Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial
Abstract
A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS. That article stimulated considerable discursive activity in the climate blogosphere—i.e., the numerous blogs dedicated to climate “skepticism”—that was critical of the study. The blogosphere discourse was ideally suited for analysis because its focus was clearly circumscribed, it had a well-defined onset, and it largely discontinued after several months. We identify and classify the hypotheses that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions using well-established criteria for conspiracist ideation. In two behavioral studies involving naive participants we show that those criteria and classifications were reconstructed in a blind test. Our findings extend a growing body of literature that has examined the important, but not always constructive, role of the blogosphere in public and scientific discourse.
http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443
Discuss!
Just part of the conspiracy.
Isn’t that obvious?
Glen Davidson
William, Mung and others are part of the problem.
There is no problem. It’s people. That’s how we are sometimes.
I always find it amusing that the “what if you are wrong” people never seem to apply that to themselves.
What if the science behind climate change is wrong? We’ll have spent all that money cleaning up the air!
The alternative seems somewhat darker. Just a touch.
I think the internet just speeds up discussions that would normally take place over years or decades.
That doesn’t make it not a problem.
Especially those who have a track record of always being wrong.
Well, I am highly skeptical that the word ‘problem’ falls accurately in the objective category.
heh.
Well, I dunno about categories, but I do think that conspiracy theories can be a dangerous problem, whether it’s anti-vaxxer conspiracies, election fraud conspiracies, or global warming conspiracies. The 9/11 conspiracies are probably relatively harmless, but I’m not sure.
My goodness, there is a lot of background reading to this affair.
Here for example. PDF of NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax.
Miller’s Law: All conspiracy theories involving more than 5 people are bunk. Most of the smaller ones are bunk too. If they involve even one government, they stretch credulity on competence. If they involve many, last through multiple changes of administration, and involve the international scientific community, one could reasonably expect at least one credible whistle-blower. One would also expect there to be a credible incentive for the continuing cooperation of co-conspirators. Conspiracy advocates usually orient their palms skywards at this point. “You expect me to speculate on motivation?”. Well, yes.
Just how skeptical are these self-proclaimed skeptics?
One could also ask whether there is some conspiratorial behaviour among leading climate-change-denial bloggers.
More background
Light relief from Mitchell and Webb – the same joke 3 times basically, which is the nature of their sketch-show’s format, but each cleverly written and played.
Diana – a ‘watertight hit’
(Though if you want to see a conspiracy nut’s unfazed response, see ‘zephiloyd’ in comments, including the gem ‘it was remote controlled into the pillar’).
Aliens
Moon landings
Alan Fox,
I don’t think it’s conspiracy in the latter case (either). I think it’s convergence on a pattern of behaviour, and shared objections and goals. ‘Shared’ as in both ‘held in common’ and ‘passed around’.
A friend innocently posted on Facebook about the atypically long-lying snow a couple of winters ago. A mutual friend came on with the hope it would shut ‘the environmentalists’ up, in a disturbingly lengthy post full of the familiar talking points, complete with links. One gets the same kind of thing with ‘The Truth About Islam’. Poke some bonnets and you find them a-buzz with bees.
I would class climate change deniers as most likely conspiracory theorists but there are many well respected prominent academics who criticise the orthodox view on climate change.
It is easy to dismiss the latter by lumping them in with the former. That way they don’t have to be taken seriously.
I think that there is some fuzziness as to who among skeptics of evolutionary biology are being conspiracy theorists.
There are certainly many conspiracy theorists (“News” at Uncommon Descent is one). But they are at the far end of a spectrum that starts with biologists who think that present evolutionary theory is inadequate and that some particular important phenomenon should be added, one which they are pushing.
From there one goes, in small steps, to people who reject all of evolutionary theory and want to replace it by a totally new perspective, perhaps even a comprehensible one. Now one has reached the shores of kookdom. The late and lamented John A. Davison cheerfully dwelt there.
One is not necessarily among conspiracy theorists at this point. Once one reaches people who, for theological reasons, deny that there are common ancestors of living forms, one is among creationists. Explaining how all scientists could have mistakenly concluded that there is a common genealogy of life leads one to dark thoughts of conspiracy.
Does that mean that people who don’t “deny that there are common ancestors of living forms” are categorically *NOT* ‘creationists’ in your view, Joe?
Undoubtedly a kook, I’m not sure John rejected evolutionary theory outright. As far as he ever went in clarifying his views, I think he might have described himself as a saltationist. He certainly claimed to be a creationist due to his belief in the (Catholic) god being the ultimate author of creation.
Wow, Gregory, denying the antecedent–one of the most basic fallacies around. I mean, I knew you were easily confused, but gosh.
walto, does someone actually employ you to teach ‘philosophy 101’?! I was wrong; you are clearly not kind or charitable or even reflexive at all in your communication.
An analytic dweeb who ignorantly lives on a ‘farm’ & speaks in more jargonistic ‘-isms’ (e.g. ‘disjunctivism’, ‘representationalism’, etc.) than most ‘normal’ people want or care to confront is the most that can be said for your philosophistry. Go back to your cellar, atheist skeptic heartless worm.
Hee hee. Even I knew that. And I don’t know nuttin’. It’s not as if phrasing it as a question could make it less of a numpty mistake.
Is Gregory getting more sloppy in his thinking as his anti-atheist, anti-USAian prejudices come to the forefront?
Crankitude might be self-infectious, spreading not just inter-personally via internet conspiracy theories, but also intra-personally via indulging yourself in sloppy slogans in your own mental conversations with yourself.
What do you mean, you never talk to yourself inside your own head? Give yourself little speeches? Rehearse your reasons why you’re going to do something or not do something?
Well, I do.
I bet that most of the rest of you do, too.
And Gregory has the sound of a person who has spent so much time rehearsing his arguments to himself that the thread of them has gone round the bend.
Gregory, Does this new rash of nastiness mean you really don’t know the elementary fallacy of denying the antecedent? Wow.
You better hope I’m not teaching and that no one like me is, because these ad homs would not get you a ‘gentlemen’s C’ in any decent Intro to philosophy or Intro to logic class in the world. (Certainly not in Poland, the home of some of the greatest logicians whoever lived.). If you want to get by on insults, better move over to Sociology maybe.
Jayzuz, Gregory.
And you think I’m a disgrace because I am the one who is “too rude and mean” around here.
Hmmm.
If I want to have a shot at first prize, with you in the race, I’m obviously going to have to double my efforts.
Honestly, I don’t think I have what it takes to beat you on the rudeness and meanness scale.
You do realize that Gregory has a Ph. D. in sociology, right?
Hah. I didn’t. They really should think about instruction in basic logic in that field. Maybe manners too, if Gregory’s a decent example.
Oh. My. God.
You really have no clue, do you.
Poor kiddo.
You make me laugh out loud, literally, loud. Thank god no one happened to be listening at this moment because I would have had to explain … all the years I’ve been watching you overtly and covertly abusing other commenters … and then you daring to challenge me with, of all things, a “many cats” stereotype.
What a perfect joke!
P.S. Honesty is generally considered to be a virtue, and lying is generally considered to be a sin. That’s why I am never less than honest when it comes to myself and my self-assessment of “fine with being rude ass”.
You could do a lot worse than learning a lesson from my honest example.
You mean, a typical example. Or, maybe, an average example.
in this case “decent” not being le mot juste …
Wow, Gregory, first basic fallacies, then random insults, and now cat hate?! What next, thinly disguised homophobia?
Wowee wow wow.
You said that about yourself. Are you faulting me now for taking your own words seriously?
How could anyone take you seriously (even while loving her), like a grandma with dementia?
Bluster, spin, “fuck you Lizzie because ‘atheists prevail’ (nod: V for Vendetta), I’m polite and treat everyone in ‘good faith’, even if they’re ‘fecking idiots’, etc. and I know Lizzie will never silence or discipline an atheist at TSZ”
poor kiddo
Wow,Gregory, that’s a pretty angry rant, all engendered by your embarrassment at having your basic logic mistake pointed out. It’s ok. Nobody knows everything. E.g. KN pointed out my ignorance of your field (which I really should have been able to guess).
Anyhow, though I can see you’re ‘getting something’ from insulting hotshoe and me, FWIW, I think you might get more from taking an Intro to logic or Critical thinking class. Also something on anger/embarrassment management might do you some good.
But there’s always hope, even for the most desperate and deluded. If acknowledged…
Right. Exactly.
If I may interject amidst all the name-calling:
Gregory, most creationists do deny common descent. Some allow a little, under the banner of “baraminology”. Some who accepts common descent but envisages a little Divine Intervention now and again to make some new forms might be called a creationist.
I suspect I don’t understand your point. So please clarify who you see as a creationist.
Of course not, Gregory. That’s a dumb question. Of course I expect you (you in general, that is) to take my words seriously; that’s why I bother to exert the effort to compose them.
What I fault YOU for is your continuing to mock/scold me for rudeness when you are apparently trying everything in your considerable vocabulary to be as rude and mean as you can. What I fault you for is your clear failure to follow my honest example of self-assessment and disclosure. SInce you are currently far more mean and rude than I have ever been (yes, your recent comments are orders of magnitude worse than me typing “feckin’ idiot”) you should admit that you likewise are completely fine with “being rude etc ass”
Either that, or you really aren’t fine with being that yourself. In which case, you should clear your conscience by apologizing profusely for your sub-standard conduct, promise to do better, and perhaps leave TSZ if there is something about the discussion here which uncontrollably brings out the worst in you.
Your choice.
Me, I choose to be aboveboard and not have to be secretly ashamed that I’m letting myself and others down, which i would be if I were indulging in covert hatred, spite, and backbiting.
Like I said, you could do a lot worse than follow my example of honest self-disclosure.
P.S. again. You seem to be under the crazy impression that “Lizzie will never silence or discipline an atheist”. Do be smart, Gregory, go check Guano for whose comments have been sent there.
I didn’t actually count ’em all, but I’ll bet a penny that my comments in Guano are second in number only to yours. Definitely includes the most recent one you’re whinging about (the “feckin’ idiot” one). So quit sulking, it’s conduct unbecoming.
What’s ironic, is the ‘Critical Thinking’ class I took (over 10 years ago) eventually unpeels the onion.
What you don’t realise, walto, or reflexively bow your pride down to say, is that you are a ‘spiritual’ being. Do you deny this? Not just as a ‘religious universal’ human trait according to evolutionary anthropologists, but as an actual ‘person.’
To me, a secular Jew like KN is a contradiction. If he wants to be called a ‘Jew’ (though he has not made it clear here if he does or does not) then he should openly acknowledge that it has a religious meaning. But as an atheist, KN self-righteously pushes aside any ‘spiritual’ connect with his ‘Jewishness,’ with the Jewish people.
So, an ‘atheist’ USAmerican’ is a new category (“USAmerican” – you saw it here first!). And we should (especially with the recent, but not only, 5-4 SSM SCOTUS decision) speak to it directly and without ideological atheist triumphalism dictatorship of communication as by anonymous ‘hotshoe’. Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. are ADVANCED compared to backwards USA. We’ve already been where you’re trying to get to so shut up and start respecting religious people who think and feel differently than you do. Collaboration and unity (without condescension).
But I don’t get the sense that ‘Lizzie’ was ever really enough about that, even while she promotes ‘skepticism’ and apostasy she still wants to believe (even if she, like Bono sang, doesn’t know how).
Yes, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have legal same-sex marriage (not an inadequate, “separate but equal’ substitute, civil union) and they got there a decade or more before the US. So it should be cause to celebrate that (finally!!) the largest first-world nation finally caught up to equality in European nations.
Join us in celebrating same-sex marriage equality, Gregory!
You tell me what that means and I’ll try to answer.
L’esprit d’escalier. Ah, but not today. Before I leave, I remember I want to share this lovely quote:
— James Nicoll
So, no, Gregory, you’re making yet another mistake. Me using the term “le mot juste” implies nothing about whether I want to get in a pissing contest with you about who speaks better French. I’m using English, and English happens to have pick-pocketed more than a few deliciously-apt phrases. Yummy!
Gawd, the irony is killing me.
If we look like we “know nothing”, we’re USAian rubes and mocked for not living up to antique Europe. But if we show we know something, anything, we’re “poseurs”
Although on the whole “know nothing” or “rube” would be better choices as insults, since “poseur” definitely violates TSZ rules about assuming honesty of other commenters …
If it makes Gregory feel any better, though, I will admit I double-checked the final “e” of “juste” after I typed it. Just in case. 🙂
Fortunately for me, my rabbi and all my other Jewish friends are far more nuanced, empathetic, and less judgmental.
hotshoe_,
That’s horrifying. There’s absolutely no excuse for that kind of verbal abuse. I know you’re more than tough enough to handle it, but there’s no reason why you — or anyone — should have to.
Ta, walto. 🙂
Catch y’all later.
Hah. Yours doesn’t seem to have done much for you, bro.
I’ve moved a lot of Gregory’s posts to Guano, and a few responses for consistency. But the mess is horrible, so the clean up isn’t brilliant.
Gregory, for goodness sake, try to pause and self-edit before you hit “post comment”.
And when you sober up, please read the rules.
And seriously folks, who really listens to the philosophistry of Walter Horn but idiots? TSZ?! The atheism zone?
Elizabeth, you should sober up your life and return to counsel other than Dennett-like atheists. Your message is distorted, confused and misplaced.
Atheists are guanoed far less than theists at TSZ. But of course, 90% of TSZ Lizzie groupies are theists anyway.
That’s because most atheists and theists here are polite, reasonable people. The reason you get Guanoed so often has nothing to do with your worldview, and everything to do with your on-line personality. Your utter inability to understand this simple fact about yourself is a marvel to behold.
Gregory, if I have to move another post of yours to Guano (which, btw is not “censorship” – your posts are still hosted on my site, at my expense, for anyone to use my bandwidth to read) I am suspending your posting access for approximately 24 hours.
I’m making the charitable assumption that you are drunk.
If so, I’ll be pleased to talk to you again when you are sober.
Gee, who could possibly argue with that?
Richardthughes contributes more than his fair share to AGW.