Abstract: "In this registered report, we present causal evidence on a potential explanation for this discrepancy: motivated reasoning."
Conclusion: “Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behaviour.”
If there were certainty of a “climate crisis” from man made CO2 we’d be building nuclear power plants, and we’re not.
There is rather great uncertainty on whether: 1. CO2 is the cause of warming and 2. whether humans are the cause.
What is for certain is CO2 is necessary for life on earth.
And after the food triangle, COVID, Russian collusion, a laptop -anyone who believes the experts just because they’re experts has not been paying attention.
Just watched Willie Soon talking to Tucker and he made a great point: when ‘Experts’ are wrong about climate change and Net Zero causes an economic, social and ecological catastrophe, who do we hold to account? I just added these two chuckleheads to the list.
“Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behaviour.”
I'm having trouble parsing this typically opaque language, but it sounds like this is a win for the skeptic side, right?
When it comes to climate change, one has to look no further than the hypocrites who pontificate and represent climate change as they dash back and forth in their gas-guzzling Lear jets and yachts, telling us serfs how to live! That right there nullifies the whole argument! If you want to reduce climate change, do away with politicians and plant more trees, period, end of story!
"The literature of motivated beliefs posits that the belief formation process is often guided by the desire to maintain certain convictions or to hold a positive self-view, rather than by a desire for belief accuracy."
I think they just described at least 80% of contemporary scientific literature, although they left out protecting one's funding stream.
Why was this even published in Nature Climate Change? The study is sociological or psychological or something. It has nothing to do with the actual question of climate change.
Your use of irony and sarcasm to deliver the brutal truth is exquisite in addition to being entertaining. These experts are mental narcissists of the lowest order. They wouldn't recognize an average person with common sense since they can't find their gluteus maximus in the mirror with both hands.
Experts rely on expertise, sir! Not those base “emotions” or, or, or...”feelings” the know nothings do, how dare you impugn their motivations! They do not fall for propaganda, they see through it to the core truthiness! Their motivations are pure “science” regardless of their (lack of) direct knowledge.
Abstract: "In this registered report, we present causal evidence on a potential explanation for this discrepancy: motivated reasoning."
Conclusion: “Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behaviour.”
Waitaminutehere....
If there were certainty of a “climate crisis” from man made CO2 we’d be building nuclear power plants, and we’re not.
There is rather great uncertainty on whether: 1. CO2 is the cause of warming and 2. whether humans are the cause.
What is for certain is CO2 is necessary for life on earth.
And after the food triangle, COVID, Russian collusion, a laptop -anyone who believes the experts just because they’re experts has not been paying attention.
"Arguably", the comedy team of Stoetzer & Zimmermann need more practice to attain the levels of Martin & Lewis. Perhaps more peer review can help.
Just watched Willie Soon talking to Tucker and he made a great point: when ‘Experts’ are wrong about climate change and Net Zero causes an economic, social and ecological catastrophe, who do we hold to account? I just added these two chuckleheads to the list.
Well said, Dan, but I suspect us regular folk will somehow be blamed.
“Contrary to our hypotheses, we find no evidence that motivated cognition can help to explain widespread climate change denial and environmentally harmful behaviour.”
I'm having trouble parsing this typically opaque language, but it sounds like this is a win for the skeptic side, right?
That's the way I parsed it.
Their Confirmation Bias is on full display in the last three words of their paper's title.
When it comes to climate change, one has to look no further than the hypocrites who pontificate and represent climate change as they dash back and forth in their gas-guzzling Lear jets and yachts, telling us serfs how to live! That right there nullifies the whole argument! If you want to reduce climate change, do away with politicians and plant more trees, period, end of story!
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." --
Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor from 121--180 A.D. and Stoic philosopher
"The literature of motivated beliefs posits that the belief formation process is often guided by the desire to maintain certain convictions or to hold a positive self-view, rather than by a desire for belief accuracy."
I think they just described at least 80% of contemporary scientific literature, although they left out protecting one's funding stream.
Why was this even published in Nature Climate Change? The study is sociological or psychological or something. It has nothing to do with the actual question of climate change.
Your use of irony and sarcasm to deliver the brutal truth is exquisite in addition to being entertaining. These experts are mental narcissists of the lowest order. They wouldn't recognize an average person with common sense since they can't find their gluteus maximus in the mirror with both hands.
Experts rely on expertise, sir! Not those base “emotions” or, or, or...”feelings” the know nothings do, how dare you impugn their motivations! They do not fall for propaganda, they see through it to the core truthiness! Their motivations are pure “science” regardless of their (lack of) direct knowledge.
I needed a good laugh today. Thanks.
Lol, typical. Arguably they accuse others of what they, themselves are doing .
Just completed and recently released episode on Geoengineering with Jim Lee from www.ClimateViewer.com https://rumble.com/v4be2g6-the-hidden-forces-behind-climate-engineering-an-insightful-discussion-with-.html
I remember Naomi Oreskes using the wrong search terms to discover the '95% of scientists agree...'.