No science in climate science. But you already knew that.
- Thread starter Celticguy
- Start date
Breitbart. Bawahahahaha
They Psychology of Climate Science Denial
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 was replicated 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.
Continued
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...inked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study
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 was replicated 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.
Continued
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...inked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I've been saying this for years, one reason I'm a climate realist. Very few ( if any) of the published, peer reviewed scientific articles I've read on climate change would meet standard criteria needed for publication in most scientific journals.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Fuck me rigid, even the Guardian had the good sense to get rid of Dana Nuccutelli!! Will you be wheeling out that crazy old bint Naomi Oreskes next?
Sent from Lenovo K6 Note
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That article is actually very fair and raises valid questions about the quality, or otherwise, of scientific papers. Not that you would know that as I doubt that you even read it!
"Professor Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.
According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That article is actually very fair and raises valid questions about the quality, or otherwise, of scientific papers. Not that you would know that as I doubt that you even read it!
"Professor Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.
According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Sent from my Lenovo K6 Note
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This needs a bump!
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Sent from my iPhone 10S