Wattsupwiththat.com had a discussion on an article in SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) described behaviour of skeptics as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.” Right after he says skeptics are just as smart or smarter than warmists. Interesting that he completely ignores that reality and dives into “you’re wrong, we’re right and you must be defective if you disagree”.
Of all the areas of science, global warming has devolved the quickest into pulp fiction psychology. Unable to present a cogent, scientific argument, but allowing no possibility the theory might be wrong, only that people “don’t understand” or they would agree, believers have dived into “it’s your politics or your religion or your mood today”. Anything but that the theory is just not proven.
Since skeptics are at least as smart as global warming believers, this argument is not going to change the mind of any skeptic. They will immediately see projection or desperation, anything but a real reason to not believe the theory, say like lack of open discussion, all data “adjusted” or “lost” in many cases, all the normal things science has a basis. Believers go so far as to say they won’t release data because skeptics will only try to prove them wrong. Neon sign “WE MIGHT BE WRONG AND WE AREN’T GOING TO LET YOU FIND OUT”. Come on, we’re smart people. We see the desperation.
Some commenters will refer to “cognitive dissonance” (on both sides) but cognitive dissonance is a very specific psychological term. It applies to people who pretend to believe or not believe based on those around them. If the entire family believes except one, the one will often go along, which can create cognitive dissonance if the person feels guilt for lying about what they believe. Often, the person will end up changing sides to stop the guilty feelings. It’s a response to bullying and group-think in some cases.
Then there’s double-think, which is holding two contradictory ideas both to be true. There is NO dissonance. The person simply believes both. An example is climate skeptics are “deniers of science” but anti-vaxxers are enlightened people. In one case, the science is followed, in the other, denied. Based on who knows what? The ideas are contradictory because one says science is always right and the other says science is wrong.
Another example is something I ran into on Facebook: You teach a child not to be violent, not to harm animals and small children, by beating the hell out of him for throwing a kitten against the wall. That level of double-think boarders on psychotic.
Pulp psychology techniques have become the trademark of global warming. The science FAILED and failed miserably. So intimidation, bullying, psyching people out are all that’s left. Honestly, it’s like the last remnant of the Flat Earth Society trying to pass laws and/or bribe people into saying the earth is flat lest they be proven wrong. After all, global warming CANNOT be wrong. EVER.
If only the warning had been worded to match the politics, religion and so forth of the driver, he would not have ignored the sign. Or maybe the driver is just oblivious to reality?