Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Our old friend John Cook thinks climate skeptics have to be psychologically “inoculated”, to help reeducate us into accepting climate science, without triggering a reflexive “denial” response.
The science for climate change only feeds the denial: how do you beat that?
As the scientific consensus for climate change has strengthened over the past decade, the arguments against the science of climate change have been on the increase.
…
How to get the right message out
There’s a great deal of research into how to communicate science more effectively and science communication should be evidence-based. But scientists and science communicators cannot afford to ignore the potential of misinformation to undermine good science communication.
One way to reduce the influence of misinformation is inoculation: we can stop the spread of science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3YngyVdyrI
The findings of psychology underscore the importance of this new study into the production of misinformation by conservative think-tanks. To paraphrase the authors, the era of science denial is not over. Climate science communicators would be prudent not to start waving a “mission accomplished” banner just yet.
One question John – have you tried looking in the mirror?
Climate models have demonstrated no skill whatsoever at predicting the climate. There has been no improvement in the embarrassingly broad range of climate sensitivity predictions, which strongly suggests models are very incomplete, that scientists are having a hard time reconciling models with reality.
John, what is the source of your overwhelming confidence in your position? Why do you ignore the growing discrepancy between models and observations? Could it be, that you are the one who is clinging desperately to climate fallacies, in the face of a growing body of adverse evidence?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The same problem occurred with the Grand CFC Ozone Depletion Scare of the ’80s, before AGW became popular. The computer modellers were on their own planet and everything was gloom and doom. Nothing fitted observed facts.
That should have been plenty of `inoculation’ for Climate Change because nothing has changed.. The computer models are still modelling an unknown planet. It’s sure not The Third Rock from the Sun.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource
[Please add a few words of explanation when posting links. Thanks. -mod]
Good work Mr. Munshi!
The truth is that academia has always indulged in these stupid fads – but the internet changed them in two ways:
1. Academics across the world started acting as one homogeneous group (as opposed to each department seeing itself as mainly part of its own University) – so it was all the easier for subject based group think to take off.
2. The internet provided the means for external people to come together to review, comment and critique the work of academia and so provide an effective opposition to academic group-think.
And the other thing which has changed, is that academia is no longer the sole source of our history through which it used to control our history. Now we on the internet are writing our own history and academia may huff and puff and say “that’s our job”, but now because of the internet they can’t just conveniently rewrite OUR history to hide their political bias, arrogance leading to massive mistakes and appalling attacks on outsiders.
Non-OCD (Obsessive Climate Disorder) people must be suffering from False Consciousness or something. It’s amazing what can be accomplished with a compliant media that’s hungry for drama.
+1
Excellent point!!! The liberation from Academia societies. If Cultural Anthropology had not been hijacked by the same Loon Logic as Climate Lies, it would make for a great study!!!
Climate Science, a theory ,,published by, “Psychiatric House”.
I wonder if they need to be strapped into a chair with their eyes propped open like in “A Clockwork Orange”?
That and a little ipecac, presto another good little drone is borne.
The way to know for certain that it is both a scientific and environmental lie is to inform the afflicted that there has been a cut in oil rigs of over 50% in a single year.
This news and similar news with respect to global economic collapse and a similar collapse in steel production and other manufactured items including a collapse in the consumption of oil has not even registered.
If a ‘carbon green’ environmentalist is informed there is no joy that the decline in oil rigs will be reflected in a decrease of CO2 emissions.
If a climate change CO2 adherent or denier is informed a cut in oil rigs also cuts CO2 production, those on both sides of the fence barely register.
I myself personally have not found any evidence that points to the awareness that a cut in oil rigs or even economic collapse cuts CO2 emissions in any paper i have seen other than my mention of this salient fact by me here
It would not matter if i ‘Clockwork Orange” style informed someone. It would not register on both sides of the so called science.
No, no, no, Henry! That is coercive. Cook wants everyone to accept ideologies as fact by clever psychological manipulation so it never occurs to them they are being lied to. It is all for the common good (of the leadership).
If it works, this inoculation thing, I have a slew of ideas I would like to inoculate people with. One is that if the matter concerns physical reality, all suppositions, vain imaginings and arrogant assumptions should be challenged at first light.
As the Pink Floyd song says, “got to keep the loonies on the path”.
Well shucks. There is no money in your solution.
So, if one is properly educated in the sciences and also taught how to use a proper BS-science filter, one is vaccinated against inoculations with the junk science of climate change.
The simple fact that they took “climate change” and redefined it to mean “manmade global warming” for the express purpose of hiding their agenda. Real climate change occurs constantly and is part of our planet. The marvel of Earth is that our climate, with so many real variables, has such a relatively constant climate in the short term and massive swings, glaciat/interglacial and ice ages/hot-houses, in the long term, caused by major climate determinants, which does not include any gases at all.
The theory of inoculation:
First, there was the hep B vaccine propaganda. Mass vaccination of children in school (very disorganized), doubling of MS in France, big flop.
Then, there was the AH1N1 pandemic pig flu (which wasn’t pandemic according to the old definition and wasn’t a pig flu either). Gigantic flop.
No, the French people are skeptical of the flu vaccine and many other vaccines.
Yep, inoculation works, just not as they planned.
Ah, the good old days of plagues, mass deaths, children mostly dying before age ten!
“the good old days of plagues”
Do you have ANY real argument?
I guess not.
Your answer is the typical warmista’s answer, transcribed to vaccines.
Please do not conflate anti vaccine propaganda with climate realism.
It is my opinion that drawing such comparisons is harmful to the credibility of CAGW skeptics
I would hazard a guess that most here do not concur with your disapproval of vaccines, and would rather not bring this or any other strawmen into discussions of climate issues.
Besides, I believe this is an issue our host has requested not be discussed here.
I get the feeling that belief in vaccine is very much like the CAGW. There is a very vocal group, like yourself, that immediately jump on anyone who asks any questions. All questioning on any online glob or board that I’ve ever seen get immediately shouted down. It’s like questions are taboo. Is this not like the Warmists belief in CAGW?
Within the office I work, there are a small number of people, (guessing at 5-10%) who have never been vaccinated, myself included. My point is, no matter what the commonly voiced belief is, there is a quiet community who do not get combative over the subject, but who do not believe the benefits outweigh the risks.
You’re unaware of them because you immediately get defensive… you do not allow questioning.
“I would hazard a guess that most here do not concur with your disapproval of vaccines,”
I would hazard a guess that most here spent exactly zero hours to check the Big Medicine (Big Pharma AND Big Doctors) propaganda for vaccines.
Many vaccines are unproven. Vaccines are NOT required to be tested like normal drug. Did you even knew that?
Vaccines are usually evaluated indirectly, by proxies. The relevance of climate “science” skepticism to vaccines are obvious. Have you researched ANY of this?
Vaccines is a religion of the right like climate is a religion of the left. “Anti-gov” “conservatives” are going to cite a crackpot gov website (the CDC website) like the left is citing NOAA as gospel. But NOAA is corrupt to the right, and CDC is sacrosaint. CDC doesn’t need evidence or logical argument.
Even a 10 years old would the vaccine propaganda for what it is, just like any non-mentally challenged 10 years old can see the climate propaganda for what it is. This is because 10 years old can understand epistemology better than many adults.
Every time someone is a wheelchair after a vaccine, it’s coincidence.
Every time someone dies from a disease while non vaccinated, it’s causation.
When a disease disappears after mass vaccination, it’s causation.
When MS doubles after mass vaccination, it’s coincidence.
10 years old can spot the double standards, brainwashed adults can’t. 10 years old can spot obvious epistemological issues.
Vaccinating babies against a sexually transmitted disease… yep, it makes sense… as much as Cook the numbers cook.
Why all the pro-vax hysteria? Maybe it’s just the terror of death.
Anyway, it’s very disgusting.
Those insults are a powerful argument.
Thanks for informing me…of what an effin’ jerkoff you are.
“Those insults are a powerful argument”
Those insults are a figment of your imagination, just like the evidence showing mandatory vaccines are efficient, “efficacious”, and safe. Or even well studied.
I have looked into this matter to some extent, and find no rational reason at all to think it makes any more sense to assume things labeled ‘vaccine’ are inherently safe and effective, than to assume anything labeled ‘drug’ is inherently safe and effective. Both are magical thinking in the extreme, to me, not scientific thinking at all.
One similarity I see between AGW and Vaccine crowd is that there may be some good science, but they rarely look beyond first order effects and don’t consider feedback or second order effects. The first order effect of varicella vaccine prevents my little ones from the chicken pox. Who’s looking at second order with an increase in shingles in elderly population. Prior to Varicella Vaccine, the entirety of the population had frequent boost to immunity through more continuous exposure to free range chicken pox.
MTrent, you are ignoring the tertiary effect of the Varicella vaccine. Shingles is a reactivation of the virus after a long period of time. If you get vaccinated and never get chickenpox, you won’t get shingles, period. It’s a bubble effect that can be suffered for the long term benefit of all.
Having suffer from shingles not once but twice and what my mother have to suffer through chronic shingles, the varicella vaccine makes a lot of sense. The same for Polio, most are two young today to remember the braces that polio suffer had to put up with if they survived or did not end up in a wheel chair, my mother was touched with it her brother had the braces, he died early because the nerve damage was still there and at old age the remain nerves could not support him.
The difference between vaccine and CAGW is that one has science, the other doesn’t.
You can test vaccines in the laboratory and you can see the results. Anyone can. If you take the flu vaccine you will notice you get less flu. You may still get the flu but you will get less if you have a healthy immune system. We obviously know that the prevalence of certain diseases throughout mankinds history was high and millions upon millions died from diseases that people never get anymore. Coincidence? Sudden spontaneous resistance? No. This is ridiculous. I am willing to accept some vaccines don’t work as well or that there might be side effects but that they don’t work at all is ridiculous.
Climate “science” is a theory without any evidence. The only aspect that is proven science is the fact CO2 does absorb certain radiation. We don’t know what happens to that energy in the system of the Earth. The computer models are provably wrong and literally don’t predict anything for any time period or any region of the earth whether temperature, wind, rain, storms anything. I had a climate modeler tell me that. It’s obvious they don’t because they never never predict anything right. Also, mathematically it is provable that they cannot possibly predict anything. If they did there would be a lot of caterwalling and people hooting about the great success. There is no evidence of success, there is no increased incidence of anything, none of their consequences has turned out real. It’s literally a complete failure as a science. There is nothing there. If I’m wrong somebody tell me the prediction they made that turned out.
A vaccine is a dead segment of a virus that is injected into the body to stimulate the bodies immune system. This is simple stuff. We did it 100 years ago. It’s not a theory. We do it all over the world and the statistics back up that they work at what they do generally. Are some vaccines problematic? Maybe. It’s possible but that wouldn’t be an indictment of all vaccines. Could they cause problems? Possibly but this is an epidemiological question that can be studied with hard data unlike climate science. Give a population a vaccine. See what happens. It’s then a question of balancing the results. In the case of climate science we can’t run an experiment. They keep modifying models and seeing if they predict. They never do so they keep modifying them and hoping the billions and billions we spend will keep coming for them to keep plkaying with their computer models when there is good reason to believe they are nothing more than expensive toys with no possibility of ever being predictive.
“You can test vaccines in the laboratory and you can see the results. Anyone can.”
How?
“If you take the flu vaccine you will notice you get less flu.”
No. There is no proof.
All we know is that the flu vaccines often give you the flu syndrome: an apparent flu without the infection (the flu vaccine doesn’t gives you the flu virus, unlike some other vaccines that work by contaminating you).
Many people don’t tolerate the flu vaccine well.
We don’t know about many people even get flu (influenza, not common flu) every year. There are many influenza-like syndromes.
There is proof CO2 has effect on some IR radiation. There is proof the vaccine for X makes most (maybe between 70 % and 95 %) people X-positive.
It is extremely plausible that some infectious diseases have disappear thanks to vaccines.
It is also obvious that there is extreme brainwashing by society. Take “Law and order” and variants, they try to have a balanced view on most issues (like “hate crimes”, “affirmative action”), but when it comes to vaccines, it’s extreeeeeeme propaganda, with really bizarre plots written by Big Pharma fanboys.
If you think you have hard proof, please cite it.
Oh, I missed that:
“A vaccine is a dead segment of a virus that is injected into the body to stimulate the bodies immune system. This is simple stuff.”
Sir, you know next to nothing about vaccines. This is NOT simple stuff. There is simple stuff in your head!
Some vaccines are LIVE viruses. They give you the disease (safely, in theory), or they don’t work.
Some are inactivated viruses.
Some vaccines just have the surface proteins. They have no genetic material.
Some vaccines are made from live material (with the risk of infectious disease contamination). Some are make from genetic engineering (with another potential risk of contamination).
They are many sorts of vaccines. I am not even an expert on this topic, and won’t teach people about it – but you are an ignoramus. You are dangerous as you can propagate pseudo-science.
You really really should stop talking about stuff you know next to nothing about. (I know next to nothing about vaccines are made, but it isn’t relevant.)
There you go again-being an irrational, unreasonable person while attempting to paint someone else as being irrational and unreasonable! It’s such ironic hypocrisy that I just cannot help myself.
“I am not even an expert on this topic, and won’t teach people about it” – “I know next to nothing about vaccines are made, but it isn’t relevant”
So, you freely admit that you are NOT an expert on this topic, and I’m guessing that your lack of expertise is the reason you “won’t teach people about it” , BUT you feel perfectly justified in declaring that another person, whom I can assume you are ALSO are not an expert on- “is an ignoramus” and is “dangerous” because he/she “can propagate pseudo-science.” Because you are not an “expert” on the person you responded to, all of the rational, reasonable people reading your comments about that person know that you are not to be trusted to “teach people” here “about him/her”. This is also why no one here should feel even slightly compelled to “learn” anything from you about vaccines and “vaxxers” either. Yet you chastised me just last night by saying “You are not here to learn”! Talk about circular reasoning!
Do you KNOW the definition of pseudo-science is? It is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.”
simple-touriste, I am going to ASK you to read the following question slowly, and ponder upon it deeply before you respond (if you respond) to me. I have no irrational expectation that you WILL or even SHOULD do that. Here it is:
Is it even remotely possible, that ANY part of your “collection of beliefs/positions” on vaccines is based on things that you have “mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method”? Because if any of your beliefs/positions HAVE come from such things, then YOU are dangerous because you ARE propagating the very thing you just claimed someone else COULD propagate.
“Sir, you know next to nothing about vaccines. This is NOT simple stuff. There is simple stuff in your head!”
You either just “pretended to KNOW something” that no random person on the internet (you) could possibly know about him/her (that there is simple stuff in his/her head) or, you just did it because you wanted to be insulting and childish. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because simply making statements like that are what makes rational, reasonable people doubt/ignore/discredit everything else you said.
td; dr
Remember when I told you I am done with you?
I am done with you. You are a boring troll.
Vaccination got rid of the biggest killer known – smallpox.
In response to Ben of Houston, I would change “you won’t get shingles, period” to “you have a reduced likelihood of contracting shingles.” There is a clearly demonstrated reduction in ovarian cancer for those who have experienced wild strain mumps vs. vaccines due to the expression of MUC1 antigen caused by an inflamed parotid. The immune system, like the climate, is a complex dynamical system with many and varied feedbacks which science is beginning to understand. The master trigger, one-size-fits-all solution can not be the answer unless we fully understand all of the feedbacks and system responses in addition to the immediate costs/benefits. Some benefits may be worth the risk of immediate actions, and some costs may not.
Dims tried it on the poorer African American populations in the South. It did not go well.
John Cook writes:
“The science for climate change only feeds the denial: how do you beat that? ….”
=====
Roy Spencer’s graph. It can’t be beat!
Actually Cook’s above statement seems to clearly imply that the honest science only supports the rejection of the alarmist position of CAGW. But I don’t think he meant it that way.
Great observation, eyes! #(:))
************************************
To make Cook’s vague language more accurate:
The science
forabout climate change** only feeds the denial… .There IS no “science” pro-AGW.
(** assuming that by “climate change” he means, essentially, AGW)
Janice, please consider to never leave the C off of CAGW. As one of several false ways of achieving the claimed 97% consensus, they left out all references to any harms or benefits from the increase in CO2. (Many scientific organizations likewise do this, yet the skeptical Oregon petition did exactly the opposite, addressing the purported harms as mostly false, and the benefits as factual and observable)
Besides, it irritates alarmists to call it CAGW, yet they have no case for political action without the C.
Hey David! Yes, I second your suggestion. “Never leave the C off of CAGW.” This is an important point. Without the C there is no justification for allowing bureaucrats to run your life.
Also, by leaving off the C, it enables those who wish to obfuscate the real issue by pointing to post LIA warming as somehow confirming the alarmist position.
Actually it should not be CAGW anymore. The Global Warming has been replaced with Climate Change.
It is now Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
🙂
I disagree Chris. Alarmists believe the future must be warmer since CO2 is rising. Keep them on the hook for the warming prediction.
Yes Chris, it certainly is CACC. A big steaming pile of it…
Or maybe Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism (CACA)
Globally Allocated Garbage: GAG
I try to remember to write it as caGW.
I don’t know how to make the “c” any smaller.
(PS for Janice, Happy (belated) Birthday!)
AGW, I always read and say that as “Apocalyptic Global Warming” just to yank their chains and it properly frames their “position” as religion not science.
David;
For a while, Alarmists admitted the first 2-3C would be beneficial. Now, 0.5 is disaster!
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, Columbia University
Advisory Board Co-chaired by Jeffrey D. Sachs. Other Board members are from the oil, gas and mining sectors.
Tony/L. Anthony Hodge from Queen’s University, Canada also on the Board.
http://www.ccsi.columbia.edu/about-us/ccsi-advisory-board
Sachs flits around the world including the Vatican about climate change while at the same time is in bed with fossil fuel and mining interests.
Credibility?
The Rhodes Trust, May 8, 2014, Oxford University
Symposium speakers included:
Dominic Barton, Ecofiscal Commission Canada
Hon Paul Martin, Former PM Canada & INET Expert
Jeffrey Sachs
And others
Symposium underwritten by McCall MacBain Foundation.
Rhodes Trustees include:
Dominic Barton
John MacBain, European Climate Foundation & Chair. Trudeau Foundation, Canada
http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/think-global—confronting-world-challenges-from-climate-change-to-humanitarian-intervention
This is what the whole Lewandowsky initiative was all about. It wasn’t necessarily to discredit the skeptics directly. It was to broadcast the notion that skeptics are skeptical of even the moon landing so we skeptics have to break through the antibodies of skepticism-of-skeptics in the minds of the general public.
In concise-er terms: smear tactics.
Psychologists always seem to complicate simple ideas.
The general public, btw, are now skeptical of the skepticism-of-skeptics.
In concise-er terms: Lewandowsky failed.
That reminds me of the time i saw 2 black snakes and each was swallowing the other by the tail until there were only the 2 heads remaining. Then they both snapped at the same time and there was nothing left!
Hopefully the whole CAGW issue will end the same way. They (the alarmists) will eat themselves and it will all be over.
“The general public, btw, are now skeptical of the skepticism-of-skeptics.”
Sorry, Paul, but I don’t see it.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/o1uiyvwyjequnaqzegz7jq.png
All that tells me is that they think the alarmism is overdone.
This is a confusing sentence.
Is it “skeptical of the skepticism expressed towards skeptics”, or “skeptical of the skepticism that is expressed by skeptics”?
From the original context and what I believe are Paul’s feelings on this topic, I think it is the former, but the way the sentence is structured it could easily be construed as meaning the latter.
I would like to see Cook and his beer buddies try to get some “misinformation” posted in here in order to establish tarnish.
Most folks here tear everything and anything to shreds and then put it all back together… which is the basis for real science but not in propaganda churning.
These ” scientists ” truly are delusional !!
These people are just SO convinced that temp is only going one direction. What happens should their entire theory go belly up? – which I still rank at a 50:50 chance. Belief has no influence.
Isn’t it a great feeling to know that what will happen will happen regardless of all the rant and rage?
I think he forgot “subterranean”; PR bingo fails!
Impressive political analysis.
Free markets are “unregulated”. Only the government can provide “regulation”. Customers can’t. Cause they are stupid?
Trust is earned, not offered. And not free.
Where is the “regulation” for research? Who is the customer?
ANY time I hear anyone whining about “conservatives” being some kind of organized, evil, selfish cabal, I know that person is an idiot.
Conservatives are not an organized anything. The left, however, get their marching orders and act in lock step toward achieving their goal of socialism.
I for one am not organized. You should see my desk.
the big “tell”
the conversation…abc linked
One of the biggest “regulatory” bodies, UL, is 100% private.
I call it “regulatory” since they publish regulations that companies must follow if they want to earn the right to put the “UL” logo on their products.
Companies have to pay UL to have their products tested. However companies are willing to do this since consumers are willing to pay more for products that have been UL tested.
UL has every incentive to make sure that their standards are rigorous and that no company is allowed to cheat, because a scandal would diminish the value of the UL brand in the eyes of consumers which would result in companies no longer being willing to pay for UL testing.
UL also has incentive to not make their standards too tough, since their is a limit to how much extra safety consumers are willing to pay for.
Mark knowing something about UL standard all they are is a marketing scheme. Putting lighter fuel in an audio power amplifier lighting it up with an ignition source and trying to ascertain some from that is as bogus as climate science yet that what the UL does. The UL label is as worthless as the green energy label.
Beginning of the end then for sh!t-weasel Cook. About time.
Oh how people are going to laugh when anyone says “97% of scientists ….” in the future
The fault can be laid at the doorstep of the manufacturers of Crest toothpaste. They are the first ones that I remember who used the “97% of all dentists” slogan in their advertising, and so was born the “97% of all…” claim.
Which soap was it that advertised itself as 99.9% pure?
Forgot about that one, Ivory
I thought Crest was ‘9 out of 10 dentists’, so only 90%. I always assumed the question asked was ‘Do you recommend your patience brush with a toothpaste like Crest?’. :p
[Only the very slowest dentists anticipate appreciating all of their Crest patience. .mod]
You are correct. My memory slipped on that one. Too many years of debating the 97% consensus folk, perhaps.
If I recall, Ivory soap was 99 and 44/100% pure. So pure it floats. Then again turds float in a bowl and they’re pure, but I wouldn’t bathe with them.
John, we HAVE BEEN inoculated. We’ve all had our full series of BULLCRAP shots, so we’re perfectly and totally immune to it. I know it’s your hearts desire to “infect” us all with the malicious disease you and your clubhouse friends suffer from, but it’s no use. The moment you open your mouths, or press letter keys with your fingers, powerful antibodies start surging through our veins.
Most of us also have physical reactions to just seeing your names in print. Revulsion, hives, uncontrollable laughter, headaches, and nausea are common, as well as Tourette like outbursts involving words like “idiot” “stupid” “invalid” “hilarious”. As long as you and Lew and Nuttibelly and Mann and Abraham et al keep publishing papers, more and more people will become skeptical, because everything you produce is so incredibly offensive and irrational and arrogant and WRONG, that even low information types can tell.
But, with that said, we encourage you to publish as often as possible. Maybe host another web series like Denial 101. THAT worked wonders for the skeptic side of things! Brilliant move.
And yet theconversation.com has NOT been inoculated by the data cook?
That science community has AIDS?
[??? .mod]
Some people clearly can’t contribute in any useful way to any serious debate, except as subject of psychological studies. Intuitively, a community should develop antibodies against trolls and people who insult or waste other people’s time in general.
I postulate that most people have such belief that the science community has a strong immune system against buffoons.
Yet, part of the academic science community who makes theconversation.com, and people who participate, don’t seem to have strong Cook/Lew antibodies.
mod, simple citates inoculation paper:
‘Science denial has real, societal consequences. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than 330,000 premature deaths in South Africa.’
and yet, here we are again.
accidental… no planning – not deliberate
physical reactions, no less? very pavlovian.
woofers!
We have been inoculated, that’s true, but Cook is not after us with his vaccine. He’s after people who might be influenced by things said by the likes of us. This is a vaccine to get people to accept CAGW and reject anything else. Brainwashing is an accurate description.
Was a tongue in cheek response that most of us are “immune” to what he’s carrying. He is just blind to the fact that he’s the diseased one. But he’s invented the “disease”, attributed it to us, and is now trying to protect others from something we never truly had in the first place. Simple-touriste and gnomish were apparently born without an irony gene of any kind apparently.
So long as Cookie boy gets his regular inoculation from Nutticcelli ,he will continue to be as deranged as he is now.
“Maybe host another web series like Denial 101.” Oh boy I just gotta sign up for that! I’m what you might call a wingnuttery connoisseur and that is just catnip to me. 🙂
“One way to reduce the influence of misinformation is inoculation: we can stop the spread of science denial by exposing people to a weak form of science denial.”
Sounds like straw-manning to me.
Listening to John Cook talking about convincing sceptics is like watching a child go up a down escalator: they know the theory – but they just can’t understand why it doesn’t work.
The problem for John Cook is that he somehow believes that we sceptics will one day turn into ardent believers – the truth is that everyone with enough intelligence and experience will eventually learn that it’s best to be sceptical.
Almost everybody is exposed to relentless doom-mongering about the climate. That is the starting position for almost everybody.
But a substantial number of people have moved away from that position. They have already been persuaded of that error. How?
By looking at the evidence, of course.
So Cook is right that you have to include some semblance of reality to reach those who are no longer ignorant.
But he’s wrong to think that a little grain of truth will sweeten the deception.
Sceptics have already seen through the folly.
Skeptics will never become ardent believers, but ardent believers FREQUENTLY become skeptics. I’m one who did–and after a lifetime of being “innoculated” with Green Rhetoric. If it can happen to me, well . . . maybe they better wear their rubbers!
Change “about the climate” to “about what Man is doing” and you’ve expressed what I’ve experienced in my lifetime.
Look at SciFi movies. (With a few aliens thrown in throughout.) In the ’50’s and ’60’s, it was all about nuclear radiation. In the 70’s it was about toxic pollution. In the ’80’s we …. etc. etc.
Even Frankenstein (the book) had to deal with the relatively new thing called “electricity”.
“Even Frankenstein (the book) had to deal with the relatively new thing called “electricity”.”
He was a visionary:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11870070
Hi Eric,
I think it’s fair to say that many of the commentators on this blog, myself included, think the CRU-NOAA-UN-Mann global warming argument is baloney and that there’s collusion among these scientists to get the result they want.
However, I came across an interesting article today on the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684) that has got me thinking. It is an article about a new mathematical study into the probability that a range of topics, including global warming, are a hoax or some kind of conspiracy.
The study itself is at the link: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
I’m interested to hear what other people’s take is on it? It’s got me thinking. The author of the study argues that if this global warming stuff was all a conspiracy, we should, mathematically, have already found out by now?
Daniel
Nice try. Here’s a suggestion Daniel – don’t come on here using the name Gates if you want any credibility about anything other than sophistry and other assorted sh!t-weaseling.
“The author of the study argues that if this global warming stuff was all a conspiracy, we should, mathematically, have already found out by now?”
Please show us, along with the mathematics, any direct evidence that CO2 going from 280 ppm to 401 ppm has had any measurable effect on any global climate parameter.
Scientific data does not conspire and has no political affiliation.
+1
Actually I think Daniel was genuine and I was going to post the same link about this study from Dr Grimes from Oxford. The only difference for me was I heard him directly talking about the study on BBC World and the first question asked of him was which conspiracy(s) are you talking about…..no guess as to which one he mentioned first…..Climate Change denial.
Which leads me on to another thing that intrigues me about the scientists involved with Climate Change. I think there is belief from them and perhaps others that they have far superior knowledge and intellect on the subject especially if they come from a leading university. However, for example, my wife went to Cambridge Uni in the UK. Just to get in as a student you have to be smart and to be a professor obviously very smart. However, she had a professor who lectured there and was an expert in reproduction. He had a theory that high temperatures kill sperm so he walked around regularly with an ice pack down his trousers because he believed in it so much. He is/was right that high temps lower sperm counts, but the fact is not enough to be worried about for the average man in tight warm underwear. So from an outsider view looking in, this man who is extremely intelligent is actually barking mad and you wonder how on earth he thought this was ok practice and to encouraged others to follow his lead?
I wonder whether we have a similar situation with climate scientists who are often very intelligent individuals but have become so obsessed about their belief in climate change that they are blind to the real life implications of the science or indeed the science itself?
The BBC is a major conspiracy all of its own these days. When they put out the lunchtime news you check your watch.
Phil: That’s very unreasonable that you’re giving me flack simply for being born with the surname Gates?
You’re CO2 question is quite off the topic of my link as well, I’d be much more interested to hear what your thoughts were on that study?
My thoughts on that “study”? Exactly the sort of illogical BS that I expect to be published if there is in fact a lot of conspiring going on routinely.
The idea that no one in positions of power ever “conspired” is so silly that it must be constantly reinforced with rediculous nonsense and pseudo scientific babble, just to keep everyone from laughing at the idea, it seems to me.
While my other comment’s in moderation Daniel, it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy, and they have it ass-backwards. Indeed, after 40 years and a half-doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, if it had any measurable effect on any climate parameter we should to quote you “mathematically, have already found out by now”. We haven’t.
On the conspiracy straw man – it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a collection of fifth- or tenth-rate “scientists”, pompous elitist dumb-ass paid politicians, their dupes and other assorted stupid people (a category that you probably fit in), along with other rent-seekers and naive younger people who have been duped into thinking they’re saving the planet.
The list goes on …..
They think we believe that “movie actor” or “Bill Gates” or “NGO” equates with “scientist.” Sorry, we’re not that dumb, and we know increasingly desperate, shrill propaganda when we see it.
sorry, didn’t see this reply 🙂
Is Planet X a conspiracy? What is the cycle? Estimates of an orbit of 15,000 to 30,000 years. That is a real estimate I could compare to the accuracy of current GCM’s.
Climate Change is real, but I personally don’t think we yet have the skill to predict it. Heck, we are still arguing about how to measure it. Temperature, Humidity, Rainfall. Snow. Wind. Tornadoes. Hurricanes. ENSO. AMO. PDO.
We can’t even look in the rear view mirror and get it right. We use ice, dendrites, tree rings, sediments, fossils, carbon dating and lordy knows what all else with a resolution of ????
What are the causes – sun, solar wind, clouds, Gamma Rays, orbit, axis tilt, wobble, variation in the ecliptic, passing comets, Planet X, magnetic pole changes, GHG’s, volcanism, Vulcanism 😉 – alignment of the planets, Black Holes, the inverse of the universe …
After years of reading, I have one conclusion. We really don’t know. Sort of like plate tectonics only a few years back.
My great grandmother was born in 1867. Buffalo still roamed the prairies though that is the year the big decline started. She lived to see man circling the earth. We have a lot to learn and a lot of dead ends to explore before we figure out what drives the climate. Another 100 years perhaps. I need a time capsule.
There is a thought. Lets put all of our projections in a stainless steel tube and dig it up in a hundred years so our descendants can have a good laugh (or cry) over our level of understanding.
When the truth is uncertain, there is no limit to the BS.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/post-truth-climatism/
we did find out
years ago
” should, mathematically, have already found out by now?”
You are completely ignoring the incredible power of self-interest and stupidity.
Daniel, I’ve never suggested climate alarmism is a conspiracy or collusion, I believe, and have repeatedly stated, there is strong evidence the main proponents of truly believe in what they are promoting. But their belief in what they are doing, doesn’t make them right.
The Greek philosopher Aristarchus made a credible attempt to calculate the size of the Earth, Moon and Sun, sometime around 250BC. It was common knowledge in Ancient Greece that the Earth was a sphere. But belief that the Earth was flat persisted until comparatively modern times. There wasn’t a “conspiracy” to convince people that the Earth was flat – its just that the opinion the Earth is flat was popular, the people who believed the Earth was flat tended to blindly accepted authority, rather than thinking for themselves, and most people didn’t bother to consider generally accessible contrary evidence, such as the fact ships appear to sink as they approach the horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sizes_and_Distances_(Aristarchus)
By the way, the standard astronomical text from the 2nd century until Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest) taught that the world was (a) a sphere and (b) “a mathematical point” by comparison to the distance to the stars. This WAS the authority. Neither political nor religious authorities taught a flat earth.
Fair point, there was more awareness of the sphericity of the Earth than I thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Daniel, think about this quote from Karl Popper; The logic of scientific discovery; Page 20
======================================================
… “it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible.”
========================================================
This appears to me to be an exact description of fifty ways to explain the pause. (always said to the tune of fifty ways to leave your lover) followed by “simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever” (The latest NOAA surface record)
The CAGW movement is built upon multiple orthogonal causes, conspiracy just being one element. Yes, politicians do conspire on ways to reach their objective. (Marxists talk clearly about the ends justifying the means. Politicians talk about never letting a good crisis go to waste. UN one world government leaders talk about how even if the theory of CAGW is wrong, it does not matter, the end political result is good, other leading statists talk about reducing the global population by two thirds or more, scientists in the climate-gate emails made clear statements of conspiracy, things they would not admit to in public, destroying government emails, etc) So to conspiracy of some, add noble cause corruption for others to the list. (Most all justify their actions by claiming they are saving the world)
The President of the US said there better not be any climate change deniers in government. Skeptics have been fired for being skeptics. Skeptics have been shunned for being skeptics. (So add peer pressure to the list.)
Government spends hundreds of billions promoting and financing CAGW research and alternative energy projects. Green energy business leaders make large political donations to those government politicians supporting their industry. (So add the corrupting power of money to the list, or do some people think only business men are corrupted by money?)
I am shocked, that anyone is shocked, that humans strive for power and money, or that politicians finding a means to tax they very air you breathe, choose to do so.
1. Political conspiracy for wealth and political power.
2. Nobel-cause corruption.
3. Peer Pressure.
4. Money/power, as both a carrot and a stick.
5. Misinterpretation of the precautionary principle.
Mods, usually my non multiple linked posts go straight through but lately they disappear. If they reappear, please leave this one, and remove the others. Thanks.
Wrote a post on falsification a few years ago 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
Few people thought the earth was flat. It was an notion invented by Washington Irving in his 1830 biography of Christopher Columbus.
I suspect that the vast majority of people never gave the idea any thought. Either way. To them it was something that simply made no difference in their lives, so they didn’t waste any time on it.
If forced to guess, they would look around, and in their local vicinity, it was flat so the natural assumption would be that the earth was flat.
“(Most all justify their actions by claiming they are saving the world)”
Mencken called that “the messianic delusion.”
I don’t believe I’ve ever said or thought that AGW is a *hoax*. I’ve come to believe that it’s *wrong*, but that’s a very different thing.
Take for example the academic theory called the Documentary Hypothesis. This is not merely the belief that the Torah had sources, which is uncontentious, but that a technique exists for recovering the sources, even at the level of splitting a single sentence into two pieces and ascribing each to a different author. These reconstructed authors are then ascribed reconstructed dates, locations, and theological/political interests, and the history of the development of religious thought and the writing of the Torah is reconstructed from that. By now, of course, everyone working in the area knows the results they are supposed to get. There is still no independent control, and the methods have never been validated on documents with known highly interleaved authorship (not that there are many such documents: it requires an editor who regards every letter of his sources as sacred BUT who is willing to chop them up and stitch the pieces together to make something different, a very strange person indeed). This academic theory has been going for over two centuries and is still highly regarded in many circles. Its original basis was the observation that the deity is referred to by two different names. When archaeologists discovered that this was a widespread literary technique in ancient Near Eastern religions, the theory was defended by saying “oh we never really depended on that” and sailed on.
Now the Documentary Hypothesis COULD become part of science overnight if someone turned up an ancient document that had let’s say many J parts of the Torah but few or no E P or D. (Since the DH ascribes much later dates to the Torah than tradition does, the Dead Sea Scrolls must have come as a severe disappointment…) Just as “Climate Change” COULD become part of science overnight if its projections started fitting the real world.
Given the longevity of the DH, I find it the reverse of surprising that CAGW is hanging on. It may well outlive me. For that matter, I expect communism to outlive me.
I agree it doesn’t make much sense to call AGW (or even CAGW) “a hoax”, not even the flawed theory behind it – no matter whether (C)AGW exists or not, purely as a phenomenon that can be studied, confirmed, discarded, whatever. But using it as a convenient means of getting political leverage with goals that are quite different from lowering atmospheric CO2 certainly IS a hoax, and this is the only thing that is quickly becoming dangerous for our economy and our well-being, and is therefore worth worrying about. The fundamental question cannot be “Is CAGW true or not?” but “Is it legitimate that our laws and our way of life are influenced top-down depending on whether it is or not?” and in conjunction with that “Is it legitimate that anybody non-productive to the total income of the country – that would be academics, non-profitable NGOs, clerics, students, as well as anyboy who pays their taxes elsewhere – is allowed to lobby and demonstrate for their point of view in economic matters AT ALL”. The wealth of the country as a whols surely must top the right for free speech – anything aimed at lowering efficiency and destroying industry IMHO is nothing short of treason and should invoke the same legal consequences, no matter if the reason is derangedness (CAGW, nuclear power) or laziness (trade unions, social security parasites). Everybody should be allowed to think, believe, research, write and print whatever they prefer, but the rulers of the country must keep the straight path no matter what the rabble demands, if needed, with help from the military. Since the 1960s (hippies, civil-rights terrorism), the USA have failed dismally in this respect, so did Germany in the 1880 when the Kaiser failed to erase the cancerous growth of a “labor movement” (read socialist terrorist network) that Bismarck had already recognized for what it was, and that decades later was to give the world luminaries like Lenin, Hitler, and today Merkel…..
Chris Z –
As a “social-security parasite”, I’ll take serious exception to your post. In particular, nothing trumps the First Amendment, and we should never ever consider using the military to impose political goals within the US.
Richard A. O’Keefe,
“I don’t believe I’ve ever said or thought that AGW is a *hoax*. I’ve come to believe that it’s *wrong*, but that’s a very different thing.
Take for example the academic theory called the Documentary Hypothesis.”
A rather poor example for demonstrating anything is not a “hoax”, it seems to me . . Because if that Book is Genuine, there absolutely have to be “hoaxes” attacking it, right?
Deliberate disinformation perhaps? The paper gives a range of 3.7 to 26.8 years (even if one accepts the ‘climate change “fraud”‘ misdirection).
From the BBC article …
‘Dr Grimes’s analysis suggests that if these four conspiracies were real, most are very likely to have been revealed as such by now.
Specifically, the Moon landing “hoax” would have been revealed in 3.7 years, the climate change “fraud” in 3.7 to 26.8 years, the vaccine-autism “conspiracy” in 3.2 to 34.8 years, and the cancer “conspiracy” in 3.2 years.’
Vaccine-autism is a conspiracy now? Is it not a controversy in the field of pharmacology? Do vaccine makers “conspire” to promote their potentially toxic drugs? I thought it was the job of the government to suppress criticism of vaccines! (another attack on free speech that doesn’t seem to bother defenders of Willie Soon here.)
What about the statines “conspiracy”?
The communism works “conspiracy”?
The spending more than what you have every single year is austerity “conspiracy”?
The public must ignore that “Moon landing hoax” paper is essentially a hoax itself “conspiracy”?
“I thought it was the job of the government to suppress criticism of vaccines! (another attack on free speech that doesn’t seem to bother defenders of Willie Soon here.)”
Oh woah there boy! Let’s not diverge into the realm of wild logical fallacies ok? Making sweeping generalizations about what the “defenders of Willie Soon” here are, or are not, bothered by, isn’t exactly going to win anyone over to whatever side it is you are on. It makes you seem irrational and illogical, as well as being insulting-whether intentional or not. 🙂
“Let’s not diverge into the realm of wild logical fallacies ok?”
Which fallacies?
Aren’t people supposed to defended free speech and the free flow of ideas?
“It makes you seem irrational and illogical”
Only if you refuse any idea that conflicts with your views.
simple-touriste-
“I thought it was the job of the government to suppress criticism of vaccines! (another attack on free speech that doesn’t seem to bother defenders of Willie Soon here.)”
What EXACTLY did you mean when you said that? Because it basically says that you believe that people here, who might be “defenders of Willie Soon”, don’t seem to be bothered by “another attack on free speech”. What “other attack” are you referring to?
So, when I said -“Let’s not diverge into the realm of wild logical fallacies ok?”
And you asked-“Which fallacies?”
THAT was the fallacy I was referring to- “Making sweeping generalizations about what the “defenders of Willie Soon” here are, or are not, bothered by”. Because as far as I can tell, there’s been no survey taken here asking “Are you a defender of Willie Soon”? followed by “why doesn’t this other attack (still unnamed) on free speech seem to bother you?”
You asked-“Aren’t people supposed to defended free speech and the free flow of ideas?”
People should defend both of those, yes. But that doesn’t mean that all people can or will defend(ed) free speech and the free flow of ideas in exactly the way and timely manner that you expect them to. What any of this has to do with Willie Soon, or people who defend him, is beyond me. But you brought it in here.
Me-“It makes you seem irrational and illogical”
You-“Only if you refuse any idea that conflicts with your views.”
Nope. There you go again, being irrational and illogical. You see, most of the things that conflict with my views ARE irrational and illogical, so when I say that your above argument makes you seem that way, it’s because your argument IS literally irrational and illogical, by definition. Whether or not my views conflict with it is irrelevant to that point.
“What “other attack” are you referring to?”
You haven’t noticed that medical doctors can’t generally promote ideas not backed up by the establishment, like that some vaccines are harmful?
Medical doctors must follow the “consensus” of medical “science”. Those who don’t accept the “science” violate “medical ethics” and will have face sanctions with their board (a fascist concept, BTW). The mere fact that “skeptics” here accept such “consensus” “science” bothers me.
Some doctors even have said on record that they don’t want to say anything that would suggest that vaccines are unsafe. It’s self-censorship. For the “cause” (that they told call a cause, but it’s a cause).
The scientific method is thrown under the bus. I don’t see many reaction here, by people who would define themselves “skeptics” and promoters of the scientific method.
I have assumed that people here would defend Willie Soon at least on the matter of principles (free speech, free flows of ideas, defense against witch trials). I don’t think it’s a controversial assumption or that a survey would be necessary.
I see that many people are silent about vaccines. It bothers me. A lot.
I see people here who refuse to even consider the idea that the best weapon in the fight against infectious diseases isn’t always a vaccine. It’s Orekses-size bigotry. And it’s disgusting. It’s a feature of the “conservatives”.
*hands simple-touriste a brown paper bag to breathe in*
“You haven’t noticed that medical doctors can’t generally promote ideas not backed up by the stablishment, like that some vaccines are harmful?”
Ok…”The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization.” SO you’re asking if I have noticed that medical doctors can’t generally promote ideas not backed up by some group of medical authorities?
I don’t hang out with, stalk, or regularly survey medical doctors concerning what they can and cannot promote, so let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it has entirely escaped my “notice”. Where would I go to find convincing evidence that a large segment of the medical profession is being silenced by a board of medical “authorities” who threaten to accuse them of violating “medical ethics” and with sanctions if they do not promote the ideas of those medical “authorities”?
You don’t expect me to just take your word for that do you?
“Some doctors even have said on record that they don’t want to say anything that would suggest that vaccines are unsafe. It’s self-censorship. For the “cause” (that they told call a cause, but it’s a cause).”
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Where are these on record statements that prove self-censorship is occurring?
“The scientific method is thrown under the bus. I don’t see many reaction here, by people who would define themselves “skeptics” and promoters of the scientific method.”
Well, let’s look at some logical possibilities for WHY you aren’t seeing what you THINK you should be seeing- 1)maybe, just maybe, because this is a CLIMATE science based blog that posts stuff that Anthony Watts finds interesting, everyone here isn’t as “on top of” this “medical doctor” issue as you are. 2) maybe people here are on top of it, but haven’t come to the same conclusion about it that you have (maybe they need more evidence to get there) 3) maybe your expectations of other people who define themselves as skeptics and promoters of the scientific method are unrealistic, completely subjective, etc (in other words-illogical and irrational)
“I have assumed that people here would defend Willie Soon at least on the matter of principles (free speech, free flows of ideas, defense against witch trials). I don’t think it’s a controversial assumption or that a survey would be necessary.”
Ah…see that word there….”assumed”…yeah. That’s a word that usually indicates a cognitive bias is in play. Most people here have defended Willie Soon in certain situations and for specific reasons when they feel that certain principles have been violated. But just because YOU feel that something horrible and obvious is happening in the medical doctor realm, doesn’t automatically mean that everyone else knows about it in the first place, and would agree with you in the second place if they DID know about it.
“Selective perception bias-The tendency for expectations to affect perception.”
“Stereotyping bias-Expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.”
“I see that many people are silent about vaccines. It bothers me. A lot.”
Well, I can see and accept that it bothers you. But your assumptions about why “many people” are silent about it bother me. A lot.
“I see people here who refuse to even consider the idea that the best weapon in the fight against infectious diseases isn’t always a vaccine. It’s Orekses-size bigotry. And it’s disgusting. It’s a feature of the “conservatives”.”
Well thank you for your opinion. Since you clearly don’t think highly of “conservatives”, I can assume you are something else….a liberal perhaps? It would be so easy for me to say something like “I see here a person who refuses to even consider the idea that his/her own thinking might be flawed or incorrect with regards to every other person who has ever posted on WUWT. It’s Oreskes-sized bigotry. And it’s disgusting. It’s a feature of “(insert your ideological leaning here)”. But I can’t. Because doing so would be illogical and irrational and just plain old idiotically bigoted.
So, I’ll salute your right to free speech, no matter how dumb or rabid that speech might be. But as far as you being an example of someone who values the scientific method…not even close.
“Where would I go to find convincing evidence that a large segment of the medical profession”
are capable of seeing what is obvious to a child?
Just reading the case made for vaccines by vaxxers should be enough to see that their no case of many vaccines. Reading arguments of vaxxer is like reading crazy-talk. They are irrational.
The medical profession doesn’t petition about what is patently obvious (you don’t vaccinate babies against STD), so they must be corrupt, or crazy, or both. There is no wiggle-room.
The ethic boards won’t allow “useless” studies (like testing established dogmas), so the scientific method is out of the window. “Ethics” means that replication is forbidden. This is by definition. This is obvious. So anyone who keeps silent is complicit.
“maybe people here are on top of it, but haven’t come to the same conclusion about it that you have (maybe they need more evidence to get there)”
Yes, people are on top of it and refuse to see the obvious.
Aphan,
Have you looked into these matters in any real depth?
If not, what the hell are you doing?
JohnKnight-
“Have you looked into these matters in any real depth?”
Exposing the flawed logic in arguments doesn’t require any depth on the topic at hand. At all. It just requires an understanding of what is logical/reasonable and what is not.
“If not, what the hell are you doing?”
Exercising free speech, and pointing out irrational behavior. Do you have a problem with that?
Aphan, your answers are very irrational.
When people pose a conservative, go ballistic when Obama try to make sure children get decent food at school so that they don’t fell hungry after, but accept that the gov has the right to impose untested treatments on healthy people, you have to wonder what kind of conservatism it is.
Also, there NOTHING ideological in my messages. I only promote healthy skepticism and the scientific method.
You have a blind point when it comes to EBV (evidence based medicine). Anyone who interact with vaxxers must come to the conclusion that
– they are crazy persons
– their “EBV” is evidence-free
“Aphan, your answers are very irrational.”
Wow. That statement is hilarious! My answers are EXTREMELY rational.
“When people pose a conservative, go ballistic when Obama try to make sure children get decent food at school so that they don’t fell hungry after, but accept that the gov has the right to impose untested treatments on healthy people, you have to wonder what kind of conservatism it is.”
“Pose a conservative” “Obama try” “fell hungry” I’m not even sure what kind of language that is.
But YOU don’t get to tell me what conservatives or anyone else thinks, believes, feels, etc. It’s not allowed because it is IRRATIONAL to assume that you could possibly KNOW. I can keep listing the cognitive biases and logical fallacies you are engaging in here all day and into the weekend if you’d like.
“Also, there NOTHING ideological in my messages. I only promote healthy skepticism and the scientific method.”
You do? Since WHEN has reaching conclusions without ANY evidence to support them been part of the scientific method? Except for pseudo science? Everything you’ve said to me today has been nothing but pure opinion, projection, and logically flawed.
“You have a blind point when it comes to EBV (evidence based medicine). Anyone who interact with vaxxers”
First, I’ve never even heard that “slang” term before in my life until today, and second, apparently I haven’t ever interacted with any because I’ve never spoken to a crazy person about vaccines until TODAY. And not only are you crazy, but your assumptions and insinuations about “everyone else” are EVIDENCE FREE.
“My answers are EXTREMELY rational.”
Keep thinking that.
“Since WHEN has reaching conclusions without ANY evidence to support them been part of the scientific method?”
The evidence is there for all to see. You just have a blind spot.
I am done with you.
“The evidence is there for all to see. You just have a blind spot.”
Oh. The. Irony.
Yes indeed, there is irony and it’s on you.
Now your trolling is getting boring.
You were done with me. Remember? And now that you’ve brought up the word troll, seems like the mods noticed your odd behavior earlier today….
“You were done with me.”
I am. You can’t even see the contradictions in your messages. You must be thinking that credible and rational people must be calm and never angry.
The terrifying aspect of this is that you could legally be in a jury.
“seems like the mods noticed your odd behavior earlier today….”
???
“You must be thinking…” Really? I MUST BE? Do you not see how stupid you sound? Of course credible and rational people get angry. But their anger doesn’t suddenly make all of their positions completely irrational or un-credible. Your “anger” here, if you described your reasoning accurately, is based on assumptions, insinuations about other people, and the fact that other people are NOT reacting in the exact manner you think they would be if they were as “rational and reasonable” as you are!!
You’d better hope on your life that if you are ever in front of a jury, that I AM on it. Because I won’t let my irrational, and illogical anger about what ever crime you are accused of committing keep me from being logical and meticulous in examining the evidence before I let the rest of the jury convict you!
People like YOU acting like they are judge and jury about everyone else is not only terrifying, but the more you pretend NOT to be that way, the more hilarious it also becomes at the same time.
I am happy you have this forum to vent your superiority feelings.
@mods: do we have to endure this?
“I am happy you have this forum to vent your superiority feelings.”
What’s wrong? Venting your feelings of superiority against “vaxxers” is fine but opposing your illogical venting is not? You can’t even say you’re done with me and support that conclusion.
You failed to address any of my arguments, so we are done. You are not here to learn.
I addressed all of them. They are logically flawed. You can learn from that or not. If you don’t want me to do that, try using the scientific method to reach solid conclusions in the future.
Aphan,
“Exposing the flawed logic in arguments doesn’t require any depth on the topic at hand. At all.”
The flaw being? Not having blind faith in . . big pharma? Big Government? The mass media? What?
Forget it. Im too tired to care at this point. If you cant see it, I’m not playing tour guide.
I recommend people investigate vaccine efficacy/safety, economics, testing and so on, for themselves. After having done so (not before, I was pretty well inoculated against doubting the magic of the V word too ; ) now I have no choice but to warn against blind faith in vaccines. The realm has been corrupted as climate science has been, I am very sure.
“I recommend people investigate vaccine efficacy/safety, economicomprehendng and so on, for themselves.”
I totally and completely AGREE with that. Every aspect of life involves risks, even the process of giving birth. Blind faith in anyone or anything is a foolish way to live one’s life and even moreso when your choices affect the life of another, completely dependent person.
Any concept that can be corrupted by humans, will be. Science, religion, politics, society, business, and on and on. A true skeptic questions everything and everyone. Being a skeptic is not defined as “someone who is always against the consensus” or “always on the side of the minority”. It doesn’t mean that because I’m on your side when it comes to the AGW debate, that I automatically will be on your side in any other debate. I am JUST as unwilling to have “blind faith” in you and Simple-tourists’s position on vaccines as I am the medical community’s.
If you cannot understand and accept that, then you don’t really comprehend what honest, true skepticism is in the first place.
Aphan,
It seems to me you didn’t understand what simple-tourist originally wrote in this thread, which is understandable, but rather than ask for clarification you began making assumptions about it, and insulting the person. Honest, that’s what it looks like to me. Reread and perhaps you’ll see it too this time . .
Consider. please.
“What EXACTLY did you mean when you said that? Because it basically says that you believe that people here, who might be “defenders of Willie Soon”, don’t seem to be bothered by “another attack on free speech”. ”
That’s how I read it too; *it basically says that you believe that people here, who might be “defenders of Willie Soon”, don’t seem to be bothered by “another attack on free speech”* . . That’s not a logical fallacy, and if that’s how things seem to the person, it’s not a sweeping generality, it’s just the truth . . . Right?
JK said-“That’s how I read it too; *it basically says that you believe that people here, who might be “defenders of Willie Soon”, don’t seem to be bothered by “another attack on free speech”* . . That’s not a logical fallacy, and if that’s how things seem to the person, it’s not a sweeping generality, it’s just the truth . . . Right?”
I truly want very badly for you to just tell me you are kidding. To tell me you truly do not need some lessons in what is logical and what is not. That you grasp and accept the concept that how something “appears to be” or “seems to be” to an individual has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not that thing is TRUE or TRUTHFUL.
Now, whether you and s-t are aware of it or not, or simply pretending not to know I cannot determine. But there are actual RULES and parameters outlined by experts in logic and reason that demonstrate and identify when someone is speaking from a place of logic and reason, and when they are not. No matter which reason it might be, by choice (to ignore those rules) or by lack of awareness (that those rules exist) I merely point out where things aren’t logical or reasonable. How you take that, or what you do with that, is up to you. Not me.
“That you grasp and accept the concept that how something “appears to be” or “seems to be” to an individual has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not that thing is TRUE or TRUTHFUL. ”
Why not? If you seem like a nice person to me, and I say you seem like a nice person to me, why is that not a truthful statement by definition? I spoke of what something seemed like to me, and it did seem like that to me . .
I said- (please tell me )“That you grasp and accept the concept that how something “appears to be” or “seems to be” to an individual has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not that thing is TRUE or TRUTHFUL. ”
Why not? If you seem like a nice person to me, and I say you seem like a nice person to me, why is that not a truthful statement by definition? I spoke of what something seemed like to me, and it did seem like that to me . .
Saying that someone “seems like” a nice person is very different than declaring that someone IS a nice person…as if you have proof that how things seem to be, actually ARE that way. Using words like “seems” and “appears” are word clues that indicate you are sharing your opinion of how things appear. NOT using words like that are word clues that indicate that you are NOT stating an opinion or personal belief, but are making statements as if they are FACTS.
Simple-tourist did not do what you just did. She/he did not say that everyone here “appeared to be” or “seemed to be” liars or hypocrites or whatever. He/she declared her anger against everyone here as if they WERE what he/she declared them to be, and that is both offensive, and illogical if he/she does not have strong evidence to support those conclusions about everyone here. Which she/he could not possibly have in his/her possession because even if such evidence on everyone here DID exist, it would take her/him a lifetime to collect it, examine it, and make a definitive declaration on it.
I hope this makes sense. There is actually a “science” of sorts behind logic and reason (solid cognitive skills). There are literally word formulas that make someone’s personal conclusions less valid, more valid, or invalid depending upon what they build those conclusions ON. Strong, solid premises, or weak, flawed premises become easily recognizable once you’re familiar with the “language” of logic and cognitive biases are obvious if you are familiar with the language of reason.
Pointing out someone’s flawed logic or reasoning isn’t the equivalent of saying that they are bad people or mentally handicapped etc. All logic and reason does is identify WEAK/STRONG premises and WEAK/STRONG cognitive skills, neither one assumes or insinuates ANYTHING about the person using those premises or skills at all. And anyone who pretends or declares that they DO, is obviously not being reasonable or logical.
“She/he did not say that everyone here “appeared to be” or “seemed to be” liars or hypocrites or whatever.”
You are just making up sh*t.
Your trolling is boring.
Aphan,
I tire of your endless self adulation, sir.
“I tire of your endless self adulation, sir.”
First, I am not a “sir”, and second, what self adulation? Be specific and reference exactly what I’ve said that you feel qualifies as “self adulation”.
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Unwarranted_Self-Importance
You missed Climategate then?
It was in all the papers . . .
Daniel Gates: A glance at the article got me thinking, too-I thought, “What the hell are you thinking?” The CAGW theory has been exposed as false (the expression I prefer is “not even wrong”) for years now. Maybe you and this author missed it, but it’s all over the archives and comments of this site. Those of us baffled by the response of the CAGW cult are left to wonder if this group-think is a result of a conspiracy, or madness, or something in the water, or an increase in atmospheric CO2. Based on observations and repeated results (pretty sciency, huh?), I submit it is a conspiracy of the cult because they act like progressives, and progressives will always (always) accuse their perceived opponents of doing precisely what the progs are doing. In any event, by the 3d or 4th sentence, you can see the author is applying hard science (physics and math), which he understands, to human behavior (conspiracy no less, a complex and often-irrational behavior). If math could explain conspiracy, Einstein would have been Freud. But don’t be discouraged, keep thinking!
pbweather people can be very intelligent in one are and will miss the bus that run them over figuratively and literally because they suffer from tunnel vision they do not have brains that can see the big picture instead they have a narrow view of the world. Yes there are great mathematicians in fact the maybe the greatest of the twenty century staved to death because he was a vegetarian trying to live in England in the 1930, his math compression is even unmatched today but he was blind to the fact humans were not meant to be on vegetarians. His religion blinded him to that fact. A log of the CAGW proponents do not have a religion to fall back on so CAGW is what they have. I also maintain the as a lot “climate Scientist” are not very bright if they were they would understand the very fine thread their claims are hung on.
[‘… in one area “? .mod]
Yes mod, I had to teach myself to read, I a hoard proof reader, I like to put my thoughts into words, not what may or may not be written or what I typed.
“Yes mod, I had to teach myself to read, I a hoard proof reader, I like to put my thoughts into words, not what may or may not be written or what I typed.”
Thanks for clearing that up.
*scratches head and walks away still confused*
“I’m interested to hear what other people’s take is on it? It’s got me thinking. The author of the study argues that if this global warming stuff was all a conspiracy, we should, mathematically, have already found out by now?”
I think that a majority of commenters here may reach a similar conclusion to the one I have reached regarding this comment of yours: Regardless of whether you are the guy who wants to use maths to discover the “truth” of CAGW and the alarmists who promote it, this blog, others like it, prior knowledge, and a close investigation of the facts informs us of what the truth is directly. I for one already know that what is occurring meets every dictionary definition of what a “hoax” is, and that there is clear and documented collusion, and strong evidence of still more of it.
So I, to speak for myself, will not waste my time clicking a link or reading how this person reached the conclusion, that math can tell us about the veracity of a scientific matter more better than actual study and evaluation of the scientific and other evidence directly.
@Daniel
Since I was young, I have been told by the media that men have a lot more romantic partners than women.
When will someone blow the whistle on this one?
This is similar to the fine art practiced by many/most politicians of repeating a big lie often enough until doubters begin to believe.
I once worked for a most amazing man who was able to talk himself into believing his own lies.
Did you get to visit the White House often? 😛
Yes, there is a similarity to some degree with what you suggest. The guy I worked for was truly unusual though with his ability. I have never met anyone quite like him.
the skeptics have been duped into debating temperature instead of the real issue in agw which is the relationship between fossil fuel emissions and temperature. the warmists have a lot of wiggle room in the former but none in the latter because there is no correlation between the rate of fossil fuel emissions and the rate of warming or the rate of change in atmospheric co2. please watch this video and then go to the links in the “description” of the video.
https://youtu.be/vUvLoE5v0yQ
Jamal – what you are doing by integration is changing “scientific noise” (the type taught in science degrees) into 1/f^n type noise (the type taught in good electronics and signal processing degrees).
So, your comments apply not just to integration, but any function that changes the frequency response to enhance long-period noise and also any natural system (like climate) where long term noise dominates (and don’t find the noddy statistics taught in relation to “scientific noise”).
“As the scientific consensus for climate change has strengthened over the past decade” – I though that it was at 97% from before then. There can’t be more than half a dozen of us left by now.
Patrick: Yes, it was 97%, and it’s now 97.1%, +/- 1. Hottest consensus ever!
1. has the scientific consensus strengthened (ie, more scientists agree) OR
2. the BELIEF that there is a consensus has strengthened by non-scientists OR
3. the USE of the belief that there is a consensus has strengthened to achieve other aims
How strong does it have to be in order to be a consensus? Are they saying that a decade ago the “consensus” that they declared existed was a weak consensus, but they just made it SOUND like a strong one? Wasn’t it like 20 years ago that it was declared “settled science”? Wouldn’t that by definition mean that there was a “strong consensus” then? How does he KNOW it has strengthened? Did he and his gang produce another “analysis” of abstracts published between 2005 and 2015 and divine/imagine/conjure/fabricate a 98% consensus from those?
He keeps using this word. I do not think it means what he likes to lie and pretend that it means….
I love that these studies are coming out at such a high rate. In an old psych experiment, a bird was trained to press a bar by rewarding it with a bit of birdseed after a random number of bar presses. The bird naturally learned to press the bar a few times when it wanted to eat. When the experimenters decided to extinguish the behavior, they stopped supplying birdseed in response to the bird pressing the bar. What happened when the birdseed stopped coming? The bird began to press the bar at an increased rate, more and more frantically, pumping out paper after pointless paper all to no avail as people who are most likely to take away their birdseed altogether rise higher in the polls.
Nothing more entertaining that watching frantic birds pounding pointlessly on the bar. So keep those papers coming, they will all be remembered in future history books, although perhaps not for the reasons you think.
They don’t understand that the birds appear demented to sane birds.
“Angry Birds!” Great metaphor–ROFLMAO!
Cargo science birds.
If you are a realist…Cook is entertaining.
So closed minded.
If you’re a realist, he’s not entertaining.
Sks is entertaining, well was rather before I was riduled for saying interglacial periods are warmer than glaical perids. They can all live in their virtual worlds. Site is largly filled with fools. Cook is certainly NOT entertaining. Laughable, but not entertaining.
I strongly suspect the equatorial regions were quite warm during Ice Ages due to the heat being concentrated there while both poles were very cold. Canada fared worse than Siberia during the Ice Ages, a point that is ignored by ‘scientists’ who believe in global warming to infinity.
emsnews-“I strongly suspect the equatorial regions were quite warm during Ice Ages due to the heat being concentrated there while both poles were very cold. Canada fared worse than Siberia during the Ice Ages, a point that is ignored by ‘scientists’ who believe in global warming to infinity.”
Um…ok. What “heat” do you believe was being “concentrated” there? Please explain.
I believe myself to be a realist.
He angers me, and makes me sick, by turns.
Classic John Cook babble.
It does seem clear that he is intent on following the fraudulent pseudo science of Lewseranddopesky.
Funded by University of Queensland. Must be nice having a University throw away their honor and credibility while giving one cash too.
Cook refers to his online climate denial course too, as if he is reaching ‘massive’ numbers of student…
Misdirection, falsehood, misdirection, false claims and illogical phrases… Classic Cook.
There is a liberal denial complex where the person who suffers from it cannot accept that you reject his explanation and that if he could just explain it better you would accept it.
Thinking about “liberal denial complex” this quote from Karl Popper; The logic of scientific discovery; Page 20
======================================================
… “it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible.”
========================================================
appears to me to be an exact description of fifty ways to explain away the pause. (always said to the tune of fifty ways to leave your lover) followed by “simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever”
The CAGW movement is built upon of multiple orthogonal causes, conspiracy just being one element. Yes, politicians do conspire on ways to reach their objective. (Marxists talk clearly about the ends justifying the means. Politicians talk about never letting a good crisis go to waste. UN one world government leaders talk about how even if the theory of CAGW is wrong, it does not matter, the end political result is good, other leading statists talk about reducing the global population by two thirds or more) So to conspiracy of some, add noble cause corruption for others to the list.
The President of the US said there better not be any climate change deniers in government. Skeptics have been fired for being skeptics. Skeptics have been shunned for being skeptics. (So add peer pressure to the list.)
Government spends hundreds of billions promoting and financing CAGW research and alternative energy projects. (So add the corrupting power of money to the list, or do some people think only business men are corrupted by money?)
I am shocked, that anyone is shocked that political animals strive for power and money, or that politicians finding a means to tax they very air you breath, choose to do so.
1. Political conspiracy for wealth and political power.
2. Nobel cause corruption.
3. Peer Pressure.
4. Money, as both a carrot and a stick.
5. Misinterpretation of the precautionary principle.
These primary factors work both independently and symbiotically. ( The politician justifies his lust for power over others and wealth by claiming superior wisdom of how society should operate as a form of noble cause corruption to justify his lust) Thus one and two work together. The scientist, seeing his monetary and professional future laid waste if he publically supports CAGW skepticism, finds an excuse in his mind with the precautionary principle, feels the peer pressure of his social group, and the POTUS, and this allows noble cause corruption a foot hold as well. (Thus 2,3,4,and 5 all work on the government scientist)
Hey buckwheaton! “if he could just explain it better you would accept it.”
Usually, the attempt to explain it better devolves into just explaining it louder and with added insults.
Or speaking more s l o w l y, like when someone does not know the language.
But usually what you said Jason.
Jim Jones Cook prescribes kool aid inoculation. Brain death precedes blind faith. Science is the only antidote. Likely too late for Jim Jones Cook and the multitude of drones. Still, there is some hope they may die only figuratively from disappointment, and live on to learn. Dikran Marsupial seems to have done that…
In between Cookie’s “innoculation” and Facebook’s “Counter Speech” we should be so thoroughly cured that we can sit watching An Inconvenient Truth on a loop – with such zombified expressions that Nurse Ratchett is happy to cancel our lobotomies.
Anyone who has been so “climate brain-washed” as to believe that back radiation helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature above the -40°C mean temperature that 168W/m^2 of solar radiation could achieve at most in a perfect black body (which is not what the surface is anyway) and then also promulgates their false belief, needs to pause and ask himself what it is that he hopes to achieve. It’s all wrong, and it is dishonest to promote it, especially when you don’t understand the physics involved, and thus perhaps don’t understand why it’s wrong, and is indeed in an altogether irrelevant paradigm pertaining to radiation rather than non-radiative processes.
Is that you, Doug?
I’m a world expert in thermodynamics.
Anyone who lays claim to being a “world expert” on a blog, probably isn’t. People who know that “x” is the mark of an illiterate, and that a spurt is a drip under pressure, would not call themselves one.
Of course it’s Doug! But he’s correct and that’s all that matters!
Atmospheric Physicist: “I’m a world expert in thermodynamics.”
Really? Then why not write under your own name? Why should someone as lofty as yourself wave such a banner yet hide their own name? What are you ashamed of?
He used to, but was banned from the site, I believe for promoting his book.
Btw. I’m not being sarcastic when I said he’s right. He is and not because of his “expert” status either. It’s all evidence, established and tested theory and good ole fashioned logic and reasoning.
“I’m a world expert in thermodynamics”
That wasn’t a NO.
The conventional way the greenhouse theory is described is total BS and I must admit I am rather annoyed with blogs like this one for failing to explain the greenhouse effect in a way that doesn’t contravene science and common sense.
Here’s a quick a dirty article (hopefully) explaining a more scientifically accurate model of the effect of CO2 gas on warming:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/11/11/the-advanced-greenhouse-theory-implies-100m-rise-in-effective-top-of-atmosphere/
And here’s a more detailed look at the various issues including the way CO2 also causes cooling:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/11/24/a-scientists-guide-to-greenhouse-warming/
Physics is all well and good, but many physicists comment here and on othr blogs and they do not seem to be in very close agreement with each other.
IMO, one does not even need pgsics to falsify CAGW. All one needs is a careful look at Earth history, and/or recent temperature data.
Baaaaaa! Even if AGW is 200% correct, mankind [ who unfailingly visits atrocities on one another] will find a way to sell and burn and burn and burn every gram of fossil fuel on our lonly planet. AGW believers better buy mitigation futures if history is to be believed.
A long long time ago that’s exactly what I thought as I worked out what was supposedly needed against what was likely to be done. So, I then tried working out exactly how much CO2 would be produced if everything was burnt and what impact that would have. I then came across the “peak oil” calculations – which as oil is so critical to the economy – without which we wouldn’t have the infrastructure to burn coal – I realised that peak oil largely meant peak CO2 production.
Anyway – after throwing the calculations together I found that (by the predictions of the time) we were very likely to see peak oil long before global warming was a problem and therefore the issue we ought to be concentrating on was peak oil.
That was what the logic (and info at the time) dictated – but somehow that wasn’t the message the Greens wanted to hear and I started being attacked for being “off message”. From which I learnt two things:
1. Belief in global warning is not based on any facts – facts are cherry picked and only cited if they agree.
2. Never trust any predictions of peak oil/fossil-fuel.
Well said, the CAGW claim to me became bogus when Mann tried to rewrite history and CAGW crowd climbed on his band wagon, I was taught a lone time ago to not trust people that rewrite history. The Soviets and liberals are so good at that, come to thing about both are on the left?
The reference provided for the Cook article itself provides a reference for the actual ‘study’ (paywalled), but the abstract states data gleaned from 19 organizations (the think-tanks). I wonder what was used for a determination of a conservative think-tank – could be any study not funded directly/indirectly by our wonderful government..
In the beginning was a list; and the list was deemed good.