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, RogerPielkeJr.blogspot.com, ClimateDepot, Dr.RoySpenser.com 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.'”