as well be tossed. The scientific method was not followed, the data is corrupt, and so are the proponents.
If the data was sound, if the scientific method was followed rigorously, then I reckon I could have been persuaded some.
What struck me when reading your comment is that maybe the weather scientists in the 60s and 70s had it right, i.e. current measurements show planetary temperatures starting to stabilize and/or decline. Like you, I lived through the earlier weather scare and remember it well. Poetic justice would be seeing it come true. Unfortunately, I probably don’t have enough years left in me for that.
I have said the same thing. People seem to confuse science with scientists. I don;t know whay so many “smart” people I know can’t understand that.
“Climate Change: Why Do the Facts Fail to Convince?”
This is an amazingly stupid and naive question.
In short, the answer is: the AGW crowd is not interested in the facts, they are interested in promoting a left wing political ideology and imposing their SOCIAL agenda upon the world.
It really is that simple.
Look, to this day many folks, esp. in academia and amongst the “intellectuals” embrace the communist ideology. This, despite all the experiences of the USSR (1917 – 1989), eastern europe (1946 – 1989) , Cuba (1959 – present), Cambodia (Pol Pot et. al.) , Mao’s China (70 million deaths); and of course, N.Korea 1946 – present); all of which demonstrated that a communist govt, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, impoverishes the citizenry, leads to loss of individual freedoms and mass murder or repression, and produces an elitist, corrupt, tyrannical governing elite that lives off the fruit of the average impoverished citizen.
You would think that this FACT would be enough to convince pretty much anybody that a communist regime is a very bad deal for 99.9% of the people.
But NO; not at all.
Why?
Because for the communist ideologue (or actually ANY ideologue) facts are irrelevant; what matters is their own belief system – exactly like a religion; and this belief system is literally unshakable, it is immune to any and all facts or evidence.
Many people simply believe; that is it.
Why the h*ll is this so hard to understand.
Right on! It comes as shock to many of my “educated” friends when I point out that just about every 20th century dictator had support among western intellectuals. Point out how George Bernard Shaw was supporter of Hitler and Stalin or how Herbert Croley admired Mussolini and you get laughed at.
I am concerned with this article’s complete failure to mention that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Instead it takes AGW as an assumption, as a given, and then discusses the social ramifications from there.
Al Gore is a false prophet, just as *wrong* and just as *destructive* as the false prophet Muhammad. Both want to destroy all that does not conform to their “tribe” and its rules. Both oppressive regimes must be removed from power.
As a psychologist and a conservative (a rare beast indeed), I found this article fascinating. Within psychology, there has been research on heuristics and cognitive bias in the areas of diagnostic decision making and jury behavior. This area of looking at how world view influences the way people handle facts is a new one to me, but the findings make sense given similar lines of research, notably in jury behavior.
We’ve had some other op eds here about how people formulate opinions, whether liberalism is dead, and the like. One could see this story as being relevant to those other discussions, particularly on the issue of conservatives believing that they can convince liberals with “I am a conservative and come bearing facts” argument. Browbeating people doesn’t work, even if you use facts.
Finally, if one considers this op ed a “fact”, some of the reactions to it in the comments are instructive.
If you want to see more of this, Judith Curry ( judithcurry.com ) runs these kinds of threads regularly.
Needless to say, they never settle anything.
Just curious, where would the other corners of the diagram fall on this article.
“Climate Change: Why Do the Facts Fail to Convince?”
Because the “facts” fail to convict.
Next dumb question?
The words “be distributed” in the Cultural Cognition Project framework beg the question: “By whom or what?”. For example, Natural Rights are distributed to all in an egalitarian manner by god or nature, unnatural rights (e.g., gay rights) are distributed unequally to an affected group by people with power. What type of rights distribution is supported by leftists/rightists? Then, for goods distribution, there is the belief or disbelief in the ‘Invisible Hand’…
This explains some things, but it is a limited perspective. For example, a person’s experience in graduate school might work to dispel the mystique of infallibility or “superior knowledge” that some academicians try so hard to maintain. This sociological approach suffers from the same disability that the human caused global warming theory suffers from: it tries to explain a very complex phenomenon – in this case public opinion – with a simple, nifty model.
The problem is that the facts do not fit human-caused global warming. There never has been a consensus and the liberal scientists penchant for cherry picking data or misrepresenting data to suport their cause has ruined public perception of them.
When I was first heard about “Global Warming”, I was prepared to believe. BUT they tried to sell it to me with marketing instead of science. When I finally found some science behind the theory, I found the “scientists” wouldn’t share their work. Then the “solutions” came out that seemed to be more about giving government more power and socializing the world than doing anything that would solve the problem.
There is still the possibility that we are affecting climate with CO2, but since those that support the theory seem to not really be concerned about fixing it, then I cannot support anything they put forward. Perhaps we feel we can support something we feel is good (nuclear power) if the believers will support it for that reason, but we should be leary of using their playbook.
That explains the popularity of anthropomorphic global warming. The tribal European Frankfurt school of climate science (admittedly a Cartesian derivation)–I think it’s getting warmer, therefore it’s getting warmer. Too bad the Americans tend to be those unwashed damn British empiricists, the brutes. They’re always suspicious of those rationalistic computer climate models that never seem to predict the future much less coincide with the past empirical record:garbage in garbage out.
Most of the highly negative comments herein that trend toward the meritocracy POV are from self selected types that either have the requisite IQ to succeed (unlikely) or are the unwitting beneficiaries of policy / circumstance (more likely) wherein they perceive that their success was solely of their own doing. The success of a penniless immigrant using no handouts and living with 12 relatives in a small house and starting a business is a completely different story than the “success” of a US kid who is handed a recent model car and enough cash to help pay for advanced education and has lots of local area family to employ him/her upon school graduation. The former is truly success. The latter, not so much. Successful outcome is a lot easier when the game is rigged for you. We have in this forum a lot of people who are one way or another the beneficiary of the rigged game, most of whom seem to not realise it (and would be loathe to admit it if they did.)
Much of the debate re cognition comes from understanding that the “communitarian” tilted POV sees that half of all humans are below average IQ and are probably unable to grasp the finer details. Futhermore communitarians understand that without the game being rigged the below average IQ doesn’t have as much success.
It’s no surprise that meritocracy would be favoured by the higher IQ types (or those perceiving themselves as such) since the high IQ by and large are the only real beneficiaries. The high IQ people make the $$ and stay in the nice hotels and the low IQ types change the sheets and carry the luggage. This is the way the world has always been. Somebody has to invent plastic or rockets, and somebody else has to keep the toilets unplugged.
Communitarians recognise that it’s not “hard work and personal responsibility” that are the sole arbiters of success. Half of all humans simply don’t have the needed mental horsepower. The meritocracy advocates may as well espouse the notion that 5’8″ kids can be basketball stars of only they were to try really really hard and be personally responsible. Communitarians however know that the probability of a 5’8″ basketball star is exceedingly low and trying real hard and personal responsibility isn’t going to make a difference. The lack of physical tools is the key (height in this case.)
This is ultimately what the social scientists are saying, that communitarians tend to focus on ways in which the below average can maximise their potential whereas individualists are convinced that all kids can be above average (via vouchers, presumably) and the only reason they are NOT above average is inferiority (morals, breeding, religion, etc.)
The bane of “conservative” thought is that at the core it’s no more realistic than that of the idiotic leftists.
As with all things the climate debate shows that the middle ground (the despised “moderate” position to you political junkies) is the only rational position — yes humans affect the climate and no we don’t know for sure what the result of this will be. The middle grounders (moderates) are the ones that use this lack of confidence one way or another to advocate increased use of nuclear power; if there *is* a real problem with CO2 output, then nuclear solves this, and if not, that’s even better because we can always use the energy.
All social order is “rigged,” indeed, Climategate is but a record of institutional science doing a lot of rigging. That conservatives and leftists seem to share a utopian core that leaves only moderate realists with the unrigged pragmatic truth in the here and now is laughable and mythical also.
Well Don, I suppose this all depends on how you define conservative. My lefty friends consider me conservative but I figure I’m a moderate.
To me a conservative is the type who bleats on about smaller government when in fact there has never been any such thing in the lifetime of said bleater that is detectable. e.g. Eisenhower was a republican and signed the bill to create the interstate system. Before then Republicans were there leading the charge to help the nascent airline industry (specifically, via the US air mail service) with taxpayer monies. It was the big bad massive government that helped make modern electronics what it is; it was Reagan and SDI thinking that brought us aircraft that don’t need pilots, GPS, and the internet (all via DARPA defense budget increases.) Each of these actions by republicans increased the size of government. I vote GOP because the GOP by and large understands the notion of investing taxpayer money into that which pays the taxpayer back manyfold. I avoid voting DEM because they don’t get it and want to impose regulation and tax on anything that moves. They are the anithesis of all progress. The DEM concept of “investment” is windmills, which of course is an intellectually bankrupt notion by definition.
Point is that GOP is all about government investment, always has been, and the tea party types who natter about “smaller government” as if it’s something they have fond memory of are either laughably stupid or merely trying to impugn a DEM president. Since the tea party has since been very easily hijacked by the far right christian types, it’s fairly obvious that it didn’t honestly have much underpinning it in the first place: just another variation of the bible thumpers trying to wage their culture war.
Bingo! It’s like using the original Constitution as a magical spell to solve our current problems. Are we struggling mightily? Yes.
Tea Party solution: Go back to the limitation of powers as originally described in the sublime document, despite the fact that the Guvment has growed like Topsy from day one on! Praying might also help.
Yes, some difficult reckoning has to be done to keep things afloat. It’s just that the strict constructionist stuff, per se, is not particularly helpful in that it allows libs to mock how out-of-touch the Tea Party types can be. Aircraft carriers turn relatively slowly…and the fact that we even have aircraft carriers shows how far from the dream of the Founders we have fallen, flown, or given the Interstates… driven.
The old guy, I forget his name, who used to go on and on about the seditious expansion of the Commerce Clause (what WAS his name?) seems to have left us, but one could argue that when we went to Interstate highways, the commensurate expansion of already ubiquitous interstate transportation, the Commerce Clause, probably appropriately, also growed like Topsy.
Tea Party solution: Go back to the limitation of powers as originally described in the sublime document, despite the fact that the Guvment has growed like Topsy from day one on!
Right. We have 200 plus years of thousands of smart, sober, sane, and rational adults devoting their life’s work to preserving and protecting the limitation of powers as well as the freedoms guaranteed by the founders, and tea party activists want to pretend that each and every one of these people had it wrong the whole time?
The tea party either chooses to conveniently ignore the steps taken in that 200 plus year span, or they’re on about something else. The tea party seems to not grasp that new technology requires new regulation and new regulation requires oversight and oversight requires people to do the job, hence there is government growth by definition, just from the adoption of technologies.
Do we expect nuclear energy to be 100% private? Of course not; the government has a legitimate interest on behalf of the citizenry. The tea party would have you believe that the feds are into the utility industry as much as they are due to bad guys usurping the constitution. Not exactly. Nuclear energy is a technology that is a federal level issue.
And where is the growth? Agencies and bureaucracies.
While it’s one thing to protest the abuse of power by bureaucracies and those in charge of them, this is not what the tea party is doing. They aren’t even aiming at the correct target. It’s one thing to work towards limiting the scope and ability of agencies; it’s quite another to make silly claims regarding the constitution. The tea party is not something that can be taken seriously.
The flaw with your treatise is that while intelligence can be overlooked in the individualist position (though most communitarians deny it as well), the individualist would argue that society is bettered when all individuals reach their highest potential. In other words, someone with an IQ of 80 gets a job as a janitor rather than being on the public dole. Someone with an IQ of 120 would be an engineer.
If everyone is treated solely on their humanity (outside of fundamental human rights in the Constitution) then we will reduce achievement, success and growth at ALL levels. We get the old Soviet Union axiom “We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us!”
Morlocks and Eloi – great. Instead of having my wagon hitched to them, can I just eat them?
“The middle grounders (moderates) are the ones that use this lack of confidence one way or another to advocate increased use of nuclear power; if there *is* a real problem with CO2 output, then nuclear solves this, and if not, that’s even better because we can always use the energy.”
As does hydroelectric power. Which is the reason, when confronted by an AGW enthusiast, I immediately ask them if either one is a reasonable response to the threat of global warming.
They invariably go off in my face about the dangers of radiation, the way dams hurt fish, and so on. Followed by paeans of praise for Holy Wind and Holy Sun. And oh yes, excoriating me for “hating Mother Earth”.
I experienced exactly the same thing during the Great Second Ice Age Scare of the 1970s. I knew then it was solely propaganda to frighten us into giving the “enlightened ones” absolute power. Today, they are using the same tactic, just reversing the direction of the temperature alarmism.
Anyone with that level of combined ignorance of science, and fanaticism about building their Utopia on the ruins of our civilization is, IMHO, too dangerously stupid to be in charge of anything.
clear ether
eon
“…communitarians tend to focus on ways in which the below average can maximise their potential…”
Ludicrous. “Maximizing potential” has nothing to do with it. Wealth redistribution is the aim of the “communitarians”. What has a good chance of “maximizing potential” is “vouchers”, which “individualists” support, not to bring the kids intelligence above average. Individualists don’t care about average. They care about opportunity. Your total argument is simplistic and based on spurious assumptions.
Vouchers are like a bumper sticker response, not unlike Santorum being interviewed with the opportunity to talk about important stuff like jobs and energy and instead ranting for 20 minutes about condoms and the like. At best a voucher does nothing more than guarantee that a child will be taught enough to pass a test. Big deal. Britney with an IQ of 100 is trainable, and this is dictated by her IQ, nothing else. She will never be a doctor or an engineer, and this isn’t due to “opportunity.” It’s solely due to a lack of the requisite mental horsepower. Britney doesn’t have the brains for it. A serious proposal to fix whatever you think ails education would recognise that sending all kids to college is pointless, that at least 1/2 of all kids are at best trainable for a vocation, and college (where the idea is that you learn how to learn what you don’t know) is beyond their ability. Ignoring the fundamental truth of this isn’t any more useful than the left’s insistence that we’re all equal. College (learning how to learn) is of use to about 20% of the population. 80% of the population cannot learn how to learn. They lack the IQ. That’s simply a fact, and even if you want to scream that this is an assumption, it’s not going to change (i.e. you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
I would just point out that IQ is not a measure of success, and no predictor of success either – there are many random engineers with high IQs who work for “dumb” rich guys…and always will.
chicken
My point re IQ is that dumb kids can’t hack med school, average kids can’t really hack astrophysics, and so on. Yet we pretend that they can, that all they really need is strong moral fibre and a good grade school, that they’re just as equal to the task as anyone. This is pure fiction. All it does is push a lot of kids into college that they can’t really hack and colleges of course are under pressure to dumb it down enough for them. This doesn’t do anyone any good at all.
I’m all for average and below kids being pushed to trade schools where they can learn an honourable vocation, one that pays well and is suited to their abilities. There is *nothing* wrong with plumbing, and I’m pretty happy that while the plumber down the street from me can’t do astrophysics, he makes as much as I do. We can’t *all* do astrophysics, after all. Somebody’s got to lay some pipe. Average IQ doesn’t equate to lacking in honour; it simply means that not everyone can be an astrophysicist.
Ultimately the problem with the voucher argument is that this is glossed over and left unsaid with the sad result being that proponents eventually conclude that Britney, if only she went to school X, could become a surgeon. No! Britney lacks the brains. She could get instruction from Einstein’s ghost, and it wouldn’t change a thing. Until voucher proponents address this vouchers will never be taken seriously by anyone. Hell, I’m not a leftist and even I think they’re stupid. i.e. the voucher argument needs to impress me long before agreement can be reached with the general voting population.
Apparently you haven’t understood my upper post about “maximizing potential” in charter schools. It means simply “being the best that you can be”. If your IQ is 100 you will be able to read at a 100 IQ level when you graduate from the “voucher” school, not someone with an IQ of 100 and get into college reading at a 70 IQ level after graduating from a politicized public school. No one claims that charter schools will increase IQ, only train to your “maximum potential”, your words.
Fascinating insights I have not seen anywhere else
Go to Schumpeter and his religious impulses acting like masterless dogs.
If you follow the emotional tone and language choices, you will note that the Al Gores all sound like tent revival preachers. Again we see revealed religions patterns used to hector.
The issue is whether you think the group defines the value of the individuals or that the individuals make the worth of the group.
Growing up blue collar, I favor the second.
“…far more by their cultural and social worldviews.” Duh. Needing research to tell one this is it’s own analogue to the problem. That quote could be in a dictionary defining “politically correct liberal.”
People whose world views are formed in such a way are as unyielding as cement. In a large, disconnected and expansive world, consequences for stupid beliefs can literally never be felt by an individual holding them.
When you can show how such beliefs can cause a politically correct liberal an immediate loss of money, or discomfort or even harm, they suddenly become completely reasonable.
But we cannot stick such people into a phone booth with 10 illegals aliens who can’t figure out the secret of counter-intuitively tricky doors, nor have them ride on an inner city bus at 3 am with a 3,000 dollar laptop simply to provide our own empirical view of the world.
Thus, we’re screwed. In some manner I have never figured out, complete morons can button shirts and drive a car without immediately running it into a wall. I do not have time to paint Wile E. Coyote tunnel mouths on the side of freeway underpasses to Darwinize them.
I’m sure there must be some mathematical formula that shows an inverse distance between moronic beliefs and the reality of those beliefs. We have all figured out thought experiments where a liberal told they must spend the rest of their lives in exceptionalist and equal Egypt start screaming hysterically. They do not scream hysterically when they see naughty Islamophobia on CNN of Christian and Jew-hating people in Tahrir Square who think a door knob is a Rubik’s Cube and whose elevators can be sold on Ebay as quaint wooden antiques, complete with enough spider webs to furnish a Halloween fun house.
Didn’t the Koch brothers commission a study on climate change? Does anybody know what the results were?
It wouldn’t really matter to you what the results of any study commissioned by the Koch brothers, the bogeymen you already know that they are, now would it?
A question and an anecdote…
Question: I get why an E-C would be in support of taxation and also support GW theory (per the quote: “risks of global warming rose”) and the reverse for H-I. I also get why lack of support for nuclear power for an E-C would also decrease concerns about GW (et al) – an E-C fears nuclear power much more than a degree or two F in the short run (even though it would drop CO2 emissions thus potentially solving their issue). What I don’t get is why an H-I would increase support of GW if increased nuclear power is the suggested policy/solution. Perhaps I’m approaching it too logically as problem-solution instead of as the researchers referenced? Perhaps the researchers questions gauging the individuals were along the line of, “If this information came to you, would you support GW less/more if the result of your support lead to the policy suggestion?” Is this another attempt at the ends justify the means approach? Logic dictates if CO2 is the culprit then the solution is to reduce those emissions. The use of nuclear power versus coal, methane, and other CO2 emission hydrocarbons is a logical end point. My background is physics/math with heavy emphasis on science and scientific method instead of advocacy.
Anecdote: I have a young niece who recently graduated from San Diego State. She was raised in a relatively politically conservative household but has been thoroughly Californicated. Granted, she’s always very much been an idealist. I’ve had many GW discussions with her over the last few years and came to realize as soon as she said, “…I believe…,” the discussion was over. I suppose this reinforces the article’s plotline yet I absolutely fail to see exactly how any perceived E-C who doesn’t tow the GW line would be able to sway her or her friends. She once told me her friends simply “cannot believe there is anyone who doesn’t believe in GW”. That crowd wouldn’t be convinced if the Goracle turned his coat…they’d hang him at their first opportunity.
Footnote: I agree with a few of the posters…there are three leftist viewpoints in the chart, not two.
I suspect the answer to your question lies in how the question was worded. I doubt it asked, “If nuclear power is the solution do you now believe in AGW.” How questions are worded and the subsequent interpretation of the answers is one of the biggest flaws of these social science studies.
As an “individualist”, I would more likely support building nuclear plants to combat global warming because it is more of a free market solution, and at the same time maybe increase the availability of electrical power. Increasing taxes on CO2 emissions is a government intrusion solution, although you could argue that the drivers in both cases would be the government. I would support nuclear power because I believe that through science and engineering it can be made perfectly safe.
jarmo – That’s the point of my question. The implication of the quoted portion of the article states support for GW increased (was higher) for the “H-I” portion when the solution was nuclear power as opposed to taxation. This implies a universal belief that GW is a human-caused problem that needs solving. Therefore, the study and its conclusions are unfalsifiable… rather like the hypothesis of GW. Interesting, no? As Charlie Martin has said many times, the skeptics’ issue is generally not whether GW is ‘real’ but what the human component/magnitude is in the phenomenon.
I completely agree with Mr Grumpy that it is all about the questioning techniques.
Very interesting article.
The scale reminds me of the political compass test which anyone can take online. That runs as authoratarian/libertarian and left/right in a 4 quadrant score. It is I think biased to libertarian but over the years when I take the quiz it puts me about where I think I am (soft right/libertarian).
Measuring something like that against a specific issue like global warming gives a correlation which as pointed out “we all knew” but why? If it is pure science then we observe that there is no left/right divide on something like the mass of an electron. This is obviously more complicated (as if it could be) so a social scientific survey can give additional insight into why this is so divisive along political lines. It looks like the authors accomplished that.
The responses have been very interesting as well. Some writers have rejected the entire idea that you can measure these responses on any kind of scale. Sort of uncertainty principle or Schroedinger’s cat, and reject the possibility of measurement because observation bias itself affects the outcome.
Other writers try to make observations more specific, such as the one I believe, which is that this science is not robust enough to dictate drastic changes with many negative consequences.
Plastic grocery bags are the next line of resistance. No science at all here from any side. I love my plastic bags and am convinced that they are better for the environment than any real alternative. Prove me wrong.
In this entire discussion not one person that I have seen has mentioned the fact that global warming has been less than one degree C over 150 years. How can anyone with more than half a brain construe this example of global temperature STABILITY as a “catastrophe”? Secondly, why are they blaming only THIS warming cycle on humans when there have been several previously before humans could be blamed. Finally, which genius came up with the notion that the global temperature 150 years ago was an “ideal” we need to return to by destroying the western economies which are being asked to reduce their emissions of CO2 by 80% PLUS pay the UN $100 BILLION a year to play political games with.
Your point about the 1 degree/150 year has bothered me for a while. Mainly because it utterly destroys the AGW alarmists argument, assuming the accuracy of their assertion that C02 causes temperature increases (it does, but nowhere near what is claimed for it by the AGW true believers).
How? Simply put, if the amount of warming forecasts at the rate that its suppose to, given the increase in C02 over those 150 years, then man’s injection of said CO2 is the only thing standing between us and the next Ice Age.
Does anyone here believe that these morons know how stupid they sound? Ignorance may be curable but, as Ron White notes, stupidity is forevaaah.
I must add that the author’s suggestion of looking toward the International Climate Science Coalition for non-biased advice is not a bad one. They certainly are not AGW zombies and they are not part of the Hansen, Mann, McKibbon, Gore charade.
There can only be one Truth, and only a strict adherence to the scientific method can insure that Truth. This study would have us believe that the Truth is based on our political orientation, and that to convince leftists of the truth you must bribe them with concessions, this is wrong. The Truth is worth fighting for, and tribute paid to barbarians has a way of growing larger and larger, it’s better to fight now with Truth on our side.
As Kipling said,
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It applies here, as well.
cheers
eon
When I went back to graduate school after having designed several flying aircraft, I ran into a problem, reality did not enter into the academic debate. When I said that I believed my designs were correct because they are simply my working designs, I was told that I needed to learn the truth and what I proposed will not work.
It’s not science or the scientific method, if the proponents of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) do not advance a falsifiable hypothesis – as everyone here knows, many true believers use any extreme event as “proof”. Further, what predictions they have made to support the theory have not come to pass. Whatever is happening, they cannot prove it is Man-made. To jump to that conclusion when past evidence shows a reverse correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is not at all convincing (geological records show that the temperature goes up first, then the CO2 levels go up). To place your faith in computer models is not intelligent – the models themselves do not agree with each other and simply cannot take into account all the factors involved, nor can they extrapolate from past known conditions to arrive at conditions today.
The existence of many cooling and warming periods in the Earth’s past when there could have been no input whatsoever from Man, makes the whole thing look stoopid. Especially when they seem to purposely ignore the Sun as the main driver.
In short, we the “simple” don’t trust many scientists because they lie. Actually, the deception is often well intentioned but false nonetheless. For example, in “Origin of Species,” Darwin identifies physiological landmarks that, he predicts, will, in a specific time frame, be identified to verify his theories. The time frame has come and gone, and these landmarks have not been found. Science, however, continues to support a theory that, if not disproven, has not been proven and likely cannot be. Climate change, previously global warming, is based on demonstrably false data. “Science,” however, has concluded that it is true, and we ALL must change our lives and adapt our entire economies to prevent or mitigate it. Dissent is not tolerated, comrade,shut up and do what you are told, the “scientists” have spoken. And yet, when I study scientific history, it is filled with dissent and scientists who questioned the orthodoxy of the day-and were sometimes killed for it. Science is just about equal to religion-a whole lot of faith based on very little. Not thanks. Truly inquiring minds want to know, not dictate.
Amazing.
Ignore the actual scientific controversy. “Solve” the policy controversy. All solved, huh?
Has it occurred to the author that you can’t solve a natural scientific controversy with social science?
This is beyond bizarre.
The hockey stick model was discredited. Then the inconvenient fact that Greenland was once green was erased from the data. You want me to pay whatever you ask to solve this problem in the manner you decide. Meanwhile, those who claim this is catastrophe jet off to conferences in Rio. Call me a cynic, but I don’t fall for much.
Why do facts fail to convince? Because we have yet to see the rest of them.
let’s see. i’m not an “individualist” or a “hierarchist” but i’ve concluded based on the warmist’s own scientific prediction that CO2 must be postively correlated with an increase in global average temperature.
in fact, hard data has shown a negative correlation. the last 10 years, temperature has decreased while C02 has increased.
the truth:
temperature has cycles up and down in a narrow range throughout human history. man cannot control the weather.
people believe in man-caused global warming to achieve self advantage, either personal, psychological, or monitary.
man-caused global warming has joined the long line of scientific hoaxes, like piltdown man, cold fusion, the 70′s return of the ice age.
oh, and btw, since i don’t fit the chart above, i’m what is known in science as a counter example, thus proving the above theory and chart to be pure BS.
Many American businessmen have gotten in trouble in Japan by interpreting “wakarimasu” or “I understand” to mean “I agree” because all to many people in America and Europe confuse understanding with agreement. They are not the same thing. Two people can look at the same facts and draw very different conclusions about what they mean and what should be done about them. That should dishearten all those idealists who think the world’s problems can be solved through education, understanding, and endless sharing of opinions.
Consensus is just a herd moving in unison.
Vox populi vox canis est.
You forgot to mention that all the taxing and interfering with people’s freedom would do absolutely nothing to stop climate change if there is any.
It only redistributes wealth.
The climate is only an excuse to take other people’s money.
The science of that is really not too hard to figure out, but it seems that if you are a serf at heart all you have to be told is there is a problem and that means take money from one person and give it to another. Regardless of the money having a thing to do with the orginal problem
Really, do you blame a thinking person for doubting “climate science” once that scam was exposed?
There is no science involved. Merely greed.
So, the science is settled: science doesn’t matter.
(ahem)
By now it’s not too surprising that the Social Scientists doing this study failed to consider what effect practicing real science to begin with – which “mainstream” Climate Science does not – might have upon the scientists’ ability to communicate their science to the public. Maybe then Climate Science could even have at least some empirically verified predictions which actually relate to the Earth’s climate to communicate to us, instead of its 100% prediction failure rate concerning predictions specifically relevant to its pet idea that CO2 drives climate?
Waylande Gregory
You sure rock at organizing!
Wow! I would love to let you loose in me house
Maybe, just maybe, too many people have caught the ‘scientests’ with their fingers on the scales. And anyone who understands the social ‘sciences’ understands that in the social sciences, as in this study, there is no scale to put your finger on. You just right up what you want, make an experiement to prove it. If it fails, you make up another experiment, or change the imput data a bit until it does. And they wonder how we can be so ‘anti-science’.
Of course the esteemed Sociologists doing this study do not themselves fall prey to the ‘mini-cultural’ peer group effect which allegedly determines everyone else’ idea of what “science” is or what a scientific “fact” or “causation” is./sarc
From R.D. Walker on the Real Revo there is this (May 31, 2012):
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants to be the vanguard of the proletariat. It has never really been about climate science. Not really.
The upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will contain a chapter titled Human Security. According to an official outline, this will examine the following topics:
-Social and economic activities, including employment
-Education
-Inequalities, gender, and marginalized populations
-Culture, values, and society
-Indigenous peoples
-Local communities
-Local and traditional knowledge
-Migration and population displacement
-Conflict
-Community resilience
Gender equality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge… AGW alarmism is a Trojan horse full of little social engineers.
Climate change and it’s corollaries are (along with EPA) marxism/leninism couched in administrative “new speak.” Be alert, Be Aware. God Bless America.
Lefties believe in the AGW hypothesis because the answer (in their minds) to the problem is the imposition of totalitarian government, which is what they want no matter what the problem is.
Every left wing halfwit (I know…redundant) believes in AGW as an article of faith.
They believe because that’s what they want to believe.
I’m skeptical, because there is no good evidence that proves the hypothesis.
Coincidence, correlation and causality.
Just because belief systems correlate strongly with views of man-made global warming does NOT prove that membership in a particular belief system discards factual causality of if there is warming and if so why it is happening.
In other words, just because individualists don’t want government dictating every last detail of life doesn’t mean individualists are incapable of learning all relevant facts and coming to conclusions consistent with proper critical reasoning.
What Bulls$$t. And we, the taxpayer, probably paid for it. This is nothing but a way to excuse the Left not succeeding in selling us their faulty bill of goods that’s been relabeled more times than a bad novel.
The corporate oil plutocracy continues to poison our precious Mother Earth in order to fill their bulging bank accounts with even more billions of ill-gotten lucre. Gaia is being murdered in order to enrich the portfolios of the plutocrats and to provide self-indulgent symbols of manliness for arrogant White Men such as SUV’s. Gaia will be dead by the end of the century; no life on Earth will survive. Our posioned planet will no longer have growing things and you will not be able to eat metallic manufactured objects like Hummers. The denialism is amazing; it is as though something preternatural is happening.
This is hard to understand within the structure of traditional capitalism. A poisoned, ininhabitable planet will have no food for corporate pigs and not just the despised, enslaved working class. I used to think the oil plutocrats had built secret biospheres to hide themselves and their families when the end came upon them,but I can not find reports of such things even in objective news sources such as Z Magazine or Al-Jezeera. It seems as though there could be something behind the oil plutocracy, just like Darth Sidious was behind the Trade Federation; something that might have to do with that fateful day in Roswell; something that could have erased all traces of its orchestration of 9-11; something that is using corporate greed for something bigger…
This is one of those great articles that will have me thinking for many years.
Perspective, in turn, is molded by identity- the imaginary audience of the mind, nerves, and instinct.
When we ask “How do we reach them?”, remember, they (or we) see such questions as an attack or affirmation of loyalties, first.
Have you been following the CLOUD Expriment being done at CERN. Could be you are flat wrong.
CO2 is bad for you
al gore and i agree
on top of that the earth is flat
the moon is made of cheese
the seas will rise
the sky will fall
the polar bears will bake
so unless you heathens hold your breath we’ll burn you at the stake
~Anonymous