This all makes me feel like I’m in an episode of The Twilight Zone with Rod Serling’s narrative at the beginning going something like this…
Welcome to a world where reality has been dumped upside down like a garbage can being emptied. A world where hot causes cold, hot causes hot and hot causes everything from tornados to droughts to blizzards. A world where cooling doesn’t matter because it’s caused by warming. A world where Congress listens to “scientific facts” from Peruvian farmers and Al Gore but ignores reality. You are now in The Twilight Zone.
This has to be the biggest science fiction I think I’ve read yet in the AGW debate. Think this professor may be suffering cognitive dissonance to come up with this one? Read on.
The article from CNS News is titled “Cognitive Brain Patterns Prevent Conservatives from Accepting Threat of Global Warming.” Now that’s a mouth full. Guess where this guy is from? Berkeley, CA of course! Where else would foster such thoughts other than The Twilight Zone?
According to the good professor…
Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.
George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.
We not only have weird science being applied to prove AGW, we now have it describing those who find The Goracle and his Inconvenient truth to be well…….inconvenient to say the least. Let’s go to Websters Online and see the definition of Cognitive…
Main Entry: cog·ni·tive
1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge
Sounds like we’re actually thinking about things, which evidently is pissing him off, so denier thinking is now bad. Blame it on denier “brain patterns.” Here’s his explanation about what our brain patterns supposedly do according to him…
“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science. So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.
Isn’t that what science is all about? If the science is good no one’s going to debunk it, if it’s bad, then it gets debunked. Even Einstein was happy to have people go after his theories. He was about the science being correct, not who was right or who was wrong.
On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”
I guess “open-minded” means you believe whatever the liberals tell you and don’t ask questions. Use your liberal cognitive brain process to drink the Fool-Aid and just go along with the brainwash. You’ll feel much better in the morning and The Goracle will love you.
In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.
Excuse me, contradictory reports? Well, give us some actual real facts that make sense, aren’t based on skewed data, have been peer-reviewed by real scientists (not just the ones who happen to agree with you), and the public might just might not dismiss it as a bunch of garbage designed to make The Goracle and his buddies rich and rape the taxpayers out of more money on the pretense of saving the world. Regarding “raft” it’s like this, I find the increased frequency of “problems” since climategate to be rather indicative of warmers going into overdrive to make sure we all believe in AGW. The old technique of “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.”
“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.
OK can you say spin? The “facts” about AGW get busted on a regular basis, but because we question what’s going on, it’s our “beliefs.” But the warmers, who swallow the AGW propaganda on a daily basis without questioning a thing, are being scientific. Does this guy really think everyone is this dumb?
So let’s see what Pat Michaels has to say about this…
But Pat Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the argument that opponents of human-caused global warming are physically or psychologically different reveals “desperation” on the part of those who want people to not only embrace the idea of human destruction of the environment but put that idea into laws regulating human activity.
Desperation? Regulation? Now we’re getting somewhere. This is exactly what happened under Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc. Don’t believe the state’s propaganda and you’ll be declared crazy and sent off to a mental institution for reprogramming (aka brainwashing). I’m sure the warmers would love to take us all away and do this so we come back as good little Nazis….I mean warmers, and boy are they drooling at the thought of regulating everyone to live and do as they say. To me the professor’s comments do indeed sound desperate as they appear to have no basis in reality in my mind. Perhaps relality in Berkeley is different than the rest of the world?
“Imminent disaster serves the proponents of regulation on this issue,” Michaels told CNSNews.com. That includes efforts by Democrats in Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit carbon emissions and tax corporations who fail to meet government-set pollution standards.
Yes, let’s not waste a good crisis. If we don’t have one, let’s create one and then we can get the general population to go along with the program to save their asses from impending doom. The more they spend the more they get saved. Exactly what the warmers and the greentards are doing. Moreover, it seems everything that happens is now caused by anthropogenic global warming, including earthquakes, herpes, athlete’s food, pregnancy, and I’m waiting for some astute warmer to blame Obamacre on it. You can see what I mean from the next quote…
Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.
Yes I’m sure The Goracles new book will be titled “Climate Crisis – Why You Deniers Need Thorazine and Straight-Jackets so You’ll Shut Up.” 99.999% final? Has the professor added climatologist to his resume?
I REALLY love the next quotes…
Lakoff writes, “In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from ‘others’ and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting.
“Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence — doing well as one can to make oneself and one’s family and community better.”
Really? This is now spinning at 50,000 RPM. He has it backwards in my opinon.
If you look at the first paragraph it sounds more like he’s describing The Goracle. We’re supposed to do as he says, be good little children and blindly believe in global warming because he says so. We’re to obey! We should not take up the immoral practice of creating carbon without making him rich by buying carbon credits! If we don’t do that we are disgusting! Our punishment will be the Earth will dry up like a prune and burst into flames! Sounds more like typical liberalism to me. Do as I say not as I do! (Reference to The Goracle’s inordinate power consumption and flying all over the place leaving a cloud of CO2 while saving the Earth.
His description of the liberal families is absurd. I see plenty of conservatives who nurture their children, teach them responsibility, empathy and excellence, too. His statement makes as much sense as saying things such as “all blondes are dumb”, or “all brunettes are smart.” Just isn’t based in reality at all.
Dr. Michaels closes with…
Michaels said that the idea that people who don’t buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn’t fit with the American ideal of individual liberty.
“I don’t think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country,” Michaels said.
I can’t top that statement.
Since this is all about the “cognitive” I wonder if the professor suffers from Cognitive Dissonance?” I have to wonder if this isn’t the cause and the effect is his asinine theory?
I found the definition of cognitive dissonance on Wikipedia. Here is one quote that I think explains some things about the professor’s ideas and explains my curiosity about whether he suffers from cognitive dissonance or not.
The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails. The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead, as members vied to prove their orthodoxy by recruiting converts.
Now to me this sounds like all the “doomsdays” we’ve had in the past. Things like…
- Nuclear War will wipe the planet out.
- Global Cooling in the 70’s
- The Hale-Bopp comet cult.
- End of the world with the new millenia in 2000 (should have been 2001 as there is no year “0” but, was still hysteria).
and things we have now…
- Anthropogenic Global Warming
- The end of the world in 2012 due to Mayan Calendar ending/Nostradamus predicitons
- Water purity and availablility.
- Methane leaking into the Arctic.
- Cow farts.
When Prophecy Fails also notes the increased shrillness from this study group…
An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger‘s 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of belief persistence in members of a UFO doomsday cult, and documented the increased proselytization they exhibited after the leader’s “end of the world” prophecy failed to come true. The prediction of the Earth’s destruction, supposedly sent by aliens to the leader of the group, became a disconfirmed expectancy that caused dissonance between the cognitions, “the world is going to end” and “the world did not end.” Although some members abandoned the group when the prophecy failed, most of the members lessened their dissonance by accepting a new belief, that the planet was spared because of the faith of the group.
Does this not sound like the increased proselytization after Climatgate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate and all the other times AGW has been busted lately? I don’t know about you but I definitely noticed increased shrillness, frequency, and a myriad of new things claimed to be caused by AGW. Go back to “the raft of contradictory reports” mentioned earlier where he even admits the increase in frequency. (Definition of raft: a large number or amount). We have similarly seen some scientists who were on the AGW side change to the non-AGW side. I wonder if we will soon see many of them take the position that AGW is over and see them take credit for saving the world from AGW based upon all their efforts?
You could also read these other definitions in Wikipedia and judge for yourself if they might apply to the professor and warmers alike…
Cognitive Bias: A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence.
True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.
Sounds like AGW believers and the professor to me.