The climate ugliness of Generation Moronic

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

“Generation Atomic” is yet another NGO (i.e., me-too Communist front group), this time comprising boffins keen on nuclear power and even keener on pretending there is a “climate emergency” so that they can promote their favorite method of generation as the golden path to deWesternization “decarbonisation”.

John Shanahan, a member of The Right Climate Stuff, a NASA-based climate study group to which I also belong, has just sent me this ugly cartoon recently circulated by one Meyer, the founder of these Atomic Trots.

clip_image002

The political proclivities of the Red Radiationists may be deduced from their clenched-fist logo, a traditional Communist symbol. Alert readers will notice that, as so often with clenched-fist logos, the Martini Marxists have screwed up: this is not a Left fist.

Let’s give these creeps a taste of their own poisonous medicine:

clip_image004

clip_image006

Advertisements

185 thoughts on “The climate ugliness of Generation Moronic

  1. I actually do know a few people who are loudly anti-GMO, Anti-Vax, and a few other Science free beliefs like Anti-Glyphosate and into crazy Medical fads like Homiopathy and ‘sound frequency’ treatment.

    They are strongly pro Climate, and rabidly anti Trump. They are very much ‘Progressive’.

    They also usually fall into any other Leftist fads, like Open Borders, Reparations, and the like.

    Needless to say, we don’t ‘Hang Out’ a whole lot.

    ~¿~

    • Agree. I know an actual flat-farther (and moonwalk denier, evolution denier, 9/11 was faked, and believer in the Mandela Theory) who goes around loudly saying Trump and climate skeptics are “anti-science.”

      He literally believes NOTHING that government or media say EXCEPT climate alarmism.
      His belief in climate alarmism seems to be proof that it isn’t scientific.

        • Be careful using copper and aluminum together. The cathodic electrical current can interfere with your cortico-stimulant implant and disrupt your nano-field connection to Donald Trump’s innermost thoughts.

          Or that’s what Jim Acosta told me. And he should know.

        • I just use garlic in my food or to treat warts and verrucas (crackers as it sounds it works) I just don’t use the same piece for both.

          James Bull

    • I think it is safe to say that all of us who spends any time familiarizing themselves with the opinions and beliefs of various individuals and groups, has come across numerous people who have one or more wacky ideas that seem to defy logic and common sense.
      Many of us have no doubt noticed that it seems to often be the case that the people that have such opinions and beliefs consider anyone who does not share such beliefs to be unscientific at best, and delusional or insane at worst.
      In perusing the specific examples of such wackiness as are mentioned in the headline article, and the comments by Schitzree and TD Braun, I see however that many of them are not specific to people who share a particular political ideology, as is more typically the case with certain of the others.

      Running through the list, my impressions of the degree of political homogeneity for those people who are afflicted with each of them is highly variable.
      Those that have to do with matters of health and medicine seem to be the least politically homogeneous. There are people on the left, and on the right, and in the center, as well as some who are rather apolitical, among those who are anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate, 911 truthers, moon landing disbelievers, and those that subscribe to what I regard as medical quackery like homeopathy.
      Some of them seem to show no discernable political preference, while others may tend to show some bias but not a lot.
      Of the rest, there are a few which are definitely more likely to be held by those on the left, such as an anti-nuclear mentality, and some which seem to be more prevalent among those on the political right, such as a disbelief in evolution.
      It should be noted though that each of these last two have some notable exceptions. There are prominent individuals on the left with pronuclear views, and many on the right subscribe to evolution, but there are also people on the right who seem to be anti-nuclear and a small but growing number of people on the left, including scientists and intellectuals, who increasingly doubt evolutionary theory.
      Interestingly, although often such views are, IMO, often based on ignorance, some come from having a keen grasp of scientific principles.

      So called “climate denial” is of course a strongly politically polarized view. People who use this phrase are invariably on the left, and the invective employed by the people who use this language is aimed primarily at the right. It should be said that this phrasing is by itself an intentional and highly derogatory smear. And it should not go unsaid that those who are on the receiving end of this smear are, in my estimation, mostly of the opinion that it is the warmistas that are the deniers.

      Beyond these observations, there is far to much to say about some of these to address the ideological aspects in any detail in a single comment, and in fact I am now out of time at the moment.
      I have stern words for anti-vaxxers, suffice to say, as I do for anyone who is anti-nuclear power, or anti-GMO food.
      These positions are not just anti-science, but anti-reality and anti-common sense, IMO.

      • There are good reasons to be wary of open pollinated GMO crops .Also people should be free to choose which foods they eat , even when we disagree with there decisions. So if Lord Moncton chooses to swill down a five gallon bucket of bacon fat out of some delusional and ignorant belief about human nutrition that’s his privilege.

        • The people who are 911 truthers, the anti-vaxxers, the moon landing hoaxers…all of these people feel they have good reasons.
          That goes for every item on the list.
          Where most of the people who are outspoken on any of these issues goes wrong, IMO, is taking a question or concern, and exaggerating, distorting, or blowing those questions of concerns out of proportion.

        • Since nutrition science is so complex every thinking person should have some sort of theory they base their diet on. Theories change with the times. My grandfather insisted on coffee made with the water from the eggs he had boiled. Probably a good theory when he lived since scientists were still discovering natural elements, but so much theorizing is ad hoc. To me, the most up to date thinking is coming from the Keto crowd. Plus they seem a merrier crowd than others I can think of. Keto has certainly worked for me and I guess that is plenty enough.

          • It may have been a way of getting some calcium. Egg shells crushed help soil to become more fertile, after all. Tomatoes grow better in the presence of some egg shells crushed with a pestle and mortar.

            Back in the day, diets may have been less healthy, so there may have been method in your grandfather’s thinking.

        • You can “…be wary of …GMO crops…” all you like, but you have no right to condemn the poor to starvation because of your opinion. You don’t think that’s what you’re doing? You are. I had a woman tag me with a Facebook post wanting me to join the fight for California bill something-or-other that would require every food product sold to have a label as to whether or not it contained any GMO products. So first off, who gets to determine the definition of a GMO product? There exist several hundred species of corn or maize, but commercial growers concentrate on as few as one of them, which did not exist in the wild but was obtained by cross-pollinating varieties that had some of the desired traits. Is that a genetic modification? Are you saying now that nobody can eat corn? She had no answer for that.

          And even requiring the label… do you know how many people that condemns to starvation? She answered that it would only cost a few cents per label. So if the $0.97 can of corn now costs $1.02, and all you have is $0.97, you don’t eat tonight even though you could have last week, because of a legislated regulation. How many people is that, that must go hungry the night after your grand law takes effect?

          I got a resounding silence from her, so after a couple of days I got curious and checked, and found I was no longer her FB friend. I guess I wasn’t “woke” enough for her. We must save the world from GMO products, even if it kills them!!!

          • Both corn (maize) and wheat are GMOs. Made with more ‘primitive’ methods than today, but still genetically modified organisms. The ancestors of both corn and wheat look more like the grass in your lawn when you haven’t cut it in a while, than the highly nutritious, productive plants we have today. If GMOs were banned, you would have to include corn and wheat and over 1/2 of the world to starve to death. (which is actually what the radical Greens want).

    • It is not ‘anti-science’ to be anti-GMO. In fact, GMO is tinkering without deep understanding and we are clueless about the side-effects of the modifications. It is the hubris of the ‘scientists’ and corporations who push GMO that is anti-scientific.
      Similarly, anti-Glyphosate is not anti-science. There was no true independent science done to evaluate the effects of long-term use (eg, actually selectively breeding resistant super-weeds) and a total lack of understanding of glyphosate on the gut bacteria.

      • Replacing a specific gene is tinkering with things we don’t understand. On the other hand, the old methods exposed whole genomes to mutagens and then they raised the resulting seeds to see if anything useful had been produced.

        The total lack of anything regarding scientific knowledge on the part of most anti-GMO activists is truely amazing.
        And no, there is no scientific evidence backing the claim that there is anything wrong with glyphosates, and dozens of studies that find them to be safe.

  2. Anti GMO and anti Nuclear appears to be at variance with the Greenpeace lunacy. It implies Atomic is in favour of those things. Is this a new branch of the anti-anti-science movement?

  3. I don’t think I conform to any of those descriptions.

    Homeopathic Doctors – well, each to their own, it’s their health.
    Climate Deniers – Nope, definitely not one of those. I’m 100% sceptic though.
    Flat Earther – Nope, not one of those either however, they are entitled to their opinion.
    Anti Vaxxers – Nope, had all my kids vaccinated.
    Anti GMO – Nope not one of those either. I have no problem eating GMO food.
    Anti Nuclear – Nope, not one of those either, indeed, the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.

    But I don’t have a science qualification either, so does that mean I just don’t count to these elitists?

    • You are only entitled to your own opinion if it does not conflict with facts. See flat earthers and homeopathy.

      • “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

        ― Harlan Ellison

        • You are entitled to be as ignorant as you would like. What you are NOT entitled to is to have others accept your ignorance, or the fantasy that stems from it, to be fact.

          All opinions are based upon incomplete information. No opinion can be completely informed or unbiased. That is why they are called ‘opinions’ and not factual statements.

        • Nice quote, but Harlan Ellison is a science fiction writer. Don’t get me wrong, he is an excellent writer and I enjoy his work but he is not someone I look to for either science or philosophy.

        • Harlan Ellison was a horse’s patootie. You can be sure that HE would decide if you were ignorant or not. IOW he awards himself an unmerited superior perspective.

          The counter to his nonsense was expressed by the American humorist Will Rogers, who said:

          “Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects”.

          (A sampler with that phrase hand- made by my wife adorns our bedroom.)

        • “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

          ― Harlan Ellison

          To paraphrase Will Rogers, “Everybody is ignorant. Only on different subjects.”
          Like it or not. “Entitled” or not. We are all ignorant of what we do not know. And none of us know everything no matter how convinced we are are that we do.
          Another paraphrase.
          “The problem isn’t what we know. The problem is what we know that ain’t so.”

          We all have a lot to learn.
          Perhaps if he had said, “No one is entitled to be willfully ignorant.”….?
          (That bring up those who withhold/hide/distort information from those they WANT to remain ignorant, but that’s more than a quote or two about an individual’s ignorance can address.)

        • As much as I admire the rebellious streak of Ellison, I also believe he is wrong.

          People are entitled to believe ANYTHING they want. The moon is made of cheese. Harlan is still alive. Captain Marvel was a good movie. Believe what you like kids, I cannot stop you.

          The problem arises from the fact that, as adults, we are responsible for our actions, and if our beliefs start to drive our actions then we are responsible for them as well.

          If you believe the moon is made of cheese then, well, whatever. I don’t care. If you were to start pushing for tax payer investment into a lunar cheese harvesting factory then I would care, because as far as MY sources of information state there is no cheese on the moon and I do not want my tax dollars spent on such a blatantly stupid proposal.

          In this sort of a situation I – being someone who rejects the moon-cheese theory – would be forced to push back to protect my interests and, should I fail and the cheese harvester actually be built, the Cheesy One would then be responsible for explaining to the world why no diary products were ever produced and where all the money has gone.

          Personal opinions are (for the most part) harmless until they start to affect others. The moment they start to affect others they are completely valid targets to be pushed back against.

          • I’m with you. I’m perfectly fine with Wallace and Grommit. He spent his own time and money to go to the moon to harvest cheese. It’s when you start demanding my resources that I have a problem.

      • Wait…what?
        You think people are not entitled to opinions that “conflict with facts”?
        Who decides what the facts are.
        Some of the items listed are dumb and inconsequential, and some are very important.
        No one has a monopoly on the truth, and science in general is not about establishing facts.
        Declaring that some opinions are not allowed sounds like totalitarian absolutism.

        • Science doesn’t deal in facts. Facts are the nonsense of the legal system and journalism. Science deals with what can be shown to work best and so nobody presenting an opinion is requested to stick to facts declared as such by consensus or some other authority. However, what I think Ellison is saying is that to have the right to express an opinion you must at least have made an effort to inform yourself. As a little experiment, the next time you are politely discussing with a warmista or other flake, ask how many actual scientific papers they have read on the topic. In my experience, most flakes don’t have the concentration to stay focussed through a note, let alone a review and how and where they get the “facts” to support an opinion remains a mystery.

          • The problem with this idea is that, as stated, someone gets to decide what opinions can be stated.
            At the present time I think we can all see how dangerous of an idea that is.
            I support the right of every moron in the world to have all the wrong opinions they care to have, and to be the worst ignoramuses ever to make fools of themselves.

        • Nicholas

          I am beginning to think that in the climate alarmist community a “fact” is an unchallenged, alternatively unchallengeable, assertion.

          That someone does not challenge an assertion means, to a certain cohort of people that indicates it is true. If it cannot be questioned because of a lack clarity or inadequacy of information, it too must be accepted as true, until someone provides enough information to challenge it on the basis of contra-indicating information.

          That is a symptom of post-normal science: Claims are facts until dis-proven. A science-assertion is a science-fact by default, even in the absence of evidence. Evidence should later be sought to confirm the preexisting belief. Skilful motivated reasoning always leads to the needed conclusion. I see it every day on our topsy-turvy world of climate science.

      • Who was it that said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re just not entitled to your own facts.” Seems to fit well with the Climate Alarmist™ crowd, who seem to think that readings collected from instruments with ±2°F resolution can be “homogenized” into “facts” accurate to thousandths of a degree that are input to computer games models to produce “projections” accurate out to hundreds of years, also with a resolution of thousandths of a degree! I mean, really, who can believe in that?!?!

        • 😎
          Reminded me of one of the MythBusters having a tee-shirt that read, “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

    • Same here HotScot.

      With the exception of the “each to his own” for Homeopaths. They’re deluding people into thinking their “remedies” are actually effective for anything except removing cash from the patient’s pockets.

      • Jeff Alberts – August 27, 2019 at 6:44 am

        They’re deluding people into thinking their (homeopathic) “remedies” are actually effective for anything ……..

        Now ya better watch your tongue, big boy, …. and remember that the “homeopathic cure” for headaches and minor pains is what led to the development of “aspirin”, …… probably the 1st marketable “wonder drug” for public consumption.

        Iffen my “remember’er” was working better I could surely name you a few more … actual, factual “homeopathic cures”.

        Jeff, here is a “1st person” testimony of a recent “homeopathic cure” for diabetes, ….. as described in the WUWT article by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, to wit:

        How do I know all this? Because 18 months ago I went to St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London to be told by a solemn-faced endocrinologist that I had diabetes. I had already suspected that, because I had noticed the distinctive odor sanctitatis on my skin. I had done some reading on it. So I told the specialist that I’d deal with it.

        He said: “You are not taking me seriously. You must realize that you have full-blown diabetes. This is a serious condition. You will have to be medicated.”

        Read more @ the above noted hyperlink

        • Jeff, ….. I guess I should tell you about my daughter, when she was 9 or 10 months old, got sick – listless, not eating, smiling, nor playing. The wife took her to see Pediatricians 2 or 3 times, who prescribed anti-biotics, which didn’t help. She looked so pitiful to me, I bundled her up and took her to see my GP, old Dr. Huyck. I was holding her in my arms when Doc turned around, and from 12 feet away, said “OH MY GAWD”, …… and the chills ran right up my backbone.

          And then Doc said, … “That’s the best case of measles I’ve seen in 30 years” ….. and he proceeded to tell me about his early days of “doctoring” and the measle epidemics. I interrupted and asked ….. “But what about Samantha”, ….. to which he replied, ….. “Don’t worry about her, ….. when you get back home just sit her butt down in warm water and she will be OK”.

          And WOWEEEEE, ….. a homeopathic remedy that worked when prescription medicines couldn’t.

          • Both your posts indicate you clearly do not understand what homeopathy is all about. Allow me:

            “homeopathy: the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease.” – Google dictionary

            Neither example you provide fits that definition.

          • My recollection is that everyone used to get measles, typically at a very young age.
            A rare few have a very bad reaction to it, and some die.
            Many of what we used to consider childhood diseases are rather mild and inconsequential to most of the kids when they get it, but can be devastating if an adult contracts the illness.
            I believe mumps falls into this category.
            The people who think there is more to fear from vaccines than from epidemics of virulent disease baffle me.
            One thing is for sure…if not for the herd immunity that allows most of them to get away with such recklessness without harm, they would be disabused of this notion, and very soundly.
            One person with a communicable disease can and does spread the disease causing organism far and wide, which is why back in the days of disease epidemics sweeping the country, people were quarantined…involuntarily if need be.
            50 years ago no one refused vaccines, even though it is understood that very occasionally someone has a bad reaction to it for one reason or another…typically an allergic reaction.
            But it was well know that this was a far lower risk than that posed by diseases.
            And at that time, everyone who had children was old enough to have had personal experience with virulent epidemics and the results thereof.

            Besides for all of the facts and history, it is well known exactly where and when the entire anti-vax movement got started.
            It is a case study in wrong ideas and misinformation taking on a life of their own.

          • I think that if someone has made a good faith effort to find a doctor that can cure the problem — and they have all failed — then it might be justified to turn to alternative approaches. If traditional modern medicine is not working, then one probably has little or nothing to lose if the alternative medicines are not known to be toxic. The problem comes about when someone immediately turns to homeopathy without getting the opinion of a graduate practitioner. In the case of the anecdote related by Cogar, it was a physician who recognized the problem and knew how to treat it correctly. The problem appears that the pediatricians were not sufficiently experienced to recognize what has become a relatively rare disease.

          • @D.J. Hawkins. There’s another aspect of homeopathy that the Google definition omits, and it is in fact the most important. The “active ingredients” in homeopathic remedies are not actually present.

            “The preparations are manufactured using a process of homeopathic dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water, each time with the containing vessel being struck against an elastic material, commonly a leather-bound book.[9] Dilution typically continues well past the point where individual doses would not contain molecules of the original substance.” Wikipedia

            I once heard a doctor describe it as like “putting a drop of ‘medicine’ in a swimming pool, mixing it all up, taking a single drop out and putting it in another swimming pool, and so on.” Supposedly, the “essence” of the substance is left behind.

            So, to use a worn-out expression, it’s worse than you thought.

          • @ D. J. Hawkins – August 27, 2019 at 10:13 am

            What is Homeopathic Medicine?

            Homeopathy is natural because its remedies are produced according to the U.S. FDA-recognized Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States from natural sources, whether vegetable, mineral, or animal in nature.
            https://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathic-medicine.html

            Hawkins, ….. the homeopathic remedy for curing headaches is derived from natural sources, ….. Willow tree bark.

            And Hawkins, if you ascribe to this, to wit:

            The guiding principle of Homeopathy is stated as “let likes cure likes,” similia similibus curentur. While the concept of “like curing like” dates back to the Greek Father of Medicine, Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.),

            Then most all vaccinations are literally ……. homeopathic cures.

          • Clyde Spencer, …. you are exactly right, those young Doctors had never seen the symptoms of measles that hadn’t “popped out” as red bumps on the skin.

          • Anything natural is homeopathic? Really?

            When was the last time you chewed willow bark to treat a tooth ache?

          • SCC, I don’t think you know what Homeopathy means, or how it’s practised.

            I read Monckton’s piece when it was posted. Didn’t see anything about Homeopathic treatments. I read that he radically changed his diet to solve the problem. That’s nothing to do with Homeopathy.

        • Use of the active ingredient in aspirin predated homeopathy by millennia. You are mistaken regarding what is homeopathy and what is simply woo-woo medicine.

          Homeopathy medication selection is a complex process requiring a thorough interview with the patient, probably superior to most MD intake forms. Homeopathy is considered by believers as rather analogous to vaccination, being based on the belief that a substance that produces physiological affects that mimic the symptoms of a disease can cure that disease, even in micro doses.

          This may actually be true for a handful of conditions. Hahnemann’s mistake was in trying to generalize, calling a technique that seemed to work in some cases a “Law,” one that (he hoped) would apply to every condition. While I don’t doubt his sincerity, this is a highly dubious assumption.

          The beauty of homeopathy is that, even if it doesn’t work, it at least doesn’t directly* kill the patient, unlike conventional medicine, wherein prescription drugs are tied with stroke as a leading cause of death.

          The London Homeopathic Hospital had a lower fatality rate during the cholera epidemic of the 1850s than neighboring hospitals**.

          I know of several seemingly intelligent people who use homeopathic medicine and who claim to be cured by it. Would I go to a homeopath for medical care? Yes, but I’d try everything else not involving a trip to Mexico, first.

          * With alternative medicine, the failure to seek competent care is often what kills.
          ** Possibly due to less invasive procedures, better patient monitoring, and superior sanitation. See Morrell, P and Cazelet, S., The History of the London Homeopathic Hospital.

          • Stupid comparison. Prescription drugs may “kill” a number of people, but not taking those same drugs would result in far more deaths.

            You might as well say that water is a leading cause of death (it is) so we shouldn’t drink water.

  4. People who are both in favor of “homeopathic” medicine and are also “anti-vax” do not really present a problem for the rest of us. In large numbers, they simply constitute what is called a “self-limiting problem”. This is one of those happy circumstances where a problem solves itself. If such a person also subscribes to other retrograde notions, then so much the better when the problem self-limits.
    As a note, I should add that Darwin Awards are typically not given out in these cases. Although such a person qualifies for consideration, the Awards Committee usually wants to see more creativity.

    • I thought Darwin Awards were given to people who removed themselves from this earthly frame. Being a living idiot doesn’t qualify.

      • Well, Anti-vaxxers who die from a disease that the rest of us were vaccinated against, or a “homeopathic” medicine practitioner who dies from a disease that could have been treated and cured through real medicine would certainly quality as “removing themselves from this earthly frame”, just not in as direct or spectacular fashion as most Darwin Award winners do.

      • Darwin awards are given when someone removes his genes from the gene pool by doing an act of gross stupidity. Usually, it results in death, but it may just cause grievous harm to certain body parts.

    • For a really good Darwin what we want is something like a “homeopathic” medicine to turn into an outbreak like Ebola.

    • Correct for the “homeopathy” fans (who most often, though, revert to real medicine in case of serious illness: interesting, isn’t it?), not so for the “anti-vax”: what they do is preventing herd immunity, thus preventing the disappearance of viruses (as it happened for smallpox). It is indeed possible or even likely that one gets measles without much consequences (I myself had it, 40 years ago), but for sure it will be very harmful or worse for innocent immunocompromised people.
      Therefore, if the formers are simply dumb, the latter are criminals.

    • Anti-vaxers must certainly do present a problem for the rest of society. There are several at-risk groups who cannot be vaccinated. They include infants under two, those with compromised immunities, and some having specific allergies or drug sensitivities. Everyone who could get vaccinated but choose not to puts them at greater risk.

      • That’s the stale narrative that gets repeated everywhere, but the idea gaining more acceptance is that the vaccinated population is responsible for most of the viral shedding because they have sub-clinical (asymptomatic) disease; whereas the unvaccinated population shows evidence of disease outbreak by becoming symptomatic.

      • jtom if you have had a child lately I wonder how many of the myriad of vaccinations you chose for your child….all of them?

        hoy hanna can you get a lot of shots

      • “at-risk groups who cannot be vaccinated. They include infants under two ” ..

        This is no longer current or universal information. My daughter living in Europe had a baby 7 months ago. It is government policy that near newborns will be vaccinated within the first month of life, often before they leave hospital at birth. The baby’s parents had to inform the medical system ,by filling out a declaration, that they did NOT want the baby vaccinated UNTIL the age of 2 years. (Croatia, which is in the EU).
        Further, they had to change doctors to find one that would accept that declaration. The publicly funded doctor has a right to refuse your child as a patient if you won’t vaccinate.
        Now I don’t agree with their decision to delay vaccination, but it gives some comfort that the child was and is being breast fed and will thus benefit from her mother’s immunity as long as that is going on. I guess my point is that nowadays children under 2 are being vaccinated for the most common early childhood diseases and are not at risk from contact with antivaxxers.

        I do remember my first year of school when there was an ongoing polio epidemic in North America. One unfortunate boy arrived to his first day of school using crutches and sometimes 2 canes.
        We all were kept in over the summer, no trips to the public pool etc. Hallelujah when the first vaccines using killed virus were invented and administered. However, nobody asked us for permission when years later they supplied ‘live’ virus vaccines as ‘boosters’. Many years later, a rare few of those that received live vaccines found that the dormant virus became active and they developed a form of polio FROM the ‘weakened’ virus used in the vaccine.
        So.. it can go both ways. You might be at risk from contact with antivaxxers, but may also be at risk from contact with vaccines. It is a matter of relative risk and most people are not epidemiologists enough to run those numbers. I get why antivaxxers do what they do, while, at the same time, I would still choose to vaccinate my kids and myself.

    • Not true. There are some who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons but can rely on herd immunity – provided enough other people are vaccinated. Anti-vaxxers harm and sometimes kill those people.

    • “People who are both in favor of “homeopathic” medicine and are also “anti-vax” do not really present a problem for the rest of us. In large numbers, they simply constitute what is called a “self-limiting problem”. ”

      IOW, “Nature abhors a moron.” (H.L. Mencken)

  5. I find that graphic offensive, not because of the subject matters, but because it is intellectually dishonest due to (some) specious labeling and the conflation of everything together to achieve the appearance of equivalence.

    For example, there are very good rational reasons to be opposed to how nuclear technologies are used, and science is meaningless without reason. Also, I find it amusing/bemusing when those who reject the homeopathic hypothesis (low exposures to toxins and other stressors produce beneficial biological responses), embrace the hormesis hypothesis (low exposures to toxins and other stressors produce beneficial biological responses). I’m not a proponent of either hypothesis, but it’s not science when the laws of logic and reason are violated. And lest we be tempted to say that scientific studies show this, or don’t show that, let’s remember that the current state of establishment science is, in many cases, corrupt as hell.

    An example of specious labeling is the anti-vaxxer label. From what I’ve read, many people who do not want themselves or their children vaccinated are not anti-vaccine at all; they simply want safe vaccines. Anyone who thinks multiple injections of toxic adjuvants/preservatives and aborted human fetal cell lines directly into year-old infants’ bloodstreams is safe, based on studies done by a government/non-government nexus that mandates vaccination schedules, has well over 20 vaccine patents, and whose functionaries monetarily profit from vaccines, is, IMO, most anti-science.

    • Homeopathic remedies are distinct from the principle of hormesis in that the dilutions of the so-called remedies used in homeopathy has been showed to be so extreme that no toxin remains.
      To have a hermetic effect takes a certain concentration or exposure…enough to activate biological repair mechanisms.

    • “Also, I find it amusing/bemusing when those who reject the homeopathic hypothesis (low exposures to toxins and other stressors produce beneficial biological responses)”

      Homeopathic “remedies” typically contain NONE of the ingredient that is supposed to relieve the specific ailment. Dilution after dilution after dilution effectively removes it. Also, there’s no evidence that the said ingredient is effective against said ailment in ANY dosage.

      • That is correct. The medication after typical homeopathic dilution (1:100,000 or greater) is distilled water; any healing was probably a placebo effect. It’s hard to kill a patient with distilled water. Not so chiropractic, which can kill either directly or by leading the patient to avoid conventional treatment. I would never go to a chiropractor for anything, not even notary service.

        Interesting footnote: The most interesting paper I have found on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was written by a member of the British Homeopathic Society, Frank Augustus Watkins, M.R.C.S.Eng. Watkins apologizes therein for his treatment of RA with 85% phosphoric acid (up to 2 g per day, with meals, diluted 1000:1) not being in accordance with homeopathic dosages (i.e., zip). The same paper, Acidity of the Urine, was subsequently published in Lancet, Volume 171, ISSUE 4425, P1766-1770, June 20, 1908, with all mention of homeopathy stricken. Watkins work was based on French agronomist Henri Joulie’s earlier studies, circa 1900.

        NB: This comment is not intended as medical advice in any way whatsoever.

        • “Not so chiropractic, which can kill either directly or by leading the patient to avoid conventional treatment.”

          Most chiropodists were / are notorious for attempting to cure or arrest cases of scoliosis with a regimen of exercises, and dsicouraging the use of braces. In many cases where they claimed success, the condition had simply reached its natural limit in the patient. But in many others it prgressed, resulting in deformity and/or a need for surgery.

          • Did you mean to say chiropractors? Chiropodists are something “completely different.” I don’t believe they ever treated scoliosis. Wrong location.

            A chiropractor put me in the ER about 12 hours after an “adjustment,” one performed without permission or warning. I’d been seeing him for heat and ultrasound only. I believe he is dead now, the victim of failing to seek real medical help for a serious condition. Pity.

        • “I would never go to a chiropractor for anything, not even notary service.”

          That gave me a good guffaw!

    • ” there are very good rational reasons to be opposed to how nuclear technologies are used”

      No there aren’t.

      “embrace the hormesis hypothesis”

      Intelligent people manage to grasp the concept that just because a theory works out in one instance is not evidence that it works everywhere.

      As to your complaints about vaccines, there have been no studies that show any of them to be unsafe, and hundreds of studies that show that they are.

      And of course the classic, they are making a profit, therefore they must be evil line.

      • “As to your complaints about vaccines, there have been no studies that show any of them to be unsafe, and hundreds of studies that show that they are.”

        That’s because the whole process is corrupt as hell. Vaccine companies are immune from liability. Not a single vaccine has been tested against an inert placebo. Inserts for vaccines lists over 400 injuries that the FDA suspects are caused by vaccines. Federal law requires that package inserts for each vaccine include “only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe that there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.”

        • “Anti-vaxers are typically considered to be those who think that mercury in the vaccines is causing an increase in autism. But there are others, I’ve gathered, who object to the large number of vaccines that are currently mandated, some for such rare or minor aflictions that their risk/reward worthiness is doubtful. Why not allow those parents to select the old, shorter list of vaccines?

          • There isn’t a shred of evidence that vaccines have anything to do with autism, and numerous studies that show it doesn’t.

          • MarkW: the “others” I cited weren’t necessarily objecting to autism as an outcome, but to other bad results, like allergies, etc. I can’t remember the full list.

        • Ah yes, the old, the only reason science doesn’t agree with me is because it’s corrupt and everyone is paid off.

          Your knowledge of how vaccines are tested varies from reality.

    • Hahnemann followed Kant’s Critique – since the “disease” cannot be known by pure reason, an immeasurable dose should act on it in an unknowable way. It is like a perversion of Leibniz’s infinitesimal, which is after all what Kant had a problem with.
      Instead, never ending pursuit of better ideas, especially regarding life, is the best of all possible worlds.
      Montagner’s results forced him into exile in China.

  6. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    “this time comprising boffins keen on nuclear power”?
    So they are Pro-nuclear power ?

      • Actually this clenched-fist logo is not clenched in anger or solidarity or any other expression of politico-manly-strength-attitude glorp. It is a clumsy allusion to the Fist of Thor holding a lightning bolt but the hapless artist has replaced the bolt with an orbiting electron. It is the type of illustration that nerds would think clever.

        Please do not insinuate politically motivation when simple goofyness does suffice. Generation Atomic does have some laudable goals, among them to get kids to decide for themselves about nuclear energy rather than vomit forth the antinuke hysteria of their China Syndrome era parents. The reason Climate Change sauce is thick here is that IT JUST SO HAPPENS legacy nuke plant operators are particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis theme, and it is they who are fronting this. As I said in my own 2016 letter to Candidate Trump,

        It is unethical to see no clear path to unbounded Energy as anything but an existential threat.

        […] Unfortunately there is an international scam in progress and the scammers are clever, they have seized the moral high-ground because it had been left unoccupied and undefended. Those who praise humanity and progress for its own sake, and would remind others we should never judge ourselves in haste, must have wandered off somewhere.

        There is also a scuffle on the Global Warming moral high-ground as the folks who run nuclear power plants are kicked in the face and tossed off the mound. They expected to be welcomed with open arms because nuclear energy will help ‘save’ the planet from CO2. They did not realize the movement is rife with people whose irrational fear of radiation exceeds their commitment to the environment. Anyone who even mentions nuclear power gets a feral and brutal response. I’ve taken pity on the nuclear industry and have tried to explain the phenomenon but they’re not taking it very well. Like the Amish, our nuclear power industry needs staunch defenders surrounding it. They’re just too polite for their own good.

        Unfortunately, we have passed beyond peak politeness. To force Energy debates to address practical solutions, bullies are needed. We must rout the occupiers and re-take the moral high-ground because we place a high priority on survival, and for the children’s sake.

    • It’s hard being a Green in favor of Nuclear. When James Hanson came out in favor of Nuclear it got him declared a ‘New kind of Denier’ by one of the Various and Sundry Climate Naomis.

      ~¿~

  7. I bet California nuclear industry shills are behind this. Wouldn’t surprise me if Michael Shellenberger (CA nuclear industry lobbyist), or Moms for Nuclear (two soon-to-be-out-of-work moms who work at the soon-to-be-closed San Onofre NPP), have something to do with this group. The background image of San Onofre on their twitter is, IMO, a dead giveaway.

    https://twitter.com/Gen_Atomic

      • Ya, they mention both Shellenberger and Hansen on their pages, though more as authorities then as supporters.

        ~¿~

    • The background picture is of Diablo Canyon, soon to be an extinct species of California nuclear reactor.

      It’s been estimated that twenty or so reactors sited along California’s coast could produce enough electricity for seawater desalinization to supply a good portion of the state’s urban water consumption requirements.

      New reactors might be built in that state some day, possibly in another fifty years. That much time must pass before California’s experience with the emerging problems of the renewables helps them see the blue light.

      I

      • They will be very lucky if they get away with their idiocy for 1/5 that long.
        How many blackouts will it take?
        We have seen in some cases that huge riots broke out within minutes of a blackout.
        It seems to me that the bog cities in CA are ripe for that type of thing, especially if it happens on a very hot night.

        • Nicholas, what I think will happen is that a series of ever-worsening grid reliability problems will emerge in California over the next decade. Renewable advocates will be successful for awhile in explaining away these problems.

          But a point will come in the late 2020’s where the problems become too frequent and severe to be easily explained away. When the situation gets bad enough, LNG-fired gas turbine generators served by LNG railroad tank cars will then be installed wherever it is convenient as an expedient ‘temporary measure’ to deal with the state’s grid reliability issues.

          Californians are wedded to their perception that renewables are the answer. I see nothing in their psychological makeup that would allow most Californians to see reality. Over time, the ‘temporary’ LNG fired turbines will become a permanent feature of the California energy landscape while the state’s politicians continue to chase green energy rainbows.

  8. The one thing in common to all of these “anti-science” proclivities is their keen target , massive population reduction, from a deep Malthusian swamp belief. Otherwise known as genocide.
    Energy flux-density per capita, per hectare, is key to population growth, in density and longevity. Agriculture (maize is GMO from the get-go) is critically dependent on the use of modern technology. Vaccination, public health, all vastly improve living standards (the Yanonami protected tribes of the Amazon never saw grandchildren).
    Malthus specifically declared that dense housing, narrow streets, which spread disease, childhood mortality are desirable. Captain Cousteau of Calypso fame declared 350,000 people must die per day to save the environment…
    The correct word for this is eco-fascism, as even WAPO wrote just last week. It is not “anti-science” – it is anti human. One would think after Hi*tler gave “lebensraum” and eugenics a bad name, it would not resurface. Yet it did immediately after WWII with Huxley and Russell, giving it a new name, “conservation”.
    The Queen dubbed Sir John Schellnhuber a CBE, Commander of the British Empire, in 2004, Berlin, after his outspoken population target of 2 billion. Subsequently as Chancelor Merkel’s “science” advisor, he started the German Great Transformation, leading into the latest form of green fascism, the GND, and now British Central Banker Carney demanding the end of the Dollar and a World Digital currency – forget Zuck’s bucks the Libra. That currency of course purely for green finance, out of any elected government’s hands.
    So again one find major finance running the drive to eco-fascism, just as before the Bank of England Montague Norman and Harriman of WallStreet, Bank of International settlements Hjalmar Schacht and Banque de Worms – Lazard .

    Using nuclear to ban carbon is only an apparent paradox – it is the latest genocidal attack on humanity. Fear of taking on exactly that attack with pragmatic opportunism, will lead to exactly that genocide. It is far too deadly to let any scientist off the hook.
    Interesting NASA’s Bridenstein mentioned more nuclear rocket propulsion this week.

    • Nuclear is a source of electric power.
      That is all.
      The net result of using nuclear to a far wider degree than is currently the case will be to take supply pressure and hence price pressure off of other sources of energy, notably fossil fuels.

      • What a funny declaration – nuclear is a source of energy with a jump in density. Heat energy is key to process manufacturing, or rocket propulsion. Electricity is just one use.
        With fusion, “raw material” takes on a whole other meaning. How about an isotope economy?

        Similar declarations by Lord Bertrand Russell in 1895 would not allow Planck’s revolution, nor Einstein’s. They are based on Malthusianism encoded as oh-so revered Maths – in other words, genocide by the numbers.

    • Well, technically, they’re using Teletubbies to paint those they disagree with on climate as “anti-science” rather than as a symbol for themselves.

    • er… no.

      They are portraying anti-science people as Teletubbies.

      As a famous UK comedy show used to say ‘that’s you, that is’

      • The Dallas PBS station used to run Doctor Who and Blake’s 7 on Saturday nights till about 1:00 AM. For some reason, Teletubbies came on after that. I would routinely fall asleep watching Doctor Who or Blake’s 7 and wake up to the Teletubbies… it was horrifying.

  9. Chris

    “Atomic Trots.”

    Is that something one suffers from after an especially potent Vindaloo? 🙂

    • Probably!

      Out local Indian takeaway, with a red hot vindaloo option, used to be the ‘Curry and Hurry’

  10. Mark Broderick,

    Yes, they are pro-nuclear power.

    There are good reasons to be pro nuclear power but the ‘human-made global warming’ scare is not one of them.

    The ‘human-made global warming’ scare has replaced the ‘acid rain’ scare. The UK nuclear industry purchased ads. that promoted the acid rain’ scare because they saw it as a useful excuse for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power.

    Some promoters of the ‘human-made global warming’ scare promote it for the same reason; i.e. they see the scare as a useful excuse for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. I think this is wrong but I fail to see any reason for their actions except financial self-interest.

    Richard

    • Who can fail to see the fully documented population reduction strategy? I don’t go there is just not good enough.
      Decades-long suppression of nuclear fusion, with Chernobyl scares and now CO2 scares have only one thing in common – genocide. Of course the fine spoken Dr. Schellnhuber CBE, prefers optimal population, rather like Bill Gates.
      Berni Sanders and AOC say the FED can spew trillion$ for GND green poverty, yet nothing for fusion.
      Carney of the BofE demands an end to the Dollar for a world hegemonic currency for green-only.
      Who can fail to see the massive global financial interest now?

    • We don’t have acid rain ‘scare’ now because we addressed dumping sulphur into the air.

      There’s no ozone layer problem, since we banned CFCs

      Hmmm… CO2 looks like a problem… what to do about that?

      • CO2 is not only not a problem but rather, it’s a benefit. But as usual, you have things exactly backwards.

      • griff,

        The ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s was a claim that waldsterben (i.e. forest death in Northern Europe) was being caused by sulphur emissions from coal-fired power stations in Germany and the UK creating sulphur-rich acid rain.

        France promoted the ‘acid rain’ scare because the scare promoted French competitiveness with its neighbours: Germany and the UK had coal-fired power stations while France had nuclear power plants. Fitting flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) which removed sulphur from flue gases added about 20% to capital cost of each coal-fired power station and about 10% to its running costs.

        However, it turned out that waldsterben did not exist. European forests had been flourishing (as part of the ‘greening’ of the Earth) throughout the 1980s, Also, and importantly, the observed increase to sulphur in rain was mostly a result of fertilisation of North Sea phytoplankton induced by agricultural runoff of chemical fertilisers. French farmers had political ‘clout’ at that time so the French dropped the matter.

        The ‘acid rain’ scare’ faded away because it had lost political support. However, the EU’s Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) had been imposed to constrain emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides and it remained. The bureaucrats running the LCPD continued to justify their jobs by imposing ever tighter – and ever more pointless – emission constraints that have recently closed the last of the UK’s coal-fired power stations.

        There never was an “ozone hole problem” and the relationship of CFCs to the ‘ozone hole’ was never adequately demonstrated. Evidence which refutes the relationship has increased with time; e.g. see http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

        However, the ‘ozone hole’ scare was used to establish the Montreal Protocol which constrained use of CFCs and was used as a model for the Kyoto Protocoal which constrained emissions of GHGs.

        In summation, Griff, you are completely wrong. There has been a series of costly and untrue environmentalist scares which have provided no benefits of any kind and human-made global warming is the most recent of them.

        Richard

      • Take away plant food CO2 and commit plant genocide, followed by just plain genocide.

        The empire’s lebensraum is threatened by us teeming 7 billion – they are scared of loosing their looting rights.

        So what do you think they want to do about that, Squire?

      • There was no acid rain problem in the first place. It never existed.
        There was no ozone layer problem in the first place. It never existed.

        There isn’t a shred of real world evidence that CO2 is a problem. Never has been. Models aren’t evidence.

      • Besides that, now that they closed the 500 MW coal plant upwind of my farm, FS has to double the amount of sulfur when fertilizing my corn crop. Raising the cost, of course.

      • Does the comic-book science brigade still claim that anti-fluoridation activists are anti-science? Or have they swept that under the rug now that we’re up to 60 research findings that increased fluoride intake causes physiological and mental health problems?

        • “Does the comic-book science brigade still claim that anti-fluoridation activists are anti-science? Or have they swept that under the rug now that we’re up to 60 research findings that increased fluoride intake causes physiological and mental health problems?”

          And that various countries, including Russia IIRC, have stopped fluoridation the whatever supplies, and various international organizations no longer urge it. (Why not just fluoridate milk, sparing the rest of us from it?)

          Fluoridation should be cited as an instance where the scientific consensus was partly manufactured and oversold its case, to undermine the credibility of such supposed unanimity.

          Another instance, now down the memory hole, was the near-consensus, endorsed IIRC by various official organizations, that AIDS was a threat outside of at-risk groups—that it would “break out” of them as it had in South Africa (supposedly but not actually—the country was classifying other maladies as being sue to AIDS).

          These instances of motivated consensus-building should be cited more often by contrarians.

      • griff
        You are assuming that the reduction in the ozone layer was actually a problem. It was always couched in the framework of “could cause an increase in surface UV, and consequently cause cataracts and skin cancer.” The problem is that the ‘evidence’ presented was measured ozone, not UV at the surface. Further, while we have banned CFCs, the ozone layer has not responded as quickly as hoped or expected. While there has been a claim that the CFC ban isn’t working because Chinese industry hasn’t been complying with the ban, there may be other issues that are being ignored because it doesn’t fit the simplistic dialog.

        • Clyde Spencer,

          You say to Griff,
          “You are assuming that the reduction in the ozone layer was actually a problem. It was always couched in the framework of “could cause an increase in surface UV, and consequently cause cataracts and skin cancer.” The problem is that the ‘evidence’ presented was measured ozone, not UV at the surface. ”

          Yes, and ozone exists in the atmosphere all the way down to the Earth’s surface. If the ‘ozone layer’ were completely depleted of ozone then the UV would be absorbed by ozone lower in the atmosphere and, therefore, the UV reaching the surface would not discernibly alter.

          As you suggest, there actually never was an ozone hole problem.

          Richard

      • And DuPont realized that the CFC’s were off patent. Much more $$$$ from new refrigerants even if they weren’t quite as efficient.

    • People tend to take advantage of things which are in their short term interest. Those same things may come back to bite them. For instance, the US funded rebels in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Some of that funding seems to have gone to Bin Laden. link

      I totally understand the nuclear industry trying to take advantage of CAGW hysteria. In that regard they should try to get wide distribution for Michael Moore’s new film The Planet of the Humans. Apparently he demonstrates that renewable energy is a complete scam and a fraud and has no chance of working.

      Lots of people insist that nuclear is uneconomic. How is it that it works well in France, and has done so for years? It’s a lot like the CAGW alarmists trying to ignore the MWP.

      • The fact that France “has done well” with nuclear energy is in no way a rational argument for us to go that route. In many ways, it has become uneconomic in the US due to “environmental” concerns, which has translated into seemingly boundless regulatory hurdles and red tape, combined with deliberate delaying tactics by the usual suspects resulting in a process which should only take 2-3 years being stretched to a decade, with enormous cost overruns. No investor in the right mind wants to stick their toe in that, leaving it to the government to both fund and insure them. What a mess.

        • France followed a model of only licensing a couple types of nuclear plants. By doing that they sliced through a lot of the red tape hurdles and cost over run. That doesn’t stop the lawsuits to try and stop a plant but would help because they can show the safety record of previously built plants.

          US on the other hand allowed everyone to design their own plant and apply to get it licensed. While it fits into the US way of doing business, in the nuclear field it led to minefield of issues.

          • US on the other hand allowed everyone to design their own plant and apply to get it licensed. While it fits into the US way of doing business, in the nuclear field it led to minefield of issues.

            Hmmm… The U. S. way of doing business was to find a way to mass-produce everything. That’s why/how Ford was a success, by eliminating options. It seems to logically follow that the U. S. nuclear energy market would gravitate toward getting an approved model and duplicating it anywhere and everywhere. I think the reason that didn’t happen is because the regulators were regulating faster than the industry could keep up. In fact, some nuclear reactors got an approval to build, but by the time they got to loading fuel the design had been “obsoleted” by regulations, they never could operate and the constructed plants went into mothballs. A plant in Alabama just recently went into operation “…a half century after it was first announced, and following nearly a quarter-century of limbo.” (New York Times, Aug 18, 2011) While the article never specifically faults the regulators for the plant going into mothballs, I’m editorializing here. And over-regulating has always been a mark of socialists/communists (I don’t know why I listed both, they’re indistinguishable from each other).

        • And don’t forget Pres Jimmy outlawing “breeder” reactors to make sure the waste could not be reused efficiently and economically.

        • Bruce Cobb, in 2012, the estimated costs per site for the VC Summer project in South Carolina and for the Vogtle 3 & 4 project in Georgia were roughly 12 billion dollars each to construct two 1100 Mw AP1000 reactors on each site. That cost included full compliance with all federal and state regulations.

          By 2017, the estimated costs had climbed from 12 billion per site to roughly 25 billion per site. VC Summer was cancelled and completion of Vogtle 3 & 4 was delayed into the 2020’s. Two years later in the summer of 2019, Vogtle 3 & 4 has now reached 28 billion dollars total capital cost.

          The regulatory requirements imposed on those two projects changed very little during the five years that passed between 2012 and 2017. The project owners and managers knew from the beginning what was expected of them when they initiated the two projects. But they failed miserably to deliver on their commitment to the ratepayers and to the government regulators to do a thoroughly disciplined and rigorously professional job of managing those projects.

          My analysis of what went wrong at VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 can be found in a previous comment on WUWT from March, 2019:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/12/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#comment-2654040

          As is described in my comments from March, for those of us who went through the intense struggles of the 1980’s in learning how to do nuclear construction on cost and on schedule, it was clear from about 2013 on that history was repeating itself.

          The entire blame for what happened with those two projects can be laid at the feet of the project managers, the project owners, and the failure of the state regulatory agencies to properly oversee and assess how well the utilities were doing in meeting their cost and schedule commitments on and off the two construction sites.

          The two AP1000s at Vogtle 3 & 4 are likely to be the last large unitary reactors built in this country. Our last chance for successfully reviving new-build nuclear construction in the United States depends almost entirely on what NuScale, Fluor, and Energy Northwest are doing with their Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project slated for Eastern Idaho.

          If the NuScale SMR project isn’t successful, then the option of restarting a serious program of new reactor construction in the United States will probably be foregone for another two decades at least, if not longer.

  11. What’s the roble here? Nothing wrong with nuclear, and its the only real way to replace intense fossil energy use when that is no longer available as a commodity fuel, prefereably long before so we can string it out until we use abundant nuclear energ to manufacture synthetic liquid, gas and solid hydrocarbon fuels.

    Any serious physicist who has done the maths will tell you this, including Sir David MacKay, the DECC’s Chef Scientist for most of its life. Renewable enrgy simply lacks the intensity, controllability, sustainability (land and physical resources per KWh) and interia in operation to maintain an adequate, reliable, affordable and zero CO2 if it matters energy suply, all we an eat for human ever. Also the safest form of electrical generation. So what is wrong with their goal, its rational and good for most? Even if the methods suck.

    • The problem is with their agenda, which is to replace fossil fuels with nuclear now, and in order to do that, they need to tell lies (or half-truths) about how great nuclear is, and how “bad” coal, and even NG is. If we want to build more nuclear plants, and there are good arguments for doing so, then we should do it for the right reasons, not bogus, fabricated ones.

  12. icisil,
    You write anti-scientific nonsense dressed in pseudo logic.
    You cannot equate anti GMO with antinuclear on the grounds that ” low exposures to toxins and other stressors produce beneficial responses.”
    We have measured various benefits from controlled nuclear radiation in dogs and other biota. We have not measured any benefits from homeopathy.
    You confuse tight science with loose quackery. Geoff S

  13. In the grand scheme of things I can’t see that flat-Earthers do much harm, which is not something that can be said about anti-vax, anti-GMO, Green extremists and anti-nuclear groups (if you really believe in providing reliable electricity to the world in the long term).

    Trying to tie this into what sceptics say about the current climate hysteria shows they are running out of road.

    Personally I’ve always had a sort of admiration for the people who handle snakes because they believe that is in accordance with their religious beliefs and rather sorry for them when they are seriously hurt as a result of this crazy practice. At least they practise what they preach. I’m still waiting for a green advocate to actually only use wind and solar generated power and sit in the dark when these aren’t working. Perhaps the serially demented Caroline Lucas – Britain’s only Green MP – should volunteer her Brighton constituency to only use “renewable “ power from the hideous offshore wind farm now blighting the town’s seascape. Bet you she wouldn’t dare or live by what she preaches.

    • “Personally I’ve always had a sort of admiration for the people who handle snakes because they believe that is in accordance with their religious beliefs and rather sorry for them when they are seriously hurt as a result of this crazy practice. ”

      I have neither admiration nor sorrow for such idiotic beliefs.

  14. have always read that the world comprising the land and water was spherical, and the recorded experiences of Ptolemy and all the others have proved this by the eclipses of the moon and other observations made from East to West, as well as the elevation of the Pole from North to South. But as I have already described, I have now seen so much irregularity that I have come to another conclusion respecting the Earth, namely, that it is not round, as they describe, but of the form of a pear, which is very round except where the stalk grows, at which part it is most prominent; or like a round ball, upon part of which is a prominence like a woman’s nipple, this protrusion being the highest and nearest the sky, situated under the equinoctial line, and at the eastern extremity of this sea.

    That was written on his 3rd trip and he might have had enough – pining for a pear growing region in Spain were it can get a bit nippy. The important point though is the flat Earth box should be the far larger number who believe Columbus was the first to appreciate the world was spherical.

  15. Have to say I don’t understand this article.

    I support the development of nuclear power but don’t get what these people are supposed to have done, either for or against. Please explain.

  16. A big part of the ongoing splintering of the social fabric of the West is people convinced that what they believe is True™ and therefore they have the right and obligation to force everyone else to believe the same things.
    A big part of the completely dysfunctional state of our political systems is these same people trying to grab hold of the levers of power in order to enforce these monomanias on everyone else.
    Everyone needs to back the fuck off and chill the fuck out.
    For one thing, what you believe to be a fact is still not necessarily a fact, no matter who you are, how clever you are, how educated you are, or how “passionate” you are. Your beliefs happen entirely inside your own head and bear no necessary relationship to reality. Even when they are mostly congruent, nobody on this planet has beliefs that are 100% congruent with reality.
    But there’s no humility left in science, politics, religion, or education any more, and so there’s none left in art, entertainment, or any other public forums.
    Like this one.
    Just to take up one cudgel as an example; the anti-vax position has nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of vaccinations. Once you submit to some remote unelected bureaucrat deciding what personal risk factors you are permitted to endure or not, with the concomitant power to force a variety of foreign substances into your blood-stream, you are the property of the state. Any freedoms you might believe (that word again) you enjoy are wholly illusory.
    (Where are the abortion adovcates, on the grounds that a woman should have complete control of here own body, when vaccination laws are debated? Conspicuously on the opposite side of the argument.)
    Intellectual consistency is HARD. Nobody actually likes you much for it, because it cramps their personal divergences from it, revealing their inconsistencies.
    But it’s worth pursuing anyway. Until some of you arrogant arseholes get your heads around that, you will continue to be a part of the problems degrading science by bending it to every wind of political madness, as long as you personally agree with whatever madness du jour is on the wind.

    • You can be against mandatory vaccination laws without being an anti-vaxxer. I have yet to see an anti-vaxxer take that position; they are seemingly universal in their belief that vaccines are unneeded, if not poison, and exist only to make drug companies rich.

      I do not own a gun, but I would reject the charge of being against gun ownership. I do not support restrictive gun laws. If you only disagree with government mandates, you are not an anti-vaxxer in my book.

      • Vaccines are far less useful if not widely used by a large majority of a population.
        IMO, anyone who refuses vaccinations should be barred from public schools, at a minimum.

        • Back in the day, I absoltely hated going to public school, and if I were a school-aged child, I would very happily refuse vaccination for the opportunity to be barred from attending. I’d call that a win-win situation. As it is, about the only way to get out of going to the Schoolag these days is to go on a Climate Crusade.

        • Nicholas McGinley,
          The unvaccinated children are no threat to the vaccinated children. They are only a threat to each other if any of them get exposed to someone that has the disease that they weren’t vaccinated against. If the vaccinations worked, that is.

          Personal experience has me with bouts of measles three times as a child and twice as an adult. So much for lifetime immunity. While I and my children have all been vaccinated, I do not get the annual flu vaccination nor the Shingle vaccine.

          • “I do not get the annual flu vaccination nor the Shingle vaccine.”

            The newly approved (in the U.S.) shingles vaccine is supposedly a wonder, and in such short supply that most applicants aren’t even put in a waiting list.

      • The point, jtom, is that it doesn’t matter what their reason is. It doesn’t matter if their reasons are the soundest science we know how to collectively do (not very, if recent history is anything to go by, but still) or if they got their information from a visiting alien spacecraft hiding in a passing comet.

        It’s still none of your damn business.

        I don’t know what’s worse: the people who try to forcibly infantilise everyone else, or the people who want it done to them.

  17. I see nothing is wrong with the original.

    Nobody denies the science about climate more than the alarmists.

  18. well im in their hated list well n truly;-)
    and glad to be so
    anti gmo and crispr and because i read the data and see how they admit or hide the issues, original spliced genetics soon wandered mutated but that was kept quiet till the swedes? tested the corn and found the claimed GM attributes werent even what was supposedly in it /patented for.
    the “latest” non poll cow crispr tech benefit is? 3 kinds of antibiotic resistance incurred and polled cattle arent that hard to breed normally.
    the utter rubbish about limited gene pool for them?
    well what do you think breeding thousands of calves from one or two bulls does to gene pools?
    but thats common practice on cattle and pigs and chickens.
    not totally antinuke but would prefer small scale plants over larger areas for safety, and reduced risk from nutters trying to hack em etc still rather run coal or gas by choice
    reckon too much of 911 was dodgy brothers- building 7 anyone??
    really worked to sway public to go to the war they all wanted though
    not a flat earther
    but until i see another nations piccys of the moon landing site I with hold trust it wasnt all filmed at muana loa
    not utterly antivax either BUT limited use , at a later date careful look at ingredients vs risk of the disease
    and I dont consider measles chicken pox or mumps a serious enough risk to multidose a tiny babys body, and yes I had all the above +whooping cough and was vaxxed for them all too.
    and the Hep b for a non IV drug users baby or a non carrier mum is abuse.
    it makes me smile so many who are Pro vax to the max know how badly so called science is corrupted as proved by crappy AGW science, but you trust the financially interested invested cdc who hold patents they earn a motza from for vaccines? as well as companies proved to lie and mislead for profit?
    how many of you have READ any of the inserts OR trials for vax?
    oh yeah its a bit hard when theyre rigged a tad- (NO double blind )and tested against a similar products but claimed better. and NO human trials done EVER- not “ethical” to use a control group.
    if you dont like homeopathy then dont use it;-)
    amazing how many dog n horse owners use rescue remedy to calm animals and they dont have the
    “placebo effect” in their minds but they do calm down
    if you personally dont trust or use it fine, and anyone NOT benefitting from its use fairly soon if moderately smart would then try something else
    I doubt theres a homeopathic product that could cause harm at least, unlike pharmas, at worst it wont work for you.
    wheres the difference in that than trying 7 different expensive pills or potions from the docs? none of which solve your problem either? many of which have side effects that make you worse or suffer another problem?
    hell of a lot of pharma meds have dodgy “science” as well but they are ok and prescribed till they kill too many or get proven useless eventually.(statins SSRI)
    I dont trust any govt or bigbiz to have MY interests at heart
    and sure as hell dont trust the warmists
    I guess Im just a rabid skeptic;-)) with serious trust issues roflmao
    oh and black salve works..in Aus its called Xterra and is used for animals and it DOES remove some nasty cancers, some of it happened to land on my skin cancers mysteriously and it worked better than dry ice, and less scarring than surgical removals did. Mr hoxsey was NOT a charlatan, the FDA IS!

    • “reckon too much of 911 was dodgy brothers- building 7 anyone??”

      Yeah, what about building 7? The video of its perfectly pancaked collapse, from 40-some stories, is hard to swallow as being the result of an office fire.
      Some 1500 architects and engineers have called for a new official evaluation of that event. The existing one is as bad as the Warren Report. The government’s refusal to do so is so condescending to the public (as was the case with its refusal to revisit the Warren Report (or the TWA 800 report) to address its flaws, and to look for more evidence (e.g., from uncalled witnesses)) that I’ve sided with the “Truthers” for that reason alone. The government should always be met by outraged disbelief and contempt when it dodges scrutiny, in cases where there are good grounds for a reexamination. “It is not truth, but error only, that shrinks from inquiry”—Tom Paine.

      “not a flat earther, but until i see another nations piccys of the moon landing site I with hold trust it wasn’t all filmed at muana loa.”

      I suspect that the famous 2001 filmmaker, whom his wife claimed did photo shoots for NASA, provided some photos that would so delight the public, and thus support funding for NASA, that persons in its PR department slipped them in along with the authentic ones. Then, when they were caught out, they and the top dogs at the agency itself, were too embarrassed and cowardly to admit it. They stonewalled, and relied on the extremism of the moon-landing-deniers to defeat their own cause.

      “I don’t trust any govt or bigbiz to have MY interests at heart.”

      I’m not that contrarian. My reaction to their claims is, “Yeah—maybe. We’ll see—or should see.” Their say-so is only provisional.

      • Building 7 was hit by and heavily damaged by one of the towers when it fell.
        There is nothing odd or unusual about it’s eventual collapse after internal fires further weakened the remaining supports.

        Nor was there anything wrong with the TWA 800 investigation.

        As to the quote about getting photos of the Apollo moon landing site. The moon is over 200,000 miles away. How big a lens were they planning on using.

  19. I find that graphic offensive,…

    icisil, you wrote some stuff after that, but really, who cares if you feel offended by that graphic? Aren’t you sick of everyone shouting out their personal sensitivities and brandishing them as a weapon against anyone else saying anything they might not like?
    I don’t know about you but I neither want to live in a world exclusively populated by infants in adult bodies, nor do I particularly want to be one myself.

    • I am intellectually offended, not emotionally offended. The people you’re talking about use emotional offense to subjugate others by centering the framing on themselves and their identity in order to accrue political power. I expressed my offense to try to encourage more intellectual honesty.

  20. Yesterday I had spent a couple of hours doing yard work since we finally have had a couple of rain free days (out of the last 50 or so). Heat index was well over 100 so as I was inside relaxing and cooling down, I turned on an episode of “The People’s Court”. I mention this only because after a case they were interviewing the loser who was a younger woman and her comments got my attention. When asked about how she felt in losing she said “I guess it is hard to explain the way I perceive things”. That’s when I realized the problem with a lot of what goes on with young people is that they have been allowed to believe that their perception of things overrules actual facts. That is why they are so easily swayed to things that look and sound good. And thus the anti-science war is being won by clever marketing not the facts. This further confirms my belief (or perception if you will) that the anti carbon side is doing an excellent marketing job in their endeavor to pollute the minds of young people. As they preach in Sales 101, you don’t sell the steak you sell the sizzle. And as we now see, less educated minds will always choose the sizzle.

    • It starts with teaching them what to think instead of how to think.
      I can recall a few decades back that there were stories of people objecting to teaching critical thinking skills to students.
      Fast forward 20 year…

  21. Takes time and mental effort to gain a reasonable overview of any big issue. The young are more readily amenable to accepting the overview from those who they perceive, or society presents as ‘Experts’ thereby reducing mental workload. Thats the reason that extreme political ideologies have traditionally targeted the young.

    After more than a decade of ZIRP and its consequences, most of which have impacted the <35 age group, its not really a surprise that we live in times that seem very favourable to those selling Utopianism 🙂

  22. Please be careful about “Flat Earthers”.
    When I was taking geophysics, I recall a story that if you could write a nonsense paper that seemed serious you would be invited to join the Flat Earth Society.
    One objective was that the UN should debate the installation of a fence along the edge. For obvious reasons.
    After all, the General Assembly had debated even greater nonsense than that.
    And remember, please.
    Our motto:
    We Are On The Level

  23. There are good reasons to be wary of open pollinated GMO crops .Also people should be free to choose which foods they eat , even when we disagree with there decisions. So if Lord Moncton chooses to swill down a five gallon bucket of bacon fat out of some delusional and ignorant belief about human nutrition that’s his privilege.

    • Typical. Pointing out that bacon grease is not a huge problem, the come back is always: Then eat huge amounts of it. If you can’t see the stupidity of such a come back, then you won’t have the wit to understand the scientific explanation regarding why you are wrong.

      As to the choice to eat GMO crops or not, I’ve never seen an anti-GMO activist who wasn’t demanding that all of it be banned.

  24. On another tack same but different, a sometime girl friend of mine since happily married to a mate of mine for many years was a Christian Scientist. They do not believe in surgical intervention and much other medical stuff. She died of breast cancer not so long ago poor love and tho’ everyone keeps quiet about it, it’s obvious to me that Christian Science killed her.

  25. Calling out the use of the term “climate denier” is a valid criticism, but calling them a communist front group is going off the deep end! What evidence do you have? How’s that any different from calling climate skeptics oil shills?

  26. As regards “homeopathy” it is a simple check that the founder himself based it on Kant’s Critique, which is hegemonic today in academic circles. It should be no surprise living systems turn up all kind of surprises.

    Check the work of Jacques Benveniste (1935-2004) the director of the immunology lab of France’s National In-stitute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), or even more importantly , L. Montagnier, J. Aissa, S. Ferris, J-L. Montagnier, C. Lavalee, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences,”

    There is no question that trying to derive life, and after all medicine deals with living systems, from non-life is both doomed to failure, and causes incredible controversies. Hahnemann’s homeopathy to be checked in this light.
    Kant simply can’t do it!

  27. Even if “Generation Atomic” is a neo-Communist front group, we shouldn’t deride everyone who favors nuclear power, since it can produce lots of power for a very low fuel cost and low CO2 emissions, although its capital cost is high. France, which has very little oil, gas, or coal resources, generates about 80% of its electricity using nuclear power plants, with hydro and coal providing the rest. France is dependent on foreign oil for its transportation fuel.

    People who are really worried about global warming due to CO2 emissions (even if the extent of the warming is exaggerated) should favor the development of nuclear power if they want to make scientific sense, since it is a proven, relatively safe technology with high energy density, and much cheaper than wind or solar. Germany probably made a huge mistake in shutting down its nuclear power plants in favor of wind and solar, especially for a country with mostly cloudy weather. Incidentally, radioactive wastes from France’s nuclear plants are buried in Germany!

    Many people have an unreasonable fear of nuclear power due to the incidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, but both incidents were due to faulty design (poor containment at Chernobyl, building the plant too close to sea level in a tsunami-prone area at Fukushima). Nuclear power can be very safe if the plants are properly designed and not placed in areas vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.

    The advent of fracking in the United States has increased the availability of relatively cheap oil and natural gas, but in countries lacking these resources, nuclear power should be a viable alternative.

  28. Homeopathic Doctors – Can it be tested with double blind studies? If “no” I’m not interested.
    Climate Deniers – Deny/Belief/Consensus? What have those got to do with science? Nothing!
    Flat Earther – No, I’m definitely a “spherical earther”.
    Anti Vaxxers – Smallpox vax was great & saved 3 million lives a year. Seasonal influenza vax? No thanks.
    Anti GMO – I’ll wait for long term human studies. Marker assisted selection is kicking butt on all the “crispr” and other techniques and is just accelerated selection not a splice process.
    Anti Nuclear – I don’t like the first gen but neither did the guy who invented it. They fired him because he would STFU about LFTR technology. That I think is great and the future.
    Moon Landing – We made it. There is a mirror there that you can test distance with a laser. Put there by Apollo and Lunokhod missions.

  29. I do not have a problem with people believing things that I think are absurd. I am sure there are hordes who think some my beliefs are equally absurd.

    What I do have a problem with are people who hold beliefs very strongly, sometimes so strongly that they are prepared to do harm.. because ‘the end justifies the means’

    • Another problem with generation moronic is they think they have a right to dictate what I can say. They also believe they can mindread me. For example, their mind-reading exploits lead them to think I’m in pay of fossil fuel. They believe everyone is motivated only by immediate financial gains; except them.

      Q: How did that happen? A: They are overwhelmingly motivated by the Bentham ethic – “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number”. But their ethical education is limited because they prioritise this one ethic above all others. Ethics such as truth seeking, honesty, respect, and promotion of human rights (such as free speech) fly out the window. They end up with “ends justify our means” tactics. Further promoted by a close knit “saving the world” groupthink engendering a sense of superiority. That makes it almost impossible to get through to them to explain how evil ends-justify-the-means is. They repeat the same errors made by Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Maoists, Castro, and other far leftists.

      “Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” — T.S. Eliot

  30. Homeopathic Doctors – Prince Charles swears by ’em. Lord Moncton swears at ’em.

    Climate Deniers – There’s no such thing as climate. We all know it’s just a fancy name for lots and lots of weather averaged over lots and lots of time—a totally imaginary concept; and the earth’s climate as opposed to local climate is doubly so. As for Climate Homeopathy—the doctrine that virtually homeopathic amounts of CO2 are the control knob of the earth’s so-called climate—that’s the unofficial state religion these days.

    Flat Earther – A concept marketed by the CIA to make people who doubted the findings of the Warren Commission appear deranged to the bulk of the general public. We all know the Earth is a rather crinkly oblate spheroid.

    Anti Vaxxers – The pharmaceutical industry’s equivalent of “climate deniers.” Regardless of whether some of them work some of the time or not, mandated vaccines today in the USA are one of biggest scams going. Al Gore campaigns for vaccines! On the other hand, RFK Jnr. campaigns against them!

    Anti GMO – Add sixty vaccine injections by the age of eighteen to a diet of GMO-rich nutrient-poor food liberally sprinkled with Roundup, and you get the average American adult with the average American diseases.

    Anti Nuclear – I think nuclear is great and the future. And I think anti-nuclear types are living in fantasy land, especially the ones who think we have a viable future running on so-called renewables.

    Moon Landing – I have no idea if that was real or fake. It’s not my story and I’m not emotionally invested in either believing it or denying it. If it is someone’s story and they’re happy with it, what’s the problem. As long as they aren’t trying to force me to be injected with heaven knows what gunk in the name of vaccination or force me to eat heaven knows what gunk soaked in Roundup in the name of GMO food, they can believe what they like.

    • “Anti GMO – Add sixty vaccine injections by the age of eighteen to a diet of GMO-rich nutrient-poor food liberally sprinkled with Roundup, and you get the average American adult with the average American diseases.”

      Gross hyperbole isn’t really helpful.

  31. Fourth-generation nuclear power is all for the good. Carbon-free cheap reliable power and it actually consumes the nuclear waste from previous nuclear power. It’s the answer.

  32. Meyer has no excuse for it either. I’m pretty certain I told him there is no signal for human warming in the climate records. The problem is pro-nuke activists and many younger nuclear engineers are mainstream Democrat and only a tiny number of these Democrats will publicly expose the lies behind the so-called settled science of the greenhouse gas effect speculation.

  33. It’s disappointing that posters who often display good critical thinking skills when it comes to climate, abandon those skills completely when it comes to health topics in general and vaccines in particular (as well as the larger related issue of understanding the causes of the ongoing health catastrophe in many supposedly “advanced” countries such as in North America and the UK.)
    I am fortunate to know people who seem quite knowledgeable on the details of vaccines so, for those with an open mind here is a brief sampler set of background points which need to be considered before any meaningful discussion can take place. As with the term “climate deniers”, the use of the term “Anti-vaxxer” immediately disqualifies someone from being among the small group of people who understand the complexity of the issue.

    – The people I know who are cautious on vaccines generally still agree that for the small subset of diseases which are likely to be fatal or to create permanent major damage, vaccines can have a positive risk/reward.
    – The risk/reward is not well-studied however due to (among other things) the lack of good long-term studies comparing unvaccinated, minimally vaccinated and maximally vaccinated populations for all health outcomes, however where such studies have been done (New Guinea?) the results indicate that vaccines are far from low risk.
    – A major concern is the development of autoimmune-like conditions due to the repeated activation of the immune system in a way that bypasses cell-mediated immunity as would occur if one is naturally exposed to the disease.
    – As seems to be accepted when it comes to vaccinating dogs, repeatedly triggering the immune system via an adjuvant will eventually lead to the development of autoimmune conditions, however there is no fixed number that creates risk other than “the fewer the better”.
    – In humans, there is a line of thought that people with poor digestion are at greater risk of vaccine complications and, to cite one possible mechanism, it makes sense that if someone had intestinal permeability (AKA ‘leaky gut”) they would be at greater risk since if the gut is allowing “foreign” matter into the bloodstream, the vaccine could create a form of immunity toward that food (a food sensitivity) in addition to what was in the vaccine itself. Said differently, there is no guarantee that the vaccine will only create immunity toward what is in the vaccine, especially in the case of a person with unhealthy digestion, which is likely the case for a high percentage of people.
    – For those of us that are occasionally vaccinated against truly risky diseases (e.g. Yellow fever) it would be good to know what pre-cautionary steps we could take to minimize the risks such as befell the famous Doctor from the UK (Martin Gore) who died as a result of the Yellow Fever vaccine last year, however shutting down conversation on the topic (as well as on Vaccine injuries to infants) further prevent people from making good decisions based on a well-researched understanding of the true short and long-term risks.

    There is lots more that could be said but using derogatory language like “anti-vaxxer” which reveals a total lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues, the potential risks involved (which can be far greater that many of the fairly mild diseases being vaccinated against ), and the lack of good long-term safety evidence or knowledge of how to minimize risks, is no better than smearing anyone who thinks critically about climate science and policy as a “denier”.

  34. This puerile behaviour of the vain narcissist, Monckton of Brenchley, shows that he is completely anti scientific.

    I am a climate skeptic/realist what you will.

    I am also skeptical that current vaccination schedules, particularly in the USA, are safe for all children. I wm Monckton of Brenchley is aware that idiodyncratic drug reactions caused severe illness and/or death to <0.1% of patients prescribed certain drugs, leading to several withdrawals from the market despite efficacy for the 99%+ of other patients. It would be anti-scientific in the extreme not to be open to the concept that such adverse reactions may also occur post vaccinations.

    I stated nearly 20 years ago that looking for genetic markers predicating adverse reactions to vaccinations was a worthwhile scientific effort as it could provide simple teste to eliminate at risk children from vaccination were such tests to turn out to be reliable. I did not suggest banning all vaccinations, but nor would I accept GSK/Merck et al teaming up with BMA bullies to brook no arguments that everything has to be safe because they said so. The overall approach to skeptical evaluation of vaccines is completely unft for purpose as it is the seller doing the regulatory due diligence. Everyone knows that big pharma push to the absolute limits and consider deaths to be Acceptable Collateral Damage if they do not get financially hammered as a result.

    Let us be clear that both mercury and aluminium are known toxins to nerve cells and both have been or are currently used in vaccine adjuvants. The cumulatives doses after 12+ vaccinations is worrying. Being skeptical is not calling for blanket bans, it is calling for regulation to put patient first, not big pharma profits.

    Exactly the same can be said about GMO. GMO ideologues are like climate alarmists: they demand that everyone agrees with their views and want to make all commercial crops sterile to take permanent control of global seed inventories. I have no tolerance for Monsanto saying that their research must be taken as the approach to regulation. I want people doing that testing who are independent, skeptical but scientifically rigorous. Monsanto are going to rig every single trial to push rapid global uptake, because they are a for-profit entity. Their profits mean nothing to me. Nothing. They are unreliable because they have a permanent conflict of interest. It shocks me that Monckton is so lacking in basic scientific knowledge that he is not fully of this.

    I want Monckton to tell Putin in a very public place that he is anti-science, and anti-capitalism as he has positioned Russia as a global leader of non-GMO food. I remain confident that Putin will give him his just desserts, using his judo expertise to throw him to the floor and pin him down with extreme ruthlessness. I would suggest that he sterilises his own children to ensure he gets control of global sperm banks. I am sure his familial relationships will not be unduly affected…

    GMO crops have been pushed since 1990 just like the IPCC has pushed climate nonsense. Monckton would do well to ponder on that….

    I am not anti-nuclear per se, but I do not believe for one moment that Governments and corporations have ever been honest about handling radioactive waste, nuclear accidents and the like. I would rather use clean coal technology than dodgy nuclear, but if 21st century technology is reliable then I am not anti nuclear in principle.

    I have never been a flat earther, but I do not believe for one second the official 9/11 pantomime. Three towers fell by controlled demolition, the only question is using whose technology, on whose orders and for whose benefit.

    As for homoeopathy, I have seen no evidence to make me become an afficionado, but there were times when acupuncture was scorned. It is now mainstream. So if homoeopathy can demonstrate that it actually works using independent rigorous trials,, I do not have a problem considering it.

    All of which says that I do not ever say 'XXX said YYY, so it must be true.'

Comments are closed.