Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

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 wasreplicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking 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.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study/


Now why am I not surprised at these findings lol.

Cuchulain wrote: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 wasreplicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking 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.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study/


Now why am I not surprised at these findings lol.

I am not surprised in the slightest

korban dallas wrote:

Cuchulain wrote: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 wasreplicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking 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.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study/


Now why am I not surprised at these findings lol.

I am not surprised in the slightest

Which to me says much about what people did actually learn at school mate.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

They get it wrong a lot
I think I'll remain my own person. I've never followed the crowd.

Baaaaa! <<<<< couldn't find a sheep

eddie wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

They get it wrong a lot
I think I'll remain my own person. I've never followed the crowd.

Baaaaa! <<<<< couldn't find a sheep

OMG you do realise that with science you can be wrong and proven wrong.
That is the beauty of science.
You cannot have that being a gullible conspiracy bubble gum like you Eddie the point you miss.
The point of science is to prove the science wrong.

Not go oh look science proved some science wrong so nah.


LMAO

Burger.

Now that's science

And if I were you, I'd stop quoting science.....you neber know when you'll be proven wrong!

Hahahahahahaha

That's hilarious

Going to hoover up the crap in my house now not only am i stupid but I'm a filth-bucket too

eddie wrote:And if I were you, I'd stop quoting science.....you neber know when you'll be proven wrong!

Hahahahahahaha

That's hilarious

Going to hoover up the crap in my house now not only am i stupid but I'm a filth-bucket too

Sorry can we have that in English please lol

Neber = never

That's a spelling mistake

Filth-bucket = dirty person

That's a saying I kinda made up


Wow. You can tell English isn't your strong point.
That was pretty easy to work out.

And you lack a sense of humour again Eddie.


What you fail to grasp us you can test scientific claims.
You just buy any crackpot belief on the web which fuels your paranoia.
That paranoia stems from boredom.

Cuchulain wrote:And you lack a sense of humour again Eddie.


What you fail to grasp us you can test scientific claims.
You just buy any crackpot belief on the web which fuels your paranoia.
That paranoia stems from boredom.

Pot
Kettle
Black

You're the most paranoid person on here Didge

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:And you lack a sense of humour again Eddie.


What you fail to grasp us you can test scientific claims.
You just buy any crackpot belief on the web which fuels your paranoia.
That paranoia stems from boredom.

Pot
Kettle
Black

You're the most paranoid person on here Didge

PMSL really Eddie, is that why I actually do question and research and not just buy something.
Ah bless the little drink smile, hey love I am not the one hooked on wiskey.
I did get once close to becoming addictive as I allowed drinking to wrongly think it would numb the pain of loss.
That actaully makes me feel stronger today how I once wrongly thought it helped and now I do not need it..
But I am not one to spoil your fun so enjoy your wiskey.

Like I say, your boredom brings on paranoia and allows you to easily fear.
There is not much I fear Eddie, so the question you never ask is why you allow yourself to fear.

Whisky - with an H

Only drink on a Sunday night with my other half when he's off.

That's where I let off steam

eddie wrote:Whisky - with an H

Only drink on a Sunday night with my other half when he's off.

That's where I let off steam

Use to drink JD myself, but not anymore.

Each to their own, maybe one day again, but happier not drinking thanks

No-ONE who does not understand the "scientific method", should be allowed access to, commentry on or control over any science based work

thats like letting ISIS contol christianity

i have to shake my head at times about the wilful ignorance of some on here

"I have a conspiracy theory about(whatever)"

"Do you properly understand the science involved,"

"No but thats not important...they are out to get you/fleeceyou/suck out your mind and make you a slave"

"errr.....kayyyyyyy"

this is equal to

"Im not eating my greens"

"why"

"they taste horrid"

"have you tried them?"

"NO, but they are horrid"

"SLAP...now get em eaten" sorry theres no equivalent for the "conspiracy theorist" sadly.

Well,vic as pompous and patronising as you might sound, I will simply say

Scientists don't always get things right.
Which is what I said earlier.
And that's a fact.
They get it wrong a lot.

Will they get this last west claim right? I don't know and I actually don't care cos I didn't read it.

Fact still stands though: They get things wrong a lot.

yes and as the article you posted shows, this is only because science (as opposed to individual scientists) is honest.

there are theories which are generally damn good descriptions of whatever but still open to modification
and there are hypothesis which are "best guesses from the available data and the current state of knowlege"
and these often exist in multiples around one idea...I.E one idea can have many hypoythsis

and then there are certain immutable facts....
It is a "theory" that nothing made of "normal matter" travels faster than light but there is a "possibility" (hence it is open to modification) that that may not be strictly true

it is a hypothesis that aliens have visited earth

It is an immutable fact that if you were thrown out of a space craft without a suitable suit etc you would die ...very very quickly....

last west claim???????

eddie wrote:Well,vic as pompous and patronising as you might sound, I will simply say

Scientists don't always get things right.
Which is what I said earlier.
And that's a fact.
They get it wrong a lot.

Will they get this last west claim right? I don't know and I actually don't care cos I didn't read it.

Fact still stands though: They get things wrong a lot.

If science gets so much wrong, then why is it you have a house to live that provides you many tasks you would find very difficult without.
A cooker.
A washing machine.
A kettle.
A hoover.
A toilet.
A boiler.
Hot water.
Drinking water.
A fridge.
A microwave.
A mobile phone
An Ipod.
A car.


I can go on the list is endless, but it is science that has invented and advanced many of the daily things you use Eddie. Are you claiming they were all wrong? The beauty of science has been countless inventions and through trial and error, because science can be wrong. The problem with your view on something you believe is that it cannot be wrong. You thus cannot be objectionable in your beliefs. If you say otherwise, then are you willing to accept you could be wrong?
I have no reservation I can be wrong, as I learn from being wrong, it is how we learn many things.
To attempt to dismiss science off where it gladly proves itself wrong to claim that most science is wrong, fails to understand scientific method just as Victor told you. We advance ourselves for the better when we understand when we are wrong. Science allows that it can be wrong.
Conspiracy theories do not, as if they do , then the whole theory falls apart. They require blind faith, they refuse to allow objectionable reasoning and evidence.
I mean what next Eddie, should we just scrap all the medical advances, because sometimes they do notwork on everyone and are thus wrong in that instance? Shall we just do away with any scientific teaching and just set in motion a decline in our knowledge.
You really need to decide what is important here.
Your beliefs or knowledge?

victorismyhero wrote:last west claim???????

Fast fat fingers

I said science doesn't always get it right.


Can you prove it does?

eddie wrote:I said science doesn't always get it right.


Can you prove it does?

Science does a lot of good, but it sometimes gets it wrong.

DDT

RoundUp is now being investiged

Levels of pollution

Lead in petrol and the effects it had

etc