AHEAD of a conference on the psychology of climate change denial, Brendan O’Neill says green authoritarians are treating debate as a disorder. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
Read more
Militant Greenies did not invent fanaticism and intolerance. If you haven’t done so already, now may be a good time to read Eric Hoffer’s famous book, “The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements.”
Here’s a link to a synopsis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
“Dishonesty in speech quickly leads to dishonesty in behaviour because the language we use governs all we do.” John Kay.
http://www.johnkay.com/society/586
Larry,
Simply posting a reference to Wikipedia is neither here nor there, for it does not respresent your own opinion on the topic.
The view that intellectual dissent is an organic problem to be remidied by education or, in its more extreme case, by euthanaisa, is standard propaganda by the Fabians.
Jennifer,
Slightlyt OT, but I followed the ten best papers thread by Cohenite. The responses from the AGW supporters to the challenge of producing some/any evidence to support their position struck me as worthy of psychological study in its own right. However, can you tell me privately or on this thread if there was any follow-up?
Paul
Louis Hissink wrote:
“Larry,
Simply posting a reference to Wikipedia is neither here nor there, for it does not respresent your own opinion on the topic.”
Hi Louis,
Thanks for reminding me of an old physician-patient joke.
Doctor: I’m afraid that I have some bad news. Your arteries are badly clogged. You’ll need a triple bypass immediately. I’ve reserved the operating room for tomorrow, and I’ll do the surgery myself.
Patient: Hey, wait a minute! Before I make a decision, I’d like to get a second opinion.
Doctor: You want a second opinion? OK, I’ll give you a second opinion. You’re ugly, too. 😛
Larry, I read your original post as diversionary, and also as an example of The Last Defense Of The Indefensible.
Kids often trott out this defense when caught shoplifting, or worse. E.g. “why pick on me – everbody else is doing it!”
Now could you give up the ad homs and stick to the subject?
Hi Helen,
Sorry about that. My intention was not to be diversionary, to defend the indefensible, or to cast ad hominems. In the future, I’ll try to be more explicit, and to use less humor. Here’s the thought behind my original posting in this thread.
Intolerance is not a very nice thing. There are many examples of intolerant actions on the parts of fanatical Christians, fanatical Muslims, Smithian free market fundies, Communists, militant Greenies, and others. The fact the many people practice intolerance does not make it any less inexcusable from either moral or practical perspectives.
In order to decrease the amount of intolerant behavior on planet Earth in the future, it would be helpful for civilized people to understand the phenomenon. However my understanding is that this board is primarily about evidence-based environmental policy (including climate change), rather than social psychology. On the other hand, scientifically and mathematically oriented people usually have some degree of interest in the Big Picture. How to reconcile these two objectives?
Here’s my approach. First say a few words, which unfortunately will never do justice to all of the subtle nuances of the topic at hand. Why? Because, as General Sematics buffs are so fond of pointing out, the map is not the same thing as the territory. Step 2: Post a link, for the benefit of people with slightly off-topic intellectual interests.
My expectation is that most people on this board will agree with me sometimes, and have reasonable disagreements with me at other times. I sincerely hope that in the future, my imprecise use of language does not cause others to get their knickers in a twist.