Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Even scientists doing a survey on conspiracy theories involves a conspiracy according to Australia’s conspiracy loving climate sceptics, reports Graham Readfearn.
If the world’s conspiratorial blogosphere was broken up into food items on a wedding buffet table, then an eclectic array of plate-fillers would surely be on offer.
There would be canapés topped with faked moon landings and hors d’oeuvres of Government-backed plots to assassinate civil rights leaders.
Sandwich fillings would come from US military staff at Roswell in New Mexico (cheese and alien, anyone?). The alcoholic punch would be of the same vintage as that which the British Royal family gave Princess Diana’s chauffeur — as part of their plot to kill her. All of the catering would be provided by the New World Order.
Then there’s the salad of human-caused climate change being a hoax, with the world’s climate scientists, national academies and the declining Arctic sea-ice all being in on the conspiracy.
Professor Stephen Lewandowsky, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Australia (UWA), is about to publish research which shows that a strong indicator of the rejection of climate science is a willingness to accept conspiracy theories.
His paper, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, is titled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science“.
The study details the results of a controlled online questionnaire posted on blogs between August and October 2010.
Among the conspiracy theories tested, were the faking of Apollo moon landings, US government agencies plotting to assassinate Martin Luther King, Princess Diana’s death being organised by members of the British Royal family and the US military covering up the recovery of an alien spacecraft that crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.
In the paper, Lewandowsky concludes that
“endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories… predicts rejection of climate science”. The research also claims a correlation between people who endorse free-market economics and the ”rejection of climate science”.
Stephen Lewandowsky:
“There’s a fair bit of previous literature to suggest that conspiratorial thinking is part of science denial. Conspiratorial thinking is where people would seek to explain events by appealing to invisible, powerful collusions amongst individuals, rather than taking events at face value. The absence of evidence for the conspiracy is sometimes taken as evidence of its existence and any contradictory evidence is itself embedded into the conspiracy.”
In his paper, Lewandowsky adds:
“Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”
Given the well documented links between free market think-tanks and climate science misinformation, this finding isn’t surprising.
But back to that “conspiracist ideation” trait which Lewandowsky and other researchers, such as Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee, have identified among people who reject science.
Because rather fittingly, no sooner had Lewandowsky’s paper begun to make headlines than the world’s loose, nimble and definitely-not-conspiring network of climate sceptic blogs began to construct their own conspiracies about Lewandowsky’s research.
The survey was conducted online and Lewandowsky’s research team approached climate blogs requesting they post a link to the survey. Some eight “pro-science” blogs agreed to post the link, which gained 1147 responses.
Lewandowsky’s researchers also emailed five popular sceptic blogs, but none of those approached posted the link to the questionnaire.
But had Lewandowsky actually fabricated the claim he had emailed five sceptic blogs, asked Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and others, smelling a conspiracy.
Steve McIntyre, a long-time mining industry consultant and active climate sceptic, even encouraged blog readers to email the ethics department at Lewandowsky’s university.
“If Lewandowky’s claim about five sceptic blogs was fabricated, it appears to me that it would be misconduct under university policies,” wrote McIntyre.
Once McIntyre had come down from the conclusion he had just jumped to, he later admitted that actually, he had been emailed by one of Lewandowsky’s researchers after all but offered a “dog ate my homework” excuse.
Meanwhile, Lewandowsky says he has been “inundated” with requests to release the names of the four remaining bloggers his team contacted.
But since the approaches to bloggers were conducted on the presumption of privacy, the academic has asked his university’s ethics committee and the Australian Psychological Society if he is free to release their identities.
Not content to wait, Australian sceptic blogger Simon Turnill has sent a Freedom of Information request to UWA asking for Lewandowsky’s emails. Lewandowsky told DeSmogBlog:
‘So now there’s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them. It’s a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It’s illustrative of exactly the process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. I’m anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes.’
Lewandowsky revealed that two of the five sceptic blogs approached even replied to the email they were sent.
One stated “Thanks. I will take a look” and another asked “Can you tell me a bit more about the study and the research design?”
Perhaps an inbox search for these phrases might help some bloggers to move on from their latest conspiracy theory.
Or maybe, just maybe, the real story is that the New World Order hacked their email accounts or a CIA operative secretly dropped a memory-lapse drug into their fake moon juice?
(This story was originally published on DeSmogBlog.)
7 Comments
The anti-sceptic truth to climate science conspiracy theorists http://t.co/T5XZ9Cxh by @readfearn via @independentaus #climate
Does this start to put to rest the conspiracy theory that ‘big oil’ is funding skeptics to DELIBERATELY discredit climate science while knowing that the science is actually sound?
No, because that’s not a conspiracy theory – that’s a well established fact.
Colin
I know that you do not actually exist. I have the evidence that you are either a psychic manifestation of collective hysteria or a random phrase generator in a rogue computer in the Agenda 21 headquarters. I’m just waiting on the final approval of my contacts in the Bilderberg group before I reveal the shocking truth to everyone.
If there is one factor I admire of the American political system is the licence a US senator is permitted to present a view that is contrary and staunchly critical of the general view of his party without the threat of being ostracized.
In Australia I cannot imagine a member of the Coalition addressing the Senate and asserting a view similar to that of Bernard Sanders.
Senator Sanders, a Republican, does not hold back in his Senate address:
“Unfortunately, Mr President, Senator Inhofe has some very radical views regarding global warming. And I believe he is dead wrong and dangerously wrong on this issue. Not only is he wrong but because he is the leading Republican on the environment committee his views hold great influence over other Republicans in the senate, in the House, and across the country. And because many Republicans follow Senator Inhofe’s lead it means we are making very little progress here in Congress in combating what most of the scientific community sees as a global and environmental crisis…..I am asking them [Republican colleagues] to join the overwhelming majority of scientists who have studied and written about this issue in understanding that
1, Global warming is real, global warming is real
2. Global warming is scientifically caused by human activity
3. Global warming is already causing massive and costly destruction to the United States and around the world and it will only get worse in years to come.”
And what are the radical views of Senator Jim Inhofe to which Senator Sanders refers to? Well, in Wikipedia the following view is attributed to Senator Inhofe:
He “often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because “God’s still up there.” and that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”
Now, who can argue against such overwhelming scientific evidence?
I think all of us who believe in AGW should just pack our bags and go home and leave it to Him to sort out the mess we are creating.
“Once McIntyre had come down from the conclusion he had just jumped to, he later admitted that actually, he had been emailed by one of Lewandowsky’s researchers after all but offered a “dog ate my homework” excuse.”
oh my god, it’s just a parody at this stage, isn’t it. barely a brain cell between them, i swear.
Hi Higgs, as usual quite enjoy your posts, always on the money in my opinion. One thing about the above one though; Bernie Sanders is not a Republican, he is an independant, and would define his political self as a ‘Democratic Socialist’. But you still raise a very valid point, that there is no way a member of either party here (is there still 2 DIFFERENT parties?) would speak out against the party line for fear of repercussions. One case does come to mind though; Malcom Turnbull – and look what happened to him.
Sad when I think if he (M.T.) was leader, while I might not vote for the Liberals, I wouldn’t be so scared of them gaining power again under his leadership. Under Abbott though, well I am packing my daks so to speak.
Makes me laugh though, the evidence of this study that is. Essentially it tells us if you believe in aliens, then you probably are a climate chnage sceptic also.
Says it all I think about the denier movement really doesn’t it.
My mistake, Miles, you are right in that Bernie Sanders is not a Republican. Also, I agree about Turnbull and I wouldn’t be surprised if he would love to repeat the words of Sanders but it’s against the guidelines set by the CEO of Liberal Pty Ltd, Mr Tony Abbott, whose scientific knowledge on climate change is based on the extensive unpublished research of one Cardinal Pell.