Climate deniers object to being called conspiracy theorists: propose conspiracy to explain why labelled such

 The Lewandowsky paper – NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax – that proposes a strong link between free market ideology and conspiracy beliefs is starting to get coverage in the media.

Surprisingly it has been reported in The Telegraph, a publication noted for promoting climate scepticism:

An Australian study says avid climate change deniers tend to be either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked or Princess Diana was murdered.

The study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, also found that those who reject the scientific consensus on the human contribution to climate change are more likely to reject other scientific findings such as the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer or between HIV and Aids. 

The paper, titled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, was based on a survey of more than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussion of climate change.

I find it encouraging that mainstream media is now starting to pick up on what many of us have been saying for some time. However, as one would expect of any article on climate change the denial brigade is out in full force – and they’re not happy about being labelled conspiracy theorists.

Indeed, they see it all as part of a conspiracy against them. And that the science is really a conspiracy as well. A selection of quotes from the comments:

The best defense is offence. So it appears, Lewandowsky, being a “shrink” no less, has been charged with leading the troops to pimp more grant money to keep graduate students sucking on the public tit. 

There is only one answer to the question – who profits most from what is looking every day more like a scam. Those who oppose the theory or those who support it…………cui bono……..always the answer to those questions which produce two sides in which there can never be agreement. So far there is clear indication that many politicians have personal financial interests in keeping the ‘debate’ going for as long as possible. Cui Bono……….. 

Such a shame that the University of East Anglia showed scientists, at the heart of research which suggested that global warming was true, to have the moral compass (and professional standards) of a bunch of traders on the Barclays LIBOR desk. That set back the credibility of the global warming community by a decade or two, despite what happened and the scandalous, unscientific actions of key people being clearly beyond debate.