- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There's no need to believe in a conspiracy to understand AGW believers. They are a sociological phenomenon.
Weak Minds Think Alike
Posted on 20 Jul 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 25 Comments
This article is part of an occasional series exploring the possibility (or rather the necessity) of a sociological analysis of climate catastrophism. Others can be found at https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/sociology-of-climate-change/ It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, …
It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, the “right on” generation – define them how you will) is university education and 2) an explanation is required of how such a weak (woolly, vague, unconvincing) idea as environmentalism (“we live on a fragile planet”; “we need to recycle/conserve/cycle to work to prevent the sixth great extinction” etc.) has conquered the world. Both ideas I have lifted from the work of Emmanuel Todd, a French historian and demographer I have often referred to in different posts. I’ve added an appendix describing Todd’s work, which is of great interest outside the narrow bounds of an analysis of climate catastrophism.
Belief in climate catastrophism is a social phenomenon, and requires an explanation in terms of the social sciences. There are a number of interesting psychological theories around – in fact every climate sceptic seems to have one. But while a psychological analysis may explain why certain people choose to be environmentalists, it can never explain how environmentalism – and in particular its most acute form, climate catastrophism – came to conquer the world; how, in other words, belief in climate catastrophism managed to attain a critical mass that permitted it to impose itself as a consensus belief, or ideology. Only a sociological explanation can do that. And a sociological explanation must account for a unique event – the rise of climate catastrophism – in terms of unique, or at least rarely repeated, social phenomena.
Yeah, 'cause scientists with PhD's tend to have weak minds, and not a single one of them have the brain to recognize this Grand Social Phenomenon for what it is, nor does any single one of them have courage enough to expose it.
Riiiiiiiiight.
There's no need to believe in a conspiracy to understand AGW believers. They are a sociological phenomenon.
Weak Minds Think Alike
Posted on 20 Jul 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 25 Comments
This article is part of an occasional series exploring the possibility (or rather the necessity) of a sociological analysis of climate catastrophism. Others can be found at https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/sociology-of-climate-change/ It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, …
It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, the “right on” generation – define them how you will) is university education and 2) an explanation is required of how such a weak (woolly, vague, unconvincing) idea as environmentalism (“we live on a fragile planet”; “we need to recycle/conserve/cycle to work to prevent the sixth great extinction” etc.) has conquered the world. Both ideas I have lifted from the work of Emmanuel Todd, a French historian and demographer I have often referred to in different posts. I’ve added an appendix describing Todd’s work, which is of great interest outside the narrow bounds of an analysis of climate catastrophism.
Belief in climate catastrophism is a social phenomenon, and requires an explanation in terms of the social sciences. There are a number of interesting psychological theories around – in fact every climate sceptic seems to have one. But while a psychological analysis may explain why certain people choose to be environmentalists, it can never explain how environmentalism – and in particular its most acute form, climate catastrophism – came to conquer the world; how, in other words, belief in climate catastrophism managed to attain a critical mass that permitted it to impose itself as a consensus belief, or ideology. Only a sociological explanation can do that. And a sociological explanation must account for a unique event – the rise of climate catastrophism – in terms of unique, or at least rarely repeated, social phenomena.
I suggest you read the rest of the link.
And be challenged on preconceived notions? Madness
GC is not an automaton. He'll read it. He still won't agree.
There's no need to believe in a conspiracy to understand AGW believers. They are a sociological phenomenon.
Weak Minds Think Alike
Posted on 20 Jul 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 25 Comments
This article is part of an occasional series exploring the possibility (or rather the necessity) of a sociological analysis of climate catastrophism. Others can be found at https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/sociology-of-climate-change/ It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, …
It argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob; the chattering classes, Guardianistas, the “right on” generation – define them how you will) is university education and 2) an explanation is required of how such a weak (woolly, vague, unconvincing) idea as environmentalism (“we live on a fragile planet”; “we need to recycle/conserve/cycle to work to prevent the sixth great extinction” etc.) has conquered the world. Both ideas I have lifted from the work of Emmanuel Todd, a French historian and demographer I have often referred to in different posts. I’ve added an appendix describing Todd’s work, which is of great interest outside the narrow bounds of an analysis of climate catastrophism.
Belief in climate catastrophism is a social phenomenon, and requires an explanation in terms of the social sciences. There are a number of interesting psychological theories around – in fact every climate sceptic seems to have one. But while a psychological analysis may explain why certain people choose to be environmentalists, it can never explain how environmentalism – and in particular its most acute form, climate catastrophism – came to conquer the world; how, in other words, belief in climate catastrophism managed to attain a critical mass that permitted it to impose itself as a consensus belief, or ideology. Only a sociological explanation can do that. And a sociological explanation must account for a unique event – the rise of climate catastrophism – in terms of unique, or at least rarely repeated, social phenomena.
Yeah, 'cause scientists with PhD's tend to have weak minds, and not a single one of them have the brain to recognize this Grand Social Phenomenon for what it is, nor does any single one of them have courage enough to expose it.
Riiiiiiiiight.
I could write a hundred pages on the psychological realities of climate "skepticism."
Well duh, I have to line my pockets with all the grant money we don't have right now.
I'd probably read that if you wrote it, tbh.
Ah. So every single one of those scientists - PhD's every one - is unable to provide for their families without government grants???? Dude. Every single one of them, if they have to, can EASILY go teach. Hell, "Liberty University" would be more than happy to hire the first climatologist to blow the whistle on this great and grand conspiracy you're pushing.
What's more, you're assuming that money is always more important to people than standing up for what's right...but if you knew people half as well as you assume, you'd know that (1) MOST people simply refuse to lie in order to make money, and (2) the more educated said people are, the less willing they are to lie...because they know damn well they can always make enough money to provide for their families.
But you can go ahead and ignore all that, 'cause somehow the right-wing echo chamber has convinced you that ALL left-wingers do is lie, that ALL academia are hide-bound to the Left, and that ALL academia are willing to sell their souls to suck at the government teat.
The one thing you can't possibly allow yourself to consider, however, is that maybe, just maybe the scientists are telling you exactly what they see...and that they honestly wish they were wrong.
Ah. So every single one of those scientists - PhD's every one - is unable to provide for their families without government grants???? Dude. Every single one of them, if they have to, can EASILY go teach. Hell, "Liberty University" would be more than happy to hire the first climatologist to blow the whistle on this great and grand conspiracy you're pushing.
What's more, you're assuming that money is always more important to people than standing up for what's right...but if you knew people half as well as you assume, you'd know that (1) MOST people simply refuse to lie in order to make money, and (2) the more educated said people are, the less willing they are to lie...because they know damn well they can always make enough money to provide for their families.
But you can go ahead and ignore all that, 'cause somehow the right-wing echo chamber has convinced you that ALL left-wingers do is lie, that ALL academia are hide-bound to the Left, and that ALL academia are willing to sell their souls to suck at the government teat.
The one thing you can't possibly allow yourself to consider, however, is that maybe, just maybe the scientists are telling you exactly what they see...and that they honestly wish they were wrong.
Just put almost in front of those all and you pretty much have it.
And then your last sentence exposes you for pretty completely out of touch , especially with regard to academia( ie' the scientists") {pssssst they're almost all liberals}
I've always said that when one starts psychologicizing one's political opponents it's a sign that one is running out of arguments. But over the years we've had one apocalyptic ideology after another float down the pipeline. All of them prove to be wrong, so obviously wrong that they loose currency eventually, but most of them still have adherents.
Ah. So every single one of those scientists - PhD's every one - is unable to provide for their families without government grants???? Dude. Every single one of them, if they have to, can EASILY go teach. Hell, "Liberty University" would be more than happy to hire the first climatologist to blow the whistle on this great and grand conspiracy you're pushing.
What's more, you're assuming that money is always more important to people than standing up for what's right...but if you knew people half as well as you assume, you'd know that (1) MOST people simply refuse to lie in order to make money, and (2) the more educated said people are, the less willing they are to lie...because they know damn well they can always make enough money to provide for their families.
But you can go ahead and ignore all that, 'cause somehow the right-wing echo chamber has convinced you that ALL left-wingers do is lie, that ALL academia are hide-bound to the Left, and that ALL academia are willing to sell their souls to suck at the government teat.
The one thing you can't possibly allow yourself to consider, however, is that maybe, just maybe the scientists are telling you exactly what they see...and that they honestly wish they were wrong.
...it argues 1) that the key criterion for identifying the social class which has propelled climate catastrophism to centre stage (the green blob ...
I could write a hundred pages on the psychological realities of climate "skepticism."
You'd probably be interested in reading about the problem of scientific reproducibility. In brief, when the results published in scientific journals in various fields are checked it turns out they can't be reproduced a startlingly high percentage of the time. Something like half of them are bogus in some cases.
So, yeah, there is a problem in science. I blame it in part on they way science is funded. When it's publish or perish then some people will publish something even if it's made up crap. Scientists have all the faults other human beings do.
The other big problem I see is a lack of understanding of proper statistical analysis. The investigators don't know it and neither do the peer reviewers.
Here is a common scenario: Investigators design an experiment and repeat it on 100 samples. The experiment seems to have problems, and so the results of 80 of the samples are rejected, and they report the results of the 20 left that come out like they were expecting. But if you look at all the data it's clear what they really have is crap -- nothing can be concluded from it. But you can't publish that. You really should be able to publish an experiment even if the results are negative or inconclusive, but that's nearly impossible. So there is a very strong bias toward positive results.
I could write a hundred pages on the psychological realities of climate "skepticism."
Ah. So every single one of those scientists - PhD's every one - is unable to provide for their families without government grants???? Dude. Every single one of them, if they have to, can EASILY go teach. Hell, "Liberty University" would be more than happy to hire the first climatologist to blow the whistle on this great and grand conspiracy you're pushing.
Hah, yes, like Jesus is coming back, interracial marriage will destroy America, Saddam Hussein is the antichrist so Jesus is REALLY coming back now, gay marriage will destroy America, 9/11 fulfills biblical prophecy and marks the start of the End Times so now Jesus is gonna come back, Obama wants to destroy America; oh and let's not forget that 'leftists' all want to destroy America, depopulate the planet and start a New World Order (which will mean Jesus is coming back soon).
There's no shortage of doom and gloom in any group but - credit where credit's due - at least the concerns of your political opponents usually centre on overconsumption (food crises, environmental crises, peak oil etc.), based on the constantly proven scientific fact that disproportionately successful (usually introduced) species tend to wreck havoc with their ecosystems, usually followed by large population declines when resources run low.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?