Climate Deniers: You’re Not Paranoid – We Really are Out to Get You
February 7, 2013
So here’s what happened. A curious group of psychologists did some reading of climate denial materials, and noted the odd correlation between climate denial and a grab bag of wackjob conspiracy theories, i.e., moon landing hoax, AIDS conspiracy, etc – your standard “they’re all in this together and of course they say that it just proves they’re all in on it” kind of reasoning. If you’re a moon landing nut, you are more likely to be a climate denier.
…endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings
And for God’s sake, don’t get ’em started on Chem trails…for examples, just peruse the comment threads of any of my videos…
So, anyway, they published, and of course, the expected squeals from the climate denial community ensued. But, there was another thing, too.
Turns out, according to climate deniers, that studies showing correlation of climate denial with conspiracy theories, are in fact more evidence themselves of just how deep the conspiracy goes….
Hence, another paper.
I said this stuff writes itself. Maybe you thought I was joking?
In the case of the response to our earlier paper, we were struck by the way in which some of the accusations leveled against our paper were, well, somewhat conspiratorial in nature. We therefore decided to analyze the public response to our first paper with the hypothesis in mind that this response might also involve conspiracist ideation. We systematically collected utterances by bloggers and commenters, and we sought to classify them into various hypotheses leveled against our earlier paper. For each hypothesis, we then compared the public statements against a list of criteria for conspiracist ideation that was taken from the previous literature.
This follow-up paper was accepted a few days ago by Frontiers in Psychology, and a preliminary version of the paper is already available, for open access, here.
The title of the paper is Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, and it is authored by myself, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
February 7, 2013 at 12:08 pm
You’re out of date on this story. And you should be more careful instead of associating with dubious characters such as Lew.
February 7, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Your position has been triangulated, and this comment has been added to your file.
February 7, 2013 at 12:35 pm
You can keep speaking in jest but – as I have been repeatedly pointed at as conspirator to hide the truth about chemtrails (by a chemtrailer of course), this cannot work with me.
Lew’s paper is complete rubbish. Face the fact. Even if the two of you agree on climate change it doesn’t mean you have to sell your soul for any fabrication he makes.
February 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
I got two words for you.
Predator drones.
February 7, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Actually Lew has a word about me himself, or two. It’s unattributed but you can find it in the bit where there is a link to Bishop Hill and a statement about bold statements.
It’s easy to reconstruct the path and read my original comment in full and in context, and so it’s easy to understand that Lew understood not a word of what I was talking about.
QED.
February 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
“and so it’s easy to understand that Lew understood not a word of what I was talking about.”
If ever there was a comment that spoke for itself, this is it. Nothing like a bit of self awareness. I think Lew nailed it.
February 7, 2013 at 8:27 pm
I guess somehow it’s Peter’s fault that you respond on his blog and therefore associate him with your dubious character self?
February 7, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Thanks Charles for confirming my point, and ontspan for equating me writing a blog comment to Lew and Cook writing a “scientific” paper.
There’s somewhere a debate about why so many climate alarmists believe skepticism is a conspiracy just as (in their minds) support for GMO is.
February 8, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Rest assured that I never will compare your scribblings here with writing a scientific paper. Those two are simply worlds apart. Nice try though 😉
February 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm
When reading the discussion on the fake moon landing paper it struck many of us that the protesting climate science deniers were providing rich data for a follow-up paper. It’s great the authors made use of it 🙂
February 7, 2013 at 2:18 pm
I’ve got a theory about the rising number of contrails… it’s due to the rising number of aircraft.
The additives that are put into aviation fuel are also a corporate ‘secret’ (a bit like the muck they put in fracking fluid is ‘secret’). Aviation fuel is a hydrocarbon like any other fossil fuel and dumping the pollution directly into the upper atmosphere actually has a more harmful effect. However aviation fuel has nano-particles added to make the engines run more smoothly & last longer. These nano-particles are spewed out the back along with the hydro-carbon pollution and soot particles. It is these tiny particles that then act as a ‘seed’ for a water droplet to form around, which is why con-trails spread out into a haze & then turn to ‘clouds’ as they fall.
It is all just more fossil fuel ‘pollution’ as far as I’m concerned and the effects are self-evident. I’ve watched contrails spread out on a summers day & the temps drop by 5 degrees as the sun is shaded (maybe the solar industry should take out a class action against the aviation industry).
Perhaps also, as CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere there is a feedback which leads to progressively more condensation from this aviation pollution, as the atmosphere is carrying more moisture from global warming & of course maybe it’s a combination of all of the above.
I’d certainly like to see more research into the damage done by aviation pollution (but there’s no funding for some reason)
February 7, 2013 at 9:37 pm
By the way… there is sound ‘science to back this up… so let’s not dismiss the chem-trail conspiracy bods completely yet. Just because they don’t understand the science of contrails, doesn’t mean they can’t see that something is increasingly wrong with the skies. I just wish they would realise that it’s the same issue (i.e. fossil pollution), and that by far the biggest ‘geo-engineering’ experiment is the 30 billion tons of coal & oil carbon we dump in the atmosphere every year.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1981)020%3C0496:MCSATT%3E2.0.CO;2
http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/jet-contrails-major-contributor-aviation-effect-climate/619/
Click to access Contrailpaper0710Pt2.pdf
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html
February 7, 2013 at 3:54 pm
This road is not worth going down, greenman. Stick with the science.
I suggest retracting this article and stating that science determines our current understanding.
There is naught to be gained and much to be lost in diversions like this.
February 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Forgot to add that many here and at SkS are convinced that Big Oil and other nefarious industries secretly fund skeptics to sow doubt and prevent meaningful climate action.
That does sound like a conspiracy theory to me.
February 7, 2013 at 7:55 pm
No need to consider if “nefarious industries” secretly fund climate skeptics and right-wing denier politicians. The public record speaks for itself.
February 7, 2013 at 8:47 pm
February 7, 2013 at 8:47 pm
February 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm
And it’s a conspiracy with mysterious ways as big European oil spends money for “green” propaganda. In the meanwhile the vast majority of alarmists in two successive British parliaments has resulted in…a giant waste of resources with little to show. Obviously it’s because evil skeptics are in control of it all.
February 11, 2013 at 8:11 am
The key distinction is that the one side has evidence whilst the other merely blusters. It’s a bit like their position on the science; one has evidence and the other merely bluster.
February 11, 2013 at 8:16 am
JHS – you’re right. One side has evidence that there is no CAGW in the cards. The other side, merely blusters.
February 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Ah, let’s see, I’m just counting the number of articles in Nature and Science that back Omno’s position on the science… None. How very odd. Can he explain that without a conspiracy theory? I’m turning Papa Smurf blue in anticipation.
February 11, 2013 at 4:19 pm
You’re counting angels on pins John…you have no idea what my “position on the science” is, because you cannot be bothered to read.
February 11, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Gosh, that was an easy win, Omno, thank you. I rather thought you’d decline the invitation to play without being able to use a conspiracy theory. After all you’re now pushing 28Gate. Face it, to the nearest decimal point amongst climate scientists, amongst 28 attendees there wouldn’t have been one so-called sceptic – there are too few to justify inclusion. Your sensitivity on Lew is completely understandable – and deserved.
February 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm
See? No matter how often I write that 28Gate has been a BBC scandal with zero consequence on climate science (and a million consequences on public trust of a public-paid institution), you cannot help yourself making absolutely stupid remarks here that have zilch to do with science. QED.
February 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm
So, to recap, you can’t (or won’t) explain why Nature and Science don’t take your point of view on the science – at least now without invoking a conspiracy theory.
There are conspiracies, no question, they exist. First Exxon’s and now Koch’s funding of denial is public. Delingpole’s mini-conspiracy over windmills in Corby is public (videoed even). I don’t deny conspiracies exist. It just turns out SkS are justified in their position on Big Oil. There’s the rub – they have evidence.
As for 28Gate, fill your boots.
February 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
No, no, to recap, you’re unable to read and to sustain a conversation.
February 11, 2013 at 7:20 pm
One can’t have a conversation with someone, like your good self, who stonewalls. But your lack of considered response is more than ample.
February 11, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Yes, you are stonewalling. You proclaimed your knowledge of my “science” without knowing a thing about it. You made statements about 28gate I have never made, and pretended I had to answer for your fantasies.
February 11, 2013 at 7:48 pm
I did read this, http://omnologos.com/why-agw-is-logically-impossible/. I know, I know, you cast your pearls and then swine like me show up. I rather took it that you didn’t believe in ACC. So, I think I do know something of your scientific beliefs – unless you disown your blog. Yet, again, Nature, Science and just about every other journal (dishonourable exception of E&E, PSI) does. I just wondered what your explanation was for this discrepancy.
As for 28Gate, you complained no sceptics were invited as in “It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists (t)” I merely pointed out that sceptical scientists are about as rare as hen’s teeth so their not being invited in proportion to 28 isn’t, numerically, a big surprise.
By http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stonewalling you are “To refuse to answer or cooperate”/
I know you won’t answer. And I know why.
February 11, 2013 at 7:50 pm
1- the “impossible” page is my best ever piece of sarcasm, and it’s so good few can understand it
2- the BBC could invite whoever they wish. The 28Gate problem is that they didn’t invite who they said they had invited. And then tried to cover it all up. It’s the attempt at cover-up that makes it a -gate.
February 11, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Sarcasm. The weapon of the witless…..and you’re proud of it? That’s just sad.
February 16, 2013 at 5:56 am
Ah, so very much explained there then, if that is your best piece of sarcasm then your work is still very much in progress.
February 10, 2013 at 8:26 am
It’s disappointing when people lump climate denial together with HIV/AIDS “denial.”
There were strong motives for “Big Pharma” to make “AIDS” a virus-borne disease vs. a behavioral problem (as it was originally suspected to be). Also, the ability of a normally benign retrovirus to wreak such havoc while laying dormant for ever-changing periods of time has never been logically explained. The whole African AIDS thing never made sense, either. They’ve had rampant illness for centuries; why is it suddenly HIV-related?
Contrasted with CO2’s well-understood role in the greenhouse effect, I don’t see the two issues having any bearing on each other. Global warming denial flies in the face of logic, while HIV/AIDS has many signs of being a conjured phenomenon, or at least not caused by a retrovirus.
February 10, 2013 at 10:50 pm
and curable by beetroot no less hey?
February 11, 2013 at 3:45 am
[…] with John Cook on The Climate Show and Skeptically Speaking, and posts on Climate Progress, Climate Crocks, Reddit, Slashdot, Rabett Run (twice), Not Spaghetti, Improbable News, Red Bluff, Blogotariat, […]
February 16, 2013 at 5:51 am
Two words. Donors Trust.
September 6, 2013 at 3:43 pm
[…] begin, climate change denial and chemtrails theories are often conspiracy-based. A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories … predicts rejection of climate […]
September 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm
[…] begin, climate change denial and chemtrails theories are often conspiracy-based. A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found “endorsement of a cluster of […]
September 7, 2013 at 6:04 pm
[…] begin, climate change denial and chemtrails theories are often conspiracy-based. A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories … predicts rejection of climate […]