Dear Brian and all,
I agree with Brian about the challenges to world view but I think that this
is a rather simplistic ideological explanation for an affiliation that may
have far more to do with an emotionally driven cultural affiliation and
people's self image.
When I look at Bishop Hill's column, Spiked, the online attacks, Jeremy
Clarkson and so on, I see something that appeals to a much wider sense of
identity that a simple ideological argument. And I think the motivation of
many deniers is much less a defence of their worldview than a spirited
assertion of their own and attack on that of others.
I have noticed a repeated pattern during my lifetime for people to
congregate around polarised identity clusters. Written here from the
perspective of the left hand side).:
Some of the oppositions are ideological:
Conservative Liberal
Personal State interference
Freedom
But many more are emotional and self image related
Fun whingeing
Funny earnest
Ironic Literal
Traditional trendy
Optimistic Pessimistic
Realistic Exaggerated
Interesting Boring
Arts Science
Individual Conformist
Skeptical of Undermining of old certainties
new ideas
Old money New money/poor
Light, easy Heavy, intense, uptight
English Foreigner
Outrageous Self aware and PC
The clusters express themselves in a wide range of behaviours and self
images...take for example the public school ideal of not being seen to try
too hard as opposed to those grammar school swotty nerds. Take for example
the antithesis as expressed in the personalities of Ken Livingstone and
Boris Johnson.
Livingstone - Jewish, working class, former lab technician, droning, trendy
causes and frighteningly intense
Johnson - Eton, Oxford classics scholar, relaxed, jovial, smart but not
trying too hard, ebullient eccentric.
Of course things are never as they seem (Livingstone and Johnson have a lit
of similarities) but these characterisations (and the social types they
represent) would be familiar and immediately readable to anyone British.
These attitudinal clusters seem to change very little, though the issues
they attach to have changed a lot: when I was a student the key campaign
issues were apartheid and cruise missiles. I had the dubious honour for a
year (before my politics matured) of being in the Conservative Students and
our world view was very much that the people who campaigned on these issues
were constantly whining about things. We on the other hand could have a good
laugh and greatly enjoyed goading them - which was easy because they were so
earnest. In response to the campaign to make the student union a nuclear
free zone we invited the US government to install cruise missiles in the
grounds of our hall of residence...ho ho ho, pretty puerile stuff on both
sides. But what is interesting is that our behaviour was not based on any
intelligent discussion of the issues of nuclear proliferation (that kind of
earnest information based debate was the province of the other side)...our
position was a statement of our group identification and a bit of a lark.
The publication that spoke strongest to this attitude was Private Eye which,
despite its Paul Foot anti-establishment roots, was deeply conservative in
spirit and motivated by a contempt to liberals. It is no surprise that one
of its founders, Christopher Booker, has become a leading climate denier.
Columnists such as Auberon Waugh and Michael Wharton who wrote the Peter
Simple column in the Telegraph also exemplified this spirit and dichotomy,
viscerally denouncing trendies and their causes with savage irony.
So, from this perspective, I see many of these identify attitudes present in
the climate change debate and the language used. I would add that I share
the social and age demographic of many deniers, so we can suggest that the
their personal politics were formed in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Taking responses to Alastair's piece just look for these old identity
markers kicking in.
Anybody who uses the word epistomology [sic] is immediately suspect.
he and his eco-chums...
in it for the money
an Uber tree hugger
weird Highlanders
been out on the moors too long
only sheep for friends
deploy heavy ad hominem artillery to characterize the estimable Alistaire
McIntosh, b'gosh, as a "coprophagic proctocranial."
What ho, when they lifted the lid!.
Just keep humour and lightness of touch.
Notice the use of archaic 'ripping yards' language (chums, what ho,
esteemed), latin (ad hominem) the sarcastic and class based contempt for the
foreigner/peasant, 'in it for the money' (obvious sign of poverty or nouveau
money grabbing) and again contempt for the intellectual and the final 'keep
humour and lightness of touch' summing up the entire attitude
So I am not suggesting that this is the explanation of the psychology
climate deniers...there are subsets and variants...and the US and Australia
have their own variants (and surprising similarities). Nor is it an
explanation of the professional deniers who are much closer to the data (and
their own distortions) and who have personal motivations of self
aggrandisement.
But to return to my core thesis- the core motivation is one of personal and
emotional psychology and social identity which then aligns itself with
arguments that support or reject the issues that speak strongest to that
identity.
Thoughts?
X
G
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Orr
Sent: 19 August 2010 18:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Hockey Stick Illusion
Yup, well done Bob.
My own guess as to what drives many denialists is that accepting the
basic facts about man-made climate change
would challenge the foundation of their belief systems - something
like "economic growth can go on for ever, man
is above natural forces, man is too clever to make such a mistake that
civilisation itself is threatened....."
Alternatively, obviously everyone is really only interested in the
welfare of themselves and their nearest and dearest,
so anyone pursuing objective truths is lying, so what better to defeat
such self-interested promulgation of 'objective
truths' than peddling lies and half-truths.
Brian Orr
On 19 Aug 2010, at 17:39, Barker, Tom wrote:
> Well done Bob. An enjoyable explanation of how it all seems to work
> when the big name denialists get organised. Can someone tell me: is
> it profit, or ego or simply delusion that gives these people the
> impetus to continue with their rants, which themselves can only be
> accepted by other nutters?
>
> Tom
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]
> ] On Behalf Of Bob Ward [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 19 August 2010 15:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The Hockey Stick Illusion
>
> I have just joined this mailing list and have noted that there was a
> discussion of Andrew Montford's book yesterday. I decided that
> Alastair
> MacIntosh should not have to carry the responsibility alone for
> countering the fawning write-ups of the book by Matt Ridley and
> Christopher Booker, so provided The Guardian with this review which
> was
> posted today:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-scep
> tics-mislead-public
>
> Bob Ward
>
> Policy and Communications Director
> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
> London School of Economics and Political Science
> Houghton Street
> London WC2A 2AE
>
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
>
> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplian
ceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
|
