As some readers of this blog may know, I [Bruce Bartlett] was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush’s policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don’t know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI “scholars” on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn’t already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.

This is the prominence I was referring to, and seems that some conservatives, at least, are worried about what it will do to the ‘conservative brain’ in the long run.

Without the rational right we are all worse off.

Unfortunately such nuanced discussions are not well suited for a written from… especially when I start to nitpick:)

Well, sure I am, but I guess I’m getting annoyed with the whole thing. I mean, I am honestly 100% prepared to accept that global warming is false, or that it’s not man-made, or whatever. But only if somebody can put together a coherent argument to support what they’re saying, only if they can actually give us some convincing things to think about. The overwhelming majority of arguments I hear from ‘deniers’ are so poor that it makes me sad even just seeing them on the table.

>There are plenty of very smart conservatives, despite
>the fact that conservatism in the US has taken an
>turn for anti-intellectualism.

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t plenty of smart conservatives. I’m suggesting that maybe they’re just harder to come by, as opposed to when you’re walking through a liberal crowd. And the turn towards ‘anti-intellectualism’ is a baffling thing, one that I guarantee you are likely to see a lot less often amongst smart people and scientists. Intelligent people generally don’t go for that kind of stuff. Because it’s stupid.

>I say this as someone who finds himself shifting
>towards conservatism (but not social conservatism) as
>time passes. And it is worth noting that Hansen sees
>himself as a moderate conservative as well.

I should be perfectly clear about this: I’m not talking about all the people who might identify themselves as being “conservative”. There’s nothing wrong with fiscal conservatives at all, or even social conservatives as long as they’re not infringing on the rights of others. I myself probably fit the “libertarian” label overall, which in a sense makes me conservative as hell. But the conservative philosophies of me or you or Hansen are not relevant to what I’m getting at.

I’m talking about that certain kind of special conservative… I don’t know what the label would be. They fell for the Iraq war hype without a second thought. They consider a single winter snowfall in the Texas desert to be proof that global warming isn’t real. They don’t believe that Obama was born in the USA. They think that scientists are all dead wrong about evolution, and interpret the book of Genesis as historical fact. They go to protests with glaring, ridiculous misspellings on signs, screaming about gays, or fascism and Hitler’s Germany. The list goes on and on. I feel gross even referring to them as “conservatives” because it seems to do a disservice to all the legitimate, rational conservative people out there. But I’m not sure what else to call them. There are all sorts of different types, as I just illustrated, but the common thing that unites them seems to be a miserable grasp of basic logic, and a track record of voting for the republican party.

>I think for many it is a gut ration. They are
>intrinsically skeptical of government regulation
>(as am I) and see AGW as requiring more
>regulation.

I’m always skeptical when it comes to government intervention, and I think that’s healthy.

>From that they make the jump that it must
>be all a sham.

Right, and that’s where they lose their credibility with me. That’s where they take what could be a very logical argument and push it off a cliff, to the detriment of us all. First casualty: honest, rational debate.

>What I would like to see is some conservatives
>argue how they would deal with AGW if for the
>sake of argument they assume it to be true and
>catastrophic.

I think that would be a worthy exercise, it would totally make sense to explore that question if you were having an honest debate with one of these folks. But I think you will find that most republicans don’t appreciate such discourse, don’t see the value in really exploring such a distraction, and generally wouldn’t engage you like that. Instead their response would be something more along the lines of “well it’s not true and catastrophic, so it doesn’t matter”. They’re not exploring, or learning, or pursuing the truth… they’re just *arguing*, they’re trying to *win*. And that’s if you’re lucky enough to find one who is interested in really debating this stuff with you at all.

>As for why are they not rational? I think the vast
>majority really have no idea what the science of
>AGW says. And for that matter neither do
>most liberals…

This is very true. When considered on an individual level though, most of us are not scientists, and most of us don’t have access to the data, but we’re still weighing evidence on our own nonetheless, and reasonably so. Personally, my thinking goes something like this: 1) We know scientists generally understand a lot about the way things work; 2) I understand the scientific process and see how they structure their ideas, based on facts and evidence; 3) The majority of climate scientists are alarmed because of patterns they’re seeing in the data; 4) Therefore we had better pay attention to what they’re talking about.

This kind of reasoning should be inherently far more convincing to each of us internally than a jumble of theories about it being some kind of anti-capitalist conspiracy to hinder wealth and progress, or the result of thousands of researchers being corrupted and/or tricked into supporting false ideas, or that it’s all some kind of “scam to bolster the UN” (whatever that means). Even given a lack of first hand evidence on a personal level, we can still draw some pretty reasonable (though tentative) conclusions about the truth of the matter.

>Careful here. Liberal or Democrat? or was that
>conservative instead of Republican.

Sorry, I should be specific. I think it’s safe to say I’m talking about Democrat voters vs Republican voters.

>The fiscal conservatives I know are very intelligent,
>even if not that knowledgeable in matters of science.

I would hope that they could be comfortable accepting the science of climate change while at the same time finding ways to argue against the use of potentially unnecessary government legislation and taxes to fight it, etc etc. Like I said, there are rational ways to argue against almost anything, but deniers generally don’t use many of those.

>>What does it do to the ‘deniers’ ability to make a convincing argument?
>
>I don’t think it does much. Ask a liberal to make a
>convincing argument about why we attribute the
>recent warming trend to our GHG emissions and
>you are likely to get an unconvincing argument.

Agreed. Yes, sorry, again I was sloppy. I wasn’t talking about individual deniers, but the whole movement. How does the ‘denial’ movement as a whole (I know, still sloppy) make a convincing argument when 99% of the world’s scientists are on the other side? How to make a logically, rationally convincing argument… when a worldwide industry of sticklers for logic/reason repeatedly goes through the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion?

>How about Richard Lindzen? What would he say?
>Some ramblings about conspiracy. But some science
>also. His Iris theory is interesting, though it is
>contradicted by the paleoclimate record and
>observational data. Still it is interesting.

Excellent! I hadn’t heard of him, but that dude is clearly *very* legitimate. Also actually quite interesting overall. His criticisms are maybe a little mild though. I intend to read up on him some more and hopefully find others who share his perspective, at least I can respect him. I was, however, a little amused to see this:
“Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.”

Nonetheless, he’s clearly not using nonsensical arguments when he goes up against so many of his colleagues, the dude is capable of holding his own. He definitely counts as a ‘denier’ who is logical and scientific… the first I have come across. So that’s… one…

>I have found stupid people all over the political
>spectrum.

That’s a given.

>The difference now in the US, is that that the many
>republican politicians seem perfectly satisfied
>pandering to it.

There it is, that’s a big part of what I’m getting at. What’s with all the stupid? And why is it that it’s republican politicians doing that so much more often than democrats?

>I think anti-science runs deep on both sides, and as
>said before in this comment, the only real difference
>is that Republican politicians are pandering to
>stupidity more than before.

It appears to me to run deeper on the republican side. I would think that if democrat politicians were to start rejecting science and logic the way the republicans have, that the democrat voting base wouldn’t tolerate it.

>This given right wing stupidity more prominence,
>but I don’t think it makes it more common.

Legit argument, definitely plausible. Still seems to me though that there is some reason why politicians can get away with it on the republican side, while democrat politicians would be roasted alive for similar tactics…

>At least not yet. I do think a case can be made
>that over the long term the prominence of
>stupidity can make it more common.

Agreed.

>No, I don’t think you are… but many are. And I
>do think that the tone of your comment alienates
>the rational right and right now that is a very
>bad thing to do.

This is true; I should be more careful. I don’t harbour any ill will towards the rational right at all, I just… I wish they could somehow teach the rest of the right a thing or two about what it means to speak words that make sense…

>We should all be helping the rational right, because
>we are all better off when the rational right and the
>rational left are in control. When the wingnuts
>take over (from either side) we all suffer.

Very important point. Well taken.

>I really do think it is a skepticism of government.
>But they have taken that skeptisism too far and
>turned it into denial of reality.

Agreed on that.

>Sorry for the long comment. Hope it helps.

Do not apologize. My comments are longer and uglier than yours, and your blog is probably not the best place for such extended conversations anyway, I don’t wish to divert the focus of your articles or clutter up what you’re doing :)

I should go, I have said more than enough. Keep up the good work

Let me try to boil it down.

First I do not think that there is more stupidity on the Republican side of things. But I do think that it is given more prominence, thus it is more visible.

The illogical arguments come from a lack of understanding, and a perceived conflict with their political ideology. That, and an inability for most people to determine who the relevant experts are.

Could it be, for example, that scientists are liberals because scientists are smart and that smart people generally end up thinking like liberals?

I think you are venturing into dangerous territory. There are plenty of very smart conservatives, despite the fact that conservatism in the US has taken an turn for anti-intellectualism.

I say this as someone who finds himself shifting towards conservatism (but not social conservatism) as time passes. And it is worth noting that Hansen sees himself as a moderate conservative as well.

I’ll take a stab at answering your questions:

What is it that makes them think the way they do?

I think for many it is a gut ration. They are intrinsically skeptical of government regulation (as am I) and see AGW as requiring more regulation. From that they make the jump that it must be all a sham. The fact that most people on the left have accepted it, also triggers a gut reaction to oppose it, especially with the current political climate in the US.

I think it recall boils down the fact that the truth is inconvenient for them.

What I would like to see is some conservatives argue how they would deal with AGW if for the sake of argument they assume it to be true and catastrophic.

As for why are they not rational? I think the vast majority really have no idea what the science of AGW says. And for that matter neither do most liberals… but at least they accept its conclusions even if for the wrong reasons.

Could it be true that the average IQ of a republican is noticeably lower than that of the average liberal?

Careful here. Liberal or Democrat? or was that conservative instead of Republican. In regards to conservatism, I think it depends. I remember reading about how more educated people tend to be less socially conservative, but that is education levels and not IQ. Anyways I don’t recall the source so take it with a grain of salt.

In regards to Fiscal conservatism I think you would be able to make that argument. The fiscal conservatives I know are very intelligent, even if not that knowledgeable in matters of science.

What does it do to the ‘deniers’ ability to make a convincing argument?

I don’t think it does much. Ask a liberal to make a convincing argument about why we attribute the recent warming trend to our GHG emissions and you are likely to get an unconvincing argument. The best your would probably get is correlation, and that is not causation. You likely wouldn’t even be able to get proper attribution of the increase in CO2. The bottom line is that most people don’t know the science very well.

Could it be that 99% of the world’s sane, functional scientists think deniers are dead wrong?

Yes, its just not very likely. XKCD said it best:

Find me even just one real, smart, scientific scientist who strongly believes that the whole climate change thing is bullshit. I’d be *fascinated* to meet him. What would he say?

How about Richard Lindzen? What would he say? Some ramblings about conspiracy. But some science also. His Iris theory is interesting, though it is contradicted by the paleoclimate record and observational data. Still it is interesting.

the political leanings of stupid people.

I have found stupid people all over the political spectrum. The difference now in the US, is that that the many republican politicians seem perfectly satisfied pandering to it.

On average, is ‘the left’ less likely to be stupid? On average, are they more likely to be scientific?

I don’t think they are.I think anti-science runs deep on both sides, and as said before in this comment, the only real difference is that Republican politicians are pandering to stupidity more than before. This given right wing stupidity more prominence, but I don’t think it makes it more common. At least not yet. I do think a case can be made that over the long term the prominence of stupidity can make it more common.

And we’re not trying to discount true conservative philosophy here, either.

No, I don’t think you are… but many are. And I do think that the tone of your comment alienates the rational right and right now that is a very bad thing to do. We should all be helping the rational right, because we are all better off when the rational right and the rational left are in control. When the wingnuts take over (from either side) we all suffer.

At that point you have to start looking at what’s motivating them

I really do think it is a skepticism of government. But they have taken that skeptisism too far and turned it into denial of reality.

Sorry for the long comment. Hope it helps.

Affirmative. I wasn’t talking about climate science – I just saw it as being relevant to the political situation in the US.

Could it be, for example, that scientists are liberals because scientists are smart and that smart people generally end up thinking like liberals? Because it seems to me that one could convincingly argue that most of the base of the republican party are of below-average intelligence. Or maybe just underdeveloped in some way, or something… I myself held some classic republican views too, when I was 13.

>I think that nanibold’s input is a
>beginning in perhaps attempting to identify
>inter-related complexes of ‘misbelief’
>that these people share.

Heh. Definitely accurate Mr. Grim, but… weird :)

Dan, perhaps my original comment becomes clearer if I follow it up with a few questions:

- What is it that makes them think the way they do? I mean, there are rational ways to argue against ‘human-induced climate change’, but most of the people who do argue against it apparently have no idea how to be rational. Why?

- Could it be true that the average IQ of a republican is noticeably lower than that of the average liberal? I’m speculating here, but my gut tells me it would be a very safe bet.

- What does it do to the ‘deniers’ ability to make a convincing argument? Could it be that 99% of the world’s sane, functional scientists think deniers are dead wrong? Find me even just one real, smart, scientific scientist who strongly believes that the whole climate change thing is bullshit. I’d be *fascinated* to meet him. What would he say?

>I read nanibold’s comment to mean he
>was interested in looking at the political
>leanings of scientists, not deniers.

Well, yes and no. I was interested in looking at the political leanings of scientists, but mostly in order to see what it might say about the political leanings of stupid people.

>But looking closely at deniers would be
>interesting, though I remain skeptical
>as to how much that would help in
>increasing acceptance of mainstream
>science. Still I would love to be
>proven wrong.

Well, if for instance it could be demonstrated that climate change deniers are on average more stupid… then we may see a lot of them suddenly motivated to think a little more seriously about the whole thing, when they realize who they’re keeping company with. Or hell, at least to clarify their arguments on the matter.

That, and it would help encourage the rest of us to feel okay about just sidelining these people where necessary. There are more of us, and we’re smarter. When using asbestos in homes was outlawed, I guarantee you that there were still a bunch of people who thought at the time that asbestos was just peachy. They were duly ignored, and with good cause.

>It is worth remembering that those
>on the left are not immune to this
>issue (see anti-vax and alt-med).

Sure, but we’re not trying to argue that the left is immune here… we’re talking about averages. On average, is ‘the left’ less likely to be stupid? On average, are they more likely to be scientific?

>While American conservatism has become
>divorced from reality on many issues,
>this does not discount the value of true
>conservatism… well maybe not the
>social conservatives

And we’re not trying to discount true conservative philosophy here, either. There’s a legitimate, logical debate to be had about the old school right vs left but that’s not really what we’re seeing in the US. There may be a few true conservative/libertarian types still in the republican party, but the rest are a bunch of people whose philosophies appear to be either insane, absent or blatantly self-interested.

>I think most deniers suffer from
>cognitive dissonance, or ignorance. In
>other words, either they don’t have,
>or choose not to, apply critical
>thinking skills.

This is I think what we’re dealing with. In which case our response to them has to be different. We may not be able to appeal to the more rational parts of their minds as directly as we might like.

Like when you’re debating something with somebody and have that moment where you suddenly realize that they have no ability to think logically, you have to change your approach. At that point you have to start looking at what’s motivating them, and how they came to hold their given opinion. Like Grim said, it becomes a question of psychology…

just as very many deniers aren’t making any science, they equally aren’t offering much goodwill either.

No they aren’t… but I am not sure Brin is a denier. This is the only article of his I have read.

And while I haven;t read the CRED report yet (I will soon!)…

Nor can I see that anybody is seriously gearing up to meet the challenge

I know some incredibly smart people who are working to meet this challenge. It is still early going, and it may not amount to much but it has given me hope… though this is a plan to win the long term fight, not the teapot tempest du jour.

Oh, and I read a few things about libertarians – you’re not such bad guys after all :-)

Not bad, but devoid of emotion would be fair…. but I am not a true libertarian. At least not yet:)

But I still can’t see how they expect anybody to be able to collect together the trained and informed people, and the money, and the time to do the ‘small community group’ work that they believe has to be done. Nor can I see that anybody is seriously gearing up to meet the challenge. Which is a shame, because it just might work, even in America (the main examples they give are from Africa).

Anyway, there’s also another interesting and related take here:
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/ (thank you for pointing me at that site).

Oh, and I read a few things about libertarians – you’re not such bad guys after all :-)

Happily agreed, but just as very many deniers aren’t making any science, they equally aren’t offering much goodwill either. If this were simply a battle of the science and the evidence, it would have been won comprehensively a long time ago. As indeed it has been won long ago amongst the scientific experts.

“But explaining why someone is not really an expert, or is not independent is very important.”

Well at least getting it on the record is, I guess. But again I’d stress that not everybody gives a darn.

BTW, I’m working my way through the CRED document (how are you going – any time to give it yet ?). Very mixed reactions so far, not the least being the practical impossibility of doing some of the things it recommends.