Denial River: Conspiracy Thinking In The Climate Blogosphere In Response To Research On Conspiracy Thinking

By Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky via Shaping Tomorrow’s World

There is growing evidence that conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, is often involved in the rejection of scientific propositions. Conspiracist ideations tend to invoke alternative explanations for the nature or source of the scientific evidence. For example, among people who reject the link between HIV and AIDS, common ideations involve the beliefs that AIDS was created by the U.S. Government.

My colleagues and I published a paper recently that found evidence for the involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions—from climate change to the link between tobacco and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS—among visitors to climate blogs. This was a fairly unsurprising result because it meshed well with previous research and the existing literature on the rejection of science. Indeed, it would have been far more surprising, from a scientific perspective, if the article had not found a link between conspiracist ideation and rejection of science.

Nonetheless, as some readers of this blog may remember, this article engendered considerable controversy.

The article also generated data.

Data, because for social scientists, public statements and publically-expressed ideas constitute data for further research. Cognitive scientists sometimes apply something called “narrative analysis” to understand how people, groups, or societies are organized and how they think.

In the case of the response to our earlier paper, we were struck by the way in which some of the accusations leveled against our paper were, well, somewhat conspiratorial in nature. We therefore decided to analyze the public response to our first paper with the hypothesis in mind that this response might also involve conspiracist ideation. We systematically collected utterances by bloggers and commenters, and we sought to classify them into various hypotheses leveled against our earlier paper. For each hypothesis, we then compared the public statements against a list of criteria for conspiracist ideation that was taken from the previous literature.

This follow-up paper was accepted a few days ago by Frontiers in Psychology, and a preliminary version of the paper is already available, for open access, here.

The title of the paper is Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, and it is authored by myself, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott.

I enclose the abstract below:

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

– Stephan Lewandowskyos Winthrop Professor at the School of Psychology, University of Western Australia. He has published nearly 140 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think. He received a “Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award” from the Australian Research Council in 2011.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Remarks to the Press by the Vice President and French President Hollande

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Palace
Paris, France

3:00 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT HOLLANDE:  (In progress as translated) -- this President here. 

France will continue its mission allowing Mali to regain its territorial integrity, and then leave the African troops to deal with it.  And tomorrow, it will be an operation for -- a peacekeeping operation.

We also talked about Syria.  I noted that we shared the same views.  We are noting that the situation is worsening day after day with a number of civilian casualties.  And what should be the settlement of that crisis is in a deadlock.  We consider that Bashar al-Assad should go, and we are doing our utmost for a transition conditional solution to be found.  So this is the reason why we have been supporting the Syrian National Coalition, like the United States. 

We also talked about Iran.  And here again, we regret to note that, notwithstanding all of the efforts, Iran is still rejecting transparency and compliance with its international obligations.  There is yet another appointment that’s been taken very soon for negotiations to resume.  So until the end, we will exert pressure for the negotiations to succeed. 

We also share the same willingness to revive the peace process in the Middle East.  Now that the elections in Israel are behind us, the Palestinian authorities are willing to commit themselves, we shall make sure that both the United States and Europe can support the revival of negotiations that can lead to a two-state solution. 

Then we also discussed the economy.  Both the American administration and the French presidency have the same approach.  We want our public accounts to be improved, rebalanced.  We all inherited debts from the previous majorities.  But beyond sorting out the debt and reducing the deficit, we both want to support growth.  And I do not forget that the first international meeting I attended was the G8, and on that occasion, Barack Obama was hosting the foreign leaders, and he kept telling us that growth should be at the heart of our decisions.  Fiscal seriousness and growth are not incompatible, and both the United States and France can prove it.

The last topic we discussed at a great length is climate.  The duty that we have to bring to the next generations a planet that shall not be facing major disasters.  So we have to make sure that in the context of the climate conference, we have to reach some tangible results. 

This is what I can say about our meeting today.  The French Minister for Foreign Affairs will soon be traveling to the U.S. in order to meet his counterpart, Mr. John Kerry.  And there will be elsewhere -- many exchanges between myself and President Obama to discuss the many topics I just mentioned.

But the visit today of Mr. Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, yet again an opportunity for us to say how strong the friendship between our two countries is.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Mr. President, it is always a great pleasure -- and I mean that literally, a pleasure -- to visit France.  And it was particularly nice to get a chance to have such a leisurely but informative lunch with you.  Your hospitality is unmatched in the world, and I want to thank you for that.

And without saying -- it went without saying today that our agenda, our mutual agenda is global.  It is not confined to any single issue or any single part of the world.  It spans the globe.

And as the President indicated, we discussed an array of issues starting and including Mali and North Africa more broadly.  And let me say again on behalf of the President, the people of the United States, we applaud your decisiveness and I might add the incredible competence and capability of your French military forces.

I often tell the story -- I’ve been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq an awful lot, several dozen times; and I remember the first time I was in a forward operating base up in the hills above the Kunar Valley, the mountains.  And I asked early on in the campaign, before I was Vice President -- I asked my -- the six Americans who I was standing with who they enjoyed standing most together with.  And one young man said, “the Tricolors, the French.”  And “they know how to shoot straight” was his expression.  You have a brave and competent -- and I say to the Minister of Defense -- competent military.  And your decisive action is not only in the interest of France, but quite frankly the United States and everyone.

The President shared his insights of his recent trip to Bamako and to Timbuktu, and we agreed on the need to as quickly as reasonably possible establish -- the establishment of an African-led international mission to Mali, and to as quickly as is prudent transition that mission to the United Nations.

We also support the political process that France is leading to restore a democratic government in Mali.  The President indicated as well that we discussed the importance of working with our regional partners to counter terrorism across North Africa and beyond.  We spent no little time discussing how terrorist organizations metastasized and why additional strategies will be necessary going into the future to deal with this new threat.

I emphasized the importance of working with the new government of Libya and building an -- effective security institutions, as well as I commended France once again on its leading role.

On Syria, as the President mentioned, we discussed what more can be done to address the situation and also briefly discussed the humanitarian crisis affecting Syria and its neighbors.  We both fully support the Syrian opposition coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.  And I recounted my meetings on Saturday in Germany with President al-Khatib, as well as a long meeting I had with the U.N.-Arab League Joint Special Representative Mr. Brahimi.  And I filled the President in on the detail of those discussions.

Our conversation also ventured into Afghanistan where we have stood together in a stalwart way.  We reviewed our strategic vision, how to secure and stabilize Afghanistan. 

President Hollande and I also reminded one another of the firm commitments of all NATO leaders in Chicago to both sustain NATO’s mission in Afghan post-2014 and to remain in incredibly close contact as to how to proceed.

And finally, we did discuss -- we also discussed Iran.  I complimented the President and his predecessor on the strong stand that France has taken to make it clear to Iran that we mean business.  These are the most consequential sanctions in no small part because of France’s leadership that have been imposed in the, oh, 40 years that I’ve been involved in international affairs.  And they are -- and this next phase which kicks in now, this month is -- must be followed through.

We are prepared, the President asked me about the statement made in Munich, and I just pointed out, I reiterated what has been our position:  When and if the Supreme Leader and the Iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of this -- of these embargos, we’re prepared to discuss.  We never -- and we’re prepared to meet with them individually after consultation with our partners the P5-plus-1, or as we say in Europe, the E3-plus-3.  And we did discuss that.  But we also share the view that there has been no real evidence of any movement thus far by the Iranians.

But as I said, we discussed economic issues as well, and I think the President summed it up very clearly.  The President -- President Obama believes there is nothing inconsistent with dealing with putting our long-term debt in perspective and bringing it under control and generating economic growth.  They should not be inconsistent.  We know they’re not inconsistent objectives.  And we're hopeful that Europe and the entire EU will be more inclined to share your view, Mr. President. 

And we also pointed out that too many families -- too many families in France, the United States, Europe as a whole, are still suffering from underemployment as well as unemployment.  And again, we must speak to that.

I was impressed in the discussion we had relative to climate change -- and I mean this sincerely, Mr. President -- I could have been sitting in a private meeting with President Obama.  He would have not said it in French, he’d say it in English, but you said the same thing.  The President pointed out that there is an obligation here that extends way beyond these administrations.  There is a need -- there is a need to set out a vision for the young people in both our countries that we understand -- we understand.  It’s a rallying cry that can be a call for a united effort and support in both our countries to deal with global warming.

The President is committed to do that.  And as I pointed out to the Foreign Minister, he is going to have an interlocutor in John Kerry.  There is no one in my country who has been, over the period of time he’s been in the Senate, more concerned with or knowledgeable about the issues relating to global warming.  And so the President is -- President Obama is committed as well.

With regard to the -- back to the economy for just a moment.  As I said in Europe -- I mean, excuse me, in Munich, Europe is our largest economic partner.  Over $600 billion in annual trade and $5 trillion -- $5 trillion in overall commercial relationships, creating literally millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.  So the United States has a profound interest -- a profound interest in Europe’s success, in Europe securing the foundations of its monetary union.  It’s overwhelmingly in our naked self-interest.

As you can see, we had a very full discussion of a number of issues.  And I fear that both of our delegations were probably thankful that the dessert had come, because I'm afraid we could have gone on much longer.  But I found it extremely helpful. 

And, again, let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying on behalf of President Obama how much he looks forward -- how much he looks forward to working with you and France, because there’s not a single issue that affects us on the international -- in the international arena that does not -- where our interests do not intersect.  And we look forward to a very, very close relationship between our administrations.

And, again, thank you for the hospitality.  I appreciate it very, very much.  Thank you.

END
3:12 P.M. (Local)

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM EST

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM EST

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

White House ‘Very Confident’ Senate Will Confirm Hagel

An unnamed senior Obama administration official told the National Journal that the White House is “very confident” the Senate will confirm Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

According to the report, the administration’s whip count currently stands at 57 votes in favor of confirmation, with a few others opposed to the 60-vote threshold. The official said that the total tally in favor of Hagel could be as high as 72 votes.

Hagel’s neocon detractors see the filibuster as the last option in their anti-Hagel arsenal (which began by trying to smear the former GOP senator from Nebraska as an “anti-Semite”). Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, threw cold water on that idea last week. Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) briefly revived the idea on Monday when he wouldn’t rule it out during a local radio interview.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who appears unlikely to vote in favor of Hagel’s confirmation, said later on Monday that he would not support a filibuster. And with the 55-seat Democratic majority, two Republican senators saying they supported Hagel’s nomination, and two others saying they’d also oppose the filibuster, the New York Times noted that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, “Hagel will almost certainly head the Defense Department.”

“[T]here appears to be enough GOP opposition to an unprecedented filibuster of a Cabinet nominee to, if necessary, generate the 60 votes required for cloture,” Roll Call reported on Tuesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that President Obama “reconsider” Hagel’s nomination but when asked about McCain’s new position, the South Carolina Republican seemed unaware. “Did he say that? I didn’t see that. I’m not there yet. But filibustering is something I do very reluctantly,” he said, adding, “Time will tell what we should do.”

If the Republicans decide to filibuster, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted on Monday, “that means that the Republicans would have to do something historically unprecedented and truly radical if they are going to stop Chuck Hagel`s nomination.”

CNN reports that “there are now at least five Republican senators who would oppose a filibuster of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense, all but ensuring the embattled nominee will be confirmed in the coming days.”

View the original article here

Reimagining America’s energy policy

By Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) - 02/05/13 05:33 PM ET

America has an opportunity to reimagine how we think about energy. The possibilities of abundance are very different from the trappings of scarcity, and the facts underpinning the nation’s bright energy outlook to 2020 and beyond are still struggling to make themselves known.

We have enough natural gas buried underground in the United States to meet our current levels of consumption for more than 90 years, according to the Energy Information Administration. Our technically recoverable reserves of oil are large enough to offset a century’s worth of imports from OPEC, and exciting frontiers in geothermal energy, oil shale, methane hydrates and other sources are held back only by technology.

Meanwhile, as domestic energy production booms, the American economy is becoming more efficient and less intensive in its use of energy. The Paris-based International Energy Agency recently highlighted the United States for its improvement in this area. We face the real prospect of tapping our enormous energy potential even as we provide better protection for the environment.

Sound policy can help make all this happen. But foolish policy is certain to derail us.

Too often, energy is seen as a necessary evil. While every form of energy has its consequences, affordable and abundant energy is a fundamentally positive force. It’s what makes modern life and our high standard of living possible.

I released a document this week, titled Energy 20/20: A Vision for America’s Energy, to begin a conversation about where energy and natural-resource policies should go over the next few years. It is intended as a blueprint for discussion. The work of renewing these policies requires cooperation between the president and a new Congress. We should strive to do this together, starting today, through discrete bills and targeted oversight.

I believe there’s a consensus that it’s in our national interest to make energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure. Our challenge is to align federal policy with that consensus. Energy 20/20 includes ideas to do so under seven headings: producing more, consuming less, clean-energy technology, energy delivery infrastructure, effective government, environmental responsibility and “an energy policy that pays for itself.” 

As we rethink our nation’s energy policies, it is important to face questions about the risks of energy and resource development, including questions about climate change. We need to discuss these questions openly and find common ground on prudent steps to take in the face of uncertainty. What is certain is that we can best address environmental challenges if we are prosperous and secure.

Abundant energy is possible, and there are already many signs of it becoming a reality as technological breakthroughs lower the cost of producing previously uneconomic resources. Affordable energy is vital to our economic well-being, and a prudent balancing of energy production with proper standards for environmental regulation is more pressing than ever. Our nation is too often hamstrung by burdensome regulations, delayed permits and overzealous litigation. This can render projects uneconomic by attrition and prevent timely, efficient and urgently needed investments.

Nevertheless, the future is bright. New technologies are making clean energy — those sources with less environmental impact than their most likely alternatives — increasingly competitive and enabling energy efficiency to continue to improve. Throughout the economy, diversification of energy and natural-resource supplies is apparent. As alternative fuels like electricity and natural gas take hold in the transportation sector, we can expect this trend to continue. And the need for more secure supplies is beginning to influence consensus about additional steps needed to renew our energy and natural-resource policies.

Modern federal energy and natural-resource policies will add to these trends, in part by removing roadblocks erected by the outdated approaches they can replace. And we must continue to fund and consider increasing funding for the scientific research critical to continued progress. Only basic and rigorous research will produce the dramatic breakthroughs we need to reach a future in which clean energy and energy independence are more than just slogans. 

If we make the right choices today and accomplish by 2020 the goals I’ve proposed, we can secure a future in which energy and natural resources are affordable and abundant from secure and diverse sources; ensure the air and water are cleaner in our own country and around the world; and enable Americans to enjoy a healthy economy and preserve their ability to live and “to pursue happiness.”

Murkowski is Alaska’s senior senator and the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee. 

View Comments

View the original article here

Anti-Choice Activists Push To Ban Abortion For Rape Victims, But They Admit It’s A ‘Tough Sell’

The 2012 election season was largely dominated by Republican men making insensitive and medically inaccurate comments about rape — so much so that the GOP caucus actually received professional advice to stop talking about rape at a retreat last month. But the anti-choice community is pressuring Republicans to do exactly the opposite, even though they admit it’s not exactly the most popular message.

Personhood USA, the group that advocates for endowing zygotes with the full rights of U.S. citizens, recently launched a new “Save the 1? campaign with the goal of limiting abortion access for women who have become pregnant following a sexual assault. And at the recent March to Life event protesting the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists emphasized the issue that “even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing” — pregnancies that result from rape:

Standing before the throngs at the March for Life on Jan. 25, Ryan Bomberger admitted that he was the poster child for one of the most difficult aspects of the abortion debate: his mother had been raped.

“I’m the fringe case that even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing,” said Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist whose mother chose to continue the pregnancy and put him up for adoption. [...]

Bomberger, an evangelical Christian, said his inclusion at the January rally — and increased chatter on social media — are signs this issue is getting more attention. His Virginia-based Radiance Foundation aims to “shatter the myth of the unwanted” through campaigns that focus on adopted children, including those who were products of rape. [...]

“These are the tough sells in the public,” said [Susan Wills], assistant director for education and outreach at the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's] Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. “It’s very easy for us to convince people that partial-birth abortion or other gruesome late-term procedures ought not to be happening, but when we talk about rape and incest, it’s not a sound-bite issue.”

Obviously, like Bomberger’s mother, not every woman who becomes pregnant from rape chooses to have an abortion. But some certainly do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that women who become pregnant from rape or incest contribute to about 10,000 to 15,000 abortions each year. The group also reports that 22,000 pregnancies resulting from rape could be prevented each year if female survivors had better access to emergency contraception — another women’s health resource that abortion opponents often attempt to restrict.

And polling shows that, just as abortion opponents suspect, they haven’t had much success “convincing people” that abortion “ought not to be happening” in the cases of rape and incest. A full 75 percent of the Americans who describe themselves as anti-abortion still want rape survivors to have legal access to abortion services so they can make their own reproductive choices.

View the original article here

British House Of Commons Advances Marriage Equality Bill

After a long day of debate, the United Kingdon’s House of Commons voted to approve marriage equality legislation with a vote of 400-175. Today’s vote was the second reading of the bill, which means it still has committee work and a vote in the House of Lords ahead of it. Still, this is a monumental sign that Britain will soon offer the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Read through the Guardian’s liveblog for a glimpse at today’s debate and the protests outside it.

View the original article here

More Than 75 Percent Of Americans Delayed Their Retirement To Avoid Losing Health Benefits

Tying health insurance benefits directly to employment is forcing most Americans to work longer than they would have otherwise, a new study from the Employee Benefits Research Institute finds.

According to the study’s results, more than three fourths of retired Americans ended up working longer than they initially planned because they didn’t want to lose access to their employer-based health benefits. And a majority of the Americans who are currently in the workforce are also planning to delay their retirement in order to keep the insurance plans they have through their employer:

This builds upon previous research that shows the Great Recession has seriously impacted older Americans’ ability to retire. An estimated 62 percent of working Americans now report they’re planning to put off their retirement — up from 42 percent in 2010 — largely due to job losses and financial insecurity. These issues go hand-in-hand particularly because, as health care costs continue to rise, Americans are increasingly worried about being able to afford their insurance coverage.

And the United States’ primarily employer-based health insurance system doesn’t just impact Americans’ retirement decisions. It has also contributed to the “job lock” phenomenon, which prevents Americans from switching jobs or changing career paths because they’re too worried about losing access to their health benefits. “Job lock” ultimately creates an inefficient labor market, since workers may not take better jobs because they’re concerned about having a gap in health coverage.

Fortunately, Obamacare will take steps to address these dynamics by making health care more affordable to low- and middle-income Americans, as well as preventing insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. The health reform law “completely changes the playing field,” one of the study’s authors told Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff. “If everything goes as planned, you’ve got guaranteed issue next year. You don’t need the employer to fill the gap.”

View the original article here