Study: Motivated Rejection of Science

While most of us know that political ideology and tendency towards believing conspiracy theories are a good predictor of one's denial of global warming, here's a paper on the topic...

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...onspiracist-ideation-in-rejection-of-science/

 

I thought you were a man of science. Linking to a psychology journal should make you ashamed.

 

The science has already been established, as has the fact that many deny the science. The study's focuses on motivations for denial. This is best done from the realm of psychology.

 

Psychology isn't a very hard science. And since the author's previous study was shown to be a joke. I dont put much into it.

I'm willing to bet that you yourself added to the fake data in that study since you frequent SKS.

 

"Fake data"...I'm amused that science deniers responded to the study by providing more evidence to support its conclusions.

 

Yes GMB when a warmmonger post a poll on war warmmonger blog and warmmongers answer the poll and give fake responses then its fake data. McIntyre was able to show rather easily that there were numerous fake responses used in the previous study. You probably supplied some yourself.

Now the butt hurt Lewandowsky posts even more trash.

 

Too funny...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/recursive-fury.html

 

And. You would think that Lewandowsky would distance himself from posting on SKS since it was SKS readers like yourself who tainted the data in his original study in the first place.

I know that your fragile ego needs a study like this but the fact remains. Anytime we have a debate on the science you will leave the forum with your tail between you legs and wont be seen back for weeks.

 

I've never seen you engaged in a good faith discussion here. Then again, it is a political forum.

 

I dont think that your original posts fosters a good faith discussion to begin with.

 

The study upsets you. Too bad.

 

No I'm just pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

 

How so?

 

If you cant see it then what is the point.

 

Because evidence indicates you're full of ---- and cannot contribute any substance to the discussion. The question merely exposes that.

 

Lets set teh context of this "study".

The previous study got torn apart because the author used data that was obviously fake. Some of it probably provided by you personally gmb92. I noticed that you haven't answered how you answered the poll questions. And given how much you are on SKS I'm sure you took the poll. So I will take that as an admission.

So the author of the study procedes to write another bogus study that attacks those who showed how flawed his previous study was. All this thread shows is how disgusting science has become. It wasn't made with any intention to foster debate. It was simply an ad hom. And a revenge ad hom at that.

Please go on you usually month long sabbatical now.

 

So, I believe in MMCC because of the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature Study, and was a skeptic before, and am regularly called a tin-foiler for questioning the Batman shooting, Sandy Hook, 9-11, and Sibel Edmonds........What does that make me, other then somneone that demands compelling evidence?

 

No support for this claim, as usual. The conclusions made you feel bad, thus your tendency to dismiss the data.

I didn't take part in any data collected in either study, but don't let your paranoia stop you from dreaming or forming your inane conclusions.

Classic.

The author's second study noted how the denier types responded. That offered more evidence to support his conclusion - lots of knee jerk reactions and more conspiratorial claims in lieu of evidence.

The study revealed quite nicely that ideological tendencies are a predictor for science rejection. Reactions to the study further support that conclusion, and yours are priceless.

 

What specifically are you questioning about each of these events?

Conspiracy theorists often have creative ways of dismissing or dealing with evidence.

Sometimes what unites conspiracy nuts is a massive distrust in anything remotely related to government. Moon landing, 9/11, policy implications of global warming. Libertarian ideology is the primary driver.

Btw, I found BEST to be fairly redundant, in that its conclusions had already been well-supported from the scientific literature. At best (no pun intended), it helped bring the conclusions to broader audience, more willing to believe something funded with Koch dollars.

 

Why? Is there something wrong with the study??

 

No proof and no actual critique of the paper itself

disappointing!!

 

I can't speak for others, but I question the government story on things because I know what we did in Central and South America in the past 50 years, and because I know history is riddled with flase flag events.

My biggest question regarding Sandy Hook and the Batman shooter is one for a statistican.

What is the statistical propbability that two historic shootings happen within months of each other, where both the accused father's have access to financial information that could bring down global powers, if there was illegal activity exposed.

This is not a rhetorical question. We have had X shootings in our history, We have X population, there are X amount of people with access to this information.

What is the statistical probabilty that Adma Lanza's dad is VP of taxes at GE, and that James Holmes father is lead scientist for anti-fraud algorithms at FICO?

Why was Sibel Edmonds never charged with perjury for stating under oath that former congressman were selling nuclear secrets on the black market, and that their were documents that prove this, that are classified?

 

As soon as the "remedy" became more regulation, more taxation, and funnelling billions through the uber-corrupt UN, all the "science" was discredited.

Meanwhile, without any regulation or taxation the US approaches its Kyoto goals. You can't say that for anybody else.

 

I go to UWA. I wouldn't trust the Arts department for anything.

The stuff you quoted shows exactly why studies like these are stupid. The fact that a lot of laissez faire advocates don't believe in global warming means nothing. Global warming denial is a completely separate position.

Correlation =/= causation - you can't lay this on advocates of the free market. I and plenty of others like me either accept man made global warming or don't have an opinion on the topic. Liberal economic theory says nothing about scientific standards or global warming. It just happens that a lot of redneck conservatives (who aren't actually for freedom from the state or a free market) claim to advocate it.

ie: the study is laughable.

 

The follow-up study has been published.

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personal...ual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html

For the most entertaining part, I recommend the Supplemental Data (Data Sheet pdf). Denial nuttery is on full display.