How libertarian ideology is holding back our liberty to change.
Martin Lack, he of the popular blog Lack of Environment is taking a small break from his writings. In his own words,
I am afraid this may be the last post on this blog for a while because – what with the all the willful blindness and ideological prejudice that seems to stop people from recognising what an Eff-ing mess humanity is in – and my as yet unresolved employment situation – I am feeling somewhat emotionally drained. However, please don’t cancel your subscription (as who knows how quickly I may recover).
So what a pleasant surprise when less than a day after those words in came an email that read, “Since I have told readers of my blog that I am taking a rest, I offer you the text appended below to post on your blog instead (or not – as you see fit).”
On reading the text I most certainly ‘saw fit‘ to publish it!
It is a very interesting approach to climate science denialism resulting from an analysis of conspiracy theories.
So over to Martin.
oooOOOooo
Libertarian ideology is the real road block
I have recently been catching up on a bit of reading – focusing on the recent work of Professor Stephan Lewandowsky (and others). Following in the wake of James Hansen, Ben Santer and Michael Mann, Lewandowsky has recently been the target of hate-mail campaigns by climate change sceptics. Unlike all the others, however, Lewandowsky (formerly at the University of Western Australia but now at Bristol University in the UK) is not a climate scientist. This is how Bristol University announced his recent appointment.
Steve is an internationally renowned cognitive scientist who has joined us from the University of Western Australia. His research has already revolutionised our understanding of human memory and cognition, and he now stands poised to build upon his impressive body of work with a project as ambitious as it is timely. In particular, Steve’s intention to improve our understanding of how people choose to acquire information, and to use this understanding to help create a more informed populace, is a unique and much needed undertaking. Thus, this research offers enormous benefits in the fields of experimental psychology, climate research and the wider public engagement with and understanding of scientific research.
I must admit that, until recently, I had not sat down to read either of the papers by Lewandowsky et al ( ‘Motivated Rejection of Science’ [PDF] or ‘Recursive Fury: Conspiracy Ideation in the Blogosphere’ [PDF] ) – I had only read about them.
However, now that I have read them, the thing that strikes me most forcefully is not the stupidity of conspiracy “ideation”, the invocation of conspiracy theories, it is the fact that, as Lewandowsky et al acknowledge, their work confirms the findings of many previous studies; that climate change scepticism is associated with prejudicial adherence to libertarian ideology. Also key is that climate change scepticism can be predicted by that prejudicial adherence to libertarian ideology.
Amongst many other things, this explains why EU sceptics are climate sceptics and why the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) do not like Wind Farms. I had understood this for some time. However, I had not fully realised its importance; it was just one theme among others. Anyone who has read my blog recently will probably have noticed my post about New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory, in which I acknowledged that I had not realised just how significant such thinking is, and how subliminal and subconscious it may be.
Although adherence to free-market economics and libertarian ideology were themes I highlighted in my MA dissertation and in my subsequent book, and mentioned on my blog numerous times, everything I have read in the last few days points to one conclusion: We will not succeed in communicating the urgency of the need for radical changes in energy policy until we can convince people that climate scientists are not trying to perpetuate their research funding or halt human progress.
Professor Lewandowsky’s research shows that little can be achieved by simply telling people they are wrong. Far better is pointing out to people that Limits to Growth and Peak Oil have already halted the progress of globalised Capitalism, as recent times prove dramatically. In other words conveying facts to people rather than ideology.
I must admit that this has been a tough pill to swallow. I am not naturally progressive and certainly not naturally “liberal”. On the contrary, I am socially and politically conservative. However, the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption is a game-changer. Therefore, unlike members of the Flat Earth Society or Young Earth Creationists (YECs), I do not refuse to accept what scientists tell me simply because I don’t like the message.
We cannot defeat such obscurantism by telling people they are irrational; we can only defeat it by focusing on the evidence that suggests strongly that they are mistaken. To this end, I think the words of St Augustine of Hippo are an important consideration; words going back over 1,400 years before anyone started to question the Age of the Earth or the Origin of Species! Words echoed by Thomas Aquinas, (often quoted to those YECs):
“… since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
– Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1273).
In the last 150 years or so, most Christians have now come to reject conspiracy theory explanations for fossils, for example, and have realised that it is inappropriate to treat the Bible as a scientific text book. Regretably, the main source of ideological blindness today is not conventional religion; it is adherence to free-market economics.
Therefore, it is important that we acknowledge the ideological nature of the communication problem we face. That is that the research by Prof Lewandowsky and others has discovered a tendency for libertarians to prefer conspiracy theories to reality. Perhaps, therefore, not surprising that he has been attacked; no-one likes to be told they are deluded.
Roadblocks to policy change will not be cleared by social and political scientists telling libertarians that they are deluded. All that will do is confirm their suspicions and reinforce their prejudices! No, what is needed is for climate scientists to be bolder in stating the facts.
The majority of climate scientists seem content to continue to soft-soap the issue; afraid of “telling it to people straight” because it may induce despair.
No, it is not too late to prevent an ecological catastrophe but I am certain that we are now very short of time and, as everyone from the International Energy Agency, the Pentagon and the IMF agree, further delay will not be cost-effective.
At the same time, I think social and political scientists need to focus on debunking the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy myth and pointing out the logical fallacy in the idea that all Greens are Communists in disguise (the so-called ‘Watermelons’).
The environment has become a political football when it is nothing of the kind. It is our life support system and we have pushed it near to the point of collapse, as E.F. Schumacher once said, by mistaking Nature’s capital for a form of income. Therefore, if we do not change course, bankruptcy would seem inevitable.
oooOOOooo
Having read and reflected on Martin’s essay, a couple of recollections surface. The first is Guy McPherson’s book Walking Away from Empire that I reviewed earlier this year then referred to in a recent republication of a George Monbiot essay:
So very difficult to pick out the sentence that carried the most power, for the essay is powerful from start to end. But this one did hit me in the face, “The impossibility of sustaining this system of endless, pointless consumption without the continued erosion of the living planet and the future prospects of humankind, is the conversation we will not have.“
Finally, I can’t resist reminding you, dear reader, of the point made by Prof. Guy McPherson in his book Walking Away from Empire, which I reviewed on March 6th. particularly in the first paragraph of the first chapter; Reason:
At this late juncture in the era of industry, it seems safe to assume we face one of two futures. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we face imminent environmental collapse. If we cease burning fossil fuels, the industrial economy will collapse. Industrial humans express these futures as a choice between your money or your life, and tell you that, without money, life isn’t worth living. As should be clear by now, industrial humans — or at least our “leaders” — have chosen not door number one (environmental collapse) and not door number two (economic collapse), but both of the above.
The second recollection comes most recently; from yesterday’s The story of carbon. A story that showed the power of academic, peer-reviewed, properly conducted, rational science!
I will close with a repeat of the closing words from yesterday:
“By my calculation, we have a 5–10 year window to avoid the catastrophe. It won’t be easy — we’re past the point where any transition will be smooth — but we can make the transition and survive as a civilized species, humans in a recognizable world.”
Nothing counter-intuitive about that!
Learning from Dogs 
Martin Lack and others like him fail because they are like King Cnut who attempted to command the waves to cease from coming in on the tide. Even if the first world nations comply with elimination of fossil fuels, the developing world will refuse. The developing world would like to participate in the same industrial success as USA, to tell them to cut fossil fuels is telling them to remain a third world nation, the building of alternative infrastructure to cheap fossil fuels is too great a financial burden for the developing nations. Everyone will consume fossil fuels until it is impractical to do so, then they will reap the harvest of what that will bring.
LikeLike
Can I first point out that Cnut has been unfairly represented! He took his fawning courtiers to the beach to demonstrate he was NOT an all powerful ruler- commanded the tide to halt and watched everyone get wet.
On the larger point and my larger fear is that current conspiracy theories [Agenda 21- AGW -UN/EU socialist plot to return society back to medieval times so as to make world dictatorship easier] is deliberately being fostered for the more sinister [misused sorry- means left handed] political goals of fascism.
I get the impression fascists are obsessed with order- they despise uncertainty and difference and hence their religious attachments [they tend to have their own version of the most popular religion] and dislike of science. Fascist want to order everyone’s lives although we can best ignore the uniforms and dramatics and instead see globalisation as the new banner.
AGW and Peak oil [peak everything as we hit limits] spoils this. The current economic crisis is a response to the early days of limits and people want reasons for why their wages, jobs, homes, and futures are in decline.
Blame greens or scientists or government- of course I along with others wanting change also treat government and the system with suspicion and some may even see larger big oil conspiracies. I am impressed with the “right’s” degree of delusion: In the US the shooting of children becomes a government plot to introduce gun law- to take away guns- to allow FEMA [or the UN] to place people in concentration camps- after small storms like Sandy are blown out of proportion by AGW.
Therefore scientists are part of the problem- by speaking up they are just confirming the plot. Neither is the solution to get into a cold war of conspiracies [although I am sure countries and businesses lie about their oil reserves] and get involved in counter claims. The people who will allow fascists to rule our nations are simply frightened and it is the exploitation of fear that gives people power.
I’m pessimistic- people want cars and stuff- but I am also a parent and like people forcing me to be optimistic. I cannot ‘sell’ green electricity to someone who thinks it is a scam of the UN/EU communists, the price of fuel will out strip wages [we are never going back to $30 b oil]- the conspiracy being government stopping development or taxing it for AGW- but I can lead with super insulation of my home and conservation and draw attention to my tiny household energy bill.
LikeLike
I think there is a suggestion of a certain amount of “conspiracy” though. Or does it cease to be conspiracy if a case starts to be built? For example – is this a “conspiracy theory”:
http://civilisationcontinuitygroup.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-mysterious-meeting-at-the-white-house/
As far as I can see – the meeting happened – a couple weeks later a White House Arctic strategy document came out, and while it acknowledged certain things like the rate of change and the likelihood of further extreme weather in mid latitudes – it also said this:
“Our highest priority is to protect the American people, our sovereign territory and rights, natural resources, and interests of the United States.”
(from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf)
Speaking as a non American, it feels like America is telling the rest of the world to FOAD. If I ran China, I’d be thinking about preparing for a large war.
I think I’m inclined to agree that the conspiracy theory stuff generally (Agenda 21, for instance) tends to help prevent meaningful change.
LikeLike
I hope very much that Martin will answer your comment as he is now back in circulation, so to speak.
For my part, just wanted to thank you for sharing your thoughts and welcome you to Learning from Dogs.
LikeLike
Although Jules has put you right on the King Cnut meme, Alex, I must admit that I find it hard to believe you are not a pseudo-sceptic when you trot out their arguments like this.
Similarly, suggesting that minimising fossil fuel use will perpetuate poverty and under-development is an inversion of reality. This is because, if we do not attempt to minimise the impacts of the fossil fuels already burnt (by limiting those that get burnt now and in the future), people in the World’s poorest countries will be affected first and they will be affected the most. Yet again, therefore, you are merely trotting out the tired old fallacy that, even if we have a problem, it is not worth trying to fix it.
We have known for decades that burning fossil fuels was going to disrupt the Earth’s climate. Therefore, now that we can see it is happening, it is time to substitute fossil fuel use wherever practicable. When you find yourself in a hole, it is a good idea to stop digging. The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stone.
LikeLike
“The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stone”
Absolutely it ended because it was substituted by something more “practicable”…a.k.a. “more economically efficient”… like nuclear?
LikeLike
Re Stone Age – You may enjoy reading this:
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/nick-reeves-says-were-all-fracking-mad/
Re Nuclear Age – You may enjoy reading this:
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/our-three-biggest-problems-solved/
LikeLike
Hi Martin,
I do think for myself, and have my own opinions on the climate change issue. I sit on the fence on the question of if the climate change is due to human influence, natural, or a bit of both. I refuse to be blinded by either side of the debate, all who are involved in a shouting match, which helps nobody.
The scientists in the climate change debate are mostly academics, who have the unfortunate problem of living in ivory towers divorced from the reality of life.
UK takes climate change seriously, they close the coal burning power stations after listening to the climate change academics. The result of this is there is less capacity than can meet energy demand, so the energy prices rise. To meet climate change targets, the investment in infrastructure is passed on as increased bills to the consumer. There are serious impacts from this to the poor. The por in Britain face the stark choice of going hungry or being cold. Scores of elderly who could no longer afford the energy bills died of the cold this winter just gone in UK.
My landlord is on verge of bankruptcy due to increased energy bills, this means I am being evicted from my home so they can sell the house.
Look around you, then you will see what the academics are missing, people are suffering, struggling to survive against increasing bills, loss of employment, their are more important things on the minds of the ordinary citizen than listening to academics who are so divorced from reality of the suffering. People voted UKIP as a protest, they are angry here in UK, I would be surprised if there is no mass riots by the end of this year.
The Third World, the developing nations care nothing for climate change, they want what the US and UK citizen enjoys, the same capitalist dreams of consumer products such as cars. The governments of the third world are corrupt, any attempt by well meaning climate change enthusiasts wil be ignored, or worse end in the individual being assassinated.
Climate change is here, there is nothing anyone can do about it but build strategies to survive what is to come. The cause of climate change is now academic, it is too late to prevent what is coming.
LikeLike
Alex, thanks for that long and very honest reply. You point out the day-to-day challenges facing so many. As I have written before (and not my words): “Never underestimate the power of the ‘law’ of unintended consequences.”
LikeLike
I know of no-one who says that climate change is 100% human induced, but no objective scientist says it is 100% natural either. Your jaundiced view of scientists is, I suspect, just part of the post-modern disrespect for all authority figures. Most climate scientists are justifiably frustrated by having the warnings ignored for decades.
People seriously need to stop objecting to all the solutions (windfarms included). Many people in the so-called Third World have no time for scepticism – they are already being confronted with the adverse consequences – extreme weather of all kinds was and is a predictable consequence of a warming atmosphere with more moisture in it more of the time. If poor people are to be lifted out of poverty, those who are wealthy are going to have to moderate their consumption.
The time for scepticism about climate change and limits to growth and resource depletion was over about 40 years ago. Sadly, such problems do not disappear just because we – as a species – tend to want to ignore them.
LikeLike
I am sorry to hear about your impending eviction, Alex. Please forgive me if my initial response lacked compassion (but please remember I have been unemployed for nearly 2 years now).
However, doing nothing is not a survivable option. If people saw our predicament for what it is, irrespective of their day-to-day struggles, I believe they would demand radical changes in energy policy. As it is, we are sleepwalking to catastrophe (and extinction).
Neither 100% human nor 100% natural leaves a very large range of options but, in reality, the change we are seeing is mostly (at least 75%) human induced, We can be certain of this because the burning of fossil fuels has pushed the Earth to a new climate state – radically different from all the Natural climate fluctuations of the last 1 million years (and what happened prior to that is not relevant for life on Earth today).
http://oncirculation.com/2013/05/08/co2-set-to-hit-400ppm-highest-levels-for-millions-of-years/
LikeLike
It states: “Climate change scepticism is associated with prejudicial adherence to libertarian ideology. Climate change scepticism can be predicted by that prejudicial adherence to libertarian ideology.”
And that could easily be read as… “You libertarians are not fit to concern yourselves with the threats to the environment… so leave that to us!”
Now if this is not to use threats to the environment to promote political divisiveness what is?
Why are all issues which require we need to do our utmost to unite around, being exploited in order to disunite?
http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2011/09/me-and-my-constituency.html
LikeLike
Per, and others, while this is a reposting of Martin’s work, I think the point that is being missed is that the essay is about human memory and cognition. Yes, of course, the subject of conspiracy theories, libertarians and the science behind the world’s climate processes is potentially very emotive; and I’m just as vulnerable as others in this respect.
So I don’t read that interpretation at all.
Just my two-pennies worth!
LikeLike
“the science behind the world’s climate processes is potentially very emotive; and I’m just as vulnerable as others in this respect”
Indeed, so are we all, and that is why we have to try to be strong and disciplined.
LikeLike
When people like Alex Jones respond by saying they have their own opinions regarding climate science, I am afraid I despair even more… The fossil fuel industry has been amazingly effective in persuading all kinds of people to think they are part of some computer game wherein you should “Question everything and trust no-one”…
This can be roughly translated as, “Doubt all authority figures and trust your own judgement only”. This is the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas, which deludes people into believing it is legitimate to rely upon their own judgement regardless of their capacity to process information and reach a valid conclusion.
Please note that I mean no disrespect to Alex or anyone else: I am just saying that we all need to recognise the limits of our own expertise. Sadly, more than any other single factor, we have failed to prevent ecocide because so many people have failed to do this.
LikeLike
Thanks for publishing this, Paul. Two minor observations on this post, as it is:
(1) In the second paragraph after your quote from the Bristol University website, you have wrongly assumed that “ideation” (an academic term explained between the commas) was a typographical error by me and wrongly inserted the word “idealisation” instead.
(2) You appear to be missing an HTML closure tag to end the italics in your post script/reflections.
Apart from that, I am happy to report that I got an emailed response from Stephan Lewandowsky, in which he agreed that libertarian ideology is the main problem; but emphasised that this is not the focus of his personal research. He also expressed some sympathy with my frustration, but recommended that I not waste my time trying to argue with people whose minds are closed. Indeed, as Peter Sinclair has also told me in the past, he suggested that I just stick to pointing people in the direction of the facts.
To this end, I have recently had an interesting exchange of views with World-famous pseudo-sceptic, Stephen Wilde, who is an amateur meteorologist and a professional solicitor, on the blog of a third party. My second comment in this exchange is an attempt by me to act on the advice I have received. I reproduce it here for the benefit of your readers:
I guess that this is still argumentation and it still not going to convince such a prominent pseudo-sceptic as Wilde – who is apparently equally certain that he is right – but, if so, I am afraid I clearly cannot help myself…
LikeLike
Very nice post, Paul. May I reproduce Martin Lack’s text on our new blog, “The frog that jumped out”?
http://thefrogthatjumpedout.blogspot.it/
I think, by the way, that it is a blog that the readers of “leaning from dogs” may be interested in
LikeLike
Ugo, see Creative Commons Licence link under Blog Map.
Thanks for your kind words.
Paul.
LikeLike
P.S. tried to leave a comment on your blog but couldn’t sort out a profile, as required. Strongly recommend you switch to WordPress.
LikeLike