Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The True Moon-Landing Conspiracy Theorists

Today some German warmist sites are busy touting a new paper authored by Lewandowsky et al in the journal Psychological Science: NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.

Paper now wants us to believe that it is the Bush-followers (Tea Party followers) who believe in the 9-11 and moon-landing conspiracies. (Photo: dbking, via Wikipedia)

According to the paper’s abstract (emphasis added):

We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r is approx. 0.80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that 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, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

So we have here is a study that attempts to stigmatise and marginalise anyone who questions the notion that trace gas CO2 modulates global temperature and storm intensity. Forget that global temps have not risen in 15 years and that 70% of the Holocene was warmer than it is today. And forget that some important ocean cycles were in their positive modes from from 1980 to 2000 and that solar activity during the 20th century was at its most intense level in all of the Holocene. On and on goes the list.

The other point is that climate skeptics are not the ones who are paranoid and obsessed with the notion that human lifestyles are pushing the planet over the brink. Skeptics are not the ones who become hysterical with every wind gust. The true nuts are the extreme warmists.

Warmist media pushed the junk 9/11 and moon-landing theories

Moreover, it was the “enlightened”, i.e. the warmist media, in Germany who zealously promoted the 9/11 and moon-landing conspiracies – all in  an effort to fan the flames of resentment against the USA during the Bush years. What follows are some examples of German television and media drugging up its viewers with the silly conspiracy theories.

Here’s a “documentary” questioning the moon-landing shown on warmist German television:

And here’s another:

And the following was delivered by the renowned, warmist Spiegel TV!

Or read all about it in print at the über-warmist Stern magazine here. These are just a few examples. All these above media outlets floating the whacko 9/11 and moonlanding theories were and are still fervently pushing AGW theory today. So let’s be clear who the real 9/11 and moon-landing kooks are: the same ones who think we can regulate climate and weather with a few molecules of CO2.

Of course, the documentaries above tried to give an impression of neutralality, but their true intentions were clear -it was to sow the seeds of anti-Americanism in the viewers’ minds.

Today in Germany, many of the purveyors of this twisted propaganda would like us to forget their involvement in this. After Obama became president, some even aired pieces debunking the conspiracy theories to clean the slate – but not before Bush left office. And today, as the above nutty psychology report shows, we see they are attempting make people believe that it is actually the Bush-followers (Tea Partiers) who are spreading nutjob conspiracy theories they themselves hatched earlier.

Should we be surprised? What else should we expect from those who are losing the debate and have no scruples about being dishonest?

 

20 responses to “Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The True Moon-Landing Conspiracy Theorists”

  1. Pointman

    Because I am a climate realist, a skeptic, a denier, I am a minority. I see so-called papers, studies and other pseudo-psychological material being produced to explain away what is basically a fundamental political difference in my viewpoint from the establishment’s. I see some notable bloggers discussing such papers and what I find indecent and appalling, is the complete lack of condemnation.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/

    Pointman

    1. Mindert Eiting

      The follow-up of these exploratory surveys should be an effective treatment of the ‘endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories’ syndrome. There still is some knowledge left behind a certain hospitals in the Soviet Union and Vietnam. See my comment to your essay.

  2. DirkH

    During construction of the High Speed Rail from the chunnel to London, remains of a 400,000 year old elefant were found, yes, in England, no, not a mammoth. Yes, it was warmer than today back then.
    Natgeo, at 11:50 :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hRMuueeJa0&feature=g-vrec

    1. mwhite

      Not only have elephants been found under London

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X02TjdqHrY&feature=related

      Go to the 40 minute mark

      A Serengeti style environment (during the last interglacial 120,000 years ago)

      Lions, hyenas, hippopotamuses as well as elephants, the bones of which were found under what is now Trafalgar square.

  3. DirkH

    On topic: well, when the psychs are at it that’s a sure sign warmism is on its very last leg. Re conspiracy theories: A big 9/11 truther is Peter Joseph Merola, extremely left wing OWS-related founder of the “Zeitgeist movement”.

    Zeitgeist 1 : The Movie (VOSTFR)
    2007 par Peter Joseph Merola
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHD_AJETII

    Forest Boy was a Zeitgeistler: (The Telegraph gets some facts wrong, after all they’re journalists – Peter Joseph Merola is a NYC-based marketing guy, not a Berliner even though lots of hip Berliners are big followers of him)
    https://zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/forest-boy-member-of-zeitgeist-movie-cult/

  4. Bernd Felsche

    The link to Lewandoofsky’s paper (PDF) doesn’t work. (404)

  5. Nonoy Oplas

    In my case Pierre, the warmists here blocked me even from following them and debating them on twitter — Greenpeace, WWF, the perennial Philippine climate negotiator for many years, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/07/climate-tricks-13-block-skeptics-and.html

  6. Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The | American Political Blogs Watch

    […] Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The Go to this article […]

  7. DirkH

    From a lecture by the Artec Centre for sustainability in Bremen, by
    “Guido Becke, Miriam Behrens, Peter Bleses, | Forschungsfeld Soziale Nachhaltigkeit und Arbeit”
    (Research field social sustainability and labor)
    Random excerpt:
    “2. Entwicklungslinien organisationaler Achtsamkeit
    Achtsamkeit in philosophisch‐religiöser Sicht → Individualperspektive
     Wahrnehmung menschlicher Innenwelt
     Meditative Achtsamkeitspraktiken, z.B. Atemtechniken”

    “2. Development lines of organisational attentiveness
    Attentiveness in philosophical-religious view → individual perspective
    Realisation of human inner world
    meditative attentivenes practices; e.g. breathing techniques”

    I don’t know what they’re talking about but I know they’re squandering my tax money.
    http://www.artec.uni-bremen.de/files/aktuelles/Vortrag_071211.pdf

    “Sustainability” seems to develop fast into a new version of the Frankfurt School.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      But, Dirk, meditative attentivenes practices; e.g. breathing techniques cured one of my friends from her AGW belief. Don’t underestimate this stuff.

      1. DirkH

        If somebody’s not able to cope with the demands of his work it’s his job to seek medical or schamanic or whatever help.

        It’s not my job to fund parasitic pseudoscientists in Bremen. I told them so but never got a reply.

        I’ve used breathing techniques and meditation myself when I needed to; since I was 15.

        1. DirkH

          Or, to be more precise:
          NONE of this is new.
          This institute for SUSTAINABILITY is obviously an everything-goes endeavour; the final make-work scheme for otherwise useless idiots – and that’s what the Frankfurt School was all about. Even Stalin had no use for them and chased them out of the USSR so they became the FRANKFURT school.

  8. Bulskyn

    People who are prone to believing conspiracy theories *are* perhaps more likely to disbelieve the climate change doctrine for the simple reason that the climate change doctrine is the official story, and conspiracy theorists don’t believe the official story.

    Duh. Of course. All this is saying is that propensity to disbelieve the mainstream in one realm suggests propensity to disbelieve the mainstream in other realms, and that propensity to believe the mainstream in one realm suggests propensity to believe the mainstream in other realms.

    But whether we did or did not land on the moon has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a shadowy cabal that secretly owns all the governments. Neither does either of those have anything to do with whether or not humans are causing catastrophic climate change. These are separate statements and have to be evaluated on their own merits.

    In other words, we can’t say “Because we *did* land on the moon, global warming is real” or “Because the moon landing was a hoax, so is global warming.”

  9. Paul Matthews
    1. Bernd Felsche

      Avoiding the more-visited blogs like

      http://wattsupwiththat.com
      http://www.climateaudit.org
      http://junkscience.com
      http://noconsensus.wordpress.com
      http://thegwpf.org/index.php
      http://jennifermarohasy.com
      http://joannenova.com.au
      http://bishophill.squarespace.com

      or indeed any real “sceptical” blog.

      Starting at a warmist blog, tends to, IMHO, preselect those less likely to think rationally and objectively.

      I must apologise. My taxes paid for those nincompoops to produce that political tripe. 🙁 You can probably tell why Australia is going broke while sitting on a goldmine.

    2. DirkH

      THAT’s embarassing.

  10. Barry Woods

    yep – the paper gets its results frm the readers of hardcore ‘anti-sceptic’ warmist/consensus blogs..

    I doubt that a single sceptic took that survey, not one, even the locals laughed at it.. an example..

    “Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids?”
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/#comments

    this ‘research paper is beyond embarrasing, it seems malicious.

    especially with the cheer leading Guardains write up:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists

  11. Lewandowsky Timeline | Geoffchambers's Blog