John Cook, Lewandowsky Claim Psychological Vaccine Against Climate Wrongthink

Herr John Cook Self Portrait

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Cartoonist John Cook has attempted to employ his personal expertise on strange aberrations to help our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky create a psychological “vaccine”, to reduce the influence of climate skeptics.

Scientists are testing a “vaccine” against climate change denial

“Inoculating” people against misinformation may give scientific facts a shot at survival.

Updated by Michelle Nijhuis May 31, 2017, 8:30am EDT

In the battle between facts and fake news, facts are at a disadvantage. Researchers have found that facts alone rarely dislodge misperceptions, and in some cases even strengthen mistaken beliefs.

But two recent, preliminary studies suggest there’s hope for the facts about climate change. Borrowing from the medical lexicon, these studies show that it may be possible to metaphorically “inoculate” people against misinformation about climate change, and by doing so give the facts a boost. What’s more, these researchers suggest, strategic inoculation could create a level of “herd immunity” and undercut the overall effects of fake news.

John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University in Virginia, recently tested the strength of inoculation messages against the notorious Oregon Petition, which uses fake experts to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.

In the journal PLOS One, Cook and his colleagues reported that when about 100 study participants were presented with the misinformation alone, their views did further polarize along political lines. But when another group of participants were first warned about a general strategy used in misinformation campaigns — in this case, they were told that fake experts had often been used by the tobacco industry to question the scientific consensus about the effects of tobacco on health, and were shown an ad with the text “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” — the polarizing effect of the misinformation was completely neutralized.

“Nobody likes to be misled, no matter their politics,” says Cook. He suggests that inoculation messages may serve to put listeners on alert for trickery, making them more likely to scrutinize the information they receive.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/31/15713838/inoculation-climate-change-denial

The abstract of John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky’s study;

Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence

John Cook , Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K. H. Ecker

Published: May 5, 2017

Misinformation can undermine a well-functioning democracy. For example, public misconceptions about climate change can lead to lowered acceptance of the reality of climate change and lowered support for mitigation policies. This study experimentally explored the impact of misinformation about climate change and tested several pre-emptive interventions designed to reduce the influence of misinformation. We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) lowered perceived consensus overall, although the effect was greater among free-market supporters. Likewise, misinformation that confuses people about the level of scientific agreement regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had a polarizing effect, with free-market supporters reducing their acceptance of AGW and those with low free-market support increasing their acceptance of AGW. However, we found that inoculating messages that (1) explain the flawed argumentation technique used in the misinformation or that (2) highlight the scientific consensus on climate change were effective in neutralizing those adverse effects of misinformation. We recommend that climate communication messages should take into account ways in which scientific content can be distorted, and include pre-emptive inoculation messages.

Read more: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799

The climate wrongthink psychological vaccine idea has been kicking around for a while.

John Cook’s attack on the Oregon Petition is amusing. Back in 2012, PBS News embarrassed themselves trying to attack the reputation of the signatories to the Oregon Petition, when they pulled out a signature at random and displayed it on air. At the last moment someone in post-production realised the signature was that of Edward Teller, one of the giants of 20th Century Physics. PBS then compounded their embarrassment by allegedly trying to conceal their mistake – somehow the image of Edward Teller’s signature was blurred.

I’m sure some fakes have slipped through the process of vetting 30,000+ signatures, but there is no doubt many of the signatories to the Oregon Petition have serious scientific reputations.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Roger Knights

Two can (and should) play this game.

vukcevic

JS apparently said that ‘everyone is entitled to be stupid, however there people who abuse this privilege far too often.’

Greg

— in this case, they were told that fake experts had often been used by the tobacco industry to question the scientific consensus about the effects of tobacco on health, and were shown an ad with the text “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” — the polarizing effect of the misinformation was completely neutralized.

Well this is exactly what WUWT has been doing for over a decade: exposing the unscientific “consensus” promoted by the IPCC and the fake 97% promoted by none other than J Cook and friends.
Apparently Cook does not realise that the “20,679 physicians” and his bogus 97% is the same thing.
Yes, exposing this kind of thing apparently is very effecting in disarming the propagandists.

Greg

It would be interesting for someone to conduct the same experiment of “innoculation” before presenting the subjects with Cooks 97% BS paper.

Fake experts? Riiiight.
In my Yiddish phrasebook, the word ‘chutzpah’ simply has a picture of a failed Aussie cartoonist, with an BS in solar physics* from last century hanging on his wall, busily writing A CLIMATE SCIENCE TEXTBOOK.
No wonder even Naomi Oreskes mocks John Cook so mercilessly.
*And as we all know, climate change is Not The Sun—so this qualification doesn’t even count.

graphicconception

When it comes to “inoculating” people against misinformation concerning Cook et al’s 97% figure it is worth mentioning that out of nearly 12,000 abstracts they reviewed only 0.3% said that man was mainly responsible.
To spell it out, that means that 99.7% did not claim that man was mainly responsible.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9#page-1

Evan Jones

Or else maybe Lucky Strikes are less irritating?

Bruce

Have you bothered to read the Cook paper Greg? Probably not. And if you did, I doubt you would understand the simple statistics in it.
The 97% figure has been shown to be robust in multiple studies (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002). The 97% figure is accurate because Cook et al emailed the studies’ authors and asked them.
Most laughable thing about the Oregon Petition Project- it’s show piece research paper:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
is published in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”…
Bwahahahaha… seriously how stupid do you have to be?

Ben of Houston

Bruce, I think he was referring to the first 97% paper by Lewandowsky, the one that took a survey of 2000 people and only reported that 75 out of 77 that they selected as “most qualified” said the Earth was warming.
The Abstract selection one done by Cook has two parts. One: select your group. This is done very neatly because we have shown any disagreement can prevent you from being published no matter your qualifications. Two, interpret neutral answers as agreement. With these extremely simple tools, you can manufacture consensus on absolutely anything.
FInally, Editor! can we not use that picture anymore? I know that Cook made it himself, but anyone who doesn’t know that will be completely off-put, and it doesn’t provide anythign to the discussion.

Ben,
That “first” paper was by Doran and Zimmerman.
Equally flawed.
(I believe they announced AHEAD of time that their aim was to prove Oreski’s WAG of high 90% consensus was correct.)

gnomish

the self-hoisting petard! i don’t think they have any idea what they might unleash if people were sensitized to recognize b.s.

I understand Lewandowsky already has a patent on an an anti-Seepage prophylactic helmet based on mylar, alfoil and space blankets.
Given the high bar for originality/inventiveness if a patent is challenged, though, my friendly advice to Lew would be stick to vaccinating people against Islamophobia.
The market’s bigger.

TA

“But when another group of participants were first warned about a general strategy used in misinformation campaigns — in this case, they were told that fake experts had often been used by the tobacco industry to question the scientific consensus about the effects of tobacco on health, and were shown an ad with the text “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” — the polarizing effect of the misinformation was completely neutralized.”
Hey! That’s sounds like a tactic we could use against the 97 percent lie. Given to us by one of the people who created the 97 percent lie. Looks like irony to me.

ghl

97% of anonymous dentists recommend Colgate????

Hans-Georg

No, 97 per cent of anonymus hairdressers like Head and Shoulders.

ghl

No
97% of dental scientists recommend Colgate.

PiperPaul

But they are only qualified to say this while wearing rented white lab coats.

Now I’m even more disturbed than usual.
Anthony, why is John Cook dressed as Prince Harry??

rogerthesurf

Brad,
John Cook suffers from a nazi wishful thinking syndrome.
It does give some explanation of how he thinks.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Admad
Admad

And my take on dear, dear Lew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbkKwNLBb7Y

Tom Halla

Cook’s 97% study should be used in high schools as an example of research bias and bad design of a study.

noaaprogrammer

– gives credence to the saying, “Cooking the books.”

TA

Cook doesn’t still wear that uniform does he?

Keith J

Validity of the model is what counts. Not appeal to authority.

angech

John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University in Virginia. The same one as used to be in Queensland University?
This is nothing new, he has been writing about how to change people’s legitimate views by using dodgy, illegal and unethical strategies for a long time.
He was a cartoonist but now seems to be a cartoon,

Felflames

Caricature might be a bit more descriptive,in my humble opinion.

PiperPaul

I was always curious about the familial link between Freud and Bernays.

MarkW

What the heck is a “cognitive scientist”?
One who thinks about doing science?

John Harmsworth

Fake smarts for fake issues!

ossqss


Welcome to the new reality.

prof_robinson

Well, duh…it’s called “propaganda”. They are literally discussing the creation of propaganda. The real question is whether they even realize it or not.

Gary

Exactly. And their “innoculation” is an example of priming the research subject with a bias to get a desired response.

Mike Maguire

Yes, brainwash the research subject first, then subject them to the information. It’s well understood how religious and otherwise cults do this effectively. Call it what you want…….in this case, creatively as “inoculation” which is exactly what cults do to disguise their brainwashing……using creative techniques to capture the brains of their subjects, who accept the brainwashing.
Once this has been accomplished, the brain processes realities that relate to the “inoculation” differently. If they line up with the inoculation, they are stored as knowledge in the subjects head……to reinforce that brainwash. If information does not line up with the inoculation, it gets rejected because the brain’s new reality processes it as false.
John Cook is the quintessential example and master of this technique. Just go to his site and its everywhere. Even the name, “Skeptical Science” sends a message to the visitor that his site promotes skepticism, when in reality, it is devoted to exactly the opposite………..defending group think, settled science with convincing sounding arguments that fall apart if you do some homework to check on the actual facts.
If one were to objectively analyze information at various sites and give those sites a name that reflects what they espouse, John Cook’s site would get called: ANTI Skeptical Science.
But that is one of the defining traits of an individual like this…their ability to convince you that up is really down and down is really up. In this report, the topic of vaccinating subjects is once again presented in a way that suggests that he is protecting them from bad information but in reality……….he is the source of the bad information that people need to be protected from(and skeptical of his fake skeptical site)

getitright

Used to call it “poisoning the well”.

Leo Smith

very very silly thing to do.
to start people questioning what they read….

Didn’t we previously call this propaganda?

It should be called that. It’s a bit of a complicated story to tell, but to the best of my knowledge, there was only one fake name entered into the Oregon Petition Project, and it was put in there by people in the old Ozone Action organization (before it was merged into Greenpeace USA), and they did it in order to create a story that there were fake names, plural, in the petition which thus invalidated the entire petition. I detailed that here: “Lahsen’s Spice Girls” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=3765

sunsettommy

There were actually 3-4 more, but they were soon discovered and taken off the list.
Meanwhile Cook and Lew show signs of mental illness, because their choice of words in that hilarious abstract (pun not intended) are so childish and stupid, as if their brains were lacking oxygen flow during the time they wrote it up.
This is going BEYOND propaganda,because real propaganda often has a kernel of truth in it,but done to mislead people into a different desired direction. But the way they write has undertone of suggesting obedience and compliance to CONSENSUS paradigm,it is an early step that would later become more physical than literary.
Come on,does these words show rational thinking at all?
“We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) lowered perceived consensus overall, although the effect was greater among free-market supporters. Likewise, misinformation that confuses people about the level of scientific agreement regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had a polarizing effect, with free-market supporters reducing their acceptance of AGW and those with low free-market support increasing their acceptance of AGW.”
Free Market supporters?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
They simply can’t understand that many rational thinking people, will not agree with their idiotic AGW hyperbole (hypothesis), because is found to be continually wrong.
This is a sign of pure desperation,fortunately they are hilariously bad at it.

MarkW

I do find it interesting how being a supporter of free markets seems to make one more immune to left wing propaganda.

sunsettommy

But Mark W,
I don’t think about about that at all,just make a response according to the facts. I doubt most skeptics think about being a Free Market supporter,or even is one at all.
The point is that Cook/Lew,are trying to label people into groups, they themselves despise,which deeply taints their gibberish papers,as it is heavily biased.

Sunset:
Picking on another phrase from that irrational paragraph
“We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) ….”
– When was the last time you read a major newspaper or TV broadcast that gave “equal voice” to “contrarian” (pejorative much?) views. Both PBS and BBC have virtual policies AGAINST airing skeptical opinion or commentary.
– Why does amount of “air time” become more important than the facts in the message? (see Clinton, Hillary).

sunsettommy

You see the problem easily, George Daddis. It is why Cook and Lew latest gibberish, was dead on arrival for me.

Graham

Trump Tweets
“I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M. The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
I think that’s 5.00 A.M AEST.

Bravius

These guys are just creepy with their megalomaniac delusions.

Betapug

From the language it appears they are trying to develope a combination vaccine that inoculates against “free-market preference” disease as well.

Chris Hanley

That’s Dr John Cook (PhD Cognitive Psychology UWA) if you don’t mind!

Bravius

So, nothing relevant to “climate science”.

Chris Hanley

So the uniform is not the only thing he shares with Dr Goebbels.

You are alluding to the good looks?

Felflames

Piled High and Deep ?

Here is a vaccination that helps against all kinds of fake News or dubious science:
See Science or Fiction´s principles of science (v7.5):
§1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.
§2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.
§3 A scientific inference is logically valid.
§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.
§5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.
§6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.
§7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.
§8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.
§9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.
§10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.
§11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.
The problem for activitsts and advocates is that by these principles a concept can no be propounded by:
– appeal to consensus
– appeal to authority
– appeal to expert judgement

Thanks for that Feedback, it counts a lot. 🙂

Thank you, Science or Fiction for yer contribution ter
the open society. Serfs like that.

Eugene WR Gallun

Kathy Griffin, second rate wanna be at CNN, recently held up a fake blood soaked head of Donald Trump — calling it her “art”.
For that she just got fired from her job of hosting CNN’s New Year’s Eve show.
I have a picture in my mind of Joe Zucker, boss over CNN, holding up the blood soaked head of Kathy Griffin.
Eugene WR Gallun

commieBob

If people have an emotional attachment to an opinion, contrary facts may cause them to harden their opinion. They will find reasons that the contrary facts are wrong or actually bolster their position. Lewandowsky is correct about that.
If people’s opinion is not entrenched, they can be swayed by facts. Lewandowsky is also right about that.
The trouble with Lewandowsky’s inoculation theory is that it probably won’t create an emotional attachment. The effect of the inoculation will wear off over time. You know that from your own experience. If someone tells you something complicated, you will forget how it works unless the lesson is reinforced a few times.
If Lewandowsky tells someone why there was no MWP, the logic of the lesson will be forgotten by the time that you patiently show that person the evidence that it did, indeed, exist.
Every reasonably experienced teacher, with even a smattering of knowledge of pedagogy, will recognize the problem with Lewandowsky’s theory.
[That is why, when an adult changes “religion,” the act is called “conversion” or “a new faith”… .mod]

Jimmy Haigh

…and Goebbels had no balls at all.

+1,000

But April 1st was two months ago. There must have been a delay in getting it published.

TinyCO2

Tee hee. For Dr Lew and Cookie, it’s always April 1st.

Eugene WR Gallun

Continuing my futile effort to beat up on pond scum I added another stanza to my John Cook-The-Books poem which plays off fairy tales.
(I)
Like Tweedledee and Tweedledum
Art and Science create a sum
Each with the other constitute
Each for the other substitute
(II)
Solid Science is oversold
Appearance is as good as gold
I am the goose of the golden shell
With Art the inner gooey jell
(III)
Art and Science a warning carry
A principled precautionary
The earth may burn and all will die
So WOLF is always what I cry
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun

(IV)
The hare is quick, the torotise slow
Art and Science exactly so
And Art will always set the pace
When politicians judge the race
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun

My Art will always set the pace
Eugene WR Gallun

DrStrange

Psychological Vaccine, is this another example of brainwashing? I believe the USSR tried this on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn without much success.

J Mac

“Who ever gets there first with the best propaganda wins!” is what I got out of their ‘pre-emptive inoculation’ message.

highlight the scientific consensus on climate change
Does he cite his own consensus study to support this? The one that was debunked by (among others) an IPCC lead author?
LOL. There is no consensus.
As for attacking the Oregon Petition, well that’s not science. It is a petition signed by many scientists. When it comes to the actual science, I am content to go with the IPCC’s ACTUAL science which is quite contrary to all the alarmism.

TinyCO2

There are at least two fundamental problems with their ideas. The first assumes that people are dubious because of what sceptics have told them. In reality, by the time people listen to us, they’re already sceptics through their own observations. People compare what warmists come out with, against their own lifetime of knowledge and experience. Climate science is flawed and it doesn’t take a scientist to see it.
The second issue involves cost. Given how inconvenient, expensive and broadly useless renewables are, the level of persuasion people need to support CO2 reduction is very high. The subtle, ephemeral effect of ‘inoculation’ can’t stand up to the harsh realities of the utilities bills or your views ruined by wind farms. It’s like trying to fight someone who wields a club, with a feather. While in the lab, people react to the feather, when faced with the club, the influence of the feather is non existent. The only thing that will sway the public is better science.
Those two concepts are not complicated and anyone working on the issue of AGW should recognise them. Which begs the question, why is anyone publishing and paying these two clowns?

This sounds just like the cook-lewser gobbledygook they were peddling last year.
If, I read that correct; the infamous Cook is now in Virginia at that haven of RICO hawking activists practicing RICO illegalities?
Just in case, I find myself in the company of infamy.
I should prepare my water pistols and make sure they’re filled with sucrose solutions and some drops of Phenolphthalein. Perhaps a few drops of honey for fragrance…
FYA
Virginia summers are filled with friendly stinging insects that just love sugary fluids; wasps, hornets, bees, ants. We even have flightless wasps that look remarkably like brilliantly colored large hyperactive ants.
A few squirts of sucrose laden water on a person’s back, hat, hair, shoes, socks, briefcase, whatever goes a long way to developing budding insect friendships and perhaps a few rivalries. Few things are as attention getting as European Wasps facing off against bald faced hornets over a sweet smelling trifle. Throw in a fearless determined humming bird or two, voila!
Phenolphthalein well, beside being a useful acid/base test liquid; a few drops ingested, makes commercial laxatives seem like paltry performers.
Maybe, I should mention that black bears found not far from George Mason are very fond of honey and sugar odors; wasp and hornet snacks are bonuses!

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Cognitive scientist?? Whaaaat???
Cognitwitive, perhaps, but….whaazaat?

TA

I was wondering about that “cognitive” myself

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

How *do* these 2 get away with saying the stuff they do?
This kind of hubristic superiority, repeatedly directed against *any* other section of a population (or even an entire population) would see them severely censored, sacked if not jailed.
Maybe Political Correctness gone wild? Has *nobody* the where-with-all, the guts, clear head and self confidence to actually tell these 2 ‘people’ just how appalling their behaviour is?
But we know, anyone who does challenge them will get mired in the same PC swamp, while swarms of parasitic lawyers bleed them dry. (Stein vs Mann?)
The Erosion/Corrosion of Civilisation continues – and you don’t get much more corrosive than these 2.

marlene

I was going to leave an intelligent and informative comment, but noticed so many stupid ones here I decided not to waste my time on stupid.

Kurt

Could’ve just admitted you couldn’t think of anything.

marlene

I said not to “waste my time on stupid”, stupid. Thanks for proving my point – LMAO!

TinyCO2

Oooh go on. Brighten our day. Not that I can imagine what intelligent and informative comment you could make about this comedy paper of Dr Lews.

marlene

Of course you can’t imagine anything “intelligent” or “informative.” You just took my bait like a brainless fish my comment just reeled in. LOL – oh, this is so-o-o sweet!

TinyCO2

🙂

hunter

Unlike the massive use of fraud, planned deception, data tampering, lying about the relationship to tobacco, and hatred of democracy demonstrated by Cook and Lewandowsky.

4TimesAYear

It’s not “inoculation” they’re talking about. It’s “indoctrination”.

TinyCO2

I dunno, inoculation involves a prick and a pain. I can think how that might apply to Cook, Dr Lew and their work.

marianomarini

[blockquote]I was going to leave an intelligent and informative comment,[/blockquote]
A 97% “intelligent and informative” or an original and in the minority one that make the science go on?

marlene

Fish number 3! Keep ’em coming…

marianomarini

Oh, oh, oh. Very funny. I like it.
Now that you said something “intelligent and informative” can you say something new?
I love laugh.

thingadonta

Once again we get medical terminology for a social group. Where have i seen that before?

Tim Hammond

So you decide you know what is right, decide that makes you an expert and then deduce that must mean those who disagree with you are fake experts.
And you are so dumb/arrogant/unthinking that you can’t see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.
I despair.

PiperPaul

I despair
Progressives’ mission accomplished!

chadb

I am going to be honest – I don’t know if this article is serious or satire. John Cook is trying to figure out how to inoculate people against scientific misinformation? Seriously? Wouldn’t that be like shooting yourself in the foot?

stevekeohane

For John, yes, exactly.

Bruce Cobb

“Innoculating messages”. Translation: lies.
How original. Why haven’t they thought of this before? Oh wait.

michael hart

A summary: Over many years politicians and manufacturers of washing detergents have spent squillions of dollars trying to find ways to make the public believe one person’s “truth” over and above another person’s “truth”. Cook and Lewandowsky would have their sponsors believe they have found a simple short cut. Riiiiight.
Quite apart from their own inability to separate truth from fiction, the arrogance of these people is breathtaking.

Wfrumkin

People need to be inoculated against the 97%of scientists lie again.

bernie1815

Are we sure this paper isn’t Alan Sokal’s rewrite of his original hoax article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” ?

Samuel C Cogar

Excerpted from above published commentary:

Updated by Michelle Nijhuis May 31, 2017, 8:30am EDT
In the battle between facts and fake news, facts are at a disadvantage. Researchers have found that facts alone rarely dislodge misperceptions, and in some cases even strengthen mistaken beliefs.

Now don’t you all be forgetting the literal fact that the above is a, per se, “double edged sword” that “cuts” in both directions ……. and thus achieves the same or similar but opposite results, to wit:
In the battle between fake news and facts, fake news is at a disadvantage. Simple acts of research will prove that fake news alone rarely ever dislodges perceptions of truths and facts, and in most cases will even strengthen one’s personal beliefs in/of said truths and facts.
Continuing of the above “much ado about nothing” psychological claims:

But two recent, preliminary studies suggest there’s hope for the facts about climate change. Borrowing from the medical lexicon, these studies show that it may be possible to metaphorically “inoculate” people against misinformation about climate change, and by doing so give the facts a boost.

Phooey, inoculations are only effective if the subject (person) is “inoculated” prior to being subjected to any of the “misinformation about climate change”, ……. which is damn near impossible in today’s society because 80% to 95% of all young children and students are being inoculated with the “misinformation about climate change” which they truly believe to be “true and factual”.
As long as the Public Schools are permitted to continue their “inoculations” of the young children, adolescents and/or teenagers with the “junk-science misinformation of/on climate change”, ….. then your re-inoculation efforts are little more than “an act of futility”.

Norman Blanton

To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy. Bertrand Russell
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bertrand_russell.html

fretslider

A Stefan Lewandowski production
A John Cook Film
Der Klimat Schutzstaffel
Voted comedy of the year

Bill Illis

I will never believe people who make-up and adjust their “evidence”.

bernie1815

True. It is very hard to determine when liars are telling the truth.

Resourceguy

Get that guy on NPR, CNN, NBC, and CBS. He’s a perfect front man for getting the word out that there really is something wrong in La La land. Also make him the face of George Mason University for parents and prospective students to see front and center.

Resourceguy

Well actually, it worked on Griff. It’s too bad that it has the side effect of turning off the critical thinking part of the brain though.

Convict en Australie

And what will Kookansowsky they call this ‘vaccine’? Kook Ade?

JohnWho

““Inoculating” people against misinformation may give scientific facts a shot at survival.”
However, in their attempt to do this, they will continue to distort scientific facts with misinformation and deceptions making it impossible for science to survive.
,

If John Cook’s dressing up as a Nazi was a “joke” then this Russian expression about jokes is certainly correct:
“In every joke, only a little bit is joke and the rest is true”.

Resourceguy

It’s the perfect potion for realizing down is up and cold is warm comrade. Now gulp it down like a good ideologue soldier.