I would rec again http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/5/10/94613/2429

there you can find that it is not about being stubborn, neither that they do not get the "facts".. or anything like that..
it is about narratives, and structural narratives...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

I'm a climate denier as well.  We don't have a climate in Ireland, just weather, and that often consists of four seasons in a day.  That's why we talk about it all the time.  Have a nice day.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

No so-called "Global Warming" here:   :-)

"Snow will come to the Colorado mountains Monday night and then to the Front Range by Tuesday morning. A winter storm watch is in effect for the Front Range foothills starting Monday night and could provide significant snowfall... A winter storm warning and snow advisory is in effect for many mountain locations from Monday night through Tuesday evening. Six to 12 inches are possible in the higher foothills west of the Interstate 25 corridor."
http://cbs4denver.com/local/snow.denver.colorado.2.721649.html

I think you may find the work of psychologist Robert Altemeyer of interest. He defines the group that you are concerned with as "right wing authoritarians" and has found a high correlation between such ideologues and conservative social ideas.

He has a free, online book which summarizes his 40+ years of research on this topic. You can read it at theAuthoritarians.com

It seems to be a personality thing and as you have discovered debate is pointless.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

I see it as more a partisan effect. Most people don't care or think that much about most issues. They choose their party based on a couple things which appeal to them and group cultural affinities, and on those which they aren't that interested in they simply adopt the party line. As an issue becomes more politicized the partisan divide grows.

Take a completely different type of issue - abortion and gay rights views among the white working class. Working class dems are generally more socially conservative than affluent liberals, but far less so than working class republicans. But unlike upper middle class dems, it is rare for social issues to be the key to their partisan affiliation - they're democrats because of economic issues. However, since being pro-choice is part of the core dem identity they tend to adopt it. The same thing happens with economic issues for upper middle class types who beome democrats out of disgust with the fundie social conservatism of the republicans. It's far from a perfect correlation, especially because of regional divides which lead democratic politicians to be pro-life in very socially conservative areas and the reverse effect in socially liberal areas, but it is quite noticeable. You get a reverse effect on the republican side.

While canvassing up in NH it was quite interesting to see it work out. NH was until recently a deep, deep red state, now it is blue leaning purple (to give you an idea not that long ago an NH sen was thinking of running an independent bid for president because the Republicans were soft on social issues - it was the Wyoming of New England).

I'd be talking with a guy in a run down house with his American Flag flying in the yard, bible quotes on the wall, and yellow ribbon decal on his truck, and they'd ask me, so what's Edward's position on abortion or gay rights? Uhhh (oh fuck) well he's pro choice and supports civil unions but not gay marriage and did I mention his health care plan?. Good! Ain't no damn politician in Washington gonna be telling MY daughter what do with her body if she screws up, and why shouldn't they get married, don't get them but it don't affect me.  FWIW the only such social issue where you didn't get this effect was guns. Your working class yellow dog dems up there were very into gun rights. On the other hand, what they spent most of their time talking about was health care (single payer now!), trade (shut the borders, now!), labour rights, and heating oil prices (if you're taking home $2000/mo and the cost of heat is $500/mo you're really hurting.

Yet as recently as 1980 George Bush Sr was a prominent  Texas republican - and pro choice, while blue collar dem politicians tended to see stuff like that as degenerate bourgeois immorality.  Global warming is headed the same way, helped along by the pro-business anti-tax, anti regulation Republican slant.

Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no where. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again.

Sounds like debating a Creationist.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

Denialists look pretty motivated and determined. Just consider this Institute. They even made up a Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. They certainly please certain power elites. For the elites, wide denial is a "reasonable" strategy. Who will complain?

So, what is Climate Change denialism, then?

Claiming that there is no climate change?

That it is not caused by human activity?

That its consequences do not justify mitigating or preventive policies?

That we should just adapt to it?

Are all these forms of Climate Change denialism equivalent in their underlying motivations?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

...arguing with creationists, oh excuse me, "intelligent design proponents."  They aren't interested in reason, and every argument you make is just an opportunity for them to parse and twist your words to their ends.

We have replied to this article at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/environmentalism-frustrated-angry-and.html

As follows:
Over at the Daily Kos, and European Tribune, blogger 'Johnnyrook' attempts to connect 'denialism' with an ideology. The piece itself is an answer to a blog post elsewhere by Joseph Romm, The denialists are winning, especially with the GOP. David Roberts tried this approach on the Nation blog back in February:

Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference.

We replied that environmentalism used 'science' as a fig leaf. Environmentalism is an ideological position, whereas scepticism encompasses a range of objections to it, some of which are, in fact, perfectly valid on scientific grounds.

What Johnnyrook writes in Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology is, frankly, unmitigated and unimportant crap. But it does offer some insight into the 'thought processes' of grass-roots Environmentalism. Johnnyrook whines that

Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no where. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again.

Climaticide? Climaticide? Is it even possible to kill a climate? But moving on, Johnnyrook clearly believes himself to be in possession of a faultless argument. So it must be the rest of the world that's wrong. Who said environmentalism was emotional, arrogant, and infantile?

After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways.

Our advice to little Johnny is that perhaps his tantrums would be easier to manage if he reflected on why his arguments aren't convincing, rather than sought to find other reasons to explain his failure. But Johnny's tantrums are characteristic of the environmental movement as a whole - a movement that is unable to take responsibilty for its own failures.

No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to knowing how to respond to denialist arguments. Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin (Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism), restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism), the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government" (Conservative/Libertarian).

And here Johnny gives us some insight into why he fails to make convincing political arguments. First, he doesn't recognise his own perspective as ideological, and that it is, in his own terms, about a 'single cause'. Perhaps we can help him - spell it out for him, in fact; with the aid of some emphasis to illustrate our point:
ENVIRONMENTalism


Environmentalists see society as intrinsically, fundamentally, inextricably linked to 'nature' - manifested as the 'environment'. To the Environmentalist, all moral actions are transmitted through the biosphere. Your wealth, relative to another's poverty is not seen in terms of the political, sociological, or historical background to your circumstances and those of your counterparts. It is instead seen in terms of biological and geological processes. You buy a big car, and the consequence is that it rains too much/doesn't rain at all on the poor, starving child in Africa. So, instead of addressing the poverty of the poor child through developing a critique of the socio-political relations throughout the world in order that we might begin to help, the Environmentalist just wants you to withdraw from your evil lifestyle. This moral framework is unchallengeable, according to the Environmentalist, because the causal chain between your consumer choice and the plight of the child in can be explained in 'scientific' rather than social terms; the car, the combustion, the CO2, the greenhouse effect, the warming, the climate change, the drought. (Forget any sense of proportion between these steps).

This perspective takes poverty as a given. Indeed, it needs poverty. Without poverty to designate a moral absolute, Environmentalism's moral calculations would cease to have meaning. Its objectives are, therefore, not to abolish poverty, but to make it 'less bad'. And, of course, the abolishment of poverty is, according to Johnny's maxim, 'ideological'. Thus, we are prevented from approaching the problem of poverty - or even the effects of climate change - through politics. In other words, poverty is not seen as a political problem. After all, poverty is natural. Just ask Malthus.

Second, Johnny gives us a particularly ignorant description of ideologies. Christianity is all about 'original sin', apparently. But can we comfortably say that Christianity is an ideology? It may well offer us an account of creation, but not necessarily to the exclusion of other ideological ideas. Can a Christian not be committed to free trade, on the one hand, or the abolition of private property on the other? There are interesting moral arguments for both. But why should Jesus be bothered, either way? And isn't that a problem for Christians, rather than political scientists? Communism, apparently, blames all problems on the accumulation of private property. Actually, Marx's contention was that the accumulation of private property is necessary to create a working class in an industrial - rather than feudal - society. In this sense, the accumulation begins to solve many of the problems of oppression and inequality. And Johnny is very much mistaken with his conception of Fascism, which he confuses with nazism. Nazism is indeed a racialised form of Fascism. But Fascism itself isn't a necessarily a racist ideology, and there is no consensus amongst historians about how fascism can be characterised; it is an issue of much debate, somewhat clouded by the fact that, at the time of fascism and Nazism, ideas about race such as eugenics were mainstream and orthodox - dare we say, the subject of a consensus. Finally, Johnny confuses libertarianism with conservatism. Yet conservatism, as the name suggests, seeks to use the state to preserve social orders, traditions and cultures, while libertarianism is a broader term, in that a libertarian would generally object to the state's intervention in such matters. Johnny's grasp on political ideologies is weak. No wonder then, that he fails to recognise his own.

He continues, oblivious,

Once the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated chain of deductive reasoning--Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all debate outside the ideology's framework ends.

Hmm. Hasn't Johnny opened his story by telling us that carbon is the source of society's ills?

One may deduce new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus, inevitably, by it's very nature, anti-empirical.

We repeat:
ENVIRONMENTalism
Moreover, is it not precisely uncertainty that blights the environmental movement? Isn't it the environmental movement that needs to tell us that 'the science is in'? Wasn't it Johnny who was, just a few paragraphs ago, evincing his own sheer and absolute rightness? Isn't the entire momentum of the environmental movement predicated on a 'scientific consensus'?

Johnny borrows from Naomi Oreskes critique of the "tobacco strategy", which we discuss - at some length - here. Oreskes' thesis is that doubt has been manufactured against the scientific case that smoking causes cancer and that global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, out of an ideological conviction. This forgets two things:

1. That, whatever the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer is, and whatever the evidence that humans are influencing the climate is, our response to that evidence is necessarily political. Only a lack of response - indifference - is apolitical. In the case of smoking, the possible political responses to such information are many: we could put out the information that smoking causes cancer; we could resrict the sale of tobacco; we could ban it altogether; or we could even decide that we should all smoke more and die horribly. But all options are political.

2. That any objection to a political argument in favour of a course of action, founded on a scientific case, will necessarily 'doubt' that the scientific evidence is sufficient to warrant the political action to which one objects. To point that out is to state the obvious.

Johnny's uncertainty and Oreskes' 'tobacco strategy' hypotheses are meaningless. They say no more than "objectors doubt the proposition". But Oreskes and Johnny have convinced themselves that scientific evidence exists in some seperate, apolitical space, from where it can make scientifically sound political arguments; they hide their political ideology behind their scientific fig leaves.

He continues with another mischaracterisation...

The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State but private capital.

Actually, the state is the 'enemy' in Marxism. For Marx, communist society is a stateless society, and the state is the apparatus of the bourgeoisie; it maintains the conditions in which the working classes are oppressed. Marx explicitly seeks the abolition of the state. Johnny is completely wrong.

He goes on to argue that it is pointless to argue with people who hold an 'ideological' objection to climate change alarmism, because 'facts' are not important to them. He offers a psychological account of his political opponents:

ideologues find psychological safety from an uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though it's not your intention.

We have seen attempts to profile the psychology of 'deniers' before. Here, for example.

What is interesting here is that Johnny, who, as we can see, fails to recognise his own ideology as an ideology, now makes an attack against all ideology - against all political perspectives. Ideology is now a symptom of a pathology, in much the same way that religion is seen as a pathology by Richard Dawkins et al; it is a comforting delusion, with a biological basis. This scientistic nihilism allows Johnny to diminish his opposition, rather than confront them. Isn't this what the Nazi's do, according to Johnny's account of ideology, to other races? Aren't other races, by virtue of this pathology, not only morally and intellectually inferior, but biologically inferior too? Johnny has just diminished his opponents to sub-humans, who do not have the right to engage in political discussion or to raise political objections. Disagree with Johnny and you are persona non grata. Johnny isn't even capable of identifying the opposition - of which he is evidently utterly ignorant - to his ideas. He doesn't need to know what ideas in an ideology might commit an 'ideologue' to an objection to Environmentalism, and it would seem that he doesn't care. All he can see is that convictions to ideas appear to stand in the way of his own beliefs.

Johnny's claim to empiricism belies his blatant anti-intellectualism. He too wants 'facts' but only in the sense that a caveman wants a club. He says that "one should generally ignore the denialists and concentrate on persuading the open minded". But anyone who is open-minded has to agree with him, or they are suddenly closed-minded. Johnny finishes:

For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the role that conservative/libertarian ideology plays in determining Climaticide denialist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can be very useful in making sense of the denialist position, a position which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but in political and psychological needs.

For Johnny to tell us that 'denialists' are blinded by ideology seems as reasonable as, say, somebody who wants to completely reorganise society around a principle of, ohh, let's say, 'harmony with nature', telling us that they are against reorganising society around a particular principle. Of course Johnny has an ideology - Environmentalism. And of course he is an 'ideologue'. Why then, does Johnny protest so much about ideology?

Johnny's inability to reflect on his own ideology, his poor grasp of politics and his disregard for others all go some way to explaining his frustration, anger, and confusion. This is a symptom of the environmental movement. We have written before about the many different ways that Environmentalists have tried to diminish their opponents by questioning their psychology and moral character, and by trying to locate a conspiracy - in every way, in fact, other than through careful, honest, political argument. Johnny's emotions characterise the shrill, impatient, self importance of the environmental movement, which prefers trantrums to debate, and panic and alarmism to convincing arguments. It prizes emotion over intellectual engagement. Environmentalism isn't so much a cause to fight for, than a symptom of belonging to nothing. It is, nontheless, an ideology - one that needs to be challenged.