Are cognitive brain patterns responsible for global warming denial?

are cognitive brain patterns responsible for global warming denial?

Yes! Thanks for pointing this out.

I blame Social Darwinism. The great man's work was hi-jacked very early on to back up notions of competition between individuals of a species being the 'natural' state of affairs. He wrote as much on group selection and co-operation, but this was buried pretty quickly. The main champion of the latter strand was the ecologist and anthropologist Kropotkin with his excellent book 'Mutual Aid', but of course he was easy to ignore as a foreigner and an anarchist to boot.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4341

Your question is very controversial. You will get different answers from different people. Here's my answer, based on my research. First off, they used to call it "Global Warming" but now, as you can see in Obama's speech, they call it "Climate Change." The reason for this is because many scientists don't agree that there is such a thing as Global Warming. In fact, the news came out a few months ago that over the last ten years the planet's mean temperature has actually dropped, rather than increased.Thus, the name change. Many scientists think Climate Change is caused by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These rising levels, they say, is because of fossil fuel burning--the oil we burn to run our cars and heat our homes, etc. However, other scientists point to the fact that in the history of earth, thousands and millions of years ago, there's been times when CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. Obviously cars and heated homes weren't around millions of years ago. The bottom line is, no one knows whether Climate Change is caused by humans. Many scientists believe much more research needs to be done to answer the question.

I understand your exasperation, and have posted a version of Lakoff's analysis of the link between conservativism and the logically quite distinct issue of AGW denialism; a link that is paraded here at times with actual pride.

But brain patterns? And are the people you presumably want to convince going to agree that they are the ones whose brain patterns are misleading them?

Re-read your Lakoff, and in particular "Don't think of an elephant", and you will see that attacking your opponents' personalities is unlikely to further your cause.

Edit: Jeff, "So many of these scientists give studies that all of a sudden the found to be false. And what about the scientists who don't believe in global warming and have studies to disprove global warming as well?"

LIES. "False" and "disprove" are very strong words, yet you can't provide a single bit of evidence to back them. Put up or shut up.

These types of discussions are counterproductive. I'm sure there are just as many ignorant liberals who accept AGW because of what progressive media and party leaders say as there are ignorant conservatives who reject it for the same reason.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking conservatives like starbuck and James E represent all those who reject AGW, and especially all conservatives.

If a group of uninformed republicans were to come into this section and read this question (or the CNSNews article), how many would be convinced of AGW? That cognitive brain function is the reason for their denial? None. How about if realists continue to provide logical, science-based arguments? Perhaps a few, which is infinitely better than none.

This goes along with what I've been saying for years.

Belief is a stop sign for the mind. In order to believe anything you necessarily have to dis-believe whatever may contradict that belief. The mind is closed for any new information.

"People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view."

I wouldn't argue with that at all. In fact, I've said as much many times: morally degenerate and ideologically decadent misanthropes are attracted to Warmism, as its teachings help reinforce their world view, which is that human civilization (industrial progress especially) is a pox on planet.

Generally though, this seems to be yet another attempt by yet another quackademic to pathologize any belief or action they find distasteful. A good historical example of this is the "official" status (according to the high priests of the American Psychiatric Association) of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. By all accounts, this prognostication was first made in 1952 for purely political reasons; the reversal of said prognostication in 1973 was likewise done for purely political reasons.

Sound familiar?

Not surprisingly, Lakeoff has the climate science wrong ("99.999 percent of the (climate) science is final").

The fact is that this piece could have the terms liberal and conservative swapped and it would read the same way with the bias reversing.

As a liberal, it offends me when other liberals act in ways that are morally superior, elitist, arrogant and without regard for differing opinions. Lakeoff is basically saying his way is the only way. Utter tripe. This whole piece is basically saying there is something wrong with disagreement or discussion.

"I think this is a place where a certain moral world view comes into conflict with scientific fact in a way that is harmful to the Earth," Lakoff said. A conservative could say the same thing and substitute "man" for "Earth".

I think people like Lakoff should not be labeled liberal but should labeled something else like socialist or Malthuisian.

"On the other hand, he added, liberals' cognitive process allows them to be "open-minded."" Yeah right, this from a person who just showed his closed-mindedness. What utter nonsense.

Jim Z said,

"Dealing with alarmists, I am frequently taken aback by their lack of historical knowledge..."

Yeah like the historical fact that the Kurdish massacre was 15 years before the Iraqi war and that those weapons of mass destruction were supplied by the US. Don't let the fact that what little remaining WMD's that were left from that era were all but useless, stop you from making a senseless argument. Also don't let the fact that it was never shown that any WMD's were ever manufactured in Iraq stop you from justify starting a war. Don't get me wrong, I am glad Saddam is dead. I just knew it was a more complicated situation than taking Saddam out.

"Social scientist Don Braman says "People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view.""

I agree totally. The only problem is the alarmists whose world views this issue conforms to.

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs126...

The issues in the above cartoon were all left wing issues way before global warming became an issue. Reducing energy consumption was advocated in addressing these issues before global warming. Your belief that by decarbonizing our economy the "world would be a better place" is YOUR world view, part of YOUR culture, not mine.

Sacred worldviews are protected by ignoring or distorting facts. Consider how many people there are who think gw deniers are cuckoo yet go to church each Sunday and worship the insane deity of Mideast folklore and get all defensive at those who challenge their "faith" (what a dumb word!).

Yes, I believe brain patterns or cultural outlook tends to shape individuals beliefs and worldviews. This is of course equally true for denial and acceptance of AGW. Conservatives distrust government regulation and liberals believe in strong regulation and central government. These underlying beliefs make acceptance or denial easier and politically expedient. Conservatives don't hate science, they hate the conclusions that liberals draw from science to further their own political and social views. If liberals would stop turning AGW into such a political issue and questioning the intelligence of conservatives, then they likely would have more people on their side. Thanks for admitting that you do conform your factual beliefs to your world view.