Years ago, Jim introduced Suzi and I to one of his friends from high school. During the conversation, she mentioned that she was excited because George W. Bush was going to be making an appearance at her church, and she was a big fan. Suzi and I laughed at this obviously ironic statement, because nobody our age could actually be a conservative Republican, right? Right??

Wrong, as it turned out. The moment was swept under the rug by a few moments of awkward silence, but I haven't forgotten it. I have similar moments when I hear that Dick Cheney has a public approval rating of 18%. Who are these 18% of people who approve of the job that Dick Cheney is doing, and what the hell is wrong with them?

I feel that, in the case indicting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the facts are solidly on my side. But then again, I was never inclined to like either of them, anyway. So are there facts that could redeem the argument that maybe Bush and Cheney, after all? Maybe, but according to social scientists, I would likely ignore them.

That's the case made in this NPR story that aired yesterday, and I was quite struck by the implications. The actual story doesn't talk about Bush or Cheney, but rather about how cultural cognition can explain how polls show that the global warming deniers are winning the debate in the face of a mountain of facts.

Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.

This puzzles many climate scientists -- but not some social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs.

[...]

"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.

Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it.

I encourage you to read the whole article. And if you think that NPR is a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda, feel free to reject its conclusions. I enjoy irony.