Psychoanalysis of "Global Warming"

I was reading an article the other day titled Scientists: Sea Creatures Dying Along Oregon Coast Due to Global Warming. Of course, so called global warming is a hotly contested hypothesis in the scientific community despite the bluffs that proponents put forth claiming unanimity. The purpose of this post is not to systematically refute it right now; for plenty of scientific evidence against this preposterous hypothesis, you can visit the Junk Science link at the right side of this page.

What I am interested in discussing here and now is the realization I came to when reading this article. First, however, I must digress for a minute. In psychology, we have a concept called attribution theory. This theory is truly scientific, and is unrefuted. It states that when we experience the world, we make certain attributions to events that occur based on our prejudices. For instance, if a young blonde woman in a pink convertible Corvette cuts you off in traffic, your immediate thought is that she is a spoiled rich girl who never learned manners or driving etiquette. You might even attribute a few four lettered labels to her. This may or may not be true, and you may not even really believe what you are thinking, but your concept of spoiled rich girl, combined with her physical attributes, and the single instance of what she did to you - whether intentional on her part or not - led you to conclude based on very loose evidence that she is an intrinsically bad person because of what she did to you. In other words, you perceive her as a threat. We also tend to make different attributions about ourselves than about others. When someone else trips, they are a clutz, when we trip, we are victims of something someone did to us, such as leaving an object in our path. These are mechanisms that we normally have that are considered normal, healthy, self esteem protection mechanisms. Not that it is a good thing to make prejudicial judgements of others, however, it is a natural survival related behavior. This behavior is so strong that we will even continue to seek any evidence to support our attributions and we ignore any evidence that refutes it.

What does this have to do with global warming and the article above? I was reading this article and came to a realization. The information in the article is nothing different from any other news report on a scientific subject per se. Perhaps it was just enough to cross the threshold into my own concious awareness of the behavioral dynamic that is occurring here. That explanation is satisfactory to me and in any way is not necessary for my point. What I realized is that now scientists have an attribution to make about any perceived problem they discover. No empiric link need apply. They immediately jump to a conclusion. Don't believe me? Here is an article about true scientific work actually linking nitrogen containing fertilizer runoff in the Mississippi River to the phenomenon: Scientist Links Nitrogen to 'Dead Zone'. But the global warming scientists preferred to use their own personal prejudices to find a conclusion that they prefer in order to protect their egos. This provides them with an easy explanation for this dead zone as well as "proof" of global warming using circular reasoning. It is amazing how closely the steadfast protection of global warming hypothesis by many scientists matches this well defined behavioral theory. This is disappointing to me because this jump to conclusion method is not the scientific method. It is just not how science is done, but it is how scientific politics are done.