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 ?

spindoc, scarily enough deviation from the 'norm' is the diagnostic tool of our so called mind scientists. Doubters, and deniers and those different all run the risk of coping a label. This was a favorite tool of Stalin and a trick not unknown to Hitler, among various examples.

As a fan of hot rocks talk of our reptilian brain is just bizarre to me. Skepticism, discrimination and questioning are among the best of our attributes.

Such labelling often only applies to the minority side of an argument and works to censor and to enforce agreement. Even on OLO ad hominem attacks are stock in trade.

And as for Psychiatry and Psychology, it seems the bigger the professions gets the bigger the problems and the number of conditions they name- a real growth industry.

It's nothing new to apply a negative label to someone who holds an opposite view. This is a common tool of the socialist intelligentsia.

A perfect example was when Jean-Paul Sartre said that'Any anti-Communist is a dog'.

And here, anyone who is against waves of non-English-speaking immigrants is labelled as racist, fascist, nazi, white-supremacist etc, just for wanting similar rules applied as for immigrants to non-English-speaking countries.

Where is the balance?

I really don't get the point of this thread.

Scepticism is healthy.

Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, eg Smoking causes lung cancer, is psychologically questionable.

Next question please.

Spindoc

At the bottom of the following link, they mention the psychobabble you mention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers

As far as the gabfest in New York is concerned -

Conference co-sponsors receive the following benefits:
• input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics
• admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people
• logo and organization info on all promotional material produced, including advertising prior to the event

There is no fee for sponsorship, but conference co-sponsors are asked to do the following:
• place a link on the homepage of their Web sites to Heartland's web site
• send two or three emails to their membership/donor lists promoting the event
• describe the event in a newsletter or online essay
• get 20 people to attend the event as their guests

Meaning;

Sponsors have had a hand in deciding what the topics of the conference will be (unlike real scientific conferences).

There’s no fee for sponsorship (unusual) but “sponsors” are asked to spread the word about the “conference” and to get people to attend.

That is, the Heartland Institute looked for sponsorship not in the form of sponsorship fees, but in the form of ‘deny-n-delay’ noise ... sow the seeds of doubt, generate noise and promote inaction.

Btw, according to the “conference” registration information, there’s a 20% registration fee discount for signers of the Oregon Petition.

Apparently, they have about 60 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they are giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It's likely that almost everyone attending got free admission.

_____

I’m with you on this one Fractelle.

I think many people confuse scientific scepticism with personal scepticism.

Interesting link you provided Q&A. It just goes to show that the extremes on either side of the debate are just as passionate as each other. I find it all a bit sad really.

As an engineer I accept scepticism as one of the primary tools of science, a facet of questioning everything. I have not formed a view either way on AGW, not for the want of trying to get the data I need I might add. That, I think makes me a sceptic however, I do not reject the possibility or even the probability of AGW, therefore I do not accept that I am a denier.

I do not understand why both sides of this debate need to label the opposition, or, as in the case of the article in the Australian, find a medical reason for failing to convince the other side of the merits of their case.

I suspect that because there is no compelling scientific case either way, the debate has simply stalled and become a circular argument. There being no clear circuit breaker, each side is moving away from the actual debate and turning to childish labels. This is symptomatic of an emotive rather than scientific debate.

What really worries me is that if there is indeed a case for GW and it turns out not to be anthropogenic, we, as a species will have demonstrated our ignorance and come up with the answer before we even know what the question was. Then what will we leave our grandchildren?

"Then what will we leave our grandchildren?"

And that is the question we should be asking rather than attaching labels to people.

Excellent post Spindoc.

Whether people believe there is sufficient evidence for AGW or even that our planet is going through a climate cycle beyond our control, I fail to understand why we are arguing about creating a cleaner self sustaining environment for ourselves. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that pollution is poisoning our air and water systems, that eventually fossil fuels will run out. Given the science and technology we now have it is (for me) inconceivable that we should argue about doing anything at all (business as usual). There is scope for new profitable industries and (optimistically) a better way of living for us all.

Those who argue for doing nothing at all are not sceptics, they either fear change or have financial interests, or feel threatened by the suggestion that somehow humankind hasn't been as clever as it thinks it is. Or a combination of all of the above.

I think back to how I spent Feb 7 (Black Saturday) in the Dandenong Ranges, I had heard all the warnings, but have to admit I was not prepared to fight or flee if my home became under threat by fire. This lack of preparation caught out many people who, like me, could not image the fury of a fire storm in dry high temperatures. We have learnt the hard way. Since then I was prepared to flee. Four weeks were experienced in a state of anxiety because I was simply being human and hoping if I ignored the warnings the problem would simply go away.

Humans are terrific in a crisis, we may have evolved this way because we are crap are taking preventative action. Not a psychological disorder simply, fatally human.

I think the way it works is when you have a psychopath – who is in total denial , inverts the question and applies the diagnostic evidence of their affliction and inverts it towards others , who have already made the observation – ( Post modern Sceptic I suppose); but with global warming or that should be ( Climate Change) , - that is just an outright criminal conspiracy of a model of 1 in one hundred millionth truths told, orchestrated by psychopaths- and Narcissistic incredulity of being a identified Psychopath , It is not scepticism . That is a very sick mental patient.
Yes, it is a non argument about science , and it more to do with Psychopaths criminal intent – I am sceptical that many will understand the truth, but I remain optimistic that the lie will live on for a while yet.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

Spindoc, you say you "have not formed a view either way on AGW, not for the want of trying to get the data I need I might add."

Some commenters obviously can't (or are unable to) do the research or analyse the data, for various reasons.

However, there are others that promote misinformation, or deliberatley distort what the data is telling us, for ulterior motives. They even accuse national and international academies of science of distorting science - simply astounding.

This is not to say these institutions, the scientists themselves or genuine media journalists are doing a good job of explaining the science.

What data do you need? Where have you been looking?

Thanks Q&A. I tend to be selective in searching for data on any topic. In relation to AGW I stay away from the IPCC, not comfortable with the politics, funding or the process. Anything associated with Al Gore is out. I do not go to any media related commentary, articles or opinion pieces.

I select data from University research, Meteorological data sites, NASA satellite data and ground station observations. Most of the sites have raw data that can be downloaded or analyzed from different perspectives.

Interestingly, some of the pro AGW sites no longer provide raw data; it’s been pulled due to “inconsistencies”.

I accept the research data that shows an increase in atmospheric carbon from 1970 to date. I also accept the data that “some” oceanic currents have recently recorded up to half of one percent increase in temperature.

If I read something about say, Arctic Ice melting at an alarming rate, I can find other research that says “no, it’s back to normal”. The University of Illinois link is a good example of research that runs contrary to what the media publishes and it gets ignored.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

The BOM climate research is another good example. The 1900 to 2003 map indicates no reduced rainfall in the eastern States over that period. If, however you select 1970 to 2003 an anomaly shows up. That said, if you run the data sets in 30 year blocks there is no anomaly and no supporting charts show any anomaly.

The only data I can “see” as an anomaly is the increased atmospheric carbon from 1970, for every other piece of so called scientific evidence from either side of the debate there is an equally scientific opposite view.

The two most wickedly abhorrent terms used in this debate are “the science is settled” and “scientific consensus” Would anyone fly in a 747 that was built on consensus?

A bit off the thread, I apologize for that but thanks for the question Q&A.

I suggest that you also look up many national E P A reports, i.e . . . . Germany – Sweden- and British – California, etc, and I think you will be surprised with the actual findings of atmospheric chemical composition and its origins, and its life span-
I am sick of it, there are many who should be paraded, and sent onto the gallows.

That is to be the reasons why many of the things missing and fictional numbers added, important paragraphs deleted and the facts changed, when the Buaerocrat doctors 99.9% of the reports; - If this seems to escape most people, They are Pathological LIARS, just look how the health system has become totally dysfunctional throughout Australia – Many reasons, but the Buaerocrat is feeding everything else but the truth. The Physicians and the Surgeons are considered useless when dealing with a Beaurocrat.
The Gods of Government.

Albert Gore started this up in the early eighties when he put the ultimatum to prominent Professors and Doctors – Including NASA, - You are with me, or the funding is not.
That simple.

Spindoc

I (certainly the world’s governments and major businesses) don’t dismiss the IPCC reports so lightly. Much of what your searching for is found or cited in the papers referenced in the WG1 technical papers, for example.

IPCC reports are based on thousands of published peer reviewed research papers from the scientists and scientific institutions you say you select data from (“University research, Meteorological data sites, NASA satellite data and ground station observations” ... and much more).

A lot of people are confused about the ‘politics’ of the IPCC. They fail to understand that government or political representatives cannot change the science, no matter how unsettling the message might be. This is why over 2000 scientists have met in Denmark this week as a prelude to the COP 15 in Copenhagen in December – they have been able to add the latest findings to the AR4, with even more certainty.

Frankly, I find it odd that you seem to want to “reinvent the wheel”, but hey ... go for it. I’m not sure you are up to speed with statistical analysis though ... “if you run the data sets in 30 year blocks there is no anomaly and no supporting charts (that) show any anomaly” - are these really your words? I’m sorry, that comment depicts a lack understanding of statistical trend analysis.

Scientists understand the enhanced greenhouse effect extremely well, contrary to what some people think. These people confuse “the science is settled” statement as to meaning it is 100% settled ... it is not. You will always find the nuances being debated in the scientific arena, think of it in terms of probabilities of outcomes.

So too with the term “scientific consensus” ... if a preponderance of evidence stemming from the scientific process points to the same conclusion, then you can say there is a consensus. Of course, this does not mean it is absolute (some other hypothesis can come along and knock AGW for six ... but no one has been able to do that). The analogy to a 747 has nothing to do with it.

Fractelle's said it pretty nicely.

Logically speaking, isn't it a given that the parameters of any ecosystem will eventually change if the components within it are substantially altered on an ongoing basis?

It all just comes down to time.

In relation to the skepticism issue, I don't think it's as much the concept of skepticism that is being challenged here. Indeed, skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method.

I think what is challenged is the lengths that climate change deniers choose to accept science that does not actually conform to the scientific methods that have been laid down in the past and that so few of the articles disputing climate change are actually peer reviewed, which means that instead of relying on legitimate science, they rely on spin.

This was never such a significant problem in the past, however the recent US administration had a habit of ignoring scientific findings when it clashed with their ideology, though this approach has become more common throughout the world and in many disciplines.

TRTL
Well said I agree.

PS can we lock them up anyway?
:-)