Study Tries to Link Climate 'Denial' to Conspiracy Theories, Free Market Beliefs

The Left does not like the free market, preferring a communist system. After all, government knows best, right?

Because of that, liberals protest, twist facts, lie and try to sneak in socialist policies at every opportunity to undercut businesses and capitalism in general.

They do the same when it comes to anyone who opposes their global warming policies or any other part of the liberal agenda. And if you question an "official" liberal policy or version of history, then you get lumped into that most denigrated of groups, "conspiracy theorists."

So it was probably inevitable that there would eventually be a study linking conspiracy theories, global warming denial and free market beliefs.

University of Western Australia psychology professor Stephan Lewandowsky surveyed more than 1,000 people for his paper, "NASA Faked the Moon Landing Therefore (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science," which is scheduled to be published in Psychological Science magazine.

According to the study abstract, Lewandowsky conducted the survey through science websites to find factors that might be linked to "denialism." He contacted eight "pro-science" blogs and five "skeptic" blogs. None of the skeptic sites posted the link to his study.

What Lewandowsky's study reports is a strong connection between global warming skepticism, free-market thinking and conspiracy theories, such as that NASA faked the moon landings.

But now, several "deniers" are showing their skepticism about how the study was conducted. Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That," a popular and highly regarded climate change website, reviewed Lewandowsky's study and questions how the "skeptic" sites were selected. He also alleges that Lewandowsky may have provided different survey questions to different sites, thus tainting the data, and may have discussed his "results" before the study was completed, suggesting a pre-determined outcome.

Lewandowsky has not released a list of the skeptic blogs he chose. He says he is waiting for permission from his university's ethics panel. Watts reports that he did not receive an invitation. Another blogger, Simon James, has filed a freedom of information request for the release of the names of the blogs used.

Based on the issues he noted, Watts has asked Psychological Science for a retraction of the study. Lewandowsky says the complaints he has been getting, including the questioning of whether he even contacted any skeptic blogs,  just prove his findings, that climate "deniers" are prone to conspiracy theories and doubting science in general.

"So now there‘s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them," Lewandowsky said. "It’s a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It’s illustrative of exactly the process I was analyzing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence."

Whether Lewandowsky did or did not follow acceptable scientific practices, the intended thrust of his findings is clearly to shovel belief in the free market and skepticism of climate change into the circular file with whatever the Left considers to be moonbat conspiracies.

Here's what I get out of the report, however: People who believe in the free market -- that independent people can and should operate without government interference -- aren't afraid to think independently and ask questions about "official" science and government explanations.

In short, they aren't reliant on some agreed-upon, cookie cutter propaganda to figure out what they believe. They can think for themselves and are confident enough to draw their own conclusions, even if they're not always "right."

And that scares the Left to no end.

Update, Sept. 11: The Blaze reported this morning that Lewandowsky has released the names of the "skeptic" blogs he contacted. They are Climate Audit,, ClimateDepot, and Science and Public Policy Institute blog. Except for the first one, Climate Audit, all of the blogs had said they were not contacted.

According to The Blaze: "Lewandowsky says in his post that all four of these blogs have said they were not contacted previously. Some bloggers alleged that he had not contacted any climate skeptic blogs, which Lewandowsky writes 'in light of such massive, and massively false, allegations numerous apologies ought to be forthcoming.'"



  • deeme

    The real conspiracy theorists are the ones who think God isn't in charge of our planet..they don't know climate will now and always has changed, and there is nothing this little tiny planet can do or ever has done to change that..I would also like to add that the EPA can say conservatives like dirty this and dirty that , but nothing can be further from the truth..their purpose is to put anyone who doesn't vote the way they see fit out of business.

  • HeartGuy

    Gee, and here I thought that skepticism was an integral part of the "scientific process". I guess we are to simply believe the "authorities" without question, eh? Just another Marxist progressive thugging his way into "officialdom".

  • flaphil

    George Carlin had an answer to these idiot liberal fools......

    • TexasJester

      I haven't watched your link, but I've heard his 15-minute rant on the environment - and I love his summary: "The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f***ed!" And remember - George Carlin was an avowed Marxist! And he HATED tree-huggers!

  • PaulN

    Just because you are paranoid does NOT mean they are not out to get you!
    Likewise, just because you are skeptical does NOT mean they are not lying to you!

  • Doc Smith

    Climates change and there is nothing you can do to effect it. Thats why they call it "climate change" now instead of "global warming". Just another excuse to spend our money on pipe dreams. Just another way to tell you how to live.

    • posttime

      And to tax us to death.

    • Lodatz

      "Thats why they call it "climate change" now instead of "global warming""

      Well, no, the reason they now call it Climate Change is because of spurious challenges made to the title Global Warming by people who like to pretend that the sea temperature dropping is somehow debunking the science (when in fact it reinforces the science).

      If so-called 'skeptics' weren't scraping the bottom of the barrel for their objections, scientists wouldn't have to waste time renaming the phenomenon just to prevent willful misrepresentation of the science.

      • Doc Smith

        Oh yes, we waste our time"scraping the bottom of the barrel for their objections" While the true believers of "science" spew forth their unsubstantiated "truth" about climate. We should expect the temperature to remain constant throughout time. What kind of moron are you? Climates change, temperatures change. Historical fact. This planet has seen all the extremes in temperature from way hot to sub zero freezing and it will again. nothing you or I can do will change that. To try is to waste money best used elsewhere. This is NOT Star Trek where we have a machine to control the weather. Never going to happen.

    • jrs

      You really think that pollution has absolutely no impact on the ecosystem? It sure effects health outcomes immediately for humans, why wouldn't it be the same for other living organisms?

      • Doc Smith

        Oh my! lets take all the carbon dioxide out of the eco-system! Oops, plants need it to live, sorry all plants die, so do you.

        You want to try to affect the eco-system? Stop all the ice breakers from chewing up the winter icepack. You don't think it damages the eco-system? Take two glasses of water and two cubes of ice, crush one and add to the water. Which one do you think will melt first? The crushed one. Ice breakers do more harm to the eco-system than any other three things put together..

        And just for your edification, the United states is over a thousand times cleaner than it was just 40 years ago. Cleaner water, cleaner air and cleaner land. You want to go after polluters? Go to the middle east, go to CHINA, go to africa, go to just about any other country. The cleanest countries are U.S. Canada, western europe, japan,

        You want to complain? Go where it may help. Just take a vest.

  • daves

    It doesn't sound the study was a very scientific process.

    Still, I have talked to many who think that climate change is a scam to make money and that so many people are involved that it must be a conspiracy.

  • acronymous

    The notion that humanity cannot affect the climate of the earth is rubbish. If we clear forests, that changes how the earth holds or reflects incoming sunlight. It also changes how the dirt holds rainwater or lets it run off. That changes rainfall patterns.

    All these things we have done for a thousand years and more, and they have already affected the earth's climate.

    Now, we are putting a vast quantity of extra CO2 into the atmosphere. The concentration is up from 290 ppm before the industrial revolution, to nearly 400 ppm today. Perhaps coincidentally, most alpine glaciers are in retreat, arctic sea ice is at an all time summer minimum since measurements began, the "fabled" Northwest passage is open, and yeah, we had another heat wave this summer. Now hot days can happen with or without any climate change, but it should be a clue that we're hitting new record highs (for a given day in a given town or state) much more often than we hit new record lows. This is new. Before 1970, new records were as likely to be lows as to be highs.

    Those who say we cannot change the climate are the heirs of those who said that passenger pigeons were too common to be killed off. Our climate is no more invulnerable than our forests or our birds. God didn't stop us from killing off the passenger pigeon. He told us not to, (well, by implication) but we went and did it anyhow. We can be that way, sinful and proud and stupid, all rolled into one.

    • TexasJester

      Here's some news fer ya, Skippy - you is WRONG!!

      The pilar ice is as THICK as it was during the Global Cooling of the 70s, not disappearing.

      TEMPERATURE drives CO2 concentration - not the other way around - and we can double - quadruple - the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the only real consequence is greener plants, and as a result, more free oxygen!

      I will agree that clear-cutting forests and jungles is a bad idea, but it's not going to change the climate as drastically as the warmingists like to preach.

      To be honest, the SUN has more to do with our climate that mankind has ever thought to be. Until we can control the Sun, we will never get a handle on controlling the climate here on Earth.

      Record highs - yeah, it's been hot. But records have been kept for only a hundred years or so - and the climate has been busy for a LOT longer than that! How do we KNOW that this summer is the hottest "ever"?? It's the hottest since the 1930s, but that's all we can compare!

      Back in the early 1300s, the vast part of Greenland was GREEN - the Norse who settled it weren't lying. Northern England grew better grapes for wine than France was, and the French protested and put an embargo on British wine. You can't grow any good grapes in England AT ALL now - the climate is too COLD!! Then around 1350, that all changed - the Little Ice Age began. The Norse in Greenland starved to death, because the were to stuck up to ear blubber, and supply ships coundn't get in because of the ice. The Ice Age peaked around 1650. When Washington crossed the ice-choked Patomic, it was because we were still in the ice age. The Victorian paintings of people skating on the Thymes River in London wass a regular thing, because of the Ice Age. This was in the early 1800s. We are just now coming out of this Little Ice Age - THAT is why the trend is toward warmer temperatures, NOT because we are screwing things up!

      Btw, the Little Ice Age was COMPLETELY left out of the calculations for global warming. This is the only reason they were able to come up with this result.

      Listen to the George Carlin rant in the link another poster put up. And remember - he was an avowed communist! And he HATED you tree-huggers!!!!

    • TexasOlTimer

      It appears that acronymous didn't take chemistry in school. I learned in first year chemistry that CO2 is a trace element. We were given the visual example that if you take a box that will contain a square meter and fill it with green marbles (representing all gases in the atmosphere except CO2) then add 2 yellow marbles, that's the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. Obviously if you add 2 more yellow marbles, you've not made a significant change.

      Temperature drives the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere - colder weather, less CO2; hotter weather, more CO2 - but neither has the effect the "global warmist" would like you to believe.

      This global warming - now called climate change - has been promoted by those with the UN. This isn't a theory - use your search engine and check out "UN Agenda 21." The only way to implement this is to control all countries and the only thing all countries have in common is the air that the people breath.

      I'm not a conspiracy theorist as it is usually described. However, stop and think about it - if two or more people have an agenda to do something (usually described as evil but that isn't necessarily so), it is a conspiracy - whether to give mom a surprise birthday party or rule the world. When an agenda is perpetrated on the world that is based on deliberately falsified data, it is a conspiracy and one that may cause the downfall of our country.

    • Lyle Felix

      You speak of God but yet you have little or NO faith that God can reverse man's mistakes?

      I would hate to have to trust that your God would be able to save my soul if He couldn't do something to reverse your whacked out man caused Chicken Little theory of Global Warming or Climate Change or what ever you liberals are calling it these days.

  • garry williamson

    Any idiot can see that the climate is changing and the historical record showing climate change has been around far longer than people have. The question is how much is man made and how much is not man made.
    The government says it's mostly man made and uses that as an excuse to raise our prices through taxes and weigh us down with more regulations.
    Then there are those who think it is more of a natural occurance and there is little we can do about it. They still believe in green energy just not on the backs of the people with higher prices and more regulations.

    • Lodatz

      "The government says it's mostly man made and uses that as an excuse to raise our prices through taxes and weigh us down with more regulations."

      What prices? What on earth are you talking about? The government has jack-all to do with the price of gas, coal or oil. Those prices are set by the giant oil cartels. What extra taxes are you suffering because of the EPA, which accounts for about 2% of the Federal Budget?

      Are you even serious??

      Good grief the people posting on this site are horrendously ill-informed.

      • no hippie chick

        Wow, don't you realize 20-30% of fuel prices ARE taxes. Never mind, you won't listen anyway. I wish you well

      • Lyle Felix

        Lodatz, "Good grief the people posting on this site are horrendously ill-informed."

        YES! "Ill-informed" of what YOU BELIEVE by not falling prey to any of the liberal "Axe to Grind" "Get that government Grant" liberal "Chicken Little" scientists that you follow. And, I suspect, that most of us do not have the strength of FAITH that you have to believe the "Global Warming" false profits ginormous claims of unprovable (FACTS?).

        Get a mind dude and take off your blinders and then you may just be enlightened by some truth and save yourself from standing with ALL the idiots that believe there is "Nothing" after this life. Well,,,,,,,,,,, guess what,,,,,,,,,, there is far more after this life than EVERYONE that has ever lived on this earth have ever seen and experienced,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, COMBINED.

        And, if you do have some inkling of God, then thank Him and get off the fence. This world and all of its less than perfect values and puny wisdom from ALL of its wisest humans totaled, is not going to save you from the coming end (not through Global Warming) that ONLY God can control and knows when that will happen.

  • northbrook

    Climate has been changing since the earth was created. Accept it for what it is nothing mankind attempts to do will have any significant effect in changing it.

    • Lodatz

      The Earth is flat, and has been since it was created. Accept it for what it is, and nothing mankind discovers will change this fact.

      That is about as useful and correct a statement as your own. Being willfully ignorant is not something to be proud of. Reality doesn't conform to what you WANT to be true, only what is ACTUALLY true.

      • J.B.

        You definitely seem to be an authority on being willingfully ignorant.

  • TeeJaw

    Many so-called scientists, Michael Mann of Penn State being the most representative, stand to gain financially from their global warming advocacy. Many others less well known derive their paychecks from government grants brought in by Michael Mann and his kind. If your income depends on global warming being serious science you will defend it vigorously. Those people cannot be trusted to act as indifferent scientists seeking truth.

    Many others who don’t benefit financially will nevertheless derive psychological benefits from being associated with the cause.

    Normal people who don’t stand to gain monetarily nor derive any psychological gratification from bandwagon beliefs will naturally be skeptical of claims that seem on their face to be outlandish.

    Those of us old enough to remember the great global cooling scare were not impressed when it was switched to warming, and remain skeptical that the gases we exhale every time we breathe are somehow going to destroy the planet. An increase from 290 PPM to 400 PPM does not seem worth loosing any sleep over, and now there is new science that tends to confirm that the worries over CO2 were completely unjustified.

    Combine normal skepticism with clear proof of deception [think East Anglia emails, hockey stick trick, etc.] on the part of so many scientists, and no conspiracy theory is needed to recognize the whole thing as a hoax.

    • Lodatz

      This post is hilarious.

      I mean, seriously, think about what you are saying, for longer than ten seconds. You are claiming that scientists, whose paychecks and grants are pretty modest, and who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge, are faaaaaar more likely to defraud the public in order to make money than, say, multinational corporations who stand to make (or lose) billions of dollars of profit if the science is upheld as true.

      If you really think that greed is a strong enough motivator to make someone lie and fabricate data dishonestly, the fact that you think scientists instead of businessmen are more suspicious is... well, that's just grade A level dumb.

      Sorry to be so blunt, but your argument doesn't deserve any more dignity than that.

      • J.B.

        I can't believe you think Dems are so honest and don't fabricate. Ever think these scientists might be paid by these multinational corporations and/or gov't to make false claims, have investments that would profit from these claims, etc.? Greed makes a lot of people do a lot of stupid things, and then other people believe them and spout it as if they're hard cold facts.
        I don't see them explaining the Medieval warm period or the current galaxy warming phenomenon. I suppose we're somehow responsible for them as well right? We pollute so much it's effecting the whole galaxy, not only that, but it's transcended time and caused warming in the past beyond what we're experiencing today.
        What about the thousands of scientists that disagree with the climate change propaganda?
        There's evidence that warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun (as in solar flares), not humans. Not that you'd ever accept that since it goes against what you've been taught by the religion of climate change.
        Learn to think for yourself and look into things instead of just regurgitating everything you've been fed by the liberal media. If you think the Dems are so moral and honest, and care about you then you're in for a real surprise/disappointment.

      • TeeJaw

        I cited specific instances of dishonesty among scientists. The Piltdown Man affair was a scientific hoax that lasted for almost 40 years before it was exposed.

        When the main thrust of a counter argument is that the other guy is dumb, especially if that is all you have, you lose the argument.
        Scientists are largely academics and that pretty much means they are largely liberal, often outright Marxist. The hallmark of a liberal is that the ends always justify the means. They believe that lying to support their cause is perfectly OK because they believe their cause is holy and those who dare to question them are speaking for Satan.

  • Mark Ward

    Lewandowsky is RIGHT, " numerous apologies ought to be forthcoming", and Mr. Lewandowsky, we're WAITING for YOUR apologies!

  • TheTexasCooke

    Lewandowsky is a whore.....nothing more.

  • Schrecken

    It's pretty obvious to see why the whole "climate change" movement has been likened to a religion - disagree and you are a heretic and they will try to do anything to attack and silence you. It has nothing to do with science, because if it did, anyone who dared publish an opposing view point, regardless of whether the subject is medicine, theoretical physics, paleontology, astronomy, etc, would also be viciously attacked in the same way as "climate change" skeptics. It is normal within scientific discourse and research to have disagreements, but apparently when there's lots of money involved (you also see this with many medical studies, where the data are often skewed to promote - or attack - a certain product, drug, food, etc) skeptics are savagely attacked as their findings may mean an end to the research grant gravy train.

    • Lodatz

      I think you have it backwards. So-called 'scientists' who are claiming they have contradictory evidence are the ones being paid millions of dollars to do so, while regular scientists get only thousands. That's the ridiculous irony of the argument you're making.

      Gravy-train, indeed. :p

      • no hippie chick

        Again, your comment validates the previous point. Thank you for being here.

  • Mary Elizabeth Danuser

    When did we stop being honest with people? What are we afraid of ?Liz

    • alan_1969

      Now days, if we are honest, then we might be offending someone. I don't care. I perfer honesty and liars offend me.

      • Lodatz

        Then why do you vote Republican? They haven't said anything direct or honest for about a decade.

        Ohhhhhh, I bet you meant that you're just offended by anyone who disagrees with you, don't you? Damn that freedom of expression malarky, right?

        Scientists are pretty much the most honest demographic you could ever meet, because there is zero for them to gain by deception. Their entire field relies upon honesty -- if a scientist makes a false claim, it will be exposed by other scientists. Had anyone rushed through their work just to 'get a paycheck', then guess what? Electricity wouldn't work. The internet wouldn't function. Your iPod would be faulty and the space rockets would have blown up.

        Science is the most honest practice known to Man -- that's why damn near everything we have we OWE to science. Do you believe the doctors that treat you when you're ill? Do you believe the astrophysicists that bring you majestic views of the heavens? Do you trust the engineers who design your car?

        If you do, then why do you disbelieve those same people when they point out that the Earth's climate is changing at a rate more rapid than anything in recorded history by a factor of 14?

        I wonder if the fact that you've been TOLD to doubt them, by corporate-funded hacks and by corporate-bought politicians has anything to do with it. :p They've made you distrust the very people you should be trusting most.

        • alan_1969

          You don't know how I vote. Besides, none of the politicians have ever been honest. I do believe in science and I appreciate science, but too many in that field fabricate results and when they do, someone else will know they did, but it still happens.

  • FireMike

    This "scientist" speaks of scientific research without using the Scientific Method. He molded the outcaome he wanted by polluting the course of his enquiry.

  • Lodatz

    It's hilarious that this article rails against what it calls 'conspiracy theories', whilst at the same time claiming that evil liberals are all involved in an elaborate conspiracy to destroy capitalism, and that they all get together to plot how best to undercut business.

    Way to yell 'black!' at the kettle, Mr. Pot.

  • Gringo Infidel

    Bogus and unscientific study period. Discounted due to its built in and obvious preconceived conclusions.