24 Comments

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....

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"Arguably", the comedy team of Stoetzer & Zimmermann need more practice to attain the levels of Martin & Lewis. Perhaps more peer review can help.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Well said, Dan, but I suspect us regular folk will somehow be blamed.

Expand full comment

“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?

Expand full comment

That's the way I parsed it.

Expand full comment

Their Confirmation Bias is on full display in the last three words of their paper's title.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

"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

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I needed a good laugh today. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Lol, typical. Arguably they accuse others of what they, themselves are doing .

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

I remember Naomi Oreskes using the wrong search terms to discover the '95% of scientists agree...'.

Expand full comment