Psychological Studies Which Explain the Warmers
A mind, as they say, is a terrible thing.
The terrible minds of the global warmers can generally be explained in one (or more) of several ways, which are often closely related.
Follow the money: scientists want grant money which can infer power and prestige. Grant money will not be provided to confirm what’s already known, ergo, myths like “man’s activity is warming the earth to dangerous levels” must be created to win grants, and in time, to sustain them. Similarly, rent seekers, crony capitalists, and the regulatory-capture minded endorse global warming to feather their own nests.
Just following orders: scientists want to be please the grant provider, to fit in with the situation, and to do what is expected of them. Hence the “settled science” claim possesses great power even if it isn’t settled, let alone is it science. This also supports the idea that warmers are satisfying the needs of the grant provider.
People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.
Warmers will edit out inconvenient truths—sometimes consciously, as seen in the Climategate scandals, and sometimes not—that don’t align with their mental models or interests.
False consensus bias. How do you explain the need to paint manmade global warming non-believers as flat-earthers, denialists, etc.? When you can’t attack the facts, attack the man:
In reality people show a number of predictable biases when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes. And these biases help to show exactly why we need psychology experiments and why we can’t rely on our intuitions about the behaviour of others.
…many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.
Loss aversion (global warmers desperately want to avoid losing the power, and positional gains they have made by endorsing manmade global warming) and behavioral economics (global warmers make their decisions with biases towards promoting their own self-interest) both hold explanatory power as well.
It seems that much of the thinking behind the manmade global warming community is reminiscent of the quote attributed to Pauline Kael:
“How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him?”
Once again, man is the only creature who can lie to himself.