27 March 2013
How not to prove you’re not wearing a tin foil hat.
Posted by Dan Satterfield
Do those who think climate science is a giant hoax or a conspiracy, also tend to have other conspiratorial type beliefs? A paper written back in 2010 attempted to answer that question:
(Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., and Gignac, G. E. in press). NASA faked the moon landing–therefore (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychol. Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797612457686).
The paper did indeed discover such a connection (and based on the emails I get when I write about climate science here, it was not much of a surprise). I still wonder what psychological factors/experiences etc. make people to be susceptible to these ideas.
You might also wonder what the climate change denial crowd thought of this paper, and to say the least they did not like it at all! The reaction was actually quite interesting, and John Cook (the Physicist in Australia who writes the blog Skeptical Science) got together with Psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky and others to study the reaction. What they wanted to know was this: Did the reaction to the original paper show commonly accepted “conspiricist ideation”? In non psychological babble- did the climate science denial blogosphere start coming up with conspiracy theories about the paper that said they tended to be conspiracy minded??!
The paper they wrote has just been published and you can read it by clicking the image below. It is A LONG paper, but it was a real riot!
In short, some of the bloggers who were upset at the original paper quickly manufactured several conspiracy theories about the validity of the paper itself! The new paper (Recursive fury) documents this, and John Cook wrote a summary about it on Skeptical Science. Well worth a read, and I definitely learned a little psychology.
A little teaser from John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky’s post- The 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:
1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.
2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.
6.Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
This is actually not surprising in the least. Not that there was a study like this done, or even the reactions of the “climate change denial crowd” (is there such a crowd? I thought most climate skeptics accepted “climate change” as factual, but questioned only the “certainty” of the anthropogenic contribution). No, what does not surprise me is the apparent lack of self-awareness on the parts of those who believe that they are appealing to logic, but are blitheringly unaware of how fallacy-laden it is.
Really? Guilt by ad hominem association? Argument by ridicule? Compound statements and questions intended to mislead (“climate change denier”)
You’re part of a scary lot, Dan. A little self-awareness on your part might be in order. If ever possible.
So the paper was faked. I believe that is number 3.
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
No, Dan, none of the false choices offered (another glaring fallacy) apply to me, as I do not believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind at work. And for the record, I believe that human contribution to climate change may be substantial, and I happen to believe that, on the whole, the workers are in earnest about doing “good” science.
Some of my colleagues are certainly more zealously wedded to AGW (as a primary forcing of recent climate change), and have a tendency to want to emphasize anthropogenic attributions wherever they can be found, imputed or inferred. But that’s human behavior in most disciplines, and certainly not isolated to climate science. It doesn’t help (science in general) that there is an obvious elephant in the room in the form of political influences, such that the realities of the science itself (what is truly controversial vs. well established) is often not reflected in the oft-over-simplified media versions.
You don’t help matters at all when you use terms that are obviously and deliberately derisive, like “climate change deniers”. Shame shame, bud, your objectivity stock goes down and you don’t even know it. There is nothing whatsoever scientific (let alone truthful) about applying that term to those not firmly on the AGW As A Primary Forcing Bandwagon. That is decidedly polemic–even political–on your part (and not referring to partisan politics either). It is as disingenuous as it is intellectually dishonest. It is a strawman label, as it incorrectly implies that the mere fact of “climate change” is disputed, and where all the controversies exist (within the science itself, not just the public mind). It is also an attempt to “move the goalposts” — another fallacy.
Too bad science itself is caught in all the deliberately obfuscating crossfire. Or maybe not too bad after all, as some parts are seriously overdue for an enema.
“Put down your gun, lieutenant, we’re just having a conversation!” – Dances With Wolves
“Not that there was a study like this done”
Did I misunderstand this comment??
I do agree that there needs to be a better term than deniers but I avoid skeptics because skepticism is the heart and soul of science. There is a big difference between skepticism and refusing to accept overwhelming evidence or coming up with rather silly conspiracy theories that involve one world governments and massive fraud with thousands in collusion. The response to the original paper provided amazing evidence that it was indeed correct.
“Not that there was a study like this done”
Did I misunderstand this comment??
…meaning that I wasn’t surprised that a study like this was done. I also wasn’t surprised that it had zero, zip, nada to do with the real (scientific) divide regarding climate change, let alone the fact that are real divides, even in the staunchly pro-AGW crowd, which have nothing to do with conspiratorial thinking.
The study you cited was not a random sampling of those who disagree with the conclusion that human activity is the PRIMARY driver of recent changes in climate. But “this is the company you keep” is most certainly the implication, both of the paper and your response to it.
“Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking: …. We then went on to identify responses to LOG12 that exhibited these criteria.”
So what the paper really showed was that 100% of the blogs that fit their criteria…fit their criteria! As a tautology, “100% of those who disagreed for non-scientific reasons of the more conspiratorial type disagreed for…non-scientific reasons of the more conspiratorial type.”
Does that really strike you as particularly meaningful? Forget the intended implications, do you buy into the implication that this is somehow representative of all who are skeptical of the “human activity as the primary driver of climate change” conclusions?
It is a an absolutely meaningless paper tiger. It’s like the “man on the street” interviews intended to show that “Americans” are geographically illiterate. Do they “sample” Americans? Sure enough! And sure enough, 100% of those cherry-picked and shown on the video, who were indeed geographically illiterate, were ::: gasp, shock ::: geographically illiterate!
Would you consider it meaningful if someone cherry picked only the most paranoid, uninformed, Exxon-Mobile/Bilderburger-hating, “contrails theory” seeking moonbats from the pro climate change side? Surely you don’t think you’re kook free. Conspiracy theorists are part of humanity, and exist on ALL fringes of an otherwise mainstream divide. Nobody is immune. It is easy to show this same “link” to conspiratorial thinking on ALL sides. Why didn’t the study even attempt such thing. Do you know, a priori, that this is not true, to the point where it doesn’t even merit a test?
Would you just chuckle off such a “counter study” and dismiss its results, knowing that “Well, at least our kooks are on the ‘right’ side of the debate, even if they don’t understand why. Even if they don’t understand the conclusions, or the underlying data that gave rise to them.”?
I don’t see a lot of critical thought going on here, Dan. I think we can do a lot better, if but for the sake of ELEVATING talks, to ferret out the kooks on all sides…not try to marginalize one side or the other with disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, implication and innuendo.
First my name is Dan and not Tiger. Second, read the paper, their criteria were based on previous research in the area and not “made up” to fit a previous conception. I agree though that conspiricist ideation is a facet that is pervasive across many (and perhaps all) disciplines. I do not think that the paper implied otherwise. It only implied what it’s data showed. I also agree that there are a lot of disagreements over many aspects of climate research. It’s this that I find absolutely fascinating, especially the paleoclimate which is turning into a gold mine of information.
As for those who are skeptical that humans are the primary driver, all they need do is publish their work. They have a big mountain to climb, and I suspect almost all of those who read the silliness on blogs like Watts etc. have no idea how high that mountain is because they have read little of the real science. Oh, and don’t make the mistake of telling me that the deck is stacked against these folks, that they cannot get the “truth” published. You will just show that the research you dislike was not half bad.
My apologies on approving your comment so late. Cross country travelling all day.
I have classified myself as a CAGW skeptic, bu I’m now willing to accept the term CAGY cynic.
An optimist is someone who WILL give his keys to his teenage son to borrow the family car.
A pessimist is someone who will NOT give his keys to his teenage son to borrow the family car.
A cynic is someone who DID give his keys to his teenage son to borrow the family car.
We should probably just reply in general, as comment replies in a single thread are nesting and tapering into a thin column.
Firstly, Dan, let me say that I appreciate your civility in all of this, and for taking my thoughts and comments seriously. The reason I feel so strongly about this actually has very little to do with climate science or climate change, and more to do with what I fear is happening to the future of science in general as a result of the Decidedly Non-scientific political and media circus surrounding AGW over the last twenty years. That includes the participation of mainstream scientists on all sides, who I see as complicit in giving an enormous black eye to science in general.
I once heard it joked that the term “political science” is an oxymoron. I considered that ironic, as most lay people aren’t aware that there really is an embedded political structure to organized science, one that is intrinsically linked to the political structure of academia in general. The public at large might not be aware, but those in the field live its realities every day.
You wrote, “If someone is skeptical [of what is now declared to be a mainstream consensus], let them publish their work”, but you then preemptively poisoned the well by saying, “Oh, and don’t make the mistake of telling me that the deck is stacked against these folks, that they cannot get the “truth” published. You will just show that the research you dislike was not half bad.”
I’m not some conspiracy theorist on the fringe, Dan. I’m a worker in the field, just like you. It is not that they cannot get the “truth” published, because even calling it “truth” is arguing from the premise. Something is not “truth” just because it was published, or passed peer review…or is even accepted by the mainstream. Otherwise we can say that the Ptolemaic Universe, with its epicycles and equants and such counted as “truth” for well over a thousand years.
Science is about hypotheses, data, and conclusions that arise in relation to the hypotheses, all of which are presumably falsifiable (or should raise red flags if they are not).
Let’s not pretend that science is an open, equal opportunity path for truth. You’re in those waters, Dan. You know how “publish or die” works, and the hierarchical gauntlet that nearly every worker faces in getting anything published. It’s all about funding opportunities and peer review, and there is a political hierarchy to all of that in all fields and disciplines. That is the first (and most daunting) real “mountain to climb”, and it only gets steeper for anyone daring to publish anything that runs counter to the putative mainstream — let alone obtain funding for that work.
It is disingenuous to suggest that the process of getting something published that runs with the mainstream is equal to the process of getting anything published which runs counter to the mainstream. In all fields, all disciplines.
I have AGU and GSA colleagues who routinely help their students obtain funding by rewording their funding requests so that they include some form of “…and to explore its possible climate/paleoclimate implications…” (a brief mention of which will, of course, appear in the Discussion area of the paper). One such study was on rock melts, and rheology of rock at depth, which is poorly understood. But that’s not where the “funding opportunities” are at the moment, and all studies have to be connected to funding channels in some way. It is well known that if a work is not of commercial value (e.g., related to finding energy or mineral resources), then CLIMATE is always–currently anyway–a safe bet, because there are substantial guaranteed pools set aside for that. That is the reality, and the systemic irony that few want to acknowledge, the implication that science is somehow above the fray and beyond all that. The ugly and most inconvenient truth of all is that scientists are just people, with real needs, who have to eat, like anyone else. And it is a well-established fact that your chances of eating are lessened by anything that bucks the mainstream. What I find appalling is not that lay people could argue or be convinced otherwise, but that scientists could be in denial about that, and argue otherwise between each other. That, to me, is the epitome of a denialist.
Agreed that something is not the truth just because it’s published in a peer reviewed journal, but peer review is the first gatekeeper. It seems that very few of the skeptic arguments get passed it. Those that have, do not seem to hold up to further scrutiny. I also have a friend at GMU who had a great project re climate change that was a shoe in for funding, and it did NOT get it. Since the overwhelming mountain of evidence says that we could be dangerously interfering with our climate system, I am quite happy there is a large pool of money set aside.
I stick with the premise that those who are skeptical should do their homework and publish, the holdouts of many theories in the past made the same accusations of a stacked deck. Science wanders around but the truth wins out eventually. Cook’s paper focused on the conspiricist blogs like Watts etc. and reading more into it than that is a mistake.
DS
The full article is not available as of this writing. That URL redirects to the abstract and there’s no way back.
The original LOG12 article us behind a paywall. The follow-up is open to all.
I was unable to find the full text of the follow-up article by clicking on the image in this post. As Fernando, I reached a page containing the abstract, but I could not find a way to download the follow-up article.
To put it another way I did not find “you can read it by clicking the image below” to be accurate, since I clicked the image and yet was still unable to read the article.
I must be a dummy or something. I can’t figure out how to get from the abstract to the actual article. The journal makes it clear that the article should be available for free download, but no link that I can find.
Someone broken the code?
(One of the authors makes a PDF available from his web site but refers us to this link for the as-published version.)
Yes,I have the same problem. Only the abstract shows up. Neither the original nor the followup are accessible.
Good article, splendid discussion all around. Posting to Facebook! (I know — they’re suborned by the Illuminati — but still … )
Thanks, Dan and Steven, for your first-rate discussion!
From everything I have read about the climate change controversy, while many of the climate skeptics may exhibit tin foil hat traits, the climate alarmist also exhibit at least traits three through six from the tin foil hat list.
Some (perhaps most) probably do, but they have peer reviewed science on their side. The value of scientific method is that it acts to protect against the natural human tendencies to adjust their beliefs through a pre-existing world view. That’s why those that continue to deny the overwhelming evidence are steadily dwindling in number. They have no science to support their viewpoints anymore. It’s gratifying to see how many in my profession have recently accepted the evidence and no longer identify themselves as being is disagreement with the IPCC consensus.
It is always interesting to read or hear how “they” are unaware of how flawed their thinking is, how oblivious “they” are to the way in which their prejudices and agendas shape their beliefs and opinions, and how completely “they” cling to faulty data that supports their cause — as opposed to how clearly and honestly “we” think about it all.
The human mind is an amazing thing, ain’t it?
There is a cache-22 situation for anyone who disagrees with Lowendowsky’s beliefs.
Lowendowski authors a paper in which he claims to have gathered data supporting his theory that people who disagree with his views are guided by kooky conspiracy theories. Then when he is criticized for his data collection and reduction procedures he writes a new paper in which he uses those criticisms as confirmation of his critics kooky conspiracy theories.
The primary criticism of Lowendowsky’s first paper is that he went fishing for people who satsfied his stereotype of a kook, then used them to represent everybody who disagreed with his views on global warming, whether or not they were kooks. The evidence that this was his modus operendi appears to be overwhelming.
One of the essential ingredients for a theory to be considered “scientific” is for it to be falsifiable. That is, there must be a way to put it to the test. For Lowendowsky’s papers there does not seem to be any test for falsifiability, because the administrator of any such test simply proves himself to be a kook by offering the test.
For the record, I am a Senior Scientist at a Department of Energy National Laboratory where I have been working in renewable energy for over 15 years. But I also see much of the global warming rhetoric as hyperbolic dogma. I have seen Lowendowsky’s papers and read many criticisms of those papers. I come down on the side of the critics.
But I have two strikes against me: I see much of the global warming rhetoric as hyperbolic dogma, and I come down on the side of Lowendowsky’s critics. Therefore I must be a kook who believes the moon landings were faked, right?
Please forgive the incorrect spelling of “Lewandowsky” in my previous comment.
A note that commenters should read the comment policy carefully. If your comment does not appear within 18 hours or so then it did not meet it. Comments should be on the topic of the post. Wild accusations of malfeasance/fraud on the part of climate researchers had better come with some good proof or the comment will go to the spam folder. I try and be liberal with comments but the policy here is rather strict and that one is a big no no.
Dan
For those who cannot get to the Log13 study-
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf
I just embraced the hat!
https://www.masonpelt.com/looking-at-conspiracy-theories-from-inside-someone-elses-foil-hat/