« Peter Gleick's Mates Promise Veggie Hell | Main | Looking for Lewandowsky's Sceptics »

Are You A Nutter Or A Callous Bastard?

Climate change deniers 'are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists’ - Telegraph

“We find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science,” the paper says. “We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings.”
The paper says that a staunch belief in free markets was an overwhelmingly strong factor in the rejection of climate science and was a stronger factor than conspiratorial thinking.

“Blogs have a huge impact on society and so it’s important that we understand the motivations and the reasoning of those who visit blogs to contribute to the discussion,” he said. “There has been much research pointing to the role of free-market ideology in rejecting climate science, but this is the first time it’s been shown that other scientific facts, such as the link between HIV and Aids, are also subject to ideological rejection.”

So you are either a nutter or a free-marketeer if you reject the "science". The idea that someone of a scientific turn of mind could just find the science unconvincing obviously isn't possible.

I wonder what the correlation between being an alarmist, believing in the benefits of Big Government and rejection of the free-market is.


And one more time for the cheap seats: Correlation is not causation.

Perhaps they are just confirming their own biases here.

i.e. the Causation is a healthy skepticism of (bs artists) experts and interest in ( real) science, and that's correlated to belief in free markets at at the other end in conspiracy theories.

Conversely, there is a high-correlation between accepting broad assertions regarding human-caused global warming and the consequences thereof, and accepting government-organized solutions to government-defined social problems. The science aside, the debate is a proxy war over the proper scope of governmental power. Many scientists have shown themselves willing to sacrifice their professional credentials to support their party in that war. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I had no opinion one way or the other. Then someone loaned me the wretched Al Gore movie. I said, that can't be right. Then I looked up various articles on line. Then I realized that the skeptics appear to be always right, though they should be on guard against the human tendency to exclude new information based on past allegiances.

I agree with Fred2, and think we should recall the words of Ronald Reagan when he said we should fear most someone who says: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Post a comment