Cut & Paste in the Australian this weekend reproduced articles suggesting that climate change sceptics suffer a psychological disorder.

The first article is by John Naish writing in The Ecologist in which he suggests that sceptics suffer from cognitive dissonance, believing one thing but acting the opposite. The causes offered by American neuroscientist Paul Maclean are that our primitive, reptilian brain which evolved in the Pleistocene era is confused by the complexity of modern life.

Then we hear that the Uni. of West England is conferencing “Facing Climate Change”, bringing together climate change activists, eco- psychologists, psychotherapists and social researchers to examine “denial from a variety of perspectives”. Denial is seen by them as “complacency and irresponsibility”.

Brendan O’Neill then comments that “the idea of climate change denial is a psychological disorder is becoming more and more popular among green-leaning activists and academics”, that “nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent”.

As I see it, if scepticism progresses to denial which then progresses to cognitive dissonance, surely this cannot be confined to just climate issues? Therefore it must apply to other forms of scepticism such as political and religious ideology.

If scepticism is caused by over stimulation of our “reptilian brain”, why does it only apply to scepticism of one side of the debate? Why can’t it also apply to scepticism of the other perspective of any given issue?

I think I’ll just find a nice rock in the sun and warm up.

Dear spindoc,

As far as sceptics go I would
imagine it can apply to any field.
And is a rather healthy quality to have -
encouraging the pursuit of answers -
particularly in the scientific fields.

What we see in the world depends not
just on what we look at. It also depends
on what kind of training we've had, and
what our training and unconscious assumptions
have predisposed us to find.

Things that challenge our assumptions or values
may provoke both controversy and resistance.
Climate change is now being questioned
by some - even though there are signs all around us
that something is happening.

Scientists however are meant to hold off judgement
until all the facts are in. And no theory should be accepted uncritically.

Scepticism - I would think is a rather healthy attitude
to have. It may force people to look at their subject
matter in an entirely different way. And it may encourage
the exploration of new disciplines in existing areas of
ignorance. I wouldn't regard scepticism as a
'psychological' disorder,
but rather the part and parcel of a healthy mind.

"If scepticism is caused by over stimulation of our “reptilian brain”, why does it only apply to scepticism of one side of the debate? Why can’t it also apply to scepticism of the other perspective of any given issue?"

It stands to reason that opposing forces in any debate are similar in terms of their level of dogma and conviction. That only one side is called a skeptic is just society's way of marking them as the (nominal) loser in the debate. Of course the other side is no less pig-headed - it's just that they're deemed to be on the winning side. And what the winning side is, is determined by politics. Pure lotto.

Why, for example, is it that when a high-ranking member of society is found innocent in court, he is "exonerated" while a low-ranking member is "let off"? All this language is rooted in the idea of winners vs losers. As more people see themselves as winners, this trend is perpetuated more and more.

All scientists by definition who adhere their pure analytical no nonsense approach are sceptics.So according to some,many are derranged who don't concur with AGW.The debate is not simple since both the reality and causes are still in dispute.

It seems that only the people of logic have a disorder,while the true believers who are influenced by tribal machinations,are the way to salvation.

All statements are true-ish,
At either end of the continuuom the chances are higher that the individual has some mental health issue that might be influencing their conclusion but beyond that I doubt the sweeping rationales.

The accusation that the global warming movement is a religion must be
correct.
That is why Kevin Rudd's ETS sheme will sell indulgences to polluters.

Where oh where are you Martin Luther ?