Another Lewandowsky driven eye-roller: ‘Confronting climate change in the age of denial’

Meh, somehow they think forest fires are a “new” thing, using that imagery to lead with. That, and how to tell stories nobody takes seriously. When it comes to Lewandowsky, there’s nothing [credible] about anything he says.

Confronting climate change in the age of denial: a special collection launched in PLOS Biology

Forest fire in Yellowstone National Park CREDIT Mike Lewelling, National Park Service

People are hard-wired to respond to stories, but climate-denial narratives can be just as compelling as those that convey the facts about global warming. A new collection, “Confronting Climate Change in the Age of Denial,” publishing 9 October in the open access journal PLOS Biology, explores the challenges and pitfalls of using stories to communicate scientific evidence around climate change, offering both caveats and potential solutions to telling evidence-based climate change stories that can resonate with the public.

Science communicators and educators have long wrestled with the challenges of communicating evidence that contradicts people’s personal, religious, or political beliefs, particularly regarding evolution, vaccine safety, and climate change. A perfect case study of people’s tendency to create their own narratives to explain the seemingly inexplicable is the recent viral response to a photo of a starving polar bear. The photographers had hoped the starving bear could help people grasp what the future may hold for animals who can no longer depend on sea ice for hunting and shelter as global warming continues to melt polar ice sheets. But climate change deniers countered by circulating photos of healthy bears to claim that global warming is a hoax.

The collection features two articles by social scientists who offer different perspectives on enlisting narratives to convey climate change science and one by marine mammal experts who set the record straight on the likely impacts of climate change on Arctic wildlife.

“Marine mammals are ecosystem sentinels, capable of reflecting ocean variability through changes in their ecology and body condition,” argue Sue Moore, a biological oceanographer, and Randall Reeves, a marine mammal biologist, in “Tracking Arctic Marine Mammal Resilience in an Era of Rapid Ecosystem Alteration.” They propose a framework that adds ecological (e.g., geographic range and behavior) and physiological indicators to traditional demographics to provide a more comprehensive view of the health of populations. The authors hope that their framework, which can feed into existing global ocean surveys, offers “a path toward sustainability through improved prediction, more precaution, and wiser policy in this era of global environmental change.”

In “Climate Communication for Biologists: When a Picture Can Tell a Thousand Words,” psychologists Stephan Lewandowsky and Lorraine Whitmarsh examine strategies for using the anecdotes and images that satisfy our need for narrative without sacrificing scientific accuracy.

Science communication experts Michael Dahlstrom and Dietram Scheufele explore another dimension of the peril and promise of using stories to communicate science in “(Escaping) the Paradox of Scientific Storytelling.” Rather than telling stories to simply impart knowledge–which may prove unsuccessful, they say, since increased scientific literacy does not lead to greater acceptance of science–it may be better to tell stories about how scientific knowledge is produced. “In the end, using storytelling to primarily build scientific support through knowledge, attitude, or behavior goals without also engaging scientific reasoning might not help science in the long run.”

In publishing this collection, PLOS Biology editors hope that everyone who values unbiased scientific evidence thinks about ways to harness storytelling to help people grasp this complex but very real threat to our planet. We need to reclaim the storyline before it’s too late.

###

Articles in the Collection

Editorial:

Gross L (2018) Confronting climate change in the age of denial. PLoS Biol 16(10): e3000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000033

Articles:

Moore SE, Reeves RR (2018) Tracking arctic marine mammal resilience in an era of rapid ecosystem alteration. PLoS Biol 16(10): e2006708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006708

Lewandowsky S, Whitmarsh L (2018) Climate communication for biologists: When a picture can tell a thousand words. PLoS Biol 16(10): e2006004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006004

Dahlstrom MF, Scheufele DA (2018) (Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling. PLoS Biol16(10): e2006720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720

In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the collection’s freely available Editorial article in PLOS Biology: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000033

Citation: Gross L (2018) Confronting climate change in the age of denial. PLoS Biol 16(10): e3000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000033

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “Another Lewandowsky driven eye-roller: ‘Confronting climate change in the age of denial’

    • Certainly by sheer volume but frankly I can’t tell the difference in terms of content.

      What gets me about La Lewandowsky is his continued use of the sneering dismissive terms ‘denier’ when anyone with half a brian+ and a modicum of objectivity realises that the primary support for the CAGW thesis, the Mannian Hockeyschtick and the surface temperature record, are so utterly worthless as evidence. The rest of the case for is little nore than say zooming a cameral lense on spiders and ants etc while reciting some sort of ‘spiders from Mars are taking over’ mantra. A decade or so down the track there would be plenty who would have swallowed the meme holus bolus. Really, its no more than some sort of ‘identity politics’ exercise ragetting sad little people.

      For a bloke who is a university ‘professor’ of psychology and who should see the whole thing for exactly what it is, who is the real ‘denier’?

      • “a university ‘professor’ of psychology”

        Therefore eminently qualified to comment on Climate Change, NOT!

        • so follow thru with the logic:
          he doesn’t know or care about global warming.
          his job is to troll you into the dirt.
          he and cook had so many people sidelined with entirely useless concern over 97%. he’s a pavlovian genius, dog.
          he had people spinning over his brilliant ‘conspiracy ideation’ paper. the beauty of that trick was if you remarked on the conspiracy- your quote would simply be added to the ‘look at this nutcase’ file for later citation.
          this is another one.
          he’s troll. he’s a frikn expert. if you can’t name his game in his face, he’ll turn you into a pooch and use you as proof of canine provenance.

  1. With Lewandowsky, involved, they should have used a photo of a dumpster fire.

    “…climate change deniers countered by circulating photos of healthy bears to claim that global warming is a hoax…”

    No, people countered with scientific data about polar bear numbers and the health of the populations.

    • Exactly the point I was going to make, but mine was going to be more in the “lying scumbag” vein….

    • Exactly what I was going to say.
      Why consider anecdotal evidence (a photo of a single bear) to be more important than statistically significant science?

    • And the photographer’s admission that the polar bear was sick and that they spotted it days before the photography/video team arrived.
      Days, that the photographer failed to notify authorities about a sick and ailing bear.

      The public, while quick to condemn, were also quick to spot staged photos of a very sick bear. Starving was a result, not the cause.
      A realization that comes because the general public is getting wise to alarmist claims and predictions that thirty years of alarmism have failed to verify.

      Life goes on. In spite of alarmists committed to parasitizing society.

    • Lewandowsky is simply pushing the idea of how if a lie is repeated often enough, it might sound credible. Only he is not capable of noticing he is on the side pushing the untruths.

      • yes he is, hunter.
        and his tricks are superbly crafted.
        this is an experienced troll with a degree in psychology and you don’t think he knows wtf he’s doing?
        well, sir – that’s how you know a really good magician – even up close, you don’t see how the trick was done.
        and the contrapositive is: if you can’t figure out that he did fool you, he did his job very well.

  2. The Greens remind me of the story of the boy who cried Wolf. Initially he scared the people, but they finally woke up to his repeated nonsense.

    True the Greens say that it, the danger is still out there, but when their leaders after telling us about sea level rise, but sea front properties , then we know that all they preach is not carried out in practice.

    MJE

    • “thinks about ways to harness storytelling ”

      When I grew up as a kid, storytelling was a euphemism for fibbing, which was a softer way of saying lying.

      So yes then they have themselves absolutely nailed.

    • Exactly, Chris. Storytelling is fiction and in the case of climate science, it is science fiction.

  3. Obvious misprint. It should read “using anecdotes and pictures WHILE sacrificing scientific INTEGRITY.”

  4. How can a credible educational institution employ someone this insane? The guy isn’t even a scientist of any kind and he thinks he can gauge the debate?

  5. “When a picture can tell a thousand words …”.
    When a picture can tell a thousand lies: like Mike’s ‘Nature trick’, Gore’s calving glaciers as if that were abnormal, jig-lift ice-ages CO2 -> temperature correlation extravaganza etc., cooling tower steam photographed as dark ‘carbon emissions’, temperature anomalies shown as lurid red when well within historic precedents, images of the planet actually on fire, starving polar bears and polar bears that are non-swimmers … and so on.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&biw=1200&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=5y69W_v0G9So9QOpoJb4DA&q=global+warming+images&oq=global+warming&gs_l=img.1.1.0l10.320788.327496.0.334557.14.8.0.6.6.0.502.1820.0j7j5-1.8.0….0…1c.1.64.img..0.14.1838…0i67k1.0.KuXTQJ8uLBU

    • Lew’s pictures for “affective engagement” are rather pathetic as examples.

      Kivalina is a barrier island and as such is always undergoing erosion and redeposition. No sea level rise needed for this occurrence.

      “Coastal salination from sea level rise in Bengaladesh” is more a function of land subsidence than eustatic sea level rise.

      But such geomorphic concepts are lost on the “climate science” science denialists.

  6. l know why am in denial of the CO2 warming horror stories peddled by the AGW lobby. lts because events in the real world simply do not support their wild claims.
    They say the much of the warming has been in and around the Arctic over recent years. Yet the NH snow cover extent has been tracking sidewards for the last 25 years.
    They claim that any warming we have had has been due to CO2. Yet here in the UK over the last 80 years there has been a far greater link to mean temps and sunshine hours, then there has ever been with CO2 levels.
    Over the last 40 years England’s mean winter temp has increased, yet my record of local first snow dates over that time has shown no warming trend. Any warming due to CO2 levels would not explain these two events but warming due to change in winter weather patterning would be able to.
    These are just a few of the reasons why am in denial about their claims to man made warming.

  7. If you tell enough little lies, some of them will stick. If you tell a big lie like the IPCC SR 15 yesterday, a lot of people, media, academia and politicians will believe it, because a big global organization like the IPCC would never exaggerate or tell a lie. 21 years to save the world now and cut our ‘carbon emissions’ in half starting immediately…or if the temps go up just another 1/2 degree, most everything burns and is destroyed or flooded. They are effectively premeditating a horrible future with such economic collapse for civilization that their cure is far worse than the ‘disease’ they predict will come upon us. It is only in the last few years that the worst of this lot like Mann et al, now state they can pinpoint the additional destruction through Attribution. Pure hocus pocus. Whenever I hear someone talking about specific attribution now, my eyes just glaze over and I know they have drunk the koolaid. What a shame it has come to this. I wish Trump would say more about this sham that is being pawned on the world.

  8. I now despair. It seems to me the sceptics have finally lost the debate.
    The plan to destroy western civilisation continues to roll along. This latest IPCC report is a powerful stride towards their goal.
    The media are complicit because they have been corrupted as well. The BBC have forbidden their producers and directors to allow any hint of a sceptic viewpoint on any program or news slot.
    They have been nearly orgasmic about the IPCC report. Top of every bulletin all day.
    The game is up. The long march is nearer than ever to the destination.

    • Obviously the climate skeptics cannot be win without the vaccine skeptics, as climate skeptics look like right wing, pro big business, Faux News propaganda believers.

      The hard left despises “Big Pharma” because capitalism. They don’t say “Big Doctors” or “Big Medicine”.

      Roger Stone says “Big Medicine”.

      The French media is 100% hysterically pro vaccines and yet the French people is said to be the most skeptical of vaccines in the world.

      Study vaccine skepticism. Learn something. (Or, be autistic.)

      Donald Trump could only win thanks to his many power enemies at the same time. I believe nobody had so many enemies in the intellectual professions, ever.

      Discourse isn’t a domain where you need alliances, or where too many open fronts is bad.

        • I never wrote anything “anti vaccine”. Is anyone known truly “anti vaccine”? Is that a thing?

          Would that be like “climate denial”? Denying that vaccines are sometimes useful? Or that they even have an effect?

          BTW, there is a Law & Order episode (I think) where someone sells a placebo instead of the flu vaccine. It’s funny because getting a placebo is probably better than getting the vaccine, for most if not all people. (There might be people who benefit from the vaccine but it’s hard to tell who might.)

      • “simple-touriste October 9, 2018 at 7:40 pm”

        Keep your off-topic anti-vaccine pet trolling-drivel out of this blog.

        Thank you.

        • “Keep your off-topic anti-vaccine pet trolling-drivel out of this blog.”

          You forgot: respect my authoritah.

          Vaxxers are so boring. They must really feel weak.

      • Even if for the sake of argument I assumed your position correct, I’ll take high-functioning Asperger’s Syndrome over polio, thank you.

        But I think it far more likely that increasing rates of autism are at least partially contributed to by Western women having children at older ages. The ideal time for pregnancy, in terms of health for both the mother and child, is the 10 year window falling roughly between the ages of 19 and 29. After that the chances for birth defects and other pre-natal complications increases significantly. My own mother was 40 and at the cusp of menopause when I was born, and my head displaced her tailbone as I came out, both possible contributors to my HFAS. I highly doubt the vaccines I received before first grade contributed in any way.

        • For the hundredth time, where do you plan to go to get polio in the West? Anyway, the polio vaccine is an old vaccine and not a very problematic one. It’s just useless as you wouldn’t get polio in a first world country.

          Also, there were cases of contamination of polio in Africa caused by vaccination. A few, but it shows that vaccination is also potentially dangerous.

          Also, mass polio vaccination in India was catastrophic: the virus seems eliminated but people get a polio syndrome instead. But no virus, which I guess is all that count for germophobic americans.

          • Anyway, the polio vaccine is an old vaccine and not a very problematic one. It’s just useless as you wouldn’t get polio in a first world country.

            and you have the effectiveness of the polio vaccine to thank for that, you dumbass. Before the polio vaccine, getting polio in first world countries was very much a possibility.

  9. Bizarrely, I suspect that avid readers of this blog, like myself, actually get more entertainment from the prospect of another “Lewandowsky paper” than even the most rabid greenshirts do.

    But not as much pleasure (and possibly money) as he obviously draws from that knowledge itself, in a very naughty-boy sense of the word. Stephan, they say it’ll make you blind.

    • I confess to being a fan of his work it’s so funny. Thanks to Geoff Chambers I discovered Dr Lew is still using quotes from Scottish Sceptic and me as examples of ‘gullibility’. He used to use them as examples of conspiracy ideation. We were both making fun of him but the jokes flew right over his head. Very funny that a psyhcology professor can’t spot humour but even more amusing that in the 5 years he’s been quoting us, nobody has told him we were taking the P. Watch from 43 mins in

      https://ny6mediashare.ensemblevideo.com/hapi/v1/contents/permalinks/q7D2Wkp5/view

      • You assume he innocently doesn’t know. There is another option: he knows well that you were taking the P, but doesn’t care are he can use it (ie lie about the context) as an “example” to “prove” his point. In shore never underestimate a lying liars ability to lie.

  10. ‘A perfect case study of people’s tendency to create their own narratives to explain the seemingly inexplicable is the recent viral response to a photo of a starving polar bear. The photographers had hoped the starving bear could help people grasp what the future may hold for animals who can no longer depend on sea ice for hunting and shelter as global warming continues to melt polar ice sheets.’

    The photographers took pictures. They didn’t feed the bear; they took pictures. The photographers hoped they could use the images for their cause. Doing nothing to help the bear. Lewandowsky is proud of them and their contribution to the cause.

    • A starving polar bear can still overpower and kill a person, and what food they could provide would probably not be enough to satiate it. Don’t feed a dangerous wild animal if you can’t satiate it. You’ll go from food provider to food, period.

  11. At least Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian outted themselves within a year of publishing fake papers. Ole Lew is well overdue, no?

  12. Matt, Matt…don’t be so pessimistic.
    It doesn’t matter how often sceptics ‘lose the debate’: In many decades time, if I live to see them, human beings will still be using hydrocarbons/fossil-fuels as our primary energy source and chemical-manufacturing feedstock. Doubtless there will still be people telling us we only have five years to save the planet, and us deniers will doubtless still be losing the debate.

    However bad things get, or seem to get, politically, it doesn’t change the fact that they will lose.
    It doesn’t matter if they round up sceptics and exterminate every last one of us in concentration camps, they will lose the argument because humans will not stop using the cheapest available formof energy. It’s like telling everybody to eat grass. The only time everybody eats grass is shortly before the time when there is only one person left to eat grass.

  13. I have, all over the internet over the years ask them what is being denied…………

    For most the response is uh well nothing, the few who did reply indicate they have no ide what Skeptics really think, some get surprised when I say most skeptics agree it has been warming for over 100 years.

    Over all their eyes are swirling in their lemming like state continue to say dumb phrases as if in a trance, unaware that they don’t even know what the AGW conjecture is really about or what the NULL hypothesis about either.

    • For a prescription drug, or prescription anything, the NULL is that it does harm. More harm than good.

      Because you don’t HAVE to prescribe. You don’t HAVE to done anything. You don’t HAVE to “prevent” infectious diseases by vaccines. An extremely simple observation that all vaxxers fail to understand. It’s nature.

      Also, we don’t have to try to guarantee to other that they won’t be contaminated by microbes we carry (many vaccines wouldn’t help here, either). Only in a few cases people can be expected not to bring diseases. There is simply no such “right” not be in contact with an infection. It’s nature.

  14. “Science communicators and educators have long wrestled with the challenges of communicating evidence that contradicts people’s personal, religious, or political beliefs, particularly regarding evolution, vaccine safety, and climate change.”

    Yes, alleged skeptics and hysterical vaxxers cannot confront the fact that people getting arrested, or on the run, while doing “science” should be enough, and IS enough for normal decent people, to discret that “science”.

    There is a reason “populists” question vaccines and “elitists” don’t. The vaccine worship is a case of people knowing strictly nothing about science, thus being “believers” in “science”, which sadly includes most people of the medical field (officially, but in fact many medical doctors avoid the vaccines they are promoting: medicine is the new hollywood).

    The fascination of fake medical “science”, clownesque “evidence based medicine” (the fad in terminology of pseudo-scientists), and esp. vaccines by fake conservatives, Republican politicians, centrists, fake “liberals”, and esp. fake pro-choice “her body her choice” people (his/her body with no disease, NOT his/her choice of drugs) should be one of the most popular field of study for psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, anthropologists.

    The medical field is the ultimate closet of closeted fascists. Also, it’s where the infection of fascism hides until it rises again.

      • LOL

        What makes YOU believe vaccine realism is a “fringe” topic, concerned troll?

        Also, do you have evidence that vaccines are useful, crackpot? (See how that works? If you can accuse me of being a crackpot, so can I. LOL)

        • evidence that vaccines are useful????…..

          Did you know that smallpox was eradicated with vaccines?

          • David, you are wasting your time. he’s been presented with the facts before (in many of the dozens of threads he’s hijacked with his anti-vaxxer delusional nonsense), he just denies/ won’t acknowledge them. simple-t is simply nuts.

          • “smallpox was eradicated with vaccines”

            It was not. But then, even if it was, that isn’t the subject today.

            The smallpox vaccine isn’t “the vaccines”. That ONE vaccine was useful ONE TIME doesn’t mean the State has the right to force OTHER vaccines on people. That’s just crazy talk.

          • Simple tortoise says (with regard to smallpox) “It was not.”

            So tell us Simple, how was it eradicated?

          • Hey there Simple-minded, what’s your take on the polio vaccine? Do you think it’s a good idea for front line medical personnel to take the Ebola vaccine if they’re headed into an area where there is an Ebola outbreak?

          • If you want to travel to areas where there is polio, you might want to be vaccinated. I’m NOT forcing anyone to be vaccinated, or not to be. It is NONE of my business.

            “Do you think it’s a good idea for front line medical personnel to take the Ebola vaccine if they’re headed into an area where there is an Ebola outbreak?”

            There is an efficient Ebola vaccine? It’s well tested? I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject. You should consult experts, require them to provide verifiable evidence, and verify it.

            Why would you ask ME? You really don’t make sense. At all.

            There is nothing in my posts implying that I have got the answers to extremely technical questions.

          • I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            truer words never spoken (by you). Thanks for finally admitting you and your anti-vaxxer nonsense are based in ignorance.

          • “Thanks for finally admitting you and your anti-vaxxer nonsense are based in ignorance”

            You just made that up. I did no such thing. I have all the information I need from the demented vaxxer mob (notably the Academies) from that mob. You on the other hand…

            You have not listed your own qualifications, which imply you have none. This means you just admitted to be incompetent and to have nothing to say about any vaccine.

            You are now dismissed. Please go away.

          • simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • The point is, medical doctors usually know less than someone who knows close to nothing. They have noxious “knowledge”. You are usually better off without their inane rantings or vaxxism chants.

            In most cases, doctors cannot know anything because their programming is defective.

        • That a few contemporary vaccines MAY have underappreciated or underreported side effects, doesn’t mean you have probable cause to indict ALL of them.

      • so simple touriste cannot hold a skeptical opinion on mainstrem vax hype..??
        isnt that EXACTLY the attitude the beeb have on climate skeptics
        and we dont appreciate that
        why people blindly trust the pharmas and the cdc(which profits mightily itself from patents and sales of vaccines) many of dubious use/ some harmful and who hold an unherd of exemption over harm unlike ANY other item sold in the world???
        yet there IS a specific vaccine court and they have paid out massive sums to the harmed and dead victims families
        skepticism is valid.
        recent variant i find of interest is a simple amino acid sold for 10$ or less is now attemptedly patented synthetic and the pharma wants to ban the natural form(as Merk did with pyridoxine)
        price hike on pharma version to be around 23K a course!!
        (they found it cures an obscure skin cancer or somesuch)
        trusting these companies actually give a flying **** about you, is about as gullible as the goreites in my opinion.

          • “anti-vaxxer spam”

            Antivaxxer? You mean anti “vaxxism”? Anti cult of all vaccines? Anti endless increase of the MANDATORY vaccine schedule? Anti jailing of a mother who have reservations about so many vaccines?

            What is the limit of vaccine apologists? When will the madness stop? After 30 inoculations before 18 years? 40? 50?

            BTW is Donald Trump an antivaxxer? How about the other Rep primary candidates?

            And “spam”? The pro-vax crowd here is as hysterical as the Soros-organized BLM and anti-Kavanaugh crowds. They are the spammers, just pathetic and sad. They are brainwashed by Faux News which is climate skeptic but Lew-ed vaccine consensualist. Faux News is fakestream garbage with occasional truth. Vaccine skepticism is a “no go zone” according to Tucker Carlson who still mentioned that his kids as vaccinated (he may have had problems if he didn’t say that).

            Donald Trump won, with an anti-Lew-ed/consensus/the experts have spoken/follow the elites platform.

            The hysterical vaccine crowd is the exact analog of the SkS crowd. And all climatists are vaxxers, usually of the fascistic variety. All major health professional organisations are vaxxers, of the very fascistic variety. Fake conservatives (which is all mainstream conservatives) will say NOTHING about vaccine fascism. They don’t care if the gov is in charge of defining vaccine schedule and who gets to be a medical doctors. (Those who have healthy skepticism about medicine shouldn’t be a doctor according to that fascistic crowd. They believe that free speech stops when you express skepticism about a drug.)

          • “They” (whomever your conspiracy addled mind thinks “they” are) are not the ones going into multiple threads and posting off-topic nonsense. *YOU* are.

            simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • “(whomever your conspiracy addled mind thinks “they” are)”

            The usual question: “Who are “they”?”

            They = those so suppress information showing that vaccines are actually defective products. Duh.

            These people are everywhere. Even here in allegedly skeptical blog.

            They are relatively low IQ people who want to look more intelligent by posing as “pro science”. They claim to know that vaccines are the major advance in healthcare and when challenged they question the qualification of the skeptics, but they have no qualification what so ever. They are just posing.

            You, the “anti conspiratorial” types, aren’t even bothered by the fact vaxxers literally brag about minimizing the side effects of vaccines. Incapable of handling the real world, you need to dismiss evidence of systematic bias as a “conspiracy theory”.

            There is evil in the world. There is evil in pharma and medicine. It takes a real man to handle the idea.

        • In the Policy thread under the About tab, Anthony has this policy, which would seem to justify deletion of anti-vac comments:

          “Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread.”

          • Can you be more specific, Lew? Which topic vaccine realism is the analog of?

            Is vaccine realism like bigfoot?

            Actually, vaxxism is a religion. Believing that the very recent crazy baby vaccines schedule caused the increase of life expectancy at birth 60 years ago is just an insane cult. It’s mental derangement. Normal people make fun of these people.

            That’s why “populists” get elected. (Not in France, because Marine Le Pen is a commie.)

          • Given your past crazy rantings, I’d say chemtrails & 911 Truthers are the clostest analogs to your anti-vaxxer nonsense. possibly some hints of astrology & Obama’s Birth Certificate as well. Certainly “other topics not directly related to the thread” fit as well.

          • Again, no argument, only insults.

            As usual from someone who cannot even follow a discussion to know what’s the subject matter and what “eradicated” means in context (it didn’t mean it disappeared everywhere, or that vaxxer removed the corresponding vaccine from the schedule).

          • You were beat with facts and arguments till your @$$ was red in all the previous threads that you hijacked. You’ve shown you have no regard for the facts, evidence or history re: vaccines and indeed deny the facts about smallpox and polio and other vacinnes. You find your ignorance as a virtue. You’ve made it clear you are nothing more than a troll that is incapable of reasoned debate. insults are all trolls like you are worth.

          • You confuse the mindless repetition of slogans with arguments.

            You confuse claims with facts.

            I’m still waiting for an answer about polio in India.

            Or which studies do not show more MS after hep B.

            Or why vaccines could only cause MS “onset” (whatever that is) during a small time window.

            Or why redefining MS and polio is OK, but changing temperature measurement isn’t.

          • simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

        • ozspeaksup, if the topic of conversation was vaccines, then simple-t’s rants would at least be on-topic. but the topic isn’t vaccines, yet simple-t spams thread after thread with his off-topic nonsense. so yeah, I’d say there is plenty of scope for the mods to step in should they choose to do so.

          • If was (almost) sure some random vaxxer would shout “off topic”.

            Look, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO MENTIONED VACCINES.

            Read the damn article I’m commenting on.

            Also, since you had you @ss handed to you every single time, do you want to start again? But I have had fun every single time so you can continue spamming WUWT with your Lewed vaccine consensus BS.

            Also, off topic? This is a joke WUWT post; we are discussing Lew, the poster boy of consensus science; what could be “off topic”?

          • Also, since you had you @ss handed to you every single time, do you want to start again?

            Bwahahaha. Man you are delusional. But then you are an anti-vaxxer so that goes without saying.

            Wonder what the next thread you’ll spam your anti-vaxxer delusional nonsense in next.

            But I have had fun every single time so you can continue spamming WUWT with your Lewed vaccine consensus BS.

            You are the one spamming anti-vaxxer BS in just about every thread you participate in. People responding to your spam aren’t the spammers, even if responding is merely feeding the troll. Do us all a favor and crawl back under your bridge.

          • Look, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO MENTIONED VACCINES

            Read the damn article I’m commenting on

            we did, I suggest you try to comprehend the damn article before commenting. The topic of the article isn’t about vaccines. While it mentioned vaccines (in passing) as it did religion, that doesn’t mean the article is about religion or that a multiple post diatribe about the evils of a particular religion would be an on-topic discussion. Because the article isn’t about religion just as it isn’t about vaccines. photographers were also mentioned, but a multiple post rants about which camera (digital vs. analog) are the best to use for photography also wouldn’t be on-topic, because the article isn’t about photography just as it isn’t about religion or about vaccines.

          • Please explain WHY Lew mentioned vaccines. HOW vaccines are relevant to him.

            “it did religion, that doesn’t mean the article is about religion or that a multiple post diatribe about the evils of a particular religion would be an on-topic discussion”

            You again make a fool of yourself. My answer was only about a particular religion, the vaccine religion. Climatism is another religion.

          • 1) vacinnes are not a religion, they’re science (something a troll like you does not understand, willful so), though your anti-vax “crusade” certainly has the fervor of a religion. But I wouldn’t dare insult the religious by calling your nonsense a religion.

            2) the mention was in passing, it was not the point of the article, and done so to paint with a broad brush. he’s trying to equate those who are skeptical of man-made climate change catastrophy with other kooks. And yes, one of those kooks he’s equating it to is your own brand of kookery anti-vaxxers. Way to make his point look half-way reasonable simple-t. You give skeptics a bad name.

          • again make a fool of yourself. My answer was only about a particular religion, the vaccine religion. Climatism is another religion.

            No, simple-t, the one making a fool of himself is once again you. I didn’t claim your answer was about religion. Your equating the science behind vaccines to being some kind of religion is your own kookery rearing it’s ignorant head yet again. The point I was making was that religion was something else mentioned in passing but that doesn’t make a diatribe about Islam or Christianity (for example) on-topic. such diatribes would equally be off-topic as the article isn’t about religion, just as it isn’t about your bug-a-boo about vaccines. I could have just as easily used an anti-evolution rant instead as evolution was also mentioned in passing (in the same sentence as religion and vaccines). Next time try some comprehension when reading. You might learn something for once.

          • Maybe not religion. Being pro-vaccines is more a symbol advertising a cult. Like:

            – hanging out with cool kids;
            – the electric car, the symbol of anti-fossil fuel (battery made in Asia with coal electricity);
            – being anti-Gamergate because you really want to defend women against unspecified attacks (or are a predator, as almost all major anti-Gamergate people were shown to be);
            – going out with a “pussy hat”;
            – minimizing and hiding abjectly awful side effects of vaccines…
            – …and then claiming you did that for a good cause, because vaccines are so marvelous, if you don’t hide their issues, people wouldn’t get vaccinated;
            – insisting that every healthy child should be treated with these dangerous drugs, to protect an hypothetical very ill child they could meet;
            – saying that accidentally contaminating another person is a crime;
            – insisting that medical fascism is “human rights”.

            It’s a kind of “recursive” craziness, Lewandowsky style.

          • “photographers were also mentioned, but a multiple post rants about which camera (digital vs. analog) are the best to use for photography also wouldn’t be on-topic”

            If he was trying to insult those who still do film photography, implying “here is a group we, the elites, the highly educated, the progressives, despise”, then it may have been on topic. (Maybe Lew insulted other groups, I stopped reading at “vaccine safety”.)

            Some people can’t just support a football team, they feel they must support the team Science, which mean insulting anyone who doubts any of their changing, latest talking points. They support vaccines (and anything they see in their team Science propaganda outlets) with the sophistication of a hooligan.

          • As nutty as the chemtrails people are, at least their wacky beliefs are harmless. you anti-vaxxer nuts actually believe it’s better for people to get harmful diseases like polio or smallpox.

            simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • “you anti-vaxxer nuts actually believe it’s better for people to get harmful diseases like polio or smallpox”

            Stop it. Stop now. Stop completely.

            @mod

          • Yes, simple-t please stop your anti-vaxxer nonsense that would rather people get harmful diseases rather than take a simple precaution (a vaccine) that would prevent them from suffering.

      • “Moderator, we have a scammer”

        That’s one personal attack.

        ” trying to associate climate skeptics with anti-vaccination movement.”

        That’s a second personal attack. A batsh*t crazy one.

        A comment expressing an opinion in my own pseudonym does nothing more than to show that one person holds that opinion. Your “concerned” posture is typical of “centrists” and SJW: “think of the reputation of WUWT!” has replaced “think of the victims of sex abuse” and “think of the children”. Like Soros mobs.

        You vaxxers really sound desperate. You know that suppressing dissent is the only way to win. You have all the fakenews media on your side and yet you are losing.

        Time to rethink your strategy, concerned troll.

        • why not customize your product line to suit the market?
          because the customer is always right.
          customer doesn’t want what you are selling.

          • “customer doesn’t want what you are selling.”

            Indeed the people have so much contempt for Big Medicine that many won’t get those vaccines unless forced to. (And then we cannot know who pretend to get these.)

            Vaccine propaganda failed. Centrists and many “Republicans” agree that the gov should force these badly made fraudulent products on people. They don’t care about the aborted fetus cells injected in people. Liberals don’t actually care about “privacy” and “his/her body, his/her choice”, and “conservatives” don’t actually care about aborted fetus.

        • You vaxxers really sound desperate. You know that suppressing dissent is the only way to win. You have all the fakenews media on your side and yet you are losing

          you’ve been beat seven ways to sunday with the facts every other time you’ve brought up your off-topic anti-vaxxer nonsense in the dozens of threads you’ve hijacked. You’ve shown yourself unable to (or incapable of) acknowledging simple historical facts or to present anything like a coherent non-contradictory argument. There comes a point when people stop trying to reason with the unreasonable and just treat you as the mindless spamming troll that you are.

          • “like a coherent non-contradictory argument”

            Whatever contradiction you have “seen”, it’s entirely in your own head (as usual).

            You and your vaxxers buddies still have not even explained what should be done when one of the authors of a study concluding that vaccines have nothing to do with autism is on the run for… fraudulent billing related to research.

            In general you cannot explain why trust should exist in a domain where people regularly get arrested, with no followup.

            You worship obviously corrupt and clueless organisms like the CDC and WHO. You “conservatives” despise nearly all federal agencies or UN agencies but take the word of these two as gospel. Why?

            Obviously because conservatism doesn’t exist, not in the mainstream. It’s corporatism in disguise.

          • No simple-t, I don’t worship any such organizations. I do value truth, facts, history and evidence. All things you have shown time and again to have absolutely no acquaintance with. But then what else can one expect from an off-topic spamming troll like you simple-t.

          • You value facts? What facts do you know? How do you know “facts”? What is your personal experience of infectious diseases? Almost zero, I’m sure. (As most doctors who can’t even do simple diagnostics now.)

            Do you know facts as told by medical doctors approved by the medical board, who are brainwashed to repeat praises of vaccines like the anti-Kavanaugh Soros crowds mindlessly repeat inane slogans?

            Medical doctors are good at hysterically denying the very bad side effects of vaccines. It’s for the Cause: vaccination is a “good thing” so they feel entitled to suppress negative informations about vaccines. They even admit it, accusing critics for their own lies. Nothing is ever the fault of a vaxxer, you see. They are the Masters.

            “Believe the medical doctors” sounds a lot like “believe all rape victims”.

            Believing the CDC and WHO is like believing the SPLC.

          • simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • John, we are glad you came out of the closet. We all knew you were an expertophile all along, but now it’s clear. Why are you still here? WUWT is for the normal people, but not for experts “elite”.

            Also, you came out as someone who can’t read; I stated several times that my conclusions were those of any MODERATELY intelligent 12 years old. Any child would see the ineptness of expecting critics of vaccines to provide the exact biological explanation of their side effects (that will be rejected anyway) plus perfect evidence that it’s happening, that vaxxer never explain how to obtain, while any vague statistical possibility of a benefit of a vaccine is sufficient evidence, like with climate.

            Biology was never part of medicine. (Although some people apparently want to confuse medicine with biology on giants rats.) It’s cool if you can explain the biological process, if you can’t, so be it.

            The double standards are obvious for anyone who has not dissolved his brain with SJW style posturing, trying to be with the “cool kids” of his school, the cool kids being the vaxxers. People are vaxxers for the same reasons they want the opinions of celebrities (Hollywood, Academies of sciences, the Kardashians…). People with low agile intelligence (sometimes they are good in their specialized fields, but they have pretty dumb opinions on pretty much anything else) want to be seen as highly educated and universally intelligent, so they repeat the talking points from the elitist sources (vaxxers talking points).

            Also, I speak with the authority of someone who can do the four basic operation, something that doctors ostensibly(*) don’t.

            (*) doctors may be able to do basic operations; if they have that capability, they are hiding it well

            “Populists” uprisings (Orban, Brexit, Trump, Salvini…) are linked with that rejection of experts who ostensibly can’t count and a re-appropriation of the expertise, the knowledge of the world. The People have spoken: they have had enough with the “elites”.

            Criticizing vaccines carries a stigma and many health professional and their representative bodies have a media orgasm when a parent is jailed because he doesn’t want a child to get another useless vaccine; that explains why so many people can’t talk freely. It’s properly called a dictatorship. We are in one.

            So of course people will lie about vaccines. (How can this blog even prefer real names?)

            Whether “populists” have the nuts to go after vaxxers is an open question.

          • I stated several times that my conclusions were those of any MODERATELY intelligent 12 years old.

            How dare you insult the intelligence of 12 year olds! Even the dumbest of 12 year olds aren’t so quick to dismiss the history, facts, and truth as you are.

            simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • You failed to prove your point using history so you have to plainly lie to keep up.

            The absurdities of the vaxxers are obvious for even the most dimwitted. They claim that justice decisions for victims for vaccines carries zero scientific weight, but decisions against parent of “shaken babies” does.

            Vaxxism is a serious mental derangement and vaxxers shouldn’t be allowed in ANY higher executive job or public office, anywhere.

          • simple-touriste

            October 13, 2018 at 4:06 am

            As usual, you’ve got that completely backwards simple-t.

            It’s you crazy anti-vaxxers that plainly lie about history and facts and failed to prove your points. Your absurdities and delusions are what is obvious to all. And you are a danger to society (at least the chemtrail and 9/11 truther nuts aren’t advocating a positon that results in people suffering from harmful viruses unnecessarily because of their delusions). If anyone shouldn’t be allowed in ANY higher executive job or public office, anywhere it’s you anti-vaxxer loonies.

  15. Classic Lew Paper, conflating three disparate bones of contention into a unified foil against his biased preceptions of scientific truth.

    Thus, in Lew’s stilted universe, Scientists (sharing his world view’s) speak truths, while the most obscure fringe groups are bundled with climate realists, and labeled anti-science “Deniers”.

    Elegant prose masking shallow concepts finds its greatest utility in the john. Flush this useless turd paper!

    • People who doubt the usefulness of vaccines isn’t a “fringe” group; many doctors do. In fact many doctors push vaccines that they find an excuse of to avoid, like the flu vaccine: they don’t want to be ill for a week with a “flu” syndrome thanks to the vaccine (an impossible thing according to “science” which often happens in the real world).

      The people pushing the “hep B link with MS was refuted” story are the people who believe that when a study finds no “significant” results (at an ARBITRARY level), there is an absence of statistical link. A negative result is taken as proof positive result, which is unique, because it’s good for the Big Medicine economy (not Big Pharma which is just the least significant part of it: you trust your doctor, not a faceless corp). These people who nothing about the interpretation of studies expressed in statistical terms. It means that the medical establishment is provably(*) ignorant at the Naomi Oreskes level of ignorance of the simplest statistical concepts.

      (*) Provably according to their public statements: the alternative is they are ignorants or frauds, as always with batsh*t crazy statements. One cannot rule out either without further investigations.

      Outside the US, a lot more people are willing to debate vaccines than climate. You may live in a microcosm.

      But then, many people just repeat the latest talking points on Fox News and believe they are anti-establishment because Fox occasionally is anti-establishment, mostly because the “establishment” narrative hurts the Republican politicians. (Tucker being the exception.)

  16. This truth remains: “Stephan Lewandowsky” can be rearranged to spell: ‘what Lysenko spawned.’

  17. Am I the only one wondering if Mr. Lewandowsky is actually collecting data for a huge paper “Is there anything a cultist will NOT believe?”

  18. Every time this professor publishes he diminishes the value of my Bristol degree and reduces any impulse that I might have to respond to the University’s regular appeal for funds from alumni.

    • the way it’s played, is they write a paper for the purpose of being able to cite it in public statments which then appear in the press and can be cited again.
      then it’s wrapped up in a package and merchandized.
      salting the stupid mine so they can sell stock in it.

  19. “Science communicators and educators have long wrestled with the challenges of communicating evidence that contradicts people’s personal, religious, or political beliefs, particularly regarding evolution, vaccine safety, and climate change. ”

    Wow! They didn’t say ‘a flat earth’. And since when are endless vaccines “safe”?

    A classic case of projection.

    • lewandowsky is a very skilled troll react- and yu become his puppet.
      he knows what to wave that enrages the bull.
      he prepares sharp sticks to probe for signs of hostility- and is sure to find it.
      if you can’t name the game, he’ll have your 2 ears and tail as he struts around the corrida.

  20. And how pictures can be used to deceive, again from Auntie Beeb
    A plastic bottle:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-45787712

    Washed up on a beach, along with 400 tonnes of other junk. The local coastguard has never seen so much all at once. The impression they’re trying to give is that it has been swilling around in The Ocean since before 1971.
    Maybe even also, A Storm (strangely nameless for once) caused by Climate Change caused all this junk to all arrive at once. Strangely it will also still be present in a mid-Pacific patch the size of Texas. Time travel eh, When will it become a reality. Oh. Wait…..

    In a way, the bottle and attendant junk did come from Climate Change
    But the Climate Change was (obvious to me at least) a Flash Flood, caused by soil erosion, ripping through and old landfill site somewhere not far away.
    Any thoughts on that Auntie?

    Nah. Thought not. Don’t let the puritanical guilt ridden hands cease their wringing, even for a split-second.
    Not even to engage in some honest investigative journalism which you constantly claim to be doing?
    (Visit the Beeb and near the bottom of most pages is a link, asking you to find out why you can ‘Trust the BBC’. I ain’t gone there, I don’t trust my own stomach to retain its contents if I do)

    • aha excellent deduction on the bottle
      no way could it have been exposed to sun/abrasion and kept the label as bright n clear as it was.
      buried however makes a LOT of sense.

  21. In the not too distant future psychologists will be able to devote their entire career to analysing Lewandowsky, such is the volume of material to wade through.

  22. Peer-reviewed propaganda… what a concept.

    The sooner we kill off expensive peer-review journals and force publicly funded science into open publication and open web review, the better off we’ll all be.

  23. Basically, this is more of the “if only we could communicate our message better, people would believe us regardless of what the facts are” nonsense from the leftists/warmist. Here’s a hint for the leftists/warmist it doesn’t matter how you communicate your lies, the truth will win out in the end.

  24. “…using stories to communicate scientific evidence around climate change, offering both caveats and potential solutions to telling evidence-based climate change stories that can resonate with the public.”

    Evidence based? From this bunch?

    And it’s a strawman argument he’s promoting in the first place, trying to convince us that climate change is real, something the skeptics have never denied.

  25. Did everyone else miss it so far? He called this the “Age of Denial.”
    I take this as an admission that we skeptics are largely winning the public debate.

Comments are closed.