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

130 thoughts on “John Cook, Lewandowsky Claim Psychological Vaccine Against Climate Wrongthink

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

    • — 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.)

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

  1. “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.

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

  3. 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,

  4. 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.

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

      • 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)

    • 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

      • 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.

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

      • 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).

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

  5. 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.

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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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]

  10. 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

    • (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

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

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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?

  15. 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!

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

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

    • 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.

      • 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!

  18. 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.

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

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

  20. [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?

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

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

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

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

  25. 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.

  26. 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” ?

  27. 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”.

  28. A Stefan Lewandowski production

    A John Cook Film

    Der Klimat Schutzstaffel

    Voted comedy of the year

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. ““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.

    ,

  32. 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”.

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

  34. Questionairre preceded by vaccine:

    The vaccine

    Fake scientists with vested interest have claimed falsely that genetically modified crops are harmful to human health, without scientific evidence. 300 million Americans have lived for a whole generation largely on GMO foods with no clear evidence of harm and much benefit from efficiently produced food.

    Fake scientists with vested interests have also claimed that acid rain from industrial smoke emissions was destroying the world’s forests, but that scare fizzled out when it turned out to be a false alarm.

    Fake scientists with vested interests have falsely claimed that nuclear power stations cause leukemia to those living near them, while in reality even the Chernobyl accident, while causing some excess thyroid cancers, caused no excess of leukemia in surrounding populations. Again, a fake scare. These fake scientists deny overwhelming published evidence in thousands of studies showing a threshold radiation dose below which there are no harmful effects.

    Fake scientists try to prove that vaccines are harmful, and they are causing damage to public health by reducing levels of child vaccination. Muddle-headed chattering class luvvies willingly suck up any anti-establishment sciency-sounding scare story as yet another way of making themselves feel morally superior. The falling rates of vaccination resulting from this are now resulting in outbreaks of diseases like measles in which children are needlessly dying. Fake science is not just a game – it can be deadly.

    Fake scientists habitually create scare stories to gain funding for their research and to gain media attention for themselves. Most often their scare stories turn out to be exaggerated or false.

    The question

    Now another group of “scientists” are claiming that human emissions of CO2 will dangerously warm the planet. They insist that everything you learned at school about photosynthesis is actually oil industry funded misinformation and that actually there is nothing good at all about CO2, it is not used by plants to build their tissues, it is not the foundation of the food chain at all, it is toxic and responsible people should stop emitting it from factories, from cars and from themselves, by not breathing out.

    Do you agree with this proposition to “black-label” carbon dioxide – which of course is, as we all know, a black gas?

  35. My ‘vaccine’ is an understanding of the physics and chemistry of gases.
    I know that the conditions required for a ‘greenhouse effect’ (notably a barrier that is transparent to IR but effectively prevents convection) cannot exist in an open atmosphere.
    I also know the main contribution to the atmosphere made by a slight net increase (~0.01%) in the CO2 concentration is a nearly immeasurably small increase in specific heat and certain transport phenomena such as viscosity and thermal conductivity.

  36. What they are doing is not “inoculation”, but “indoctrination”. And it is effective! Goebbels used it very well. His followers still do as well.

  37. “For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma [the path of righteousness].”

    — Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

  38. Is science now the enemy of science? Who gets to decide what is true and what is fake?

    Climate Study:

    “Hoffman et al. compiled estimates of sea surface temperatures during the last interglacial period, which lasted from about 129,000 to 116,000 years ago. The global mean annual values were ~0.5°C warmer than they were 150 years ago and indistinguishable from the 1995–2014 mean. This is a sobering point, because sea levels during the last interglacial period were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now….”

    “…reconstructions of [last interglacial period] global temperature remain uncertain, with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures. …”

    Study cite:
    Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation
    Jeremy S. Hoffman1,*,†, Peter U. Clark1, Andrew C. Parnell2, Feng He1,3

    Science 20 Jan 2017:
    Vol. 355, Issue 6322, pp. 276-279
    DOI: 10.1126/science.aai8464

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276

    • I am not sure I understand the point of your citation. The Hoffman quotation makes little scientific sense. For example, yesterday the sun shone for over 15 hours where I live near Boston. Today between 3:30:00 AM and 3:30:05 AM the sun did not shine at all! Time scale of measurement is important. Mixing long and short time periods like Hoffman does is plain ridiculous and certainly not scientific.. My example reflects roughly the same time scale comparison as Hoffman speaks to.

      • Perhaps I misunderstand but I believe the indication is that natural variation within the present interglacial has brought us to a very similar climatic condition as the peak temperatures of the last interglacial. I believe this is correct.
        The further implication is that temperatures will probably not increase much more but sea levels could continue to rise. This is taking place at a very manageable rate of around 2mm per year on average.
        We should be happy about this because the next step is probably off the cliff into the next glaciation which may be fairly imminent. This will mean the deaths of literally billions of people and it is what we should really be worrying about.

  39. Guten Tag; my name is Dr. Mengele, but you can call me Joe. You are very fortunate because I have a very special vaccine for you. Now, please role up your sleeve.

  40. These warmists spend far more time trying to convince a scientifically illiterate public than they do
    to convince literate scientists. Cook’s degrees in Psychology, aside from being , like most Psych degrees, pure BS, have zero relevance for climatology. I wonder why an illterate climatologist such as he can claim such certainty about the views of a position which has failed utterly in producing even plausible arguments predicting a coming climate catastrophe. Cook is just plain dumb – even his 97% study was pure junk science, so stupid even an elementary school child can point out its ridiculous methods, which apparently were designed solely to allow Cook to inject massive his massive bias. I am embarrassed that George Mason U would create a propaganda center for Cliamet Change Communication. I don’t think even the old Stalin Communist Russian universities ever went that far in pushing an agenda.

  41. Where do I go to get inoculated? Is this covered under ObamaCare or NHS? Do I need any booster shots later? Is this a live virus vaccine? If so, can I be contagious and if so for how long?

    After I get my shot, how much longer will I believe that northern Illinois was under a mile of glacial ice less than 25,000 years ago, that large mammals in Siberia were frozen alive with leaves and flowers still in their mouths ess than 12,000 years ago? Will I still believe that Vikings raised barley in Greenland less than 1,100 year ago? I am told by a large number of very progressive people that these thoughts should trouble me greatly. I know that mentioning any of them results in a triggering and their fleeing to safe spaces. Where is my safe space?

  42. Inoculation? Let’s call this what it really is: indoctrination. I’m getting really tired of people like John Cook.

    Another thing that is getting on my nerves: terms like “scientific facts”. There are facts, speculation, and lies. No qualifier is necessary; these words are topic neutral. “Science” is a process, not a religion or magical pixie dust. Words have meaning. If you wish to communicate effectively you must use the correct words in the proper context.

  43. I think that these guys inoculated themselves with LSD before coming up with this!

  44. Moderator —
    Again I can’t seem to post. Yesterday i tried twice for the same post (logging out and in between attempts) and got nothing. (No message about moderation.) Each time I clicked the back arrow — and my post was sitting in the post squared area but all buttons to post and everything else were gone.

    I came here again today to this article and nothing has yet appeared.

    I had posted something earlier here about the head of CNN holding up the bloodied severed head of Kathy Griffin and it appeared fine.

    Thankyou

    Eugene WR Gallun

    .

  45. So Cook thinks he can make people doubt facts. Cook finds facts unhelpful.
    And he thinks that will lead people to the truth?

    Obviously not.
    Cook cares nothing for the truth. He just cares about pushing his own agendas.

  46. “… inoculation messages may serve to put listeners on alert for trickery, making them more likely to scrutinize the information they receive.”

    Nothing wrong with that. Isn’t that what’s going on here, on this site.

    Put the tricksters and propagandists out of business. If he wants to hurt himself let him.

  47. Always freaks me out when I see that image. Some serious mental issue going on there.

  48. Wow, the imminent collapse of the foundering main stream science deceit is going to mean millions of changes in the names and tasks of government departments, agencies, university faculties, task forces, MSM columns, news categories, blogs, …. and a re-education of 100s of thousands of scientists whose redundant theses and advanced degrees are in irrelevant skills.

  49. “Nobody likes to be misled, no matter their politics,” says Cook.

    Really? I think most people prefer to be misled so long as it confirms that they are virtuous do-gooders.

Comments are closed.