Wray Herbert: A Climate for Conspiracy: Imaginary Plots and Global Warming

Cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia has been studying climate deniers and conspiratorial thinking -- and the link between the two. He suspected that climate deniers -- as opposed to climate "skeptics," who actually use the tools of science to verify facts -- are highly prone to unrelated kinds of conspiracy thinking, and also to a conservative, pro-business ideology. He decided to test these ideas by questioning people who write and read blogs related to global warming.

He chose blogs because people with an anti-science bias have found a welcoming home on the Internet. Science denial is difficult to practice in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature, but such contrarian views can be freely expressed in the blogosphere, where conspiracy theorists can feed one another's feelings of persecution.

LORD STERN ELECTED BRITISH ACADEMY PRESIDENT

Professor Lord Stern of Brentford was today elected as the next President of the British Academy. Nicholas Stern will succeed the current President, Sir Adam Roberts, in a year's time.

Flashback: Grantham climate hoax promoter Nicholas Stern still babbling something about CO2-induced "massive loss of life" and "Southern Europe looking like the Sahara desert"

Twitter / keithkloor: Fun to see green writers & ...

Fun to see green writers & climate pundits talk up U.S. carbon emission reductions that is largely due to natural gas they are hostile to.

Twenty Times More Likely (Not): The Science | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

Substitute “distinctly more probable” for “20 times more likely to occur”, and add at the end, “with global warming being a contributing factor”, and you have an accurate and defensible summary of the paper. But that’s not what the NOAA press release said.

So, NOAA, now you have the more gullible members of the public believing that the heat wave really was proven to be 20 times more likely because of global warming, and we have the more skeptical members of the public believing that research produced by NOAA doesn’t even pass the smell test. At least you got good press coverage, and all publicity is good publicity, right?