Research finds correlation between conspiracy beliefs and climate change denial

[Perikles]

The Guardian newspaper has an article here about research which concludes there is a link between the belief in conspiracy theories (such as faked moon landings) and a denial that climate change is taking place. I can't quite decide whether this is an obvious finding or not.

The article itself is here

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps not an obvious finding, but certainly not surprising. Have a look over on the JREF. Some posters there are multi-conspiratorial.... they'll believe anything as long as it is against something.


...or as Groucho once sang..."Whatever it is, I'm against it." (big smile with eyebrows, mustache, and cigar)

[Gillianren]

I think it's part of the same thinking. "They're hiding things! They're altering data!" Once it became the position of a significant majority, there are certain leaps of logic required in order to deny it.

[Donnie B.]

...or as Groucho once sang..."Whatever it is, I'm against it." (big smile with eyebrows, mustache, and cigar)

"No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!"

One of the greatest Marxian songs.

[korjik]

Yes, having a difference of opinion means you are a nutjob.

The correlation between conspiracy believers and AGW is exactly the same one as between ice cream consumption and murder. Just like the actual correlation being heat for ice cream and murder, the conspiracy/AGW one is government. If tomorrow world governments pointedly stopped talking about AGW, it would not take long before the conspiracy believers started demanding to know what the goverments of the world were hiding.

This really belongs in the bad reporting thread.

[Perikles]

This really belongs in the bad reporting thread.

And what do you think of the paper itself, rather than the newspaper reporting of it?

[Gillianren]

Yes, having a difference of opinion means you are a nutjob.

Well, since I don't necessarily think being a conspiracy theorist makes you a "nutjob" . . . .

The correlation between conspiracy believers and AGW is exactly the same one as between ice cream consumption and murder. Just like the actual correlation being heat for ice cream and murder, the conspiracy/AGW one is government. If tomorrow world governments pointedly stopped talking about AGW, it would not take long before the conspiracy believers started demanding to know what the goverments of the world were hiding.

The thing is, you have to believe that the world's climatologists are conspiring in something in order to deny AGW at this point, because there has to be some reason you think all the qualified people are saying something that isn't true. (Or an enormous percentage of them, at least.) Climate change skepticism is by definition a conspiracy theory. It may not be a conspiracy theory of the same variety as the ones we usually discuss; it's more along the lines of anti-vaccination types. However, there is still the same sense of "I am right and they are all wrong," and the only two explanations I see are that the denier is smarter than the climatologists or else that the climatologists are all lying for some reason.

This really belongs in the bad reporting thread.

Not if we're discussing the psychological patterns of conspiracy theorists and whether certain things fit those patterns.

[Van Rijn]

The thing is, you have to believe that the world's climatologists are conspiring in something in order to deny AGW at this point, because there has to be some reason you think all the qualified people are saying something that isn't true. (Or an enormous percentage of them, at least.) Climate change skepticism is by definition a conspiracy theory.

Whoa. If a person says they believe there is a conspiracy, then they are a conspiracy believer, but someone can just believe scientists are honest but wrong.

Also, skepticism isn't the same as denial. Many of the skeptics accept that there is AGW, but are skeptical of predictions, especially ones relayed through political bodies.

There are a lot of issues at play here, it isn't simple. The politics of proposed measures for AGW is the huge one. Another big issue is the common bad science reporting. Major news publishers get technical subjects wrong all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've read an article that talked about how important it was to control AGW, then would turn around and dismiss nuclear power in one sentence with a technically wrong anti-nuclear argument. I don't take newspapers very seriously when they discuss this subject, or a number of other technical subjects.

[Van Rijn]

I've been thinking about the lesson of Y2K, and I might post a long post on that somewhere else one of these days. Short version:

I was very much involved in Y2K remediation. There was a very real issue there, but reporting was terrible. I never did see an article or a report that had a good discussion of the real issues. There were ridiculous stories by technical writers I thought knew better. There were complete misrepresentations (I remember one story claiming Y2K was a computer virus). As of New Year's Eve, 2000, there were a lot of measures taken that just weren't realistically necessary, but were done anyway. A lot of people didn't get that if there had been problems with most systems, they would have occurred months and in some cases years earlier, because most systems dealt with future dates. We had already fixed those. The "turn into a pumpkin at midnight" idea was badly overblown.

On the inside, you didn't want to play down the issue too much because your boss's boss, not understanding the real issues, might just decide there really wasn't any problem at all, and that would have been a disaster. Also, there was a lot of momentum to some of the wrong or overblown ideas, so there was only so much you could do to correct the misrepresentations. And, if you're on the inside, you were busy, and didn't have time to correct all the nonsense that was kicking around anyway.

The point is, that's an example where there was a problem, but the problem and how it was commonly represented were two very different things. At least it worked out well.

[danscope]

It's very simple. The people who refuse to accept AGW are basicaly cheap, and feel that any concern about the environment is going to come out of their pocket. They are part of the " Me " parade. There's no conspiracy about it. The common attitude amoung those types is " Don't ask me to pay , and it's your fault I can't drive my muscle car ...." etc etc rant rave rant...
It's not about the science.
You have to care about ecology to begin with. And it explains why they invent their own facts.

[Van Rijn]

It's very simple. The people who refuse to accept AGW are basicaly cheap, and feel that any concern about the environment is going to come out of their pocket.

Well, since you accept AGW, you agree we should replace fossil fuels with nuclear power, being one of the key practical options available today, right?

[Swift]

This thread was borderline for the CT forum to begin with since it didn't have anything to do directly with a space or astronomy related conspiracy. Now that it has turned into a debate about AGW and nuclear power, it done. This thread is closed.

If anyone wants to discuss the psychology of conspiracy believers, maybe Science & Technology is a better place.