Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists

Social science provides a lot of useful insight as to why logic and data rarely convince warmists.

lalalala - I can't hear you!
lalalala – I can’t hear you!

Guest essay by Matt Manos

Many of the posters and readers at WUWT have expressed frustration at convincing warmists. Using facts and logic seem to fall on deaf ears. There are some interesting social sciences theories on why warmist are unresponsive. I know the social sciences aren’t a favored science with this group but if you’ll bear with me, you’ll hopefully see how social science can be useful in describing why warmists are unreachable. And possibly, what to do about it.

In their latest speeches on global warming, Obama and the Pope weren’t trying to convince skeptics that CAGW is real. Instead, they were sending signals to their supporters on what “all right thinking people” should be saying. This is classic in-group/out-group communication. Obama and the Pope were setting up the talking points for their in-group members to use to determine who can be considered part of the tribe and who should be rejected for being outside of it. This is a process called Othering. Othering turns political foes into non-beings. Others have no value. Others can be discounted and ignored. Others can be mocked.

Obama and the Pope are examples of bellwethers; the sheep with the bell that the other sheep follow. Bellwether is not a derogatory term, it’s a descriptive term. The job of a political bellwether is to indicate the position that their followers should take in their everyday conversations. Obama and the Pope’s latest speeches function as position papers for the delegates of all right thinking people. You meet these people at work, church, school, at the coffee house, etc. The delegates will mirror the words that the President or the Pope used to identify other in-group members, normalize beliefs and mock out-group members. One of the main themes of both speeches was shame. Shame on those who aren’t right thinking people. Shame that they aren’t as intelligent and capable as “us.”

That type of smugness is almost impossible to penetrate. When a skeptic questions a warmist’s view on global warming/climate change, the warmist hears something vastly different than what the skeptic is saying. A skeptic might say, “The models don’t match the actual measured results.” What the warmist hears is how stupid deniers are because that’s what John Stewart told him he should think. If the warmist doesn’t prove that he thinks skeptics are stupid then he might be confused for a denier! And no one wants to be identified with being a denier because they’re mocked, don’t get tenure and don’t get invited to the right parties. No amount of science can penetrate the ROI the warmist has internalized in believing in CAGW.

Many of the warmist are running on pure rational ignorance. Rational ignorance is a belief that the cost/benefit to researching every issue is so low as to be a net negative in time utilization. Thus the ignorance is rational and everyone utilizes this mental process on certain topics. People who are rationally ignorant about global warming look to bellwethers that support their gut stance. Rationally ignorant warmists would look to world leaders, mockutainers and warmist scientists for guidance on how to communicate their position on global warming.

Penetrating rational ignorance is tough because the position warmists have taken isn’t based on logic. Their position is actually based on an appeal to authority. To question the rationally ignorant warmist is to question the field of science as a whole (to be a science denier) or to question the leadership of their favorite bellwether personalities. This will cause the rationally ignorant warmist to become defensive and try to stand up for their favorite bellwether. The rationally ignorant will also point to their favorite bellwethers and say, “Who am I to doubt all these intelligent people?” It’s intellectually offshoring. It’s lazy. It’s human nature.

The scientific method rejects outright in-group/out groups, Othering, bellwethers and rational ignorance. A scientist is supposed to follow the results on an experiment even if the results don’t support his hypothesis. The scientist is clearly not supposed to rig the data to ensure he gets invited to a party with the right people or continued funding. But science has a poor track record on controversial topics. It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).

Scientists are still social animals. Social animals follow hierarchy and incentives. If you really want to win the debate on global warming, change the opinions of the bellwethers. Change the economic incentives for the global warming scientific paper mill. Otherwise you’re stuck debating only the people who are unable to change their minds because it would cost them personally to do so. Rare is the person intellectually honest enough to bite the hand that feeds or is willing to violate social norms to speak the truth.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 23, 2015 10:56 pm

Oh dear, this is going to get a few tongues waggling.

Reply to  Neil.
May 24, 2015 2:11 am

Here is one.
Matt Manos is mostly correct. I think the only significant element he forgot to mention is that the same description applies to many “deniers”.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 7:16 am

Well, Brutus, you got me there; until I hear one convincing explanation by any warmunist about how the crappy Climate Models are supposed to overcome their own, obvious, shortcomings to develop ANY predictive skill. Until that happens I will continue to CHERISH mocking idiot warmunists.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 7:18 am

Which is easy to do when the science is constantly contradicting itself…
It’s like Obama’s campaign, you could hear want you wanted to hear….because he would say one thing one time, and the total opposite the next
WUWT just posted two contradicting papers almost back to back…
..one said the Pacific had cooled for the past decade, unlike the Atlantic that stores heat….
…and the next paper said the Atlantic had been cooling for the past decade

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 8:30 am

“the same description applies to many “deniers”.
The only deniers there are are science deniers like you, sunshine.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 8:55 am

My favorite question to Global Warmists is, “show me one piece of evidence” (that has not been disproved i.e. Mann, et.al, or been provably altered……i.e. Land based temperature records).
I have yet to see one piece of said evidence…….care to share?

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 2:34 pm

Studies have shown that 97% of people who promote catastrophic anthropogenic global warming smoked a lot of pot in high school and college, and don’t think it damaged their neurons.
Take obie, for example. He admitted in an interview that 7th grade math stumped him (that would be pre-algebra), from which we can reasonably deduce he didn’t take hs physics, nor any physical science in college , and he admits to being a “choom gang” member in hs. To him the “science is settled. He doesn’t know what math beyond 6th grade level is, nor science, but he’s sure that fossil-fuels, whose extraction is run by capitalists, is a problem that can only be addressed by socializing ownership of fossil fuels, that is by transferring their control to pot smokers. So groovy.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 4:04 pm

To say that warmists, in general, are ignorant is factually true.
And to say that “skeptics” are, in general, ignorant is also factually true.
Just read the comment sections on this and similar blogs.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 4:07 pm

What a sad comment. Akin to blowing raspberries.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 4:25 pm

To say that trolls are a tiresome lot is obvious. Just read any post by Brute. For further proof, read them all.

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 5:24 pm

Brute is correct. But that doesn’t make CAGW real or scientifically accurate.
The fact is most people are not thinkers, including people reading this blog and posting here. Most people are followers, and it costs them socially to step out of line. This includes CAGW believers and CAGW non-believers. In fact, historically most people who have spoken up for logical truth, in any area of life, science, mathematics, politics, or religion have been left out in the social void – with many dying friendless and penniless – even if their philosophical position was correct.
So, the the title of the article could be changed to “Why it’s so hard to convince someone to switch sets of heroes.”

Michael 2
Reply to  Brute
May 25, 2015 4:43 pm

“he forgot to mention is that the same description applies to many deniers.”
It is unlikely he forgot it, but you are correct. Sheep come in many colors.

Reply to  Brute
May 31, 2015 2:37 pm

Most Deniers are following sound science not emotions!

Reply to  Brute
May 31, 2015 2:40 pm

Most deniers are basing their disbelief on sound science and facts, not emotions!

Santa Baby
Reply to  Neil.
May 24, 2015 2:46 am

I think this “situation” is well established by Prof. Lindzen in his “Global Warming – Sensibilities and Science” https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.ppt Slide 3 “David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, discussing Republican Party reformers, claims that “they tend to take global warming seriously, not only on its merits, but in the belief that conservatives cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts.”” and slide 23 summes it up good ”
“In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity ‘offend the sensibilities of the of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts,’ and who would want to do that.” They have been “educated” by policy based science and admitting that will make them look and feel stupid?

Reply to  Santa Baby
May 27, 2015 12:06 pm

Prof. Lindzen is a crank who stubbornly clings to his long-debunked “iris hypothesis” to explain global warming, because he just can’t admit to being wrong no matter what the data shows. He also, even at this late date, refuses to admit that smoking causes cancer, so his persistent wrongness is in no way limited to global warming.

Reply to  Neil.
May 24, 2015 6:08 am

How many skeptics does it take to change a warmist’s mind?
None, He has to want to change it himself. I speak from experience on that as a recovering liberal.
Like most of that dreary tribe, I was utterly convinced of my intellectual and moral superiority. We liberals were always right on the big issues, weren’t we? Vietnam, woman’s right to choose, civiil rights, etc.
So what changed? Dunno. Climate-gate had something to do with it. Al Gore’s patently false piety The fact that the MSM never, ever wrote that surely for some people in northern latitudes, global warming wasn’t an entirely bad thing.
Slowly I woke up. I’d also say that the change isn’t been with me so much, but with the progressives. They’ve become authoritarian, anti-free speech hypocrites. What’s going on in today’s universities is a tragedy.
When Barak Obama says the world not only continues to warm, but does so even faster than the most dire models predicted, he’s telling a lie. Plain and simple.
And I voted for the guy.

david smith
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 6:26 am

As a man who voted for New Labour here in the UK 20 years ago, I am now a staunch Conservative. Another recovered liberal who saw the fallacy of the CAGW scam and the intolerance of the Left.
I have encountered many liberals who became conservatives and warmist who became sceptics, but none who did the opposite (sceptic to alarmist, conservative to liberal). Is this because as we grow up we learn to see through the BS?

G. Karst
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 6:33 am

I’d also say that the change isn’t been with me so much, but with the progressives.

So where is the fundamental change internally, that will prevent you from enthusiastically embracing the next pseudo-scientific scam? GK

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 6:45 am

And did they get you to trade heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? Cold comfort for change? And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
Welcome to the other side of the wall 🙂

David Chappell
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 7:19 am

But at least you can’t vote for him again

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 8:11 am

and to show you what good people we gun-totin’, whiskey drinkin’, rootin’ tootin’ right wing nut jobs can be…..I forgive you……twice…..have you read C. Lander’s STUFF WHITE PEOPLE LIKE?……pretty funny

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 8:34 am

What happened to classical liberals? You know the people that believed in live and let live and not bowing to authority? Now we have social justice warriors and people that feel comfortable witch hunting people with opposing views. We also have the war against the rich and the business oriented. My liberalism is hanging on a very thin string these days.

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 8:59 am

Winston Churchill has a memorable quote regarding the conversion from liberal to conservative with age.

george e. smith
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 9:49 am

Well how many times have we heard/read that; “I voted for him twice.”
I just watched the “start” of the Indianapolis 500. Well they called it a start, but they were actually racing before they even waved the flag, and once they did, they hadn’t even made it 60% of the way round the track, and one “race driver” decided he could pass the guy in front through a gap between him and the wall, that was narrower than the car.
I guess he had a good reason for doing it; but that didn’t include any consideration that he also took out the car in front, that he couldn’t possibly have passed there.
So just remember, how many you took out with you, when you voted twice for an incompetent boob, with an agenda.
Sadly, the very same people will become apart of history by voting for the first woman President of the United States. They too won’t consider the consequences for everyone else.

Rational Db8
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 9:53 am

Classic liberals still exist – we’re almost all fiscal and constitutional conservatives, TEA party supporters, and Libertarians. We vote primarily Republican (but loath establishment Republicans). The modern day liberal/progressives are anathema to classic liberalism, as is the Democratic party. In the early 1900’s, they called themselves progressives – when that term became a ‘dirty word’ to the general public, they relabeled themselves ‘liberals’ in a very very Orwellian fashion. Now that ‘liberal’ isn’t viewed so favorably, they’re shifting back to ‘progressive’ or at least toying with it. They’re essentially totalitarians, creatures of the far left who believe that we need big government with the elites deciding what all us lowly creatures should be doing with our lives and our earnings because we’re not bright enough to do a good job of deciding for ourselves. They push socialism/fascism. In the 60’s they rebelled against the man – but really only because they weren’t “the man” themselves. Now that they are in some positions of power, they’re pushing FOR the government, instead of against it. So if you really want classic liberalism, then you want to seek out TEA party supporters, etc.and ditch the left entirely.

Rational Db8
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 10:09 am

Is that the one that goes something like: “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by 40, you have no brains” ? Variants use different ages, e.g., 25 and 35, or 15 and 20, etc. Anyhow, a statement along those lines is commonly but incorrectly attributed to Churchill when apparently no record can be found of him making such a statement.. Here’s one source that traces the sentiment back to John Adams: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/25/john-adams-said-it-first/ “Thomas Jefferson preserved this quip, writing in a 1799 journal that Adams had said: “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.””

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 10:31 am

“When Barak Obama says the world not only continues to warm, but does so even faster than the most dire models predicted, he’s telling a lie. Plain and simple.”
So true – they see they are failing to convince people so the whoppers get bigger and bigger – like his statement in South Africa, “if everybody’s raising living standards to the point where everybody’s got a car, and everybody’s got air conditioning, and everybody’s got a big house the planet will boil over,” it just makes him look foolish.
So glad you finally came around.

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 10:33 am

I had not realized that that particular quote was mis-attributed.
I came up with this. Thank you:

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 11:42 am

The quote I remember hearing is, “If you’re not a liberal by age 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by age 40 you have no brain” I’m not sure what I’m quoting here. I thought that was Churchill quote.

Rational Db8
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 11:56 am

You’re sure welcome. I was quite familiar with the quote, but had no idea who first said it… so when I thought that was likely the quote you were referring to just based on context, I went digging around a little out of curiosity. :0) Thanks for the additional link tracing it!

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 3:17 pm

This is an old story.
A guy from central America gave his version:
If you are not a Communist when you are young, you are a son of a *itch.
If you are a Communist when you are old you are a fool.
So many nice fairy tales of my youth have been jettisoned.
And, once you learn about the deceitfulness of government, and the madness of crowds, disbelieving the official line comes easily.

Pete J.
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 4:08 pm

Sad 🙁

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 4:30 pm

“Welcome to the other side of the wall :)”
The wall has many sides:
“When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.”

Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 11:15 pm

They’ve become authoritarian, anti-free speech hypocrites.
It is not limited to any particular “side”. The war on cannabis users is proof of that.
My personal trouble is that I don’t have a “side”. I believe CAGW is bunk. I believe that cannabis is generally good. And arms in the hands of citizens is more beneficial than otherwise.
I am also in that small minority that believes government should leave people alone. That having so many “enforcers” is a bad idea. It gives people ideas. Like “there ought to be a law.” Well no. We already have too many laws.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  aneipris
May 24, 2015 11:39 pm

Winston Churchill was really a Whig all his life (in the British sense, not the American sense), but unfortunately for him Whiggism in Britain died when he was twelve. He never fundamentally changed, but he had to shift as best he could in the party system which existed in his adulthood.

Reply to  aneipris
May 25, 2015 9:11 am

While I understand what you’re trying to say, the problem is precisely that of non-factual endorsement of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming as a function of political viewpoint.
Or in shorter words, that AGW is a liberal cause.
AGW should be a scientific subject, not a political one. I object just a strenuously to being labelled a conservative because I am a climate change skeptic as I object to AGW being “liberal”.

Reply to  ticketstopper
May 25, 2015 7:50 pm

Writes ticketstopper:

…the problem is precisely that of non-factual endorsement of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming as a function of political viewpoint.
Or in shorter words, that AGW is a liberal cause.
AGW should be a scientific subject, not a political one. I object just a strenuously to being labelled a conservative because I am a climate change skeptic as I object to AGW being “liberal”.

When referring to the milk-and-water socialists of America who call themselves “Liberals,” I refuse to let them fly that flag of convenience under which they perpetrate their piracies.
And they’re “progressive” only in the same sense as we in medicine describe a malignant disease which, after being subjected to prevailing standard of care in the effort to destroy it, has resumed aggressive growth and will almost certainly kill the patient.
That’s a progressive cancer.
I would offer those reading here an opportunity to look at an essay recently (9 March 2015) published by economist Walter Williams, titled “Global Warming: Debate is Only Settled For Fanatics,” from which I quote:

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. … The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.

Reply to  aneipris
May 25, 2015 12:31 pm

It’s largely a problem with the media, who have gradually weeded out the conservative voices among them. They’ve been acting as gatekeepers, ensuring that the really, really inconvenient facts didn’t reach you. I know an otherwise very intelligent man who didn’t read the Climategate Papers because, “They said on Huffington Post that there wasn’t anything in them.”

Reply to  aneipris
May 27, 2015 4:58 am

I think that arc is one that many of us have followed. I was fortunate to be trained as a civil engineer so my walk away from liberalism and the left was quite short and intense. Like you it was the lying intolerance that I encountered amongst many of my peers on the left and the obviously destructive social and economic policies they espoused that resulted in my conservative principles today.
As for climate change, well I don’t believe you can spend any time observing the real world and believe man is having much of an impact at all. My career has been in dam design and construction of all sizes and types and the study of rainfall has been important in ensuring my dams didn’t fail. They don’t and that is largely because there is nothing supernatural going on with the climate. Almost 50 years in the field and still using much the same data as the guys who trained me.
Don’t get me started on sea levels either. Something that may or may not be going on and at a less than glacial pace is supposed to be scary. Puleeze! Man Made Climate Change is a political business built on a very trivial bit of actual science that the warmists want to use to rule the world. ( Dr Evil wicked laugh follows )

Reply to  Neil.
May 24, 2015 6:48 am

While I agree with the post in all its detail, I respectfully suggest that it greatly understates the “hard-headed “, obstinate imperviousness of the ostensibly “carbon-phobe” good-comrades to rational, persuasive discourse. Remember, “warmists” believe that carbon-emissions THREATEN THE VERY LIVES OF BABES YET UNBORN!!!!, that CO2-spew IMPERILS THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE POLAR BEARS!!! And yet, these very same “warmists” are not moved by their own concerned-nerd, worry-wart, scare-mongering belief in the CO2-peril, to bother to reduce their own carbon footprints–a reduction they could easily achieve through a zero-carbon video-conferencing of all those non-stop, brazen-hypocrite, swinish, carbon-glutton, frequent-flyer eco-confabs of theirs.
I mean, like, can there be anything more scandalously, pig-headedly, and shamelessly defiant of moral and intellectual suasion than that? I mean, like, let’s be frank–when we’re talkin’ about the difficulty of convincing “warmists”, we are, of necessity, talkin’ about about an “I-can’t-hear-you-I-can’t-hear-you!” mentality, on the part of our greenwashed-betters, that is, at bottom, a trashy, “got-mine”, self-indulgent trough-seeking of the lowest-character. A mind-set that can, indeed, be further characterized as an infantile, parasitic, spoiled-brat sense of entitlement, that, in turn, springs from a lefty-collectivist conviction that the purpose of society is to serve as a hovering, smothering-mummy, lactating “tit”, ever there to assuage the immediate-gratification whiny-needs of the hive-tools, in on the deal. I mean, like, what a bunch of creep-outs, these two-faced, “warmist” flim-flammers are!–not to mention the ever-corpulent Al Gore’s unsightly flab.
Although I am of the opinion that trying to “convince” the “Hive Bozos” of anything, is a waste of my valuable time, I am prepared to offer them a proposition:
When you “warmists” start LEADING FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON-REDUCTION!!! and begin PRACTICING WHAT YOU PREACH!!!, then I’ll undertake to sass-back at my trusty, little B. S.-detector when it “reads” your greenwashed, Gaia-freak agit-prop, as it always does, as a “SCAM!!! RIP-OFF!!! CON-JOB!!! DON’T TRUST THESE DORKED-UP ASSHOLES!!!” (that’s an exact quote from the digital display), to the best of my ability. Deal, guys?
Enjoy your little, carbon-wallow blow-out at that COP-21 hive-swarm you’ll be holding in Paris, later this year, comrades!

Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 7:10 am

Yet those same warmists who are so worried about the yet to be born babies, can’t get enough PP slaughterhouses built to rid the world of those pesky clump of tumor parasitical hanger oners (insert any dehumanising term for an unborn baby that are normally used by the pro-choice crowd) that are going to over populate the world and destroy the environment for the poor animals. I think I have the argument down pat, yes?

David Chappell
Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 7:22 am

” “I-can’t-hear-you-I-can’t-hear-you!” mentality” In my experience it’s more a “I will not hear you” mentality.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 7:41 am

hard stuff, mike, raises a smile!
But you aren’t up to conversations. Negotiatians?
Reaching warmists with hands cupping their ears?
What’s the thread’s on.
Greetings – Hans

Pat McAdoo
Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 8:16 am

Come on Mike, tell us how you really feel.
I would bet you have lower “carbon footprint” than 90% of the warmunist group
One good way to reason with a warmunist was detailed at the end of Clacy’s “Rainbow Six”.
Gums sends……

Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 9:02 am

Epic ranting Mike!

Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 9:05 am

Neil, if you listen to the warmistas carefully, they nearly always make mention of the future of THEIR OWN children and grandkids.
They could not give a tiny rat’s ass about yours or mine.

Rational Db8
Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 12:04 pm

“…And yet, these very same “warmists” are not moved by their own concerned-nerd, worry-wart, scare-mongering belief in the CO2-peril, to bother to reduce their own carbon footprints…”

Not only that, but even more egregious is the fact that they utterly ignore the impact CURRENT expenditures and programs ostensibly aimed at reducing man’s CO2 emissions are having on people. Those programs are literally responsible for killing people NOW. They push the cost of food drastically higher, which has resulted in starvation and death in some areas. They also cause increased fuel poverty which results in far more deaths too.
But those pushing AGW True Belief totally ignore those facts and the harm they’re doing to people alive today, all based on the speculation that maybe possibly perhaps someday many decades in the future there might possibly maybe be harm from global warming. All while also ignoring all the potential benefits that global warming might bring, such as increased crop production, increased forestation and healthier growth and greater drought and pest resistance of all plants, areas previous too cold to farm or reasonable live in opened up to increased wildlife, farming, living, etc., etc., etc.

Reality Observer
Reply to  mike
May 24, 2015 9:26 pm

Organized criminals learned a long time ago that you do not arrange “business” over electronic communications. So a teleconference is right out.

Reply to  Neil.
May 24, 2015 9:02 am

Mr. Manos,writes:
“People who are rationally ignorant about global warming look to bellwethers that support their gut stance. Rationally ignorant warmists would look to world leaders, mockutainers and warmist scientists for guidance on how to communicate their position on global warming.”
That fits almost all warmist/AGW believing people I encounter, at the large Facebook Climate Discussion Group,where they do this all the time, it is an appeal to authority. My responses there have been almost 100% based on what the available science has on a particular discussion,often using the “official” data to contradict what they are saying and to show how bad the IPCC projected forecasts have been over the years.
My brother use the usual horrible media outlets as his source of warmist propaganda, while I would point out what they omit or mislead in their claims,using the “official” data with actual science research that have been considered credible by time. He counters with consensus, argument from Authority and says who am I to say scientists are wrong, when they have education in the field and I do not.
Why just this morning,THIS very guest essay was posted in Facebook,here are the replies by the very people Mr. Manos is talking about:
“David Walters we’re not convinced of what? that 97% of climate scientists are wrong?”
“Mark Albert If it walks like a Duck.Acts like a Duck.Talks like a duck and leaves footprints like a Duck..97% of my friends are telling me it’s a Duck.. Why should I believe the 2%, that don’t say anything, or the 1 % that is telling me it’s a Chicken?”
“Mark Albert WUWT again?! hahaha they’re site sucks and they know it…LMAO..sorry I still need my coffee..”
“David Walters Playing word games again Torsten.”
“David Walters only in your mind. Peer reviewed data was provided. You have shit…”
Mark Albert then post an article about a heat wave in India, thus leaving the topic entirely.
The rest of the still short comment section here,

Rational Db8
Reply to  sunsettommy
May 24, 2015 12:32 pm

The next time one of your friends or acquaintances pulls the appeal to authority, just share my listing of skeptical scientists with ’em. Start it off by pointing out that it is a logical fallacy to use appeal to authority, but that if they insist on doing so, they ought to at least get the direction right… vastly more scientists have put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than the number who’ve put in writing they think it is- and that includes some of the most eminent scientists of our times, some Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, and even some IPCC authors. Then launch the list below. They’ll likely come back trying to ridicule the petition project while ignoring the thousands on the other links (other links which, even without the petition project, have more signatures than anything the AGW supporters can point to)… but such attacks of the petition project are also false and grossly dated. Early on AGW True Believers put a handful of obviously false names on the list to try to torpedo it. So they started over and got hard copy signatures from each scientist and verified their credentials. The list is sound. Anyhow, hope this helps.
**1350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting skeptical arguments http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
**100 eminent scientists including Nobel winners and IPCC lead authors contesting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW-e.g., human caused) who wrote the U.N. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360
**31,000+ scientists disavowing AGW, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s
**Over 1000 scientists worldwide disavowing AGW signed onto USA Senate report http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
**100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming, March 30, 2009
[ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]
**In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists wrote to protest against the anti-scientific, alarmist position being adopted by Hansen and Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They wrote: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”
or: 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
**Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
**Professor Lindzen has systematically destroyed every CAGW argument:
**This one NOT scientists, just the general population of the world, across the board: UN Poll Reveals: Global Population Not Convinced by Climate Change Scaremongering A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/t Watts Up With That)…
Back to scientists:
**“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated.” – Patrick Moore, Ph.D. and Greenpeace co-founder. See also: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
**Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
**eminent “Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from the American Physical Society, writing:
“The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.”
from: NoTricksZone by Pierre Gosselin http://notrickszone.com/
**One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: Climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.
**Dr. Lawrence Solomon, once a believer in AGW, realized belatedly, that he was wrong, because he found out that there were too many eminent Professors, who were skeptics and he decided to write a book, titled: “The Deniers” and he explained that he was sad about the enormous corruption among the doomsday “scientists”, especially when they were in the management of institutions like universities and weather-departments. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/
**Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the peer reviewed published survey results of Meteorologists who are also TV forecasters, showing that only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming. He says:
“AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.
**Like Professor Emeritus Robert Tennekens, a Dutch professor in meteorology, who after a 10-year stint lecturing in the U.S. was asked to lead the Dutch meteorological department in the Bilt, Holland. After he found out about the corrupt way his staff was following the I.P.C.C.’s computer-modeling, he tried to stamp this habit out, but because too many of his staff and colleagues had powerful friends in the then Dutch government, he was sacked from his job.
**Professor Bellamy the British botanist also received the sack, when he decided to speak out against the AGW corruption on B.B.C. That is not science, that is corruption, when honest people dare to speak out for the truth and then get sacked from their job/career.
**Professor Tim Flannery who was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister and who is paid Audlrs. 180,000 in tax-payers’ money to advise her on climate change, predicted over and over again for the last 5 years, that Australia by 2009 would be a total arid and barren place, with all the dams in the major cities totally empty. Well, since last year a number of states saw huge floods destroying their properties and crops as dams in Queensland overflowed and the same now is happening there and we in Sydney, New South Wales experienced the coldest days in our summer since 1916! [text from last three items copied from another commentator]
And on and on and on – the list is nearly endless, I’ve just pulled a small number of such quotes to post here.

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Neil.
May 26, 2015 12:50 am

So in summary, warmists are just thick.

Mr Been There Done That
Reply to  Paul Mackey
May 29, 2015 6:30 pm

Well, thick, perhaps, but more specifically, arrogant, full of hubris. The problem is pride – “I am right and such a brilliant light, but you are completely wrong and stupid, and I will happily bend the world to fit my world-view, even if the world completely breaks and shatters in the process, because I am GOD (!!!) and all viewpoints must agree with mine! My view is right so it cannot be changed. I know all there is to know and have no need that you tell me anything.”
THAT is the real problem – at the heart is a self-idolator. They call it “assertiveness”, but it is nothing more than arrogant, self-worshipping pride. The infant that never knew discipline and never grew up.

May 23, 2015 11:06 pm

Many people have the sycophant gene. In the past , people like that were referred to as ‘lick-spittles’. It happens on both sides of the ‘climate fence’. As a deviant, lacking that gene, I’ve had to deal with some real BS in my life.

Reply to  Alex
May 24, 2015 1:42 am

Is it a recessive or a dominant gene?
Are you homo or hetero (zygous) for that trait?

Mike Bromley the soon-to-be-Kurd-again
Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 1:53 am

Urederra, how did you wink with only one eye?

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 2:01 am

I, frankliy, don’t have a clue. I just can’t stand ‘suck-ups’. Never could. Someone agreeing with me simply because i am ‘someone’, makes me want to puke.
As far as breeding is concerned. I decided long ago that I am too intelligent for that. Human race? Not my problem.
I am not gay, if that is what you are asking. I would probably prefer to be ‘bi’. It’s a damn nuisance that I only have an interest in half the human race

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 2:32 am

On second thinking of your comment , I think it is dominant. My grandfather was executed because he wouldn’t bend the knee. I’m kinda proud about that. Showing the middle finger and demanding proof is part of my nature. I am probably lucky (or clever) to have survived this long.

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 6:21 am

I speak to many people about many things, but one that get’s many “spooked”, especially those of a religious bent, is the word zygote.

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 7:19 am

May 24, 2015 at 6:21 am
“I speak to many people about many things, but one that get’s many “spooked”, especially those of a religious bent, is the word zygote.”
That’s funny. I spook those of an atheist bent by calling them lumps of meat.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 8:14 am

May 24, 2015 at 6:21
calling them lumps of meat.
Dangerous heritage, Patrick.
Politically correct NSDAP speech:
Lumpen Pack, Relativisten, Vaterlandslose Gesellen!
: Your’s not to think, to reason – Your’s to believe* in the Führer, to believe in the Partei, in the Volksgemeinschaft!
mod – sigh! Hans
*to believe the Führer is on the best for the Volk – not to sacrifice it to a revenge WWII.

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 9:07 am

Mike Bromley,
How to wink one eye? Easy, when it is a brown one.

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 9:39 am

Thats where we are all from. Disprove the biology.

Reply to  urederra
May 24, 2015 10:36 am

Going back even further, we all started with a random and randy thought in the minds of two (or maybe just one?) people who knew nothing of us at the time. So what?

Reply to  urederra
May 25, 2015 5:40 am

May 24, 2015 at 7:19 am”
Nah, not really. I know I am a lump meat…in fact in some cultures “we” are called “Tall Pig”. But zygote get’s the “goat”. All humans are zygotes after fertilisation. Single cell undivided. And, unsurprisingly, the anus forms first. I guess politicians are really big zygotes!

Reply to  Alex
May 24, 2015 3:14 pm

Niccollo Machiavelli devoted chapters in The Prince to warning about “flatterers”.
There are flatterers (suckups, lickspittles, sycophants, etc.) that gather around every source of political power. The sad thing is, lots of folks in charge are susceptible to the sycophants (servile flatterers) that always appear and surround them, telling them what they want to hear. The flatterers get a payoff, too.
Machiavelli warns strongly against them. But not too many read The Prince these days.

Leo Smith
May 23, 2015 11:09 pm

Not so much bellwethers as bellends…

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 23, 2015 11:55 pm

where do I send the bill for cleaning Earl Gray off my laptop screen?

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2015 3:35 am

More bedwetter than bellwether might be more accurate…

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2015 6:50 am

Well said. Pinched my comment. May confuse some of our American cousins….

Reply to  krb981
May 24, 2015 6:55 pm

Easy enough to google. I love the British language and slang. Very colorful. U.S. Language is so direct it’s boring. The phrase with the same meaning here would simply be d**k-head.

May 23, 2015 11:11 pm

Well we should start by calling them “chicken littles”. They call us deniers and we call them warmers” How lame of a response is that? Let’s get to the heart of their thought process. “chicken littles”.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Bill Nadeau
May 24, 2015 12:39 pm

I tend to refer to the worst of them as “AGW True Believers” – it’s their religion after all, and all who question it are instantly labelled heretics who should be burned at the stake. That or “Watermelons” – Green on the outside, Red in the middle (e.g., socialists/communists/leftists bent on control, power, wealth redistribution as they see fit, etc.) The AGW True Believers, are, of course “useful idiots” (h/t Hitler & Stalin) for the Watermelons.

Reply to  Bill Nadeau
May 24, 2015 7:04 pm

I have been using the phrase, “reality denier,” in hope that someone will ask what I mean. Then I state that satellite data show that temps have not risen in over eighteen years, despite what a government agency has been claiming with their records. Usually, they are not familiar with satellite data, but very familiar with the ever-growing incompetence of government agencies (at least in the U.S., and from what I have read, the UK as well).

Keith Minto
May 23, 2015 11:20 pm

Listened to chatter on the BBC yesterday about AGW, and each speaker (pro AGW) reinforced the next speaker with cheering from the audience. I was trying to get a handle on this groupthink and concluded that, as it gathered pace, it was like some sort of religious awakening where logic and counter argument would have sounded quite alien.
This ‘Saving the planet’ meme is resistant to logic, another dominant section of our collective brains is operating here.

Björn from sweden
Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 12:10 am

In my opinion, I believe that approx half of the population have the “sheep gene”. Seriously.
They will always obey authority and try to do whatever is fashionable. This compliance probably has had, and still has?, survival benefits. Their brains are shut down and they do not care, they do not reason, they just follow and appeal to authority. They also win when voting.

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 12:31 am

50% ? I think you are being over optimistic….

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 2:06 am

Yea, more likely between 70% and 95%, in my humble experience. It might vary per subject, but I doubt it somehow.

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 2:39 am

Please look up the work by Stanley Milgram on the prevalence of the sheep gene in humans…….

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 3:49 am

Perhaps they simply do not realize they are losing when the vote for the “sheep leader.” They are mostly blind to the axe falling on their necks from the one they vote for.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 5:22 am

Very true, but according to my personal experience, the usual majority of “sheeple” might be a good deal bigger than only 50%.
And I think, your suggestion “This compliance probably has had, and still has?, survival benefits” is even true in extreme societies as e.g. Nazi-Germany or Stalinist Russia, where the uncritical regime followers were probably less often killed proportionally in WW2 than dissidents, who had to fight usually in Penal Battalions as cannon fodder or were killed by their own countrymen in concentration camps. And after WW2, it was the majority of “sheeple” (in Germany or Japan) who could swap their ideology most easily according to the demands of the new rulers in order to continue their civil careers most successfully again…
The same degree of “survival benefits” for conformist people does exist in today’s Science and Politics as well, and that is the main reason for the astonishing success of the CAGW cargo cult in the last 2 decades. But an ideology can collapse quickly when its base crumbles. So, after some years of significant global cooling with further rising CO2 concentrations or a very rough economic global crisis, the CAGW religion will be “a thing of the past”, and then of course, the main bulk of its followers will claim that they have been always skeptical of it in their private reasoning… 😉

Björn from sweden
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 5:29 am

Thank you Jones, that experiment is exactly mirroring my experience.
Only it showed 65% obediance to authority, but in a group not representative to population.
The sheep gene hypothesis also explains why the collective left believes in AGW,, their leaders told them to.
The individual right, if there is a such, is more on the fence perhaps.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 7:18 am

If you take a pair of shears to the sheep you can call them sheep with no clothes on and have two metaphors for the price of one! : )

David Chappell
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 7:26 am

It is the Psalm 23 Principle

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 10:08 am

Tis’ 97% lambies when climate scientists. 🙂

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 6:36 pm

Bjorn: ” I believe that approx half of the population have the “sheep gene”. ” It must be much more than that how else would you explain the popularity of religion?

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 7:11 pm

Religion is explained by Darwin. For whatever reason, No society absent a religion ever survived. Some religions provided the right moral principals for building a large, thriving society. Off-hand, I cannot think of a single successful culture in history that was not based on a diety of some form.

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 7:14 pm

Genesis 48:15
“May the God before whom my fathers
Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully,
the God who has been my shepherd
all my life to this day,

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 24, 2015 7:19 pm

Indeed Jtom it is in our genes since it gives survival advantage and thus explains the popularity of the CAGW. Therefore 50% is a too low estimate.

Reply to  Björn from sweden
May 25, 2015 12:49 pm

Jtom: I think we’re on the verge of proving you’re right.

Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 7:19 am

Keith Minto
Do some research on the medieval universities founded by the Catholic Church. You’ll find that the ‘argument/counter argument’ method was one of the main ones in use. Oh, and they also studied logic. Shame, isn’t it when facts get in the way of prejudice.

Just Steve
Reply to  Alba
May 24, 2015 9:36 am

As in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Apologia. Christian apologetcs is based on a point counterpoint formula.
Now, if you’re talking Islam, which has no apologetic component, well…..

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alba
May 24, 2015 12:44 pm

Universities were by far the exception, not the rule. Various religions have a very long history of doing all they could to consolidate and keep power, not to foster a questioning skeptical attitude.

May 23, 2015 11:30 pm

From personal experience, I know it’s extremely rare to even consider that one’s opinion on a “Big Issue” might be wrong, or might not have been properly formed in the first place. Then it takes a lot of conscious effort to re-evaluate with a fresh, open mind. And personal research takes time. So it makes perfect sense that changing minds is almost impossible, especially when the mind is your own.
Has anyone conducted a poll or survey of people who–like myself–changed their opinion on the subject of CAGW from “believe” to “reject?” It seems like a smart research psychologist could pick out common threads/contexts/trigger events, etc., in the stories, and propose methods to help spark the conversion in others.
Worth a shot? Or pipe dream?

Reply to  takebackthegreen
May 24, 2015 12:38 am

I’m another one. An average sheep.
I took all my friends to see An Inconvenient Truth. Was sold on AGW, until a friend pointed me to a few contradictory facts & results of cap & trade.
Now I try to keep an open mind … in both directions (sceptic vs denier):
– is GW caused by A? How much?
– is GW happening?
– local/regional climate does Seem to be changing and the Internet has given us much greater awareness & ability to gather info & evaluate….
– if GW is real, what’s the best way to prepare?
– should one support AGW to end fossil fuel pollution (50% of USA states have mercury warnings from coal; was my mother’s Alzheimer’s caused by living downwind of Nanticoke Coal Generating Station? I’ll never know, but the air is cleaner with less asthma now that it’s closed)?
– should one support Renewable Energy to rid us of the terrible legacy of unaffordable, uninsurable, unstorable Nuclear electricity?
– and several more …!

Reply to  Lorne WHITE
May 24, 2015 8:32 am

You still have a ways to go. You start off talking about “open mind” and “both directions”. Yet everything that follows is AGW speek. “Unaffordable, uninsurable, unstorable” LOL. Real scientific.

Reply to  Lorne WHITE
May 24, 2015 8:59 am

“…Unaffordable, uninsurable, unstorable, Nuclear Energy…”
You obviously know nothing about nuclear energy and are still drinking the coolaid. Nuclear has a bad reputation for the same reasons that global warming is a fad.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
May 24, 2015 12:55 pm

“– should one support Renewable Energy to rid us of the terrible legacy of unaffordable, uninsurable, unstorable Nuclear electricity?”

You MUST be joking. Commercial nuclear power in fact has one of the best safety record of any industry, and in fact on a per unit energy produced life cycle basis, is by far the safest method of producing energy – safer than coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydro. You are, in fact, safer working in a USA commercial nuclear power plant than you are in your own home (darned all those ladders to fall off of at home, kids toys to trip over, etc.).
Nuclear is also far cheaper than any of the “renewable/sustainable/green” energy sources, again, on a per unit energy produced life cycle basis.
Nor is there any problems with insuring it – in fact nuclear power plants self insure without problems, and as a backup the government provides additional coverage – coverage which has never come close to being needed.
Nor is there any problems “storing” nuclear power. I’m not even sure what you mean by that… it’s incredibly easy to take a nuclear plant offline – in a split second in fact if needed – and the energy production ability is still all there and it can be restarted easily. Or if you’re meaning waste an or by-products, again, there is no technical or scientific problem with storage. Only political problems.
And just what “terrible legacy?” The one where it’s produced roughly 20% of our entire nation’s electricity for many decades now more safely than any other commercial scale method of producing energy? And roughly 80% of France’s – and they not only have about the cheapest energy in Europe as a result, but export huge amounts of electricity to other nations, all thanks to their nuclear program.
Not to mention nuclear power has a tiny environmental impact compared to all the other commercial scale electrical production methods.
So I do hope you just suckered me in with Poe’s law and were being sarcastic in your wording, and not serious – because if you were serious, you were also dead wrong on all counts.

Reply to  takebackthegreen
May 24, 2015 12:39 am

You would also have to do the research on those who changed from ‘denier’ to ‘believer’ and check for cash incentives or fame incentives on both.

Reply to  takebackthegreen
May 24, 2015 3:37 am

I think that many who change positions on a “Big Issue” convince themselves they did not “really” change sides. We fool ourselves all the time — after all, preventing us fooling ourselves is a large reason for the scientific method, no?
I knew man-made global warming was junk science when I fist heard of it in the 70s. The Kiehl and Trenberth energy budget of the late 90s is so physically impossible that I just knew that the game would be up when rational people saw it. But here we are nearly 20 years later and it is still dogmatically believed by alarmists and luke-warmers alike. I don’t think we could even get people to believe “Heat is the transfer of thermal energy between two bodies that are at different temperatures, and is not equal to thermal energy” which was written in an old textbook of mine.
I saw a guy write at Goddard’s site some time ago that a photon from some ice on the surface of the earth could radiate to the sun and make it hotter. (paraphrased of course) My hand before God, I swear that this madness will end someday but it might be in the far, far future.

Reply to  markstoval
May 24, 2015 11:41 pm

It is the net radiation. And yes the ice does make the sun hotter. None the less the flow is still from hot to cold.
Do a thought experiment –> two bodies. Hot and cold. Now heat up the cold. Keep heating until they are the same temperature. Think about the radiation between them. And the “net” radiation flow. The “net” gets smaller as the cold body temperature gets closer to the hot.
Since radiation goes up as T^4 once the temperatures differ significantly the cold body can be ignored –> for most problems.

Reply to  takebackthegreen
May 24, 2015 6:04 am

You were probably not a sheep in the first place. Examine your thought processes on other major topics and you probably consider many angles before coming to a decision.
I too was originally convinced on global warming, but that was before I had heard any reasoned opposition.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  takebackthegreen
May 24, 2015 11:46 pm

I used to take it for granted that it was true, but I never thought it was very important.
I have changed my opinions on many things over the years, almost never to an alternative view which was available off the shelf. My current worldview is so unusual that I have had to create my own terminology to describe it. I can confirm that thinking for yourself is not a route to happiness.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 23, 2015 11:33 pm

This type of thinking also pervades much of the climate science community and the entire science establishment.

May 23, 2015 11:33 pm

This intellectual laziness, intellectual offshoring, is one of the reasons its so important IMO that its important to emphasise demonstrable flaws in the bellwethers.
Forst, the intellectual “offshoring” IMO is likely an evolutionary survival trait. If we burn all our precious energy revisiting decisions we’ve already made, thoughts we’ve already had, we won’t have much time left for other important activities like finding food. Just my hypothesis, but it fits in nicely IMO with all the other energy conservation optimisations exhibited by the human body.
So how do you get past this automatic response?
You bring automatic responses into conflict.
For example, Pachauri’s ghastly behaviour while head of the IPCC, in which he has been accused of being a sexual predator. Decent people have an instinctive loathing of sex predators.
But the bellwether response is the IPCC is beyond reproach.
So by forcing people whose instinctive response is that the IPCC is beyond reproach, to consider the fact that Pachauri, head of the IPCC, allegedly got away with being an odious sexual predator for several years, you bring two offshoring automatic responses into conflict.
What happens next is very similar to what happens in a computer if it detects a crisis – the automatic responses can’t handle the situation, so they send out a call for help, and force people’s brain to engage and start thinking, start reevaluating the situation, to discover a resolution.
And in the case of Pachauri, the only sane resolution to this conflict, is that there may be something very wrong with the top management of the IPCC.

Keith Minto
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 23, 2015 11:59 pm

I agree that Panchauri’s behaviour was reprehensible, but the story was quickly buried by the media. Without an objective, questioning media, the road to common sense is going to be difficult. The left press are pushing the right press into seeming to be extreme, the reasonable middle ground is being lost. I am thinking here of how Fairfax is characterising Andrew Bolt as extreme, and therefore as not worthy of attention.

Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 12:22 am

Is there a serious right-leaning TV information channel in the US?

Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 3:01 am

Define “serious”.
After all, is there a serious left-leaning TV information channel in the US?

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 3:07 am

serious means not Fox-like

Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 4:09 am

Fox is bad, indeed, but on par with all others.
Or, which would you say is a serious left-leaning TV information channel in the US?

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 10:29 pm

“Fox is bad, indeed, but on par with all others.”
No-go-zones inside Paris (Paris intra muros) bad?
Well, at least Fox said the info was baseless.
The TV channel Canal+ (who led the email fight against Fox) said UKIP was “far right”, on par with Front National (= anti-immigration anti-Europe anti-free trade socialist and nationalist party, more left than the Parti Socialiste). C+ will not apologize about that statement!

Reply to  Keith Minto
May 24, 2015 6:09 am

I don’t watch fox because I don’t have television subscription, but when I did watch I didn’t see much difference between them and the msm, except there were some conservative opinion shows on the network, which weren’t available from the msm.
A question for the simple tourista, Is there something specific about fox news that has given you this opinion. My reason for asking is I see people online saying stuff like “fauxnews” or “it’s all lies from fox news”, which I find hard to believe that nothing said is true.

May 23, 2015 11:43 pm

Let me digress: Why is it so hard to convince a reopen911-ist?
I think reopen911 stuff is an excellent exercice from all POV.
And why do so much people accept the official NIST-backed explanation? I think that few people believe CD (controlled demolition) of WTC because few people have been explained this theory.
Perhaps we are not be in “belief equilibrium” here (ie debunking the reopen911 may increase the website’s audience and increase the number of reopenists).
We cannot assume people reject CD because it’s a crazy theory, that is unscientific. Some people accept the NIST explanation because the gov says it is the correct one, period.
I like this stuff, because it’s actually pretty simple.
Maybe reopen and WTC theories are a model of something?
And don’t forget economy of ignorance: there is so much stuff I don’t have time to review myself, doing a bibliographic study is so costly, etc.
Ignorance (which is free) is sometimes the optimal choice.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 12:47 am

The problem with 9/11 stuff is that you are asking people to choose between trusting the government to trusting a conspiracy theorist. Not exactly a great choice. Having delved into both I’m inclined to believe neither, however as the government is the only one of the two that has actual power, they’re the only ones whose falsehoods I care about.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 24, 2015 7:07 am

Lets nix the off-topix 911 stuff please

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 24, 2015 7:34 pm


Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 24, 2015 10:48 pm

“off-topix 911 stuff”
What stuff? Alternate theories or beliefs in alternate theories?

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 2:09 am

I’m personally happy with the WTC explanation – two giant planes full of jet fuel slamming into tall buildings, a huge out of control accelerant fire, buildings simply aren’t constructed to take that kind of treatment. Its a wonder they didn’t collapse immediately. As a British mate said, it was a sucker punch – a surprise attack which worked because it had never been done before.
I flew Emirates Airlines October 2001, that flight was full of the scariest people I’ve ever seen – Russian mercenaries on their way to the Middle East, oil workers, a few utter freaks of nature who were obviously doing air marshal duty. If some idiot had pulled out a boxcutter and said “I’m taking over the plane”, they would have needed to identify him by his DNA.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 4:33 am

two giant planes full of jet fuel slamming into tall buildings, a huge out of control accelerant fire, buildings simply aren’t constructed to take that kind of treatment.

Normally no, but the wtc buildings 1 and 2 were EXPLICITLY designed with that risk in mind. It was one of the design requirements.
You’d better be careful getting into this subject since it’s a taboo here. Let’s just say that you seem to be suffering from some of that intellectual “offshoring” you were referring to.
I’d suggest you try to resolve your “automatic response conflict” elsewhere than WUWT but it is a good illustration of the social problem as you correctly pointed out.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 5:53 am

Then again, Building 7 was not hit by anything and fell over anyway. It fell in the way that people will pay demolition experts a lot of money to make happen.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 5:54 am

Forgot #7.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 6:11 am

Buildings are designed with high wind and storms in mind, but that does not mean a tornado, hurricane, or even a freak straight line wind will not cause severe damage to one.
I have studied the relevant information, and all of the silly videos…the planes caused damage which led to the collapse.
Steel does not need to melt to lose much of it’s strength, and the mass of the parts of the buildings that were hit made it inevitable that if there was the slightest movement of that mass, that nothing could possibly stop the pancaking.
There is no “there” there.
Please not conflate CAGW and (t)ruther…ism, they have nothing in common.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 6:13 am

…the mass of the parts of the buildings ABOVE the parts that were hit…

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 6:14 am

Building 7 was not hit by anything, except the flaming wreckage of the largest structural collapse in history.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 11:03 pm

Seriously, reopen911 is to “false flags” detection what Lewandowski is to sociology. They can find a proof of A and explain its proves not(A).
I can’t believe real sceptics (sceptics about everything) are taking them seriously. Half-sceptics (= I distrust everything from the gov and trust every else), however…
Confronting reopen is a training of real scepticism.
I am sorry we can’t discuss reopen here because it is a real world experience of people scepticism (unlike Lew’s silly studies).

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 24, 2015 11:14 pm

*rolls the eyes*

May 23, 2015 11:46 pm

The problem with this essay is the you can as easily substitute “skeptic” for “warmist” and the observations are as sound. “Rational ignorance is the belief that the cost / benefit to researching every issue is so low as to be net negative in time utilisation” Of course it is, I have been at it for 9 years and am still ignorant though I beleive , relatively, still rational. The reference to the “scientific method” is simplistic. “Continental drift” Is a poor descriptor of plate tectonics and is intuatively a large bite to swallow. Not until the data on magnetic reversals confirmed that the altlantic was spreading from the ridge was the theory ascendent. The last paragraph on financial incentives implies that the sceptics should bribe the warmist scientists! Sorry, at the moment I’m short of a few bob.

Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 12:17 am

The problem with your equivalency is your ignoring the point made about observation versus belief and fudging data to reinforce that belief. If the data and the results of recent research supported AGW and its impact on T (historical as well as present day) most here would accept the hypothesis. In the absence of hard proof what you have is skepticism. Show me the money :-).

Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 12:45 am

Continental drift is indeed a good example. Any school pupil could see at a glance how the continents and other land masses seemed to fit like jigsaw pieces. Rock samples and other geological data showed the theory was feasible. Yet, prior to about 1970 all sorts of crazy ideas were put forward to explain the obvious. The magnetic record did kill those ideas but for a long time any theory of moving land masses was derided despite other evidence.

Reply to  bookim
May 24, 2015 5:58 pm

My high school geography teacher did mention this weird German guy’s idea of continental drift, and noted the close fir of Africa and South America. He thought it had at least a superficial plausibility. I was dubious, because I thought the continents were firmly attached to the rest of the Earth’s crust, including the bits under the sea, and I couldn’t think of anything to move them anyway.
On the other hand, I found the theory for the production of fold mountains totally unconvincing. (That was the “weight of sediment leads to die ways pressure” theory.)

Reply to  bookim
May 24, 2015 6:09 pm

Sideways pressure. Bloody self-correct software can’t read my mind.

Reply to  bookim
May 25, 2015 4:35 am

I read a book about continental drift in 1969 at the age of eight and immediately knew it was true.
Beside for the close fit of the coastlines (they fit better when the continental shelf is matched, rather than the parts above sea level, as would be expected), there is the overwhelming weight of fossil evidence, which are imbedded in matching geologic strata. Alfred Wegener knew this well over a hundred years ago. Not knowing the mechanism for something which is obviously true is a poor reason to doubt it is true…rather, it is a good reason to search for the mechanism.

Doubting Rich
Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 2:59 am

No you can’t, because the “in group” is warmist throughout the democratic world.
All major political parties are warmist. All the government and supranational bureaucracies are warmist. Most of the prominent news organisations are warmist (in the UK the BBC has over half the news market and breaks its charter to remain biased). All the prominent science publications are warmist. To a close approximation all the funding for research is allocated by warmists. All the committees in the world’s major scientific organisations are warmist: note that the very few who ballot members don’t find such views reflected by any overwhelming proportion of members.
Sceptics are marginalised, despised, mocked and threatened.

Reply to  Doubting Rich
May 24, 2015 3:03 am

I wonder, are you aware that you are exaggerating?

Reply to  Doubting Rich
May 24, 2015 5:27 am

Brute, I see no exaggerating from Doubting Rich. That’s exactly the way it is.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  Doubting Rich
May 24, 2015 11:57 pm

Which specific statements do you claim are exaggerated?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 6:52 am

May 23, 2015 at 11:46 pm
“The problem with this essay is the you can as easily substitute “skeptic” for “warmist””
But skeptics come in two forms:
Skeptics who simply follow a script, yes, but thinking skeptics who actually demonstrated that the CAGW theory was away overblown, no. It’s easier for unthinking people to go along with one side or the other, but skeptics who have come to a position through seeing forecasts/projections are wrong, the science and statistics are improperly applied, that data has been manipulated, selected and rejected to fit….
I started by not having any reason to think there might be an agenda or that the science was jiggered. At a glance, it made sense that clearing all that land and using all that energy could have a significant effect. However, the ‘pause’ focused my attention on the issue. The earth systems seemed to be much more complex than advertised. The earth’s air and seas seemed to be able to counteract the simply understood linear science being applied. It became clear there was skulduggery afoot with the data. It became clear that critics were been vilified and marginalized rather than debated with.
As a geologist (and engineer) I already was aware of the swings into ice ages and warm periods (I don’t subscribe to the modern definition of ice ages being the whole works – that’s sloppy, confusing terminology). I was also aware that some day we were going to slide back into the cold so thought a little warmth added was a good thing. As it turned out, it was good in more immediate ways, too – better harvests, greening of the planet, etc.
My study of the issue revealed to me that mainstream climatologists were ‘learning by doing’ and didn’t seem to have a clue about past warm and cold periods that were put forward by skeptics. They were, after all, mainly astronomers, physicists and biologists who got the ball rolling. All the other phenomena put forward by skeptics were not welcomed until the dreaded ‘pause’ that falsified the doom scenario. Then they accepted reluctantly that ENSO, PDO, AMO etc. were important (they needed them to try to explain the pause and to shore up a tattered theory). To go too far with this acceptance, though, would mean neutering the theory. This led to more and more focus on climate sensitivity and its ultimate reduction to less scary levels.
Once serious warming proponents had gained a more rounded knowledge of their subject, indeed with the help of skeptics, any attempt at debate stopped and the real “DNile” set in – no more debates, just ad hominems, threats, and, as a psychiatric patient reacts to a reality they can’t face (a career wasted on phlogiston)etc. they take refuge, ironically in “DNile” – a long standing term used by therapists and the climate depression diagnosis was born (although post normal psychology refuses to diagnose this – they say sufferers are down because they can’t convince people that they are trying to save the planet – in an earlier generation this would have been seen by the layman as delusional!).

Geologist Down The Pub Sez
Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 8:19 am

Precisely. Wegener’s Continental Drift hypothesis was (quite properly) rejected because he required a mechanism which logically could not happen – for the lighter continental rocks to plow through the heavier oceanic rocks like ships through water. The discovery that the rocks far from the mid-ocean ridges were a lot older than the rocks near the ridges was the clue that was needed to make plate tectonics comprehensible. (Not just the magnetic domain/reversal, which was a big help). New crust is being formed continuously along these ridges, which then came to be recognized as rifts. All this huge change happened during my career as a geologist, which meant I picked a really neat half-century for my career!

Reply to  Geologist Down The Pub Sez
May 25, 2015 4:55 pm

There you go, making the same error as everyone else.
Just because you cannot explain how it happens, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Darwin could not explain how parents passed on different traits to their offspring. Genes hadn’t been discovered. By your reasoning, evolution should have been rejected out of hand.
Our stone age ancestors, who, by selective breeding, created all of our modern crops and domesticated animals, didn’t have a clue to genetics. They thought about blood lines. So wrong. But they didn’t care. It worked.

Reply to  diogenese2
May 24, 2015 6:07 pm

“The problem with this essay is the you can as easily substitute “skeptic” for “warmist” and the observations are as sound”
It isn’t a problem with the essay. The essay applies general principles to warmists. One could just as well apply them to conservatives, anti-evolutionists, football fans, militant atheists, or any other ideological grouping. It is a problem of human nature.

Reply to  RoHa
May 24, 2015 7:49 pm

When you think of ideological groups you conjure up conservatives but not liberals? Interesting.

Reply to  RoHa
May 25, 2015 6:15 am

Following on from Jtom … and atheists but not theists? RoHa simply takes a majority view as being “moderate” and a minority view as being “immoderate”: such is the way of the sheep – always aim to be in the middle of the flock.

May 23, 2015 11:55 pm

Why would anyone think they can change the minds of global warming alarmists about “climate change”. Alarmists rely on propaganda not real world observational data on climate. It does not matter what evidence you can produce to them. As far as they are concerned, they remain like Obama … narrow minded, ignorant and climate change zealots. I know… I’ve tried to open their minds to valid published data. They just don’t care.

Chris Hanley
May 23, 2015 11:58 pm

‘… and finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake …’.
That’s from a 2009 essay by Richard Lindzen, cogent and eloquent as always and well worth reading (again):

May 24, 2015 12:06 am

It is the vanity at the core of progressivism that explains why they are so immune to facts. It’s not just climate science, but virtually all political, economic and social issues.
See for example:
“The conclusion was known from the start, and the study was fabricated to bolster that conclusion, because the conclusion was unquestionably, incontrovertibly ‘right,’ and if it’s right, and the other side can’t and never will understand that, there is no reason to waste time debating. The insidiousness of this act of force is that it pays lip service to ‘reason,’ masquerading as an ’empirical,’ ‘data-based’ contribution to a debate — because the desire to ‘start a conversation’ remains the great palliative of American political rhetoric.”
Whenever a progressive says he wants to start a dialogue, he really just means he wants to launch into a soliloquy.

Reply to  GaryM
May 24, 2015 3:36 am

It’s really political science at play and not some deep neural imbalance. Vanity, arrogance, narcissims, et al simply hide the underlying motive.
Suppose a person says they like a color and describe how it’s based on the fifteen primary colors. When confronted with the reality, simply state “everyone knows there are fifteen primary colors and here’s why” so you’re wrong and I’m right. However, if the person then uses government to mandate everyone must acknowledge there are fifteen primary colors, make it part of school textbooks and require specific colors for each type of structure (defined by them, of course). The person simplies wants to impose their will, are extremely motivated and will any means. If we define totalitariansim as a psychosis, then it fits all of them.
Vanity is just one of dozens of socially acceptable monikers that are used to explain the psychosis.

May 24, 2015 12:07 am

peer group pressure is very strong so anyone who bucks the fashionable in- view has to be very strong as I have found there is very heavy social price to pay. The point being that a rebel threatens social cohesion
What is interesting is how across countries it is the same social group that adheres to politically correct views They are often university educated in law social sciences( but few economists ) teaching or in other symbol manipulating professions but not may engineers One particular favorite is belief in the need for and the value of foreign aid – despite overwhelming evidence that the now successful developed formerly poor nations (eg Japan South Korea and now China) all lifted themselves up by economic development uwithout reliance on foreign aid.
Of course the big issue for all right thinking people is global warming yet in my experience none of them has read any IPCC report nor can they give a coherent explanation of how the theory of global warming is supposed to operate.
One believer even argued with me when I told him water vapor was the most significant GHG (it said to be so in IPCC report no 4 )
Try and tell them there has been no statistically significant global warming in 18 years ie the pause (even accepted by the UK Met Office)
Lets face it we are talking about a quasi religious cult where belief and feelings are more important than facts or analysis
To conclude these views are particularly strongly held among the green left who congregate in the inner centres of Australian cities and it has to be remembered that only 50 years ago the left had a strong emotional attachment to Marxism and the Soviet Union
With both those gone the void of the need to believe in some creed has been filled by belief in CAGW and no logic is ever going to shake a belief

Rational Db8
Reply to  thomho
May 24, 2015 1:15 pm

The left STILL has a strong attachment to socialism/Marxism/communism – even when they’re not educated enough to realize that those are the sources of the ideas they’re supporting – nothing has changed in that regard in 50 years, unfortunately.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 24, 2015 11:47 pm

Rational Db8
We are sufficiently educated to know that “socialism/Marxism/communism” are different philosophies and cannot rationally be lumped together.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 1:29 am

And the Right still has a strong attachment to the Progressive policy of prohibition. Long after the Progressives have given it up.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 9:45 pm

They’re so closely related in terms of how they’ve historically been implemented that it’s quite easy to lump them together as compared to classical liberalism/TEA party/fiscal & Constitutional conservatism, Libertarians, etc.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 9:49 pm

@M Simon
You’ve got to be joking. While there may be some merit in claiming that about social conservatives, it certainly doesn’t even begin to apply to fiscal and Constitutional conservatives – and the left has hardly given up the idea of prohibition – they’re into trying to regulate every single aspect of our lives right down to what lightbulbs we can and can’t use, what types of cars we can drive, appliances we can have, types of houses we can build, what we can even park in our own driveways, etc., etc., etc. The left is quite heavily into prohibition of all sorts, far more so than the segment of the right that are social conservatives.

Josh Pyke
May 24, 2015 12:08 am

Every part of Thomas Sowell’s ‘Intellectuals and Society’ resonates within me as I read this article. I encourage everyone to give it a look, if only for a laugh (at the woeful track record of progressive thinking).

May 24, 2015 12:19 am

I think we need to consider vaccine science in parallel with climate science is one of the deepest and most interesting mystery for me. We should resist vaccine academentia just like we resist climate academentia. (It’s obvious many professors are losing control when you dare discuss vaccine safety in front of them.)
Why do so many people in the climate sceptic community accept flawed vaccine science? (Rejection of vaccine scepticism in the climate sceptics community may be a sign that a large part of the community is not sceptic at all but has “motivated” something as Lew puts it.)
Climate science is not just radiative physics and vaccine science is not just the concept of immunisation.
Decrease of vaccine preventable disease is not the same as proof of efficiency of vaccines (better treatment protocols vs. better immunisation).
The signature of the flu vaccine is missing (successful vs. failed flu vaccine)
Many climate realism points are obvious metaphors for vaccine realism points.
French scepticism history is interesting: the roots of widespread scepticism about consensus vaccine science comes from just the hep B vaccine. This rejection of academic consensus led to the pathetic failure of the pandemic flu AH1N1 mass vaccination program.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 3:31 am

I’ve pointed out to people just how similar the shutdown n putdown of anyone daring to speak out re vaccines is..exactly the same as the refusal to consider anything going against the climate experts..
who like the AGW are agenda and income driven.
in bigpharmas case even more money, for a chosen few.
in both cases you can show actual data, or, lack of, and still be called denier.
funny how that word ot picked up really fast by the pro vax/mandatory vax mobs here in aus
once again we mugs are the test bunnies for what america plans
rfid as one case
gun removal as another
now enforced vax or removal of child support and care in aus, followed very fast by a rush of enforced vax senators in america
curious isn’t it?

Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 24, 2015 8:16 pm

I suspect both of you must be under the age of sixty. We older folks lived through an epidemic called polio. At the beginning of the 1950s, several hundred thousand kids a year were getting it in the U.S. (and our population was much smaller then). A classmate of mine loss the use of her legs because of it. Then the vaccine was discovered. The rates plummeted to the hundreds in just three years or so, then to single digits. It did NOT follow the decline rate of viral epidemics, but abruptly terminated the epidemic. It’s rather absurd (that’s not the ‘a’ word I want to use, but it will suffice) to spout ‘better treatment’ when there was no longer people needing treatment! That made firm believers of vaccines out of my generation, just as our parents had become believers by the smallpox vaccine.
Then when the ‘research’ concluding that vaccines caused autism turned out to be a flagrant fraud to perpetuate a get-rich quick scheme, we became very intolerant of those who question the effacacy of vaccines.
No, I don’t think every vaccine is golden, each must be examined on its on merits, but anyone who disparages vaccines in general must be regarded as a fool, ignorant of history.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 25, 2015 8:46 am

“we became very intolerant of those who question the effacacy of vaccines.”
That was my point.
Vaccine science = cult

Ian H
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 4:26 am

I considered replying to each of your points, but life is just too short. Believe what you want. Why should I expend energy and time trying to argue rationally with someone who appears to think irrationally. I might as well spend my time talking to a brick wall.
Maybe ad hominem has its place. Trying to debate intelligently with an idiot is a fruitless game; quicker to just call them an idiot and move on. Fortunately the world cares little for what idiots think.

Reply to  Ian H
May 24, 2015 9:23 am

So anyone who you disagree with is an idiot? Wow that iis arrogant.
But think about this…to an insane person the rest of the world appears insane wile they themselves appear normal. If you are thinking the rest of the world is comprised of idiots and you alone are intellectually superior then in all likelihood you are the idiot.

Pseudo Idiot
Reply to  Ian H
May 24, 2015 10:02 am

Ian, what is your evidence that “the world cares little for what idiots think”? I am under the impression that quite a number of people care what Obama and the Pope think.

Ian H
Reply to  Ian H
May 24, 2015 3:05 pm

Not everyone I disagree with is an idiot. But there are idiots that I disagree with. That is what we are looking at in this case.
Rationally arguing with someone requires considerable effort. If that person is clearly so far off the deep end that it seems highly unlikely they are open to rational argument then this is all going to be wasted effort. In that case deciding not to argue with them is an entirely reasonable approach, especially if you think the person is so far off into lala land that nobody is going to care what they think anyway.
It is a triage approach. Save rational arguments for those who are rational and worth arguing with. For those who are clearly hopeless cases the best thing to do is probably to remind them that they are idiots (in case they have forgotten) and tell them to go away.
When faced with this steaming pile of nonsense about vaccines I just had to throw my hands up in horror. Where to even start! But then I realised that since the person was so clearly an idiot there was really no point in me wasting my time.

Reply to  Ian H
May 24, 2015 11:45 pm

“Maybe ad hominem has its place”
Fascinating trolling

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 5:04 am

Nice attempt at trolling. We all see your ploy…

Reply to  Legend
May 25, 2015 12:03 am

Then tell me what it is…

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 6:46 am

When weighing evidence there is preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt. The viability of Evolutionary theory is beyond reasonable doubt. The effectiveness of vaccination programs are beyond reasonable doubt. Both have had missteps along the way to being established but missteps does not alter the overwhelming evidence in their favor.
Climate science has yet to meet preponderance of evidence. In order for inductive reasoning to be valid, it requires valid or proven premises. Climate science uses unproven premises and then disingenuously claim their logic is irrefutable. Logic to be useful needs to be more than just consistent. It has to connect to reality.
The best you could say is that AGW theory and it’s attendant scenarios are inconclusive. Maybe like with plate tectonics evidence will come along to propel their theories forward. Maybe not.
Meanwhile it would be nice if someone told them they look like idiots projecting out to a century temperature to hundredths of a degree, climate and weather patterns and the state of earths ecology using unproven premises.

Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 9:31 am

And yet evolutionary theory as it stands has some very serious flaws. I am not saying evolution is not possible nor am I a religious nut but just pointing out a few simple facts always seems to get the groupthink people wound up. I could go on to tear the theory apart point by point but it would be a waste of time because those who believe in the theory of evolution as it stands will not listen and just brand me as a religious extremism nutcase because that is easier than accepting that a belief they hold dear may be flawed. Thus there is no serious work on evolution because to start it would be a career ender.

Pseudo Idiot
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 10:23 am

Alx says “The effectiveness of vaccination programs are beyond reasonable doubt.”
If this is true then almost all reasonable people have already been persuaded, and all skeptical questions from unpersuaded reasonable people are cheerfully answered with indisputable logic and evidence, leaving only religious zealots unpersuaded in the end.
An example would be programs to persuade people they should stop smoking and brush their teeth.
Counterexamples would be AGW, certain types of particularly suspicious vaccination programs (e.g. MMR and Flu), and government narratives about virtually all historical incidents.

Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 11:54 am

Like Tim, I do not want to get into a ridiculous argument over evolution theory. But note that it is the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution. The theory seems plausible when it is limited to explaining changes WITHIN a species. But there is nothing in the fossil record showing failed, let alone successful, examples of one species turning itself into another. Natural selection, adaptation, survival of the fittest, are all helpful ways to look at the development of a given species. But one thing I find interesting is that the most fervent believers in evolution seem to be progressives and the same types who grant certainty to AGW. But when it comes to actually putting their actions in alignment with their stated beliefs they fail miserably when it comes to embracing their stated beliefs in terms of human development. If they followed through on their beliefs then they would see the futility of punishing the successful in society by stealing their wealth to redistribute to the weak. They would let the weak fend for themselves and allow natural selection to work its process.
Anyone on the right who advocated allowing the evolutionary process to work itself out is accused by these evolution theory zealots of being a social Darwinist! Isn’t that what they, themselves, should be if they are true to their theory? Or do progressives always get to pick and choose what is relevant and what isn’t whose ox needs to be gored at the time?

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 1:26 pm

Sorry, but there has been and continues to be reams of research on evolution, and such research is in no way a “career ender.” The problem is with your claim that there are supposedly “very serious flaws” to evolutionary theory. In fact there isn’t. I’ve seen such claims time and again, and while you might surprise me and come up with something valid that way, so far all I’ve seen time and again are claims about irreducible complexity or a failure to ever see a case of actual evolutionary change — those sorts of false claims which prove that the person making them simply isn’t aware of the actual research that exists.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 1:40 pm

@Pseudo Idiot
MMR questionable? Sorry, but several extremely large extensive studies show pretty darned clearly that the claims of “questionable” w/ regard to MMR don’t hold up. Then also consider the following:
Scientists Crack A 50-Year-Old Mystery About The Measles Vaccine
Back in the 1960s, the U.S. started vaccinating kids for measles. As expected, children stopped getting measles.
But something else happened.
Childhood deaths from all infectious diseases plummeted. Even deaths from diseases like pneumonia and diarrhea were cut by half.
Scientists saw the same phenomenon when the vaccine came to England and parts of Europe. And they see it today when developing countries introduce the vaccine.
“In some developing countries, where infectious diseases are very high, the reduction in mortality has been up to 80 percent,” says Michael Mina, a postdoc in biology at Princeton University and a medical student at Emory University.
“So it’s really been a mystery — why do children stop dying at such high rates from all these different infections following introduction of the measles vaccine,” he says.
Mina and his colleagues think they now might have an explanation. And they published their evidence Thursday in the journal Science.
Now there’s an obvious answer to the mystery: Children who get the measles vaccine are probably more likely to get better health care in general — maybe more antibiotics and other vaccines. And it’s true, health care in the U.S. has improved since the 1960s.
But Mina and his colleagues have found there’s more going on than that simple answer.
The team obtained epidemiological data from the U.S., Denmark, Wales and England dating back to the 1940s. Using computer models, they found that the number of measles cases in these countries predicted the number of deaths from other infections two to three years later.
“We found measles predisposes children to all other infectious diseases for up to a few years,” Mina says….

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 1:45 pm

“But there is nothing in the fossil record showing failed, let alone successful, examples of one species turning itself into another.”

Sorry, but that’s simply not even close to true. There are in fact a huge number of ‘transitional’ fossils known for all sorts of different examples of speciation.

Ian H
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 3:19 pm

Pushing a theory like evolution into the social arena and using it as the basis of social policy is dangerous. Evolution, like all science, is about reality and not morality. And you can’t leave morality out of politics and social policy.
Furthermore evolution is about who has the most babies, not who has the most money. Since the people in our society who are the most prolific procreators are the poor, it is the poor who are fittest in purely evolutionary terms.

Reply to  Alx
May 25, 2015 12:05 am

“The effectiveness of vaccination programs are beyond reasonable doubt.”
Which ones?

Pseudo Idiot
Reply to  Alx
May 25, 2015 8:04 am

@Rational Db8,
The MMR vaccine is not the measles vaccine. MMR is a Franken-mixture.
I believe you’ll find that the measles vaccine is no longer available in the U.S.
No studies about the measles vaccine can be said to have any credible relevance to the MMR vaccine, any more than a study about pasteurized skim milk would have any credible relevance to raw whole milk.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 25, 2015 9:55 pm

@ Pseudo Idiot
MMR is a combination of measles, mumps, and rubella. It unquestionably drastically cuts the rate of measles infections. And had you bothered to read the article I linked to, you would have seen that the decrease in other diseases is a direct function of NOT being infected by measles. In other words, any vaccine which keeps kids/people from getting measles drastically reduces all sorts of other infections that would likely occur in the next several years if that person had gotten measles. So yes, MMR unquestionably is part and parcel with the research I linked to.

Reply to  Alx
May 26, 2015 2:56 am

@Rational Db8
Stop being silly

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 26, 2015 3:10 pm


@Rational Db8
Stop being silly

What you mean to say is that you disagree with the position stated, but you are entirely unable to articulate any sort of cogent, meaningful, rational response supporting your own position. You therefore resort to the logical fallacy of an attempt to ridicule, trying to create the appearance that you’ve won absent any logic or facts.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 26, 2015 4:43 pm

“What you mean to say is that you disagree with the position stated,”
No, I mean that your inept messages contain no argument whatsoever and that you are being silly.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Alx
May 26, 2015 7:39 pm

@simple-touriste May 26, 2015 at 4:43 pm

No, I mean that your inept messages contain no argument whatsoever and that you are being silly. CAPISH?

Your failure to understand clear information is not my failure to make an argument.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 27, 2015 7:41 am

What information?

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 6:59 am

There are several good reasons not to conflate other topics with CAGW.
Whether it is GMO tech and safety, vaccines, twin towers stuff, or whatever, if you attempt to make your point re CAGW by referring to anything else you are using a logical fallacy every bit as invalid as appeal to authority.
The subjects are not related.
In fact, vaccines and GMOs seem to be among a very few topics of widespread contention in which the adherents do not seem to break across the usual political lines.
And even with CAGW, there is only a rough correlation with political affiliation.
BTW and for the record, I am not registered with any political party.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 24, 2015 9:26 am

“Whether it is GMO tech and safety, vaccines, twin towers stuff, or whatever, if you attempt to make your point re CAGW by referring to anything else you are using a logical fallacy every bit as invalid as appeal to authority.”
Not exactly. The overlap occurs when power and money is routinely observed to suppress and ridicule opposition studies and knowledge to protect grants and industry income. If you think for an instant that ANY government entities are beyond this (including the FDA, NIH, DEA and many others) you would be ignoring (per this article) many easy to find examples. But since you claim to be knowledgeable in the medical field, I will just provide one example, the basics of which has been known for a very long time but for which results will only come to fruition with great difficulty for reasons of protection described.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 24, 2015 10:42 am

My point is that claiming one is true therefor the other has merit is without basis in logic.
Not whether those who believe in one or another of these should hold similar views across the gamut of them.
And not whether or not there is some overlap.
And just how to go from what I said here to “If you think for an instant that ANY government entities are beyond this”, is… well…beyond me.
I said what I said.
One should be careful to expand the thought and assume that I meant the expanded thought as well.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 24, 2015 11:57 am

“My point is that claiming one is true therefor the other has merit is without basis in logic.”
Again that would be incorrect TO THE EXTENT that there is merit when it has been shown that the entity cannot be trusted based on previous actions where there is no readily available information to cross check and one has to accept the story as provided. In this case, when the climastrogolists are caught fudging and rigging the data then why trust them on anything else. When a president openly and blatantly lies about one thing, his credibility is ruined on many others. If the FDA is caught suppressing data concerning inexpensive treatments over ones promoted by the pharmacutical industry, then why take anything else they say at face value. This explains why many (rightfully so) don’t trust such entities concerning vaccines GMO’s (or even 911).

Reply to  Menicholas
May 24, 2015 6:30 pm

“Again that would be incorrect TO THE EXTENT that there is merit when it has been shown that the entity cannot be trusted”
The entity?
The point I was making had nothing to do with government. You keep bringing up extraneous details that were not part of what I said and implying that I was making a point about whether governments can be trusted. I explicitly said that I was not making a point about any such entities.
I was making a point about the logical fallacy of believing that the objective veracity of one controversial topic has any bearing whatsoever on that of another separate topic.
Like when warmistas try to use the straw man argument regarding cigarettes and cancer, or flat earth believers.
I also pointed out that for some of these issues, there seems to be a correlation between political affiliation and what one might believe, and that for other topics there seems to be less correlation.
If you are hung up on the aspect of whether governments tend to lie, then that is fine with me. You can be hung up on that. But I said nothing in that regard.
Now, for the record and because, for one thing, this begins to grow tiresome, I interjected where I did because I believe it is one of the more egregious tendencies among the warmistas to let fellow adherents to their meme say ridiculous and patently false things, make fallacious arguments, and never say boo. Few on the warmistas side have ever called out even the most preposterous and over the top scare mongering, to cite one example, such as James Hansen claiming the oceans would boil if fossil fuel usage was not immediately and drastically curtailed.
Another reason I said what I did was that a few people were attempting to make the point that such things as trutherism and vaccines are subjects on which skeptic agree. I do not hold with such views as were being expressed and, what is more, I believe that to make such conflations damages the credibility of climate realists in general. Particularly if no one says anything when someone else makes what I see as an erroneous comparison.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I do not think GMOs are an evil scourge that must be banned, and I do not think vaccines are either, and I certainly do not believe any truther nonsense, except perhaps that warnings were ignored.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 7:21 am

But the government gets decide who can practice medicine and who can experiment on people (or even do a simple survey).
This is why 97% of studies show that vaccines are effective, safe, and make you sexier.
It is funny how americans seem to be naive and credulous WRT the medical field (not Big Pharma, but Big Medicine). It is less so in France. The “97 medical doctors say you need surgery” would not work so well here, most people would laugh.
As reliable as medical “science” means unreliable.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 26, 2015 3:31 am

“logical fallacy every bit as invalid as appeal to authority.”
You just don’t understand how this stuff work or even what YOU are doing.
Every time you cite anything, this is an appeal to some (contestable) authority. We aren’t cross-checking, recomputing, validating each-others findings all the time.
Every time you reference anything, you are implicitly saying that you trust a network of peer- and crowd-review and eggs-on-his-face and peer pressure against unsupportable claims.
Science used to work this way. (And no, peer review was never intended as a replacement for peer pressure. It is a pre-filter.)
When silly claims are made and never criticised, when the gov backs up obviously flawed research, we have a problem.
When the “elite” stop asking unpleasant questions, we have a problem.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 7:10 am

It is my detailed knowledge of immunology and of epidemiology, not to mention knowledge of the history of diseases and of medicine, that convince me of the value of vaccines and the validity of the science that guides their development and usage.
Nothing else.
Not a conflation with other topics, not a political belief, and not because I love or hate governments, powers structures, being told what to do, or anything else.
Are all vaccines equally efficacious against all diseases and all people in all circumstances?
Of course not.
Every infectious disease is unique, and the variety of ways in which they are unique is astounding.
As is the complexity of the biochemistry of the human immune system, and the number of ways each of us may differ from each other in our own unique biochemistry.
Best to stick to the topic at hand.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 24, 2015 10:45 am

Well said sir.
Having worked and published in the field, I can say that some vaccines work incredibly well, others not so well.
I’ve seen experimental vaccine candidates where the adjuvant (immune system stimulant) worked better than the adjuvant plus the vaccine candidate. Simple immunology, just like simple physics, not quite so out in the real world.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:37 pm

And with your detailed knowledge of immunology and of epidemiology, how much deaths are caused by vaccines? How much disability? How do you explain the explosion of MS and other neurological diseases where Hep B mass vaccination is done?

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 26, 2015 3:10 pm

simple-touriste: “How do you explain the explosion of MS and other neurological diseases where Hep B mass vaccination is done?”
Funny thing, I was always taught that correlation does not imply causation.
Clearly you were taught different.
You’re not very good at this sort of thing, are you?

Reply to  catweazle666
May 26, 2015 4:41 pm

“Funny thing, I was always taught that correlation does not imply causation.”
So you admit you have none.
“You’re not very good at this sort of thing, are you?”
You are pathetic.
You want me to humiliate you?

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:51 pm

I am not your researcher or fact checker. If you have a point, or something specific to say…then say it.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:56 pm

Translation: You have NOTHING except the usual PR stuff (hep B bad, vaccines good).
You get extra “points” for the Spanish flu, it’s a classic of ineptness, but you had to do it.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:58 pm

menicholas is right, the vaccination issue is at best only slightly relevant to the article.
Over all, vaccinations have saved many times more lives than they purportedly cost, or even affect. BUt do we need yet another law, mandating that everyone must get vaccinations?
Those objecting to having their children vaccinated should be allowed to withhold the shots. The reason is simple. You do not need 100% of the population vaccinated in order to protect the sub-group (the school, neighborhood, country, etc.)
Smallpox was completely eradicated from the planet. Fewer than 70% of the population was vaccinated, but that was sufficient to eliminate the disease. The numbers vary by disease, but if the large majority are vaccinated, the population is safe.
Parents whose conscience prohibits vaccinations for whatever reason constitute less than 1% of the population. It doesn’t matter, but when the lines are drawn (as with the runaway global warming hoax), many people are not convinced no matter what the arguments are.
Finally, measles is almost never fatal. I got measles as a kid, and just about every kid I knew did, too. We all survived the itching. My personal problem is when the government butts in and requires vaccinations across the board. No tolerance allowed. California is passing such a law right now. What’s next, requiring everyone to get a flu shot?

Reply to  dbstealey
May 25, 2015 4:19 pm

“menicholas is right, the vaccination issue is at best only slightly relevant to the article.”
menicholas is wrong on pretty much anything unrelated to his own personal existence. menicholas is so self-centered that he only view the world in term of heros and antiheros. Medicine = hero
This is extremely relevant. Physics = hero. Physics gave us … pretty much everything I have using right now.
Vaccine science = crackpot pseudoscience based on intimidation, anecdotes, fear, heros, antiheros, coincidence is proof when it’s good for us, anecdote is not data when it’s bad for us, silly attempts at doing stats by throwing pvalue in people’s face (just like the whole biomed field)
Climate is not weather, but bad weather events are climatic events. A girl dies just after a shoot is anecdote, some other girl is in a wheelchair is anecdote, some disease decreased after mass immunization is “data”? Are you for real?
And you think biomed is off topic, too?
Biomed is an absolute disaster. “Let’s hope we never get the money to try to reproduce all these results” said somebody.
Many fields of science may be ruined by the “mine is longer, mine is bigger” mentality. (You see what I mean.)
How could it be of topic?
How can “S” and “N”, the big players of the mine is bigger game be off topic?
Are you for real?
“Over all, vaccinations have saved many times more lives than they purportedly cost, or even affect.”
How do you know?

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 4:57 pm

DB, Everyone I know got measles too. And mumps, chicken pox, and German measles.
However, this very high rate of infection multiplied by the rate of serious adverse consequences add up to very many debilitating brain injuries from high fever.
Consider too the effect of immunization on overall death rates from other causes.
This was an unanticipated benefit that saved many live and injuries.
When the numbers are run, measles adds up to being the cause of more vaccine preventable deaths than any other disease.
And the measles outbreak last year demonstrated that the threshold of herd immunity has been breached for measles. Too many children are unvaccinated, or lack sufficient antibody titer to confer immunity.
Touriste, you are too rude and ridiculous to converse with.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 5:32 pm

“Touriste, you are too rude and ridiculous to converse with.”
translation: you know the vaccine PR, but nothing else. You can’t answer the most important questions. You don’t know how vaccines are evaluated.
I rest my case.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 7:25 pm

If “your case” hinges on my willingness to answer your inane whining questions, then yes, you can rest your case.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 26, 2015 2:35 am

So you admit you don’t even know the regulatory regime of vaccines.
Thank you

Reply to  Menicholas
May 26, 2015 3:38 am

“It is my detailed knowledge of immunology and of epidemiology, not to mention knowledge of the history of diseases and of medicine”
and that knowledge is based on what? Time machine? Thin air? The work of others?
Vaxxers typically don’t get history of the Hep B in France vaccine. That’s very recent history in a country which is not remote or in a war. And yet, they can’t seem to figure it out.
Vaxxers also usually don’t get the history of the said “pandemic” “pig” flu AH1N1, which is neither a pandemy nor a disease of pigs.
Vaxxers have almost zero understanding of the regulatory burden of vaccines.
You obviously got your information from these guys.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 9:42 am

A commonly repeated comment on the demographics of anti-vax’ers was that the rate of non-vaccinated children correlated with the proximity of a Whole Foods store. I would imagine that someone who regularly shops at Whole Foods is much more likely to be a CAGW believer than a CAGW skeptic.
One of the problems of trying to convince the CAGW believers with scientific backgrounds is that fair number of the CAGW “skeptics” have an obviously poor understanding of the physics. The same is true for the converse situation as a lot of the CAGW believers have an obviously poor understanding of the physics as well, especially the bellwethers.
FWIW, my take on the AGW issue is this: The 1C temp rise from the first order effect of a doubling of CO2 sounds reasonable, but the large positive feedback terms promoted by the CAGW crowd do not sound reasonable. I think there is a very strong and very non-linear negative temperature coefficient that kicks in when sea surface temperatures approach 30C as water vapor will be 4% of the air in the boundary layer and that percentage increases rapidly with temperature, which means it will be a huge driver for convection.

Reply to  Erik Magnuson
May 24, 2015 8:38 pm

To bad someone doesn’t do a survey of scientists on the safety of GMO foods. I suspect a large percentage would vouch for them. Maybe that would cause the a Whole Food shoppers to reject all science, including AGW.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 10:39 am

(Rejection of vaccine scepticism in the climate sceptics community may be a sign that a large part of the community is not sceptic at all but has “motivated” something as Lew puts it.)

Eh? “Rejection of vaccine scepticism in the climate sceptics community”? Does that come from Lewny’s silly survey? I’ve been reading the skeptical blogs for five years and have seen .0001 sign of it.

Reply to  rogerknights
May 24, 2015 10:43 am

Oops–I misunderstood your point.

Rational Db8
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 1:19 pm

Sorry, but you’re barking up the wrong tree with regard to vaccinations. I and many others have dug deep into the anti-vax claims – e.g. to both sides of this debate – and the anti-vax claims simply don’t hold water. The history and epidemiology clearly shows a massive benefit to vaccinations with very very little harm.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 6:51 am

History only shows a doubling of MS in France the years after mass Hep B immunization, must be a coincidence, lol.
And since when is the flu vaccine safety tested? (Hint : safety testing takes years, not weeks)

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 11:38 am

Hey, it is simple…if you are more concerned about the safety of the flu vaccine than you are of the flu, do not get the frickin’ shot!
But spouting off baseless claims about vaccines being an evil plot will have the effect of scaring a certain number of people.
We do not allow people to cry fire in a crowded movie theatre, and likewise, people must be accountable for what they say regarding matters such as this.
That one fraud case nearly twenty years ago has resulted in many people needlessly dying or becoming gravely ill.
It sounds like you are spouting a bunch of exaggerations, misplaced fears blown out of proportion, and belabor under several misapprehensions due to a failure to consider all the facts.
Vaccines are known to cause bad reactions in a certain number of people, which is thankfully very low or virtually nonexistent for some vaccines. But the number of side affects and bad reactions is a tiny number compared to the deaths and crippling and debilitating illnesses that are prevented.
Like many thing in life, it is a tradeoff.
Anyway, like someone else said, life is too short to waste on clowns who are so smart they are really stupid.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 3:35 pm

Please explain why vaccines are not expected to follow standard pharma procedures

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 3:57 pm

Merely saying some stuff, statistics, or whatever, is a good way to be ignored. Please provide references for your assertions if you want a response.
You are way off topic. And out on some fringe.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 4:08 pm

So you have no knowledge of vaccine regulations, vaccine protocols, or vaccine evaluation whatsoever.
I called your bluff.
We are done now.

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 4:47 pm

And you call me self centered?

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Why are you telling us about your personal life?

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 5:04 pm

You must be great at parties. You sure are a barrel of monkeys on a discussion thread.
I am curious if your abrasive way of conversing actually succeeds in engaging may people. Not curious enough to care about the answer though.
What you think you have proved?

Reply to  Rational Db8
May 25, 2015 5:29 pm

“What you think you have proved?”
The fact you are actually an ignoramus.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 24, 2015 5:06 pm

Without taking sides on the vaccine issue, I perceive the difference from the Climate discussion is that there exists DATA for either side upon which to base their pro/con vaccine arguments. Climate scientists have models and an ever expanding horizon upon which they tell us we
will eventually see the TRUTH of their pronouncements.

Reply to  George Daddis
May 25, 2015 7:08 am

Most people are extremely ignorant of vaccines because they have been fed academia-blessed pseudoscientific vaxxer garbage.
“that there exists DATA for either side upon which to base their pro/con vaccine arguments”
There is plenty of “temperature” data, lol.
For vaccines there is plenty of useless data too (like data showing people who get the flu vaccine have less diseases than people who don’t). There is almost no data on the safety of vaccines; you need to do studies, and have funds and permission to do that.
The System does NOT want to see such studies done.
HPV vaccine usefulness is based on a model where HPV causes “precancerous” lesions, and then “precancerous” lesions become a cancer.
Now with new vaccines it’s proxies all the way. And models.
Of course vaxxers can explain you all day long how the stuff is supposed to work, just like climate scientists can. But they have no data to prove that it does indeed works.
And when it fails, they CANNOT explain why. And they will tell you it CANNOT and does NOT fail, until the days when they tell you they KNEW all along it could fail, and the risk is acceptable.
I am surprised anyone here takes virologists seriously. They sell fake “science”. (Well, the whole medical field is based on a lot of science theater and the pseudo-scientific “statistically significant result” nonsense.)
In a field where so much people obviously have no idea what they are doing with statistics (“yes dear, I have read your paper, there are so much p-values in it, it’s p-painful”), it’s hard to take anyone seriously.

Reply to  George Daddis
May 25, 2015 4:07 pm

simple-touriste says:
Of course vaxxers can explain you all day long how the stuff is supposed to work, just like climate scientists can. But they have no data to prove that it does indeed works.
Oh, please. Vaccinations have been done since the 1700’s. Cowpox secretions were scratched into people and they went a long way toward either immunizing the recipient from smallpox, or of making smallpox much less serious if contracted. (Cowpox is very mild by comparison.)
Smallpox can even be prevented by a vaccination after it is contracted, if done promptly. How much ‘proof’ do you need? Do you really believe that there is no data on the effectiveness of vaccines? If you believe that, there’s no use trying to convince you.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 25, 2015 4:29 pm

“Do you really believe that there is no data on the effectiveness of vaccines? If you believe that, there’s no use trying to convince you.”
Impressive rhetorical device. Either you are a believer or I won’t give data.
(Also, define effectiveness.)

Reply to  George Daddis
May 25, 2015 5:38 pm

We have all encountered trolls like you many times, touriste.
Making ridiculous statements, and when challenged, you rudely demand information that would fill an encyclopedia.
You can make as many declarations of having won an argument as you want, but you have not said anything.
Being obtuse, asking for information that you strongly imply you already have, expressing indignation when your rude manner is given short shrift…
You have said enough to have given yourself away though.
911 truther, vaccines are a hoax, biopharma is a bunch of hot air, medical science has no merit, no one knows anything except you…and you have all the “correct” information, if only everyone would listen.
Nice touch of ad hominem, increasing in shrillness with every new post…my guess is your panties are two sizes too small.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 5:45 pm

“We have all encountered trolls like you many times, touriste.”
I called you bluff, crackpot. You have nothing. I have humiliated you, end of story.
“911 truther”
And now you are making up stuff.
You. Are. A. Fraud.

Reply to  George Daddis
May 25, 2015 5:51 pm

“We have all encountered trolls like you many times, touriste.”
I called your bluff, end of story.
And stop making up sh*t about me. Not a very effective communication device!

Reply to  George Daddis
May 25, 2015 6:42 pm

Anyone can scroll up.
“Let me digress: Why is it so hard to convince a reopen911-ist?
I think reopen911 stuff is an excellent exercice from all POV.
And why do so much people accept the official NIST-backed explanation? I think that few people believe CD (controlled demolition) of WTC because few people have been explained this theory.
Perhaps we are not be in “belief equilibrium” here (ie debunking the reopen911 may increase the website’s audience and increase the number of reopenists).
We cannot assume people reject CD because it’s a crazy theory, that is unscientific. Some people accept the NIST explanation because the gov says it is the correct one, period.
I like this stuff, because it’s actually pretty simple.
Maybe reopen and WTC theories are a model of something?
And don’t forget economy of ignorance: there is so much stuff I don’t have time to review myself, doing a bibliographic study is so costly, etc.
Ignorance (which is free) is sometimes the optimal choice.”

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 6:59 pm

Yes indeed. Anyone with half a brain can see you are either a fraud or incredibly stupid.
I rest my case.

Reply to  simple-touriste
May 25, 2015 11:13 am

I have very little clue what you are even talking about.
Here in the US, most objections to vaccines center on a fear that the vaccines can cause autism. Other objections center of the concept of being forced to do something. There is no widespread belief that vaccines are some sort of hoax.
No one is forced to vaccinate their children. The issue is herd immunity, and the fact that some people bought into a lie, and became afraid to have their kids vaccinated. This resulted, after a critical mass of such unvaccinated children was reached, in outbreaks measles.
Re flu vaccine, I wish your command of English was better, because it is difficult to discern your precise meaning. Signature? Missing?
Human Influenza virus is known to be highly variable and rapidly mutating. There is no mystery as to why flu vaccines are not 100% effective. Anyone who thinks there is has very little understanding of the underlying issues.
Question: How much do you know about the Spanish Flu epidemic?
Hepatitis B is a serious illness. The vaccine must be administered in two to three shots at a certain interval to achieve the desired titer of antibodies in the recipient’s bloodstream.
The best practice protocol for those at high risk of contracting HBV is to confirm that the vaccine has conferred sufficient immune response. A certain percentage of vaccinated individuals do not respond to the initial inoculations, for various reasons.
What is your specific beef with this vaccine
I think there is only one reason that there exist people who are willing to forgo vaccines, and that is because they have been so successful in eliminating a variety of diseases, that people have no awareness of the good that they do, being that widespread outbreaks of fatal or debilitating infectious diseases are now so rare that most people in developed countries have never lived through one.
My father was a medical writer and publisher, published a newsletter focused on infectious diseases among animals, and was on the faculty and was an administrator and an innovator at a large teaching hospital. I heard stories on a near daily basis, while growing up, that would make a person’s blood run cold. I have been steeped in the history of medicine from an early age.Back then it was not theoretical, it was a real life miracle that was occurring in the world, as the elders in my family had grown up watching people drop like flies from awful diseases. Polio is one, but people rarely thin about tetanus, a truly horrifying disease and a nightmarish way to die. People used to die horrible deaths from getting a small scratch. Today it is unheard of in the US, except to get a booster shot if one gets cut while outdoors.
I myself was in a terrible car accident when I was a younger man, and barely survived my injuries, one of which was a ruptured spleen. My spleen was removed in 1982. In years past, a person without a spleen could be expected to die within a decade or perhaps two fro one or another pneumococcal or meningococcal infection. Today we have polyvalent vaccines for these diseases, which is the likely reason I am alive to write this. Such is the comfort level we all feel, that I did not even remember to mention this until just then when I wrote it.
Vaccines are one of the greatest stories in human history.
Anyone who does not know this is simply guilty of willful ignorance.
I am not intolerant of such people, but I support laws to prevent unvaccinated children from attending schools and potentially infecting other children needlessly.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:32 pm

“No one is forced to vaccinate their children”
Is that your last word?

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 3:53 pm

No, that sentence was near the beginning of my comment.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 4:06 pm

“I have very little clue what you are even talking about.”
Yes, I know that.
“Here in the US, most objections to vaccines center on a fear that the vaccines can cause autism.”
No, that the only objection Big Medicine wants you to know.
You appear to have zero knowledge about the risks of vaccines, the (lack of) evaluation of vaccines, and the link between hep B vaccine and MS.
Also you are repeating PR lines like Hep B is terrible, when actually nobody knows how many people get Hep B with no symptoms (just like influenza, BTW).
Nobody even knows how many people get influenza each year and how many died from influenza.
In France, last year was a terrible year for influenza : officially 86 death. Average influenza death is around 6000, when the vaccine is effective.
See? Bad = 86, Good = 6000. Official expert stuff…
The same experts now claim that the Hep B vaccine caused a dramatic INCREASE in the number of Hep B contamination. You couldn’t make this up.
And they don’t even KNOW they are saying that. They are climatists without knowing.

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 6:44 pm
Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 7:00 pm
Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 6:46 pm
Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 7:02 pm

Enough is enough

Reply to  Menicholas
May 25, 2015 7:43 pm

Hey, but there is good news: Soon they hope to put the genes for the vaccine for HBV directly into plants, so everyone can be inoculated via food! (I am sure you already know that people are being inoculated against polio via drinking water…old news.)
I knew you would want to hear about this, so I passed it right along.

M Seward
May 24, 2015 12:21 am

I am reading John Ralston Saul’s “Voltaire’s Bastards” at the moment and it occurs to me that “Why It’s So Hard to Convince Warmists” is that we are talking about the same people generally. A disconnected cadre of academics and managerialists (managerialism being like a fungal infection in any large institution such as universities and the public (dis)service) has latched onto CAGW as vector for power and control, to remove actuation of as many levers of power as they can from democratic mechanisms and into their office suites.
These people are ignorant of the science as they are ignorant of the real processes of industry, of the military of hospitals etc, They are deaf dumb and blind in the very frequencies that define such activities yet arrogantly claim to possess essential knowledge about how they work. A similar disconnect exists with “climate science” (even the real, objective, skeptical, evidence based practice), in fact with virtually all true science and engineering. To cover their backsides they engage whore ‘experts’ to write the sort of drivel that appears to justify their ‘preferred’ decisions.
The courts have rigorous rules for expert witnesses regarding their role and objectivity. They firmly assert, even emphasise, that they are there for the benefit of the court and not the side engaging them. Of course the practical dimension of who pays the piper is part of the realpolitik of such matters but professional ethics and court rules are a significant counterweight. Such rigor seems to be all but missing in any objective sense when it comes to the unholy alliance between managerialist and rent seeking climate ‘expert’
Saul take aim repeatedly at the Jesuits as the first instantiation of this cult in the recent half millenium or so and the parallels between CAGW orthodoxy vs “Denialism” in our times and the Inquisition is more than passing. The response to deviance from orthodoxy is not as violent or as brutal as it was ( well unless you listen to the greenshirt street mobs) but the direction remains the same. To renounce, denounce, vilify, sack, sanction, demonise, disbar etc are just the tools of trade on the workbench of the new administrative ‘inquisatorial’ chamber.
Houston, everything is fine and rational here on the Moon but it seems that perhaps you have the real problem down there.

Reply to  M Seward
May 24, 2015 4:22 am

What you describe is decadence. Nancy Pelosi thinks bread comes from the grocery store. Yes, “ignorant of the real processes of industry.”

Reply to  M Seward
May 24, 2015 7:29 am

I would leave the courts and the subject of the reliability of expert witnesses out of the discussion.
Recent admissions concerning the validity of experts concerning the forensic science behind hair analysis, and a separate but equally damning one regarding forensic arson science a few years back, throw cold water on the idea that expert testimony on such subjects is objective, scientific or reliable. In other words, that such people are experts at all.
Paid whores is a good analogy, but the morality of locking someone up on made up evidence and fake surety makes the comparison a undeserved smear on the good name of prostitutes.

Reply to  M Seward
May 24, 2015 4:33 pm

Another worthwhile book is “The Master and his Emissary”. The author shows that we have become overly reliant on the logical part of our brain. In the process we ignore the part of our brain that puts knowledge in context. (Being slightly rude I call it the BS filter)
The thing that really got my attention is what happens to people with right brain damage. Such people will believe anything as long as it is not self contradictory. They tend to be over optimistic and are usually disappointed with the results of their efforts.
The author, Iain McGilchrist, makes the point (very similar to that of Voltaire’s Bastards) that our society acts like it has a damaged right brain. It is over logical, over regulated, and the people will believe anything that isn’t blatantly wrong.

Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2015 6:43 pm

“people will believe anything that isn’t blatantly wrong.”
Some comments on this thread make it clear that some people believe things that are indeed blatantly wrong, IMO.
Furthermore, they often believe them full force, with great conviction, and create elaborate justifications for their beliefs.
And it is not based on logic that people do these things. They may invoke such in their efforts to persuade, but in reality they often are engaging in logical fallacy.

May 24, 2015 12:22 am

George DeVries Klein – welcome to WUWT comments. As a geoscientist many of your papers are familiar.

May 24, 2015 12:29 am

Rejection of climate “science” may be “motivated” as Lewandowski puts it (Lew provided inept answers but still asked some interesting questions IMO), but what about contra-motivated rejection of rejection?
Everyone understands motivated rejection of something known to be true.
The mind can react with the rejection of motivated rejection.
People would feel guilty of having motivated thoughts, and reject these thoughts to avoid falling the trap of easy and irresponsible choices…

Repel space Damocles swords
May 24, 2015 12:31 am

The SUPREME Damocles sword is deadly space electricity, to be repelled with (Boeing patented) Laser-Plasma-Shielding Earth eventually!!! National Space Weather Strategy Released for Public Comment | NOAA / NWS Space Weather http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/national-space-weather-strategy-released-public-comment http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/_2015_SWW%20Agenda_with%20ABSTRACTS_FINAL_050715.pdf https://ShieldEarthFromSpaceDisasters.wordpress.com

May 24, 2015 12:33 am

I’m sure you could change ‘Obama’ and the ‘Pope’ for two prominent skeptic leaders and change ‘warmist’ for denier and find this article lapped up by those very same people.

Pseudo Idiot
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 24, 2015 11:35 am

Can you name two “prominent skeptic leaders” that people unpersuaded by Chicken Little rhetoric seem to rely upon for instructions in a catechism of “denialist” beliefs?

Ian H
Reply to  Pseudo Idiot
May 24, 2015 5:15 pm

Excellent comment! To be a climate skeptic in the first place you need to be the sort of person willing to notice that the emperor has no clothes. Thus there are a lot less blind followers in the ranks of the skeptics. However the OP is probably correct that Lewandowski and ilk think otherwise.

May 24, 2015 12:36 am

It is such a very human reflex : refusing to look at facts which clash with preconceived ideas. Galileo also encountered that phenomenon. He wrote to Johannes Kepler that his adversaries refused to even glance through his newfangled telescope to see Jupiter’s moons with their own two eyes! He asked Kepler, “Shall I laugh or shall I cry?”

Reply to  AndyE
May 24, 2015 4:23 am

Uhh . . . one eye.

oebele bruinsma
May 24, 2015 12:37 am

A nice description of the inner workings of a religion.

May 24, 2015 12:49 am

Ignorant and proud of it.

May 24, 2015 1:00 am

It’s the reason I like humanity. Predator or prey. I get hungry sometimes and sheeple are delicious.

Science or Fiction
May 24, 2015 1:12 am

ROI ???
I hate acronyms – I think I will find something else to read.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
May 24, 2015 2:06 am

Return on investment. That’s what I always thought it meant. Could mean something different now