the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[Trakar]

American Behavioral Scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.full.pdf+html

Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science
Shaun W. Elsasser and Riley E. Dunlap
DOI: 10.1177/0002764212469800

(...)

Summary and Conclusion​

Our analyses of the op-eds on climate change written by syndicated conservative columnists reveal important aspects of their role in the denial machine. First, their op-eds are often published in reaction to public events that appear either to legitimate or denigrate climate science. The months with the greatest numbers of columns over
the 4 years were those when events either lent credibility to the climate science community (e.g., accolades won by Al Gore and the IPCC and President Obama’s attendance in Copenhagen) or provoked criticism of it (e.g., Heartland conferences and Climategate). The conservative columnists used either type of event as an opportunity
to challenge the legitimacy of climate science.

Also, the columnists focused on Al Gore more than any other topic over the 4 years. Gore is a ready-made scapegoat they repeatedly attacked, often in a caricatured fashion; indeed, their op-eds were more likely to link global warming with Al Gore than with the IPCC. This suggests that Al Gore is viewed as easier to discredit than is the IPCC. Climategate also resonated strongly with the columnists, and they frequently used it in efforts to cast doubt on climate science. The columnists were also more likely to discuss and criticize international policy proposals than domestic ones, despite their obvious aversion of both, as the idea that the United States would commit to treaties that might impinge on Americans was loathsome to them. Even considering such a possibility was, in their eyes, a sign of national weakness.

Last, we analyzed the skeptical arguments utilized by the columnists. Their most common arguments were those that either denied the existence of global warming or denied human responsibility for it. The favorite was that there is no consensus among climate scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change, a constant refrain from the
small number of contrarian scientists and skeptical bloggers and an obvious attempt to delegitimize climate science.

Finally, those columnists who did not challenge the reality of anthropogenic global warming tended to argue that its impacts would not be harmful but that both international and domestic efforts to ameliorate it would clearly be damaging. These have long been favored claims used by the denial community (McCright & Dunlap, 2000).

It is apparent that conservative columnists are a key component of the climate change denial machine, as they strongly reinforce and amplify the voices of the rest of the denier choir. Indeed, their vast reach enables them to spread skepticism across a wider audience than even Fox News or right-wing talk radio, which tend to appeal heavily to conservative audiences. For example, George Will reaches a larger audience than any other syndicated columnist, an estimated 42% of newspaper readers in 2007, whereas Cal Thomas reached an estimated 27% that year (Media Matters in America, 2007, p. 7). In addition, as Will and Thomas demonstrate, many of the columnists are also regular fixtures on TV and radio, allowing them to amplify their messages even more.

Their role as political commentators—entailing insularity from effective fact checking (illustrated by some notoriously fallacious op-eds on global warming by George Will; Powell, 2011, pp. 73-78) and rebuttals—allows the columnists to employ arguments against global warming that have long been debunked in the scientific literature and to repeat allegations against climate scientists that have no basis, and to do so with virtual impunity. They thereby fill an important niche in the denial machine, echoing and strongly amplifying the climate change skepticism and denial promoted by the other key actors.​

Telling that this was written by behavioral science researchers, and published in a behavioral science journal.​

 

[Si modo]

What does a "denier" deny?

 

[bripat9643]

american behavioral scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.full.pdf+html

leading voices in the denier choir: Conservative columnists' dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science
shaun w. Elsasser and riley e. Dunlap
doi: 10.1177/0002764212469800

(...)

summary and conclusion​

our analyses of the op-eds on climate change written by syndicated conservative columnists reveal important aspects of their role in the denial machine. First, their op-eds are often published in reaction to public events that appear either to legitimate or denigrate climate science. The months with the greatest numbers of columns over
the 4 years were those when events either lent credibility to the climate science community (e.g., accolades won by al gore and the ipcc and president obama’s attendance in copenhagen) or provoked criticism of it (e.g., heartland conferences and climategate). The conservative columnists used either type of event as an opportunity
to challenge the legitimacy of climate science.

also, the columnists focused on al gore more than any other topic over the 4 years. gore is a ready-made scapegoat they repeatedly attacked, often in a caricatured fashion; indeed, their op-eds were more likely to link global warming with al gore than with the ipcc. This suggests that al gore is viewed as easier to discredit than is the ipcc. Climategate also resonated strongly with the columnists, and they frequently used it in efforts to cast doubt on climate science. The columnists were also more likely to discuss and criticize international policy proposals than domestic ones, despite their obvious aversion of both, as the idea that the united states would commit to treaties that might impinge on americans was loathsome to them. Even considering such a possibility was, in their eyes, a sign of national weakness.

last, we analyzed the skeptical arguments utilized by the columnists. Their most common arguments were those that either denied the existence of global warming or denied human responsibility for it. The favorite was that there is no consensus among climate scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change, a constant refrain from the
small number of contrarian scientists and skeptical bloggers and an obvious attempt to delegitimize climate science.

finally, those columnists who did not challenge the reality of anthropogenic global warming tended to argue that its impacts would not be harmful but that both international and domestic efforts to ameliorate it would clearly be damaging. These have long been favored claims used by the denial community (mccright & dunlap, 2000).

it is apparent that conservative columnists are a key component of the climate change denial machine, as they strongly reinforce and amplify the voices of the rest of the denier choir. Indeed, their vast reach enables them to spread skepticism across a wider audience than even fox news or right-wing talk radio, which tend to appeal heavily to conservative audiences. For example, george will reaches a larger audience than any other syndicated columnist, an estimated 42% of newspaper readers in 2007, whereas cal thomas reached an estimated 27% that year (media matters in america, 2007, p. 7). In addition, as will and thomas demonstrate, many of the columnists are also regular fixtures on tv and radio, allowing them to amplify their messages even more.

their role as political commentators—entailing insularity from effective fact checking (illustrated by some notoriously fallacious op-eds on global warming by george will; powell, 2011, pp. 73-78) and rebuttals—allows the columnists to employ arguments against global warming that have long been debunked in the scientific literature and to repeat allegations against climate scientists that have no basis, and to do so with virtual impunity. They thereby fill an important niche in the denial machine, echoing and strongly amplifying the climate change skepticism and denial promoted by the other key actors.​

telling that this was written by behavioral science researchers, and published in a behavioral science journal.​

<yawn!>

 

[skookerasbil]

but..................

 

[IanC]

better than Lewandowsky's peer reviewed and published paper, simply because it doesnt say much.

op-ed writers choose current events to write about? the nerve of them!

they picked on Al Gore? shame on the writers! wasnt it enough that a judge actually ruled that a disclaimer pointing out the major fallacies had to be run before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could be shown to school children? how could they pile on so callously?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Obama didn't sign the DOHA Accord. You Liberals gonna' call him a GW Denier too?

 

[Trakar]

better than Lewandowsky's peer reviewed and published paper, simply because it doesnt say much.

op-ed writers choose current events to write about? the nerve of them!

they picked on Al Gore? shame on the writers! wasnt it enough that a judge actually ruled that a disclaimer pointing out the major fallacies had to be run before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could be shown to school children? how could they pile on so callously?

THe actual statement issued by the british magistrate disputes your assertion. From the October 10 United Kingdom High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) judgment:

I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr [Martin] Chamberlain [counsel for the defendant] persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."​

​

There was no "disclaimer" required, merely a set of teacher's notes to help them explain the differences between the films presentation of the science, which was generally accurate, and the public policy advocations which were more poitical opinion than scientifically directed resolutions.

 

[IanC]

better than Lewandowsky's peer reviewed and published paper, simply because it doesnt say much.

op-ed writers choose current events to write about? the nerve of them!

they picked on Al Gore? shame on the writers! wasnt it enough that a judge actually ruled that a disclaimer pointing out the major fallacies had to be run before Gore's An Inconvenient Truth could be shown to school children? how could they pile on so callously?

THe actual statement issued by the british magistrate disputes your assertion. From the October 10 United Kingdom High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) judgment:

I turn to AIT [An Inconvenient Truth], the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr [Martin] Chamberlain [counsel for the defendant] persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."​

​

There was no "disclaimer" required, merely a set of teacher's notes to help them explain the differences between the films presentation of the science, which was generally accurate, and the public policy advocations which were more poitical opinion than scientifically directed resolutions.

I am afraid that I am too lazy to look up the list of inaccuracies that were to be presented before AIT could be shown. are you denying that there were serious falsehoods and distortions in that piece of propaganda?

what do you think will happen when the journal in the OP is confronted with outrage over a large section of the population being labelled by a perjurative term? Lewandowsky's university quickly made him back down, will the journal remain steadfast?

 

[SSDD]

Classic propaganda technique.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Trakker.........only 21 threads started this month so far!!! You getting lazy or something?

 

[IanC]

The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore.

One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

 

[westwall]

American Behavioral Scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.full.pdf+html

Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science
Shaun W. Elsasser and Riley E. Dunlap
DOI: 10.1177/0002764212469800

(...)

Summary and Conclusion​

Our analyses of the op-eds on climate change written by syndicated conservative columnists reveal important aspects of their role in the denial machine. First, their op-eds are often published in reaction to public events that appear either to legitimate or denigrate climate science. The months with the greatest numbers of columns over
the 4 years were those when events either lent credibility to the climate science community (e.g., accolades won by Al Gore and the IPCC and President Obama’s attendance in Copenhagen) or provoked criticism of it (e.g., Heartland conferences and Climategate). The conservative columnists used either type of event as an opportunity
to challenge the legitimacy of climate science.

Also, the columnists focused on Al Gore more than any other topic over the 4 years. Gore is a ready-made scapegoat they repeatedly attacked, often in a caricatured fashion; indeed, their op-eds were more likely to link global warming with Al Gore than with the IPCC. This suggests that Al Gore is viewed as easier to discredit than is the IPCC. Climategate also resonated strongly with the columnists, and they frequently used it in efforts to cast doubt on climate science. The columnists were also more likely to discuss and criticize international policy proposals than domestic ones, despite their obvious aversion of both, as the idea that the United States would commit to treaties that might impinge on Americans was loathsome to them. Even considering such a possibility was, in their eyes, a sign of national weakness.

Last, we analyzed the skeptical arguments utilized by the columnists. Their most common arguments were those that either denied the existence of global warming or denied human responsibility for it. The favorite was that there is no consensus among climate scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change, a constant refrain from the
small number of contrarian scientists and skeptical bloggers and an obvious attempt to delegitimize climate science.

Finally, those columnists who did not challenge the reality of anthropogenic global warming tended to argue that its impacts would not be harmful but that both international and domestic efforts to ameliorate it would clearly be damaging. These have long been favored claims used by the denial community (McCright & Dunlap, 2000).

It is apparent that conservative columnists are a key component of the climate change denial machine, as they strongly reinforce and amplify the voices of the rest of the denier choir. Indeed, their vast reach enables them to spread skepticism across a wider audience than even Fox News or right-wing talk radio, which tend to appeal heavily to conservative audiences. For example, George Will reaches a larger audience than any other syndicated columnist, an estimated 42% of newspaper readers in 2007, whereas Cal Thomas reached an estimated 27% that year (Media Matters in America, 2007, p. 7). In addition, as Will and Thomas demonstrate, many of the columnists are also regular fixtures on TV and radio, allowing them to amplify their messages even more.

Their role as political commentators—entailing insularity from effective fact checking (illustrated by some notoriously fallacious op-eds on global warming by George Will; Powell, 2011, pp. 73-78) and rebuttals—allows the columnists to employ arguments against global warming that have long been debunked in the scientific literature and to repeat allegations against climate scientists that have no basis, and to do so with virtual impunity. They thereby fill an important niche in the denial machine, echoing and strongly amplifying the climate change skepticism and denial promoted by the other key actors.​

Telling that this was written by behavioral science researchers, and published in a behavioral science journal.​

Yes, there's no hint of bias here at all Not with terms like "denial machine". Oh, and trakar 'ole buddy, here is one of those links you requested!

You pwned yourself silly person.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, there's no hint of bias here at all Not with terms like "denial machine". Oh, and trakar 'ole buddy, here is one of those links you requested!

You pwned yourself silly person.​

All this link confirms is that it isn't only those who advocate for action to resolve AGW, that see and understand the disfunctionality and disingenuity among the denialist community. Yes, I confess reality is biased against the delusional, behavioral science confirms that issue,...ask your treating physician.
​

 

[Si modo]

What does a "denier" deny?

Ummm, Trakar?

Please tell us what a "denier" denies.

TIA.

 

[Trakar]

What does a "denier" deny?

Ummm, Trakar?

Please tell us what a "denier" denies.

TIA.

The reality of broad swaths of mainstream science in general, nearly all of climate science in particular.

 

[Si modo]

What does a "denier" deny?

Ummm, Trakar?

Please tell us what a "denier" denies.

TIA.

The reality of broad swaths of mainstream science in general, nearly all of climate science in particular.

Am I a denier?

 

[Trakar]

Ummm, Trakar?

Please tell us what a "denier" denies.

TIA.

The reality of broad swaths of mainstream science in general, nearly all of climate science in particular.

Am I a denier?

I do not know. What is your understanding of AGW, climate science and the underlying general scientific principles that compose and support climate science and AGW in particular?

 

[Si modo]

The reality of broad swaths of mainstream science in general, nearly all of climate science in particular.

Am I a denier?

I do not know. What is your understanding of AGW, climate science and the underlying general scientific principles that compose and support climate science and AGW in particular?

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

 

[Old Rocks]

Si you are someone that will not commit to saying that the scientists that specialize in this field almost all state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Instead you try to spread disingenous doubt. Just another way of lying.

 

[Trakar]

Am I a denier?

I do not know. What is your understanding of AGW, climate science and the underlying general scientific principles that compose and support climate science and AGW in particular?

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.