Social science provides a lot of useful insight as to why logic and data rarely convince warmists.
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.
1) What is a warmist? What are warmist convinced of?
2) What would you like warmists to be persuaded into being convinced of what is different from what they are convinced of now?
3) Where would the persuasiviness be of the argument to attain 2)?
(I guess you are actually referring to anti-warmists, i.e. those that are in favor of policies to reduce (too fast) warming.)
A Warmist is a person who has used the Precautionary Principle to claim that policies must be made before the evidence is obtained.
They believe that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions will be harmful and irreversible. And that we must do something about them immediately as looking for evidence of the impacts will not allow us to prevent them.
In short, a Warmist is superstitious and scared. And the enemy of reason.
As such they propose very expensive and currently unjustified policies.
how about this for precautionary:
Sure Scientists tell us that CO2 will produce some global warming, but Scientists also tell us that it has enhanced plant life – and therefore animal life – 30% or more over the past decades. So, perhaps it will get warmer, but should we take the chance and threaten the welfare of all Earth’s plants and animals?
Richard,
‘A Warmist is a person who has used the Precautionary Principle to claim that policies must be made before the evidence is obtained.’
So basically an anti-warmist. Regarding precautionary principle, wiki says (1st sentence): “The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.” On that basis I suspect:
‘They believe that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions will be harmful and irreversible. And that we must do something about them immediately as looking for evidence of the impacts will not allow us to prevent them.’
to be wrong. Instead it is about risk management.
(Superstitious, scared, enemy of reason, I will not respond to, your characterizations.)
Actually, my point was that the original post here does not define what a warmist is and what they need to be convinced of (or what they are wrong about).
You gave your definition and that’s fine. I do not know if your view coincides with the view of the author of the post above the line.
For clarity, Richard does not begin with an M.
I am not RichardSCourtney.
I cannot say if my view coincides with the view of the author of the post above the line.
But I did justify my own view. The Precautionary Principle is a merely a pessimistic version of Pascal’s Wager.
It is zealotry. It is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
And it appears to be your view, Wegen.
I agree with M.
A Warmist is someone who has no use for cost/benefit analysis, either. “Carbon” is bad, no further discussion is necessary.
Wegen, you might be convincing if you could identify any global harm, or damage, due to the rise in CO2. But there is none. Therefore, as far as we know, CO2 is completely harmless.
You’re stuck on the “as far as we know” part. But that is a logical fallacy. As far as we know, there might be a flying saucer landing in Central Park tomorrow, ready to carry Leon Festinger’s Seekers off to a better world. As far as we know…
@MCourtney
I apologize for addressing you as Richard, my mistake, sorry.
However, as I see it (correct me if I am wrong), I see a risk analysis on one side that takes into account worst-case scenarios (and best-case scenarios of course) and you saying
“The Precautionary Principle is a merely a pessimistic version of Pascal’s Wager.”
You’re sure about that?
The Precautionary Principle is a merely a collectivist/socialist pessimistic version of Pascal’s Wager.
Belief in God is personal. Precaution is collectivist.
“What is a warmist? What are warmist convinced of?”
Really?
If you are seriously in the dark regarding what is meant by the term “warmist” (or warmista, warmunist, fear-monger, chicken little, alarmist, etc.), then you must be new to this site and climate blog sites in general.
Some may quibble about exactly what is meant as who is who, but in general everyone knows.
The big delineations in my view, are those who actively promote the CAGW meme, those who simply go along with it, those who sincerely believe it, and those who pretend to but know better, etc.
There is overlap between these categories.
Maybe someone could write an article spelling such things out, complete with charts and Venn diagrams.
So warmist = “those who actively promote the CAGW meme” according to you. Please name them. The above the line piece doesn’t do that.
Name them?
Ok, I will have the list drawn up post haste.
Wait here.
What this article doesn’t explain is why the warmists took their original stand. How they decided to be in the bellwether group. It explains their actions once in the group, but how did they decide to be on that side of the argument to begin with? And understanding that is really the only way to understand a warmists actions.
I think its because, even prior to ever hearing about global warming, most warmists were frustrated with the lack of environmental protection by our governments and were sickened by stories of what oil companies have done to the environment on their way to becoming billionaires. Big oil companies are the bad guys they want to bring down. But they have no means to take down such giants. Until global warming came along.
I’d say most warmists are idealists and most skeptics are realists. And when warmists heard about global warming, it was the tool they had always dreamed of to take down the big bad oil companies and bring us towards their ideal society. Clean energy, cleaner air, and big cigar smoking oil billionaires going broke. The theory of man made (more specifically, oil company made) global warming, and the need to stop it, is the “force” that would require governments world wide to shut down the oil industry, because if governments don’t act, we could destroy the planet. So goes the theory anyway.
How do you convince someone that a theory they want so desperately to believe is true is really not true? How much evidence would that take? Way more than you can ever provide.
An alternative explanation is that there existed a group of people who believed in population control, “social justice”, one world government, and (dare I say it), eugenics). By the way, some guy name Rockefeller was in this camp and gave his villa in Italy to a group that became known as the “Club of Rome”.
The global warming theory happily coincided with their objectives.
Othering happens in all cults, it’s how they control members. You see it in all religions that isolate themselves.
It’s time governments took over control of our universities and public broadcasters, and ban cult member from positions of authority.
Yew trine a be ironic?
Rich.
“It’s time governments took over control of our universities and public broadcasters, and ban cult member from positions of authority.”
Funniest thing I have read all day!
Isn’t it odd, that the Pope says that God is responsible for creating and maintaining the universe, but mankind controls the weather?
1) Not yet he doesn’t. There’s no encyclical yet.
2) We are made in the image of God and have stewardship of the earth so it’s not theologically unjustified.
3) We are commended to “Love one another” (Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) so caring for the people of the world is in the Pope’s remit. If AGW is bad for the people of the world then he has an obligation to address that.
I’m not a Catholic but it does seem strange that people mock the Pope for doing his job.
+1533
So yes, I agree with what you say, but think Galileo. The Pope needs to be right as well as authoritative.
Rich.
3) We are commended to “Love one another” (Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) so caring for the people of the world is in the Pope’s remit. If AGW is bad for the people of the world then he has an obligation to address that.
answer: Yes commended, not commanded. “If AGW is bad for the people of the world then he has an obligation to address that.” The Pope should look at AGW with both eyes open, if not he is doing a disservice to his flock.
Yes and yes. I would also like to argue that a poor sense of self-worth, fear of rejection, weak ego strength and weak sense of a personal identity comprise the personalities of people who are inclined to accept any kind belief system that must be unquestioningly adhered to. Unfortunately, there are probably many more people who “follow the crowd” for precisely these personal reasons than there are people who like to think for themselves. This fact makes the electorate easy prey for just about any political figure who is successful in getting a new or unique idea accepted, whether it is valid or not.
Fascism and Communism are two such formerly popular ideas that come to mind. These ideas were readily exploited by people like Hitler and Stalin who ultimately eliminated hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people who may have disagreed with them, while the adherents to their political philosophies stood meekly by and watched. Yes. All too often the needs to belong, to be accepted, and to be affirmed as worthwhile persons are stronger than reason. In the final analysis, it is not so much because the human need for affiliation is so strong, but, surprisingly, because so many of us have such a poor sense of self worth.
Writes jbird:
Which reminds me of some reading I’d recently done:
Climate pete: I wonder what your PhD studies involve?
You mention physics and such, but you seem to be very keen on ‘stopping’ man made warming at all costs, or at the cost of billions. You do not seem to be focused on a narrow subject area that you wish to demonstrate you leading knowledge in, have PhDs become generalist now?
I believe they involve something to do with piling higher and deeper. Just a guess.
In other words, you can’t reason with a team player.
This discussion is neither interesting nor important. Instead WUWT should start discussing the falsification of the fundamental warmist theory, which you have swallowed hook line and sinker.
This theory states that back radiation of the CO2 molecules is the basic cause of the rise of global average temperature.
Global average temperature has not risen for say 18 years. CO2 on the other hand has continued to rise.
Hypothesis falsified.
You guys should hammer this home.
Sigh. The heat is hidden in the deep ocean, silly.
Hammer home instead the insignificant amount of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere, 3%.
Wow, it would never have occurred to me to attempt to influence what people should be talking about and how they should say it by first announcing them to be a bunch of boring blowhards of trivia.
Actually I don’t see a lot of difference between warmists with this “in group/out group” attitude and the religious extremists currently running amok in the Middle East. Both are impervious to logical argument; both are impervious to clear physical evidence that they are wrong; both are utterly intolerant of opposition and both would like to see that opposition completely eradicated to further their cause.
What’s the difference?
“This discussion is neither interesting nor important.”
388 comments would tend to argue otherwise.
Mr. Cobb the trivial is easy to discuss ad infinitum.
Empirical evidence strongly suggests that climate sensitivity is much lower than assumed by IPCC models, that’s the scientific issue.
Sometimes I wish those with alternative theories would ‘belt up’.
You know, I hardly have conversations about this anymore. But, when I do, I just say:
According to NOAA and the IPCC, humans contribute 3% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year. In any real world physical system, 3% of a trace gas (400 ppm) would be considered an inconsequential rounding error. So, how will this rounding error lead to catastrophic climate change?
Usually, what I find out, is that they are against fossil fuel (for some odd reason), and CO2 is just an excuse to ban it.
joel, there is no particular reason something being small should mean it is inconsequential. Relatively small things cause big changes all the time. Why should CO2 be different?
… because a half-doubling of CO2 has been shown to do the square root of f*ck all perhaps ?
If someone is standing on the edge of a cliff, a small movement can have dire consequences.
However, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, to indicate that preindustrial CO2 levels were on the edge of any cliffs.
In fact, quite to the contrary, there is a great body of evidence that far higher CO2 levels than currently exist had no correlation to global temperatures, over a period of tens and hundreds of millions of years.
Why should anyone believe that the present is any different?
Bingo. we have a winner. Since almost everything humans do will release CO2, it becomes the ultimate control mechanism in the world of “sustainability”. My question as been, why anybody in their right mind what to give that much control to unelected bureaucrats?
While I largely agree with this post, this cuts both ways. I’ve seen plenty of examples where people, at this very site, have behaved in the same exact way. The most striking example is how people here have embraced Richard Tol’s work on the economics of global warming despite the many errors, and even entirely nonsensical assumptions, in it.
Any person who actually examines Tol’s work, arguments and behavior will find it should never be accepted, much less embraced, by skeptics. But many peopor here will automatically defend him and his work because people likr our host have “signalled” that they should.
Which shows “warmists” aren’t really different from most people. They just happen to hold different views.
It shows zip, actually. Warmists don’t just hold “different” views. They hold what borders on a cult mentality, with no relation to reality. In short, they are whackos.
Bruce Cobb, given my example was offered to show people at this site do exactly what the post describes. It would be easy to dismiss you as a “cultist” just like you do to others.
Bruce Cobb, given my example was offered to show people at this site do exactly what the post describes. It would be easy to dismiss you as a “cultist” just like you do to others.
There are indeed parallels between the continued promotion of cAGW and the renaissance church’s refusal to allow the new heliocentric model of the universe to be accepted. The church thought that if Galileo’s proof that the earth was not central to the cosmos became public knowledge, then Christianity would collapse. In fact, a geocentric universe is not a prerequisite for Christianity to exist, so there was really nothing for the church to worry about.
The Greens today have focused so much of their attention on climate change that they face a similar dilemma, in that they fear abandoning it would spell the end of ALL support for their environmental work. Of course, that is also a false appraisal of the situation. Therre are plenty of people willing to support protection of the natural world, regardless of, or maybe in spite of, the climate alarmist drivel.
Agreed but then maybe the Pope has a different agenda?
Ian, I’ve long thought that the correction of man’s place in the universe by Galileo had greater intellectual consequences, but the correction of man’s place in the climate will have much greater social, economic and political consequences.
Even perhaps, greater religious consequences.
===================
We are, after all, watching an incipient religion strangle itself in dissonance, misanthropism, despair, and the embrace of evil methods.
=================
No, I did not mean Islam.
=================
Mr. Hanley when you don’t measure an increase in temperature what does that make climate sensitivity? Zero?
It could be negative I wouldn’t know, no-one knows, whatever it is it’s most probably much lower than the IPCC central estimate.
Chris The IPCC themselves say quite clearly that they do not know what the CS is , therefore there is no empirical basis at all for the climate forecasts on which the whole UNFCCC circus is based .
The IPCC has now even given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on
values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
Paradoxically warmists still claim that we can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be crazy.
Thanks Dr Page, I didn’t know that. Of course the SPM is a political document.
As the purpose of the IPCC was and presumably still is to investigate the human-induced effects on the global climate notably CO2 emissions, that after twenty five years and billions of dollars wasted they still have no idea of the central metric is, well, crazy.
Good thing they don’t need a figure for it anymore now that the populace has been stampeded into a chasm of ignorance, fear, and guilt. Who needs numbers? Do you deny we are at fault? How can you?
Here’s where I point out that every warming in paleontology has been beneficial, and every cooling detrimental.
=========
George Steiner,
Doesn’t it bother you in the least that there are no testable measurements quantifying AGW? That is crazy. The whole “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is based on nothing more than opinions!
To measure is to know.
— Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1883
DB, why do you spout this nonsense? No testable evidence blah blah blah. Does it not bother you that there is barely a climate scientist on the planet who agrees with you. Do you have such a high opinion of yourself that you feel ok sitting out on a limb all on your own? Even the skeptical scientists (Spencer, Christie, Curry) accept some of the warming is almost certainly ours. Of course you can’t put a percentage figure on it. It’s not a piece of string to be measured. But the evidence is there for all to see. The only question is how much danger/damage is ahead? In the mean time, careful how you move on that increasingly isolated rotten limb.
“But the evidence is there for all to see.”
Where Simon ?
Give us some bullet points.
‘The only question is how much danger/damage is ahead?’
================================
What, no future benefits?
After ~250 years of the current global warming phase, whatever the causes, Simon must think the climate has just about reached perfection.
Simon,, DB cannot be convinced.
there was a debate. DB was a no show. Most of WUWT was a no show for the debate.
Nic Lewis showed up for the debate. he got published. Parliament listens to him.
Judith curry showed up for the debate, Congress listens to her.
but the DBs of the world.. they missed the debate.
There are real issues int climate science.too bad 97% of all skeptics missed the opportunity to discuss them
Philincalifornia
Give us some bullet points.
Simple easy to read.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
Chris Hanley
What, no future benefits?
Even smoking had minor benefits (no need to paint your ceiling brown…. cheap perfume was disguised). Doesn’t mean it was good for you in the long run.
@Simon
You know, simon, I’d be a whole lot more impressed with your appeal to the authority of the hive’s hired-gun, good-comrade, Gruber-clone climate-scientists , and their group-think Lysenkosim, if they’d just LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON REDUCTION!!!!, if they’d just PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!
But what do we see in the actual behavior of your hive-hero climate-scientists, simon?–unrelieved, in-your-face, brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggery, with practically no exceptions, especially evident as they flit about the globe, attending one CO2-spew, frequent-flyer eco-confab, after another–hive-swarm gab-fests, it is emphasized, that could all be easily held as carbon-free video-conferences .
You know, simon, the spectacle of your famous climate-scientists in action is figuratively akin to that of some anti-smoking zealot, spittle-spraying fulminations against the demon-tobacco peril, while, at the same time, workin’ on an evil-smelling stogie, that hangs off the side of his animated pie-hole, and while, at the same time, blowin’ smoke-rings into his interlocutors’ faces.
Professor Gruber thinks us coolie-trash nobodies are all “stupid”. Do you think we’re all “stupid”, simon? Moi, I don’t think we’re all “stupid”–but that’s just one uppity peon’s opinion, take it for what it’s worth, simon.
Warming’s always been good. You could look it up.
=========
Simon, thanks yes, I’ve read that document before. You notice how they start with the conclusion? That should be your first clue.
philincalifornia… You notice how they start with the conclusion? That should be your first clue.
It’s called a summary. Read it, it is easy to understand.
Got it Simon. They start with the conclusions, and indeed, they call it a Summary and your deception is complete with one word of the report proper. Did you ever meet a pieman going to a fair perchance?
Agree with your second point too – Easy, facile even, but then it would have to be for Ed Davey to understand it.
Climate Pete: “Unless you yourself have good knowledge in the subject (in this case formal training in atmospheric physics and climate science), how can you tell whether you are the one being fooled or not”
You don’t need to be a cowboy to recognise the smell of bullsh!t.
A friend of mine own a trucking company. While driving on a country road, he told his daughter ” Smell that? That’s the smell of money.”
Regarding the municipal waste disposal discussion above (recycling vs. waste dumps and incineration), there is also the possibility of plasma waster converters:
http://www.westinghouse-plasma.com/waste_to_energy/
“A plasma gasifier is an oxygen starved vessel where various feedstocks can be gasified using the very high temperatures achievable with plasma. Rather than being combusted, the heat breaks the feedstock down into elements like hydrogen and simple compounds like carbon monoxide and water. The gas that is created is called synthesis gas or “syngas”.”
I imagine it takes quite a lot of energy to get the temperature up to 3000 degrees C. If this technology proves to be economically worthwhile for municipalities to invest in and operate however, this might be the
best answer yet to solid waste disposal. Since recycling is costly and energy foolish, plasma waste conversion could eliminate the need for it.
On the other hand, this technology might make way too much sense to ever get very far.
The technology doesn’t work. It was tried in Ottawa and failed for a host of technical reasons, mostly the result of inability to handle inconsistencies in the feedstock.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/plasco-energy-group-files-for-creditor-protection
CGH:
I can’t speak for the reasons behind Plasco’s financial and technical problems that resulted in its failure in Ottawa, but Westinghouse appears to be having more success with its PWC technology according to the linked document below. They have successful plants running in Japan (one since 2002 and one since 2009) with two others under construction (in China and England). They report that they have been working out the glitches with the technology and will be incorporating the lessons learned in their new plants.
http://www.alternrg.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/WPC-SoQ_Jan_2014_NDA-Not-Required-Final.pdf.
If I were you, I wouldn’t judge the success or failure of a technology based on the experience seen with just one company in one city.
Who will “win”, Warmists or Skeptics, in Paris 2015 ? Anybody dare to share a prognosis ?
And being an Europeean, I Wonder if Climate-debate will be an issues, or create debate when election New President in US ….
So far, I’m predicting a replay of Copenhagen, where China covered their chagrin over the failure of the shakedown of the developed West by spouting outrage over the neo-colonialist manipulations of one Barack Obama.
Why would he give up the chance to make one last gigantic fool of himself. The Chinese know we don’t have the money, and could use the laugh.
Me too.
=====
Right you are, Galene.
I think they also believe that Detroit will come roaring back. Look at all those broken windows that need fixed, eh?
Oops. Sorry Galane. My bad.
“It often takes decades to accept new theories that are clear winners (e.g., continental drift).”
clear winners??
http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
Worry about checking the papers he uses to support his assertions and not about the fact he couldn’t get this published an a Consensus rag.
“I’m in with the in crowd. I go where the in crowd goes. I’m in with the in crowd. I know what the in crowd knows.”
We saw the same thing in cannabis “science” for a long time. The government only paid for results that made the “dopers” look bad. The Heath monkey study is notorious in that regard. Since the discovery of the endocannabinoid system that has slowly been changing. Real science is painting a different picture. And thus the in/out is changing. None the less I will be excoriated by some for posting this point.
It takes about 50 years for a change in social attitude to be fully integrated. Why?
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
So why do attitudes formed in youth get locked in? Endocannabinoid production which makes the brain plastic declines around age 25. Thus the old “never trust anyone over 30”.
Well what do you know. I found one already and he has preceded me:
Schoolsie
May 24, 2015 at 2:34 pm
If smoking dope impairs thinking (every study so far has been discredited – it takes about 1 to 10 years typically) what does the body’s natural endocannabinoid system do to thinking? Well we do know about the foolishness of youth. So there may be something to it.
None the less regular use (about 25% of the youth cohort) peaks in the 15 to 25 year age range. The same years endocannabinoid production peaks. No one knows why. After the peak years regular use declines to about 10% of the population.
Well I’m about 1/4 way through the comments and so far not a bit about why humans generally “lock in” at around age 30. Well it is probably due to “rational ignorance”. It is to laugh.
A wether is a castrated ram, so a bellwether is a castrated ram wearing a bell that the shepherd puts into the flock to guide the ewes.
Are you sure that bellwether is not derogatory term? At the very least it seems to me to be apposite.
“Bellwether” is often used in the political arena to identify voting areas (ie, New Hampshire) that over time have tended to be reliable early indicators as to which direction a certain election, or movement, is heading. There is certainly nothing derogatory in that particular usage, and only a few linguistics experts remember what the original meaning of “wether” is.