Merged "Climate change deniers more likely to believe in other CTs"

[catsmate]

That may be true of the "enlightened" people of the time, but in the 15th century, the "ignorant masses" may not have understood or, for that matter, even cared one way or the other. They were still very superstitious; they believed in magic and witchcraft (still burning witches well into the next century). While I concur that they probably didn't think they would fall off the edge of the world, they nonetheless were fearful of a voyage into the unknown.

Well Columbus and his backers knew the Earth was round. In fact those that opposed his voyage were, arguable, more correct than Columbus was; he drastically underestimated the planet's circumference, if he hadn't found the Americas he and his crews would have run out of supplies.

 

[Mikeys]

We learned about the Moon's uneven gravitational field and the "mascons" of our satellite, which is unlike the distribution of Earth's mass and provides additional insight into the Moon's history.

Why it's uneven, by what factor? Humans are not used to walk in 1/6 gravity. You would fall down if you were placed somehow on the moon. You would instantly loose your sense of balance and got dizzy.

 

[sts60]

Why it's uneven,

Because of mascons. Basically, the Moon is lumpy to a degree the Earth is not.

by what factor?

Enough to perturb orbits in a relatively short time.

Humans are not used to walk in 1/6 gravity.

Not at first, but they quickly adapted once on the Moon. And a variety of methods of simulating 1/6 G environments had been provided for the astronauts as well.

You would fall down if you were placed somehow on the moon. You would instantly loose your sense of balance and got dizzy.

No, of course not. You are lighter on the Moon than on the Earth. Gravity still provides an "up" and "down" correlated to the visual cues.

When are you going to answer my rebuttals to your previous claims? And, again, do you intend to actually try to learn anything or are you simply trolling?

 

[sts60]

I should also point out that handwaving and Gish-galloping will get you nowhere. This forum does not require you to support your claims, nor does it even forbid outright trolling, but you will be pressed for answers by other participants and you cannot bluff your way on this topic.

 

[Scott Sommers]

For those of interested in how this one turned out, you should check this paper.

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to
research on conspiracist ideation
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf

 

[Lenbrazil]

In my experience AGW deniers fall into two camps:

Conservative Republicans, they will support CTs with Democratic villians, i.e. all the anti-Clinton and Obama stuff, the former smuggled cocaine and killed Vince Foster, the latter was born in Kenya, is a closet Muslim or Socialist, is coming to get "our" guns etc.

General CT kooks who believe in 9/11 etc CTs, most seem to support Ron Paul and are so much hardcore Libertarians as they are distrustful of gov't.

There is quite abit of overlap and many exceptions but what unites them all is they are unimpressed by the overwhelming rejection of their views by qualified experts. but oddly put a great deal of faith in the handful of 'dissident' experts and fake experts TV weathermen re:AGW, electrical engineers and KFC architects re:the WTC collapses etc. who tell them what they want to hear.


And there are the Bible thumping CT kooks who are especially suspicious of da Jooooz.

 

[Nick Terry]

For those of interested in how this one turned out, you should check this paper.

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to
research on conspiracist ideation
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf

This was arguably much more interesting than the original piece of research. One almost wonders whether they expected their original paper to generate enough data for the follow-through. I really like the way they've framed the discussion of conspiracist ideation and the terms they used, like 'Must be wrong' and 'self-sealing'.

 

[varwoche]

In my experience AGW deniers fall into two camps:

Conservative Republicans, they will support CTs with Democratic villians, i.e. all the anti-Clinton and Obama stuff, the former smuggled cocaine and killed Vince Foster, the latter was born in Kenya, is a closet Muslim or Socialist, is coming to get "our" guns etc.

General CT kooks who believe in 9/11 etc CTs, most seem to support Ron Paul and are so much hardcore Libertarians as they are distrustful of gov't.

There is quite abit of overlap and many exceptions but what unites them all is they are unimpressed by the overwhelming rejection of their views by qualified experts. but oddly put a great deal of faith in the handful of 'dissident' experts and fake experts TV weathermen re:AGW, electrical engineers and KFC architects re:the WTC collapses etc. who tell them what they want to hear.


And there are the Bible thumping CT kooks who are especially suspicious of da Jooooz.

And then there's the occasional leftie who thinks AGW is a capitalist power grab.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce

link

 

[Scott Sommers]

This was arguably much more interesting than the original piece of research. One almost wonders whether they expected their original paper to generate enough data for the follow-through. I really like the way they've framed the discussion of conspiracist ideation and the terms they used, like 'Must be wrong' and 'self-sealing'.

It's like reading a spoof. I couldn't have made up anything this crazy. But you're right about wondering if they expected this kind of reaction. These guys have been working with nuts like this for a long time. Just like you know what to expect from the Holocaust denial nuts and I understand the Truth Movement crazies, it's possible they were ready to document the reaction.

 

[Nick Terry]

It's like reading a spoof. I couldn't have made up anything this crazy. But you're right about wondering if they expected this kind of reaction. These guys have been working with nuts like this for a long time. Just like you know what to expect from the Holocaust denial nuts and I understand the Truth Movement crazies, it's possible they were ready to document the reaction.

The beauty of the paper is anatomising that entirely predictable reaction. This is therefore much more valuable research than the original paper, because it shows that conspiracising is a mode of thought.

The way they document how elements of discarded hypotheses survive in the rhetoric of a new hypothesis which reached the same paranoid conclusion, but by a different route - absolutely classic.