Copyright, politics

Dixon & Jones: Shows Lew wrong about Climate Change -Conspiracy Ideation link.

7 Comments

What an exciting weekend!
I went to a family reunion and missed publication of
Conspiracist Ideation as a Predictor of Climate-Science Rejection by Ruth M. Dixon and Jonathan A. Jones. I consider this paper important precisely because it engages the claimed link between conspiracy ideation and climate skepticism. Of course, there were may ways to see the link did not (and does not) exist, but writing a paper requires dressing up the discussion with good stat. Good for Dixon and Jones!

I got back at midnight last night. It’s clear that many things have been said– too many for me to track down. I’d actually like readers to catch me up on it.

Meanwhile another exciting thing happened which I did learn of while driving. It is not climate related. It’s ‘copyright troll related: The Georgia Supreme Court ruled on Chan v. Ellis”. The short story is they overturned Chan’s conviction of stalking on the grounds that there was no evidence of stalking. So: Basically, didn’t stalk. They didn’t need to touch the 1st amendment arguments which only would have mattered if (a) The GA statute had been written to violate 1A or (b) He had done something that violated the stalking statute but the punishment of a permanent protective order and permanent gag-order including take-down of speed by others had violated 1A.

Because I have read the GA ruling, I’ll be writing more on that later today. Meanwhile catch me up on Lew stories!

7 thoughts on “Dixon & Jones: Shows Lew wrong about Climate Change -Conspiracy Ideation link.”

  1. I haven’t been keeping track of this. I read about this and found that Lew has written a response, but without a subscription to Psychological Science I can only read the first page.
    A trivial observation: I think Lew accomplished his purpose. Press and bloggers got the message out. I question whether Lew ever imagined the paper would stand in the long haul, personally I doubt it.

  2. Mark Bofill,
    Oh… I think Lew accomplished his purpose. Nevertheless, it’s useful for Dixon and Jones to have published their paper.
    I don’t think Lew really cares much whether his findings ultimately stand up. I could be wrong… but that’s my opinion. I think his main goal is demagoguerie dressed up as research.

  3. The whole of Lew’s rubbish has always struck me as inconsistent with known behaviors of “skeptics”: 1) they tend to be politically conservative or libertarian, and 2) the more highly educated they are, the more skeptical they are likely to be of climate science projections of doom.
    .
    The first makes sense because those people proabably judge the ‘cures’ for GHG driven warming to be worse than the likely consequences of warming. The second makes sense because educated people are less likely to take the word of experts uncritically; more educated people are more capable of evaluating the scientific evidence for future catastrophe.
    .
    The left/green ‘ideation’ (I love that word) that people who disagree with them politically believe in conspiracy theories (faked moon landings, etc.) just because they doubt GHG forcing will be a global catastrophe, is, well…. more than a little delusional. Like most on the left (Mr. Obama and his lackeys are good examples), they honestly believe that any policy views different from their own can only be due to someone being evil, corrupt, stupid, or mad. They are mistaken.

  6. Ruth,

    Thanks for the link and thanks for your work in this regards.

    Sincerely.

  7. At My Garden Pond, Dixon and Jones as a concluding comment say:-

    All the data really shows is that people who have no opinion about one fairly technical matter (conspiracy theories) also have no opinion about another fairly technical matter (climate change). Complex models mask this obvious (and trivial) finding.

    When I looked at the two surveys a year ago I concluded :-

    A recent paper, based on an internet survey of American people, claimed that “conspiracist ideation, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested“. Analysis of the data reveals something quite different. Strong opinions with regard to conspiracy theories, whether for or against, suggest strong support for strongly-supported scientific hypotheses, and strong, but divided, opinions on climate science.

    It could be the flip side of the same coin. Dixon and Jones look at the vast majority, whilst I looked at the minority. However, I would maintain that the general public view climate science more a belief system than scientific fact. This would explain the political divide much better than trying to say the “other side” is more blinkered or stupid than one’s own. This is the message Stephan Lewandowsky seems to be trying to maintain.

Comments are closed.