More rending of garments.
There’s a lot of bad science papers out there, but this may be a hall of famer.
nature human behavior presents:
Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
It is clearly written by “social science” “researchers” whose knowledge of the underlying subject matter is on a level of grade school indoctrination. Well…high school these days. Here is the abstract, emphasis mine.
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors—scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions—to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants’ climate change beliefs (δ = −0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = −0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = −0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = −0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
That stupid public discourse and all those knuckle-dragging morons who dare, actually dare to doubt our sacred SETTLED SCIENCE®
The paper gives the standard party line, citing the IPPCC, Orekes, and Lewandosky, about sacred truths and evil disinformation.
The sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unequivocally declared that climate change is real and that humans are driving it1,2. Whereas 97–99% of climate scientists agree about the human causation of climate change3,4,5, one third of the global population doubts or denies its anthropogenic roots6,7,8. This can be traced back to half a century of disinformation by the climate change countermovement, comprising fossil fuel corporations and their front groups, scientists-for-hire and lobbied politicians, who have contested climate science and are now delaying necessary climate mitigation actions9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. This multi-million-dollar public relations effort18,19,20,21,22 operates mainly via popular communication avenues3,23,24, such as traditional25,26,27 and social media28,29,30, to shape climate discourse and political decision-making17,29. Their claims take up legitimate concerns that people express—such as high costs or uncertain efficacy of climate action—but qualify as disinformation because these concerns are intentionally distorted and amplified into misleading claims31,32 such as bad-faith questioning of the scientific consensus33, overemphasizing the socio-financial burden of climate mitigation policies14,34 and scaremongering citizens into inaction through climate doomism14. Unfortunately, climate disinformation can be more persuasive than scientifically accurate information35,36,37,38 (see also ref. 39).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
So, with no understanding of how scientific skepticism actually functions, the authors then launch into their assertions about how and why people think they do.
People process scientific messages not as neutral information processors but rather by weighing the messages against their prior convictions40,41,42,43,44,45, against desired outcomes46,47,48,49, against affective associations50,51 and through the lens of their sociocultural and ideological contexts52,53,54,55 (see reviews in refs. 56,57,58,59,60). When these psychological factors are misaligned with scientific information about climate change, antiscience beliefs fester39,61 and become resistant to correction57. Two recent reviews offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on how (dis)information and (anti)science beliefs hinge on different communicational bases and psychological drivers. Philipp-Muller and colleagues61 identified the different communicational bases on which (anti)science beliefs can build: the sources of scientific messages, the scientific messages themselves, the recipients of the scientific messages and the recipients’ epistemic style. In parallel, Ecker and colleagues57 grouped the psychological drivers influencing (dis)information belief formation and revision into cognitive and socio-affective drivers, depending on the psychological pathways they act on to facilitate or hinder belief formation and updating. Overall, both analyses affirmed that people’s capacity and motivation to process information and disinformation—(dis)information henceforth—is conditional to the (mis)alignment of scientific information about climate change with specific communicational and/or psychological factors57,61.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
Here we adapt these factors to construct a comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating (Table 1). In this framework, the processing of scientific (dis)information is mapped onto its core communicational bases61: sources, messages and recipients. These communicational bases are the entry points62 where different psychological factors can influence (anti)science belief formation and updating through cognitive or socio-affective pathways57.
Table 1 Comprehensive framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
| Core communicational bases | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of scientific messages | Scientific messages themselves | Recipients of scientific messages | |||
| Psychological drivers | Cognitive pathway | Driver | Consideration of scientific sources | Match/mismatch with prior beliefs | (Lack of) analytical thinking and/or deliberation |
| Proposed intervention | Scientific consensus inoculation | Transparent communication inoculation | Accuracy inoculation | ||
| Socio-affective pathway | Driver | Trust in scientific sources | Match/mismatch with moral convictions | Emotional state during message processing | |
| Proposed intervention | Trust inoculation | Moralization inoculation | Positive emotions inoculation | ||
- The table shows the interplay between the communicational bases and psychological drivers of (anti)science belief formation and updating, and the theory-based psychological inoculations designed to address each entry point. Note that the boundaries between the cognitive and socio-affective pathways are permeable, and the effects of most interventions meant to address one pathway will very probably spill out to the other pathway of scientific (dis)information processing. For example, we consider the transparent communication inoculation to act on the cognitive driver ‘match/mismatch with prior beliefs’; however, its effects can spill over towards the socio-affective driver ‘trust in scientific sources’112,113.
Wandering through the citations scattered throughout this paper will probably spawn a future post or two from me, but there’s plenty here for multiple PhD’s is someone wants to research the construction of alternate realities based on academic nonsense as well as the crossover subject of institutional capture.
Comedy writers or jargon generators couldn’t do better. Put down your coffee before reading the next quote box.
In summary, here we integrated previous analyses into a comprehensive framework of the communicational and psychological factors influencing (anti)science belief formation and updating. On the basis of this integrated, theory-driven perspective, we introduce a set of broad-spectrum psychological inoculations to protect against climate disinformation that act on each of the identified entry points and pathways:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
- A scientific consensus inoculation explaining that among climate scientists there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change
- A trust inoculation making salient the trustworthiness of IPCC scientists in terms of climate change science and mitigation actions
- A transparent communication inoculation addressing the pros and cons of climate mitigation action
- A moralization inoculation creating a stronger link between climate mitigation actions and the diversity of moral convictions
- An accuracy inoculation reorienting participants towards judging incoming information by its factual accuracy
- A positive emotions inoculation eliciting positive emotions towards climate mitigation actions
Table 2 Text of the six inoculations
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
| Cognitive inoculation | Socio-affective inoculation |
|---|---|
| Scientific consensus inoculation | Trust inoculation |
| When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC, the most comprehensive review on the scientific agreement behind climate change and climate action, found that among thousands of climate scientists with the highest degrees of expertise ‘there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change’. Studies have shown that the consensus about anthropogenic climate change among expert scientists ranges from 97% to 99%. IPCC scientists from all cultural backgrounds and nations stated in the report that ‘It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and they are in agreement that urgent climate action is needed for a better planet and society. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC is the most authoritative scientific body in the world assessing the knowledge about climate change and climate action and that the majority of citizens of multiple countries trust scientists. Climate scientists have the highest degrees of expertise and are committed to open and transparent review by other scientists and governments around the world, and value rigorous and balanced scientific information above all else. IPCC scientists come from all cultural backgrounds and nations, to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise in their work and to ensure an objective and complete assessment of the scientific evidence about climate change, to recommend actions and policies for a better planet and society. |
| Transparent communication inoculation | Moralization inoculation |
| When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists are open about the fact that climate actions will require substantial funding and a significant overhaul of our way of life to keep our planet livable. They also disclosed that there is some uncertainty about if and how these climate actions may reduce our quality of life, but they still concluded with confidence that limiting irreversible climate-induced risks with climate action is less risky than not acting at all. Acting is hard, they admit, but it is through these scientifically supported actions that we can protect our planet, reduce inequality, and generate sustainable growth. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC scientists provide valuable and authoritative advice about actions that our communities and nations must take to responsibly keep our planet livable for us and for future generations. As citizens of this earth, we have a moral responsibility to protect our homeland and our community from climate-induced risks and harms, and to stop defiling our pristine natural environment. Through these scientifically supported actions, we can protect our planet, create a more just and fair society with decent living conditions for everyone, and generate sustainable growth beneficial for us, our nations, the world, and generations to come. |
| Accuracy inoculation | Positive emotions inoculation |
| When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that it is important to be able to accurately recognize these misinformation to avoid being influenced by them. One good strategy to distinguish between good and bad information is to ask yourself: ‘do I think this information is accurately describing the state of the science of climate change? Is this information not at all accurate, not very accurate, somewhat accurate, or very accurate?’. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, think about this accuracy question to get in the right frame of mind. | When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that climate actions are vital actions that will keep our planet livable for the next generation. Actions such as eating delicious and healthy meals with a lower carbon footprint or taking a bike ride instead of getting stuck in traffic are scientifically supported ways to make you happier and more fulfilled in your daily life. When you evaluate the information you see on any media about climate change, imagine the positive changes you can create with climate action, and think about how good you will feel when doing so. |
Here’s the kicker. This is their table of disinformation, most of which is true.
Table 3 The 20 climate disinformation statements and their coding
From: Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries
| Coding | Disinformation tweet |
|---|---|
| Science_1 | As more wind and solar are added they raise electricity prices and destabilize electric grids. Because they are part-time unreliable weather dependent sources. We want full-time electricity. Not part-time like third world countries. All for silly expensive net zero. CA pays more. |
| Science_2 | The current exceptional warming and cooling your seeing is due to the location of the Jet Stream. It’s become very wavy due to the lack of Solar Energy going into the Oceans and nothing to do with Man Made CO2 |
| Science_3 | Today’s ‘global warming’ is estimated to be an otherwise unmeasurable 0.4°C (0.72°F) over the 1979-2000 average… despite 50% of all manmade emissions. No 2022 weather event was unprecedented or can be blamed on CO2 emissions. |
| Science_4 | This is a portrait of climate fraud, posturing as the saviours of the world. They are a breed of crooks, getting rich by ripping off gullible western nations. The UN led climate hoax has been running since 1988. They want us to believe a pack of lies about earth’s climate. |
| Science_5 | Too often, academic reports on climate use highly skewed data that seem to have been carefully selected to support aggressive environmental regulations. One recent and much-cited Lancet report appears deliberately deceptive. |
| Science_6 | The climate hoax devised by the UN, supported by rich elitists is endorsed by our treacherous leaders is an attack on freedoms & rights. Climate cultism is a form of global self hatred. It aims to punish western nations by transferring huge reparations to the developing world. |
| Science_7 | Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are ‘Mathematically Impossible’ |
| Science_8 | Lots of links of studies of the Medieval Warm Period that climate science deniers (alarmists) want to pretend did not exist. Because there is no explanation for natural warming during this time. Studies point out temp was warmer back then, than now. |
| Science_9 | According to global warming theory the poles should warm significantly if carbon dioxide is driving temperatures Just the opposite is occurring in the southern hemisphere. |
| Science_10 | The evidence for manmade climate change is so thin they cannot debate it. They hide behind the lie of consensus. There is no room for consensus in science. The basis is a provable hypothesis. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves manmade CO2 is causing warming. |
| Action_1 | At Climate Summit, Elites Chow Down on Gourmet Meats While Telling Us to Eat Bugs |
| Action_2 | FACT CHECK Results of the Biden administration’s extreme climate agenda cutting emissions by 44% by 2030. Annual Jobs Lost: 1.2 MILLION. Lost Economic Growth: $7.7 TRILLION. Increase in Electric Bills: 23% Increase in Gas Prices: 2$ PER YEAR |
| Action_3 | The war on ‘fossil fuels’ is absurd considering the vast fields of coal/oil/gas everywhere on earth. The mantle is brimming over with it. A United Nations bid for control, cash & power has led to an energy crisis that looms as the biggest self-inflicted disaster in human history. |
| Action_4 | Death and privation caused by the lack of affordable energy caused by Green Energy policies will not affect the Elites at all. They want us to eat bugs, do a lot less as they carry on with their lives just as they are doing now. Climate scamsters. They should lead by example. |
| Action_5 | You are lying. Fossil fuels gave us cheap energy for decades so billions live longer healthier happier lives. Many technologies like carbon capture, filters fuel additives etc reduces emissions. Banning fossil fuels is creating fuel poverty and harming people |
| Action_6 | Energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet. |
| Action_7 | Imagine sacrificing 500 high-paying coal jobs, ranging up to $60,000/yr, for the climate hoax. Even if you believe in the hoax, global emissions are up 5% from pre-pandemic levels — 90% because of China. Emissions from a single mine are insignificant. |
| Action_8 | Europe’s transition to renewable energy and net zero carbon is not working, except to make life hard on average European citizens. |
| Action_9 | Willfully-blind ignorance about the consequences of [the rush to green policies] – deep recessions, broken societies and millions more going hungry – doesn’t make them any less immoral. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bingo. |
| Action_10 | Solar and wind are far more expensive than established reliable stable secure electricity from pure hydro coal gas nuclear. That’s why your shift to unreliable, unstable, expensive solar and wind; is devastating families; and exporting manufacturing jobs |
The rest of the article is, standard sociology focus group discussion masquerading as a useful statistical psychological analysis, some caterwauling about personality traits, especially conservative politics, frustration that their attempt at blatant indoctrination had a negligible effect.
In summation, they hope their fauxearch will lead to actual results if someone does a better job at indoctrinating or manipulating people.
While the psychological inoculations evaluated in this Registered Report were of limited efficacy, the framework proposed here can be helpful to systematize future psychological inoculation research to fight climate disinformation. It may generate new psychological inoculations, which can result in more systematic research192 on psychological inoculations, their moderators and climate-relevant outcomes. For example, one of the reviewers suggested developing a ‘pluralistic ignorance’ inoculation, whereby participants are made aware that most of their peers support climate mitigation action, and that awareness should increase support of climate action193,194. Many-labs and mega-studies approaches, promising recent frameworks for systematically creating and testing multiple interventions195,196,197 with large sample sizes that could help the detection of small intervention effects, can be applied to test sets of theory-guided psychological inoculation strategies against a validated set of climate disinformation statements, measuring climate-relevant outcomes and mapping the heterogeneity generated by model-identified individual differences. Such a combination could produce the next generation of psychological inoculations, which may yield better protection from climate disinformation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01736-0
Read the whole paper yourself and use it as more evidence for cutting off federal funds to universities.
What was the expression? Not knowing your elbow from your ar?e.
“Troglodytes”
Probably that’s why.
Also proper sources.
Many people here have a scientific, mathematical, and/or engineering based education FAR above anything these Social Science troglodytes would ever be capable of.
We know who the gormless know-nothing clowns are… try not to be one of them.
Calling people who disagree Troglodytes still won’t help your cause, no matter your education.
And a lot of stuff postet here isn’t properly sourced, as I have pointed out in the past.
Mr. name: h/t the good, bad, & ugly- “There are two types of people in the world, my friend, those who call you a troglodyte to your face, and the “disinformation” specialists who talk in word salads and treat you like a troglodyte.” The folks who wrote the article think you are far more stupid than we can ever think, enjoy.
Do you often catch yourself wagging your index finger in peoples’ faces as you talk to them, MyUsername?
Or maybe envisioning yourself at a lectern delivering the sermon from the almighty (a.k.a. John Kerry)?
Having a gormless little brain-washed child wag its snotty little finger at me.
Oh the hurt !! 🙂
You totally missed the point of the title- it’s mocking what the climate whack jobs are saying about skeptics. Not what we’re saying about the climate whack jobs. We have many other terms for them. 🙂
You mean like climate whack jobs?
Or you can go ‘Old School’. “What a bunch of Laputa’s”. From Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift published anonymously in 1726.
From Wiki
Laputa’s population consists mainly of educated people, who are fond of mathematics, astronomy, music and technology, but fail to make practical use of their knowledge. Servants make up the rest of the population.
The Laputans have mastered magnetic levitation and discovered the two moons of Mars (which in reality would not be discovered for another 150 years). However, they are unable to construct well-designed clothing or buildings, because they take measurements with instruments such as quadrants and a compass rather than with tape measures.
Laputa is a male-dominated society. Wives often request to leave the island to visit the land below; however, these requests are almost never granted because the women who leave Laputa never want to return. The clothes of Laputans, which do not fit, are decorated with astrological symbols and musical figures. They spend their time listening to the music of the spheres. They believe in astrology and worry constantly that the sun will go out. The Laputan houses, he notices, are badly built, without accurate right angles. The Laputan women are highly sexed and adulterous, preferring men from the island of Balnibarbi. The Laputan husbands, who are so abstracted in mathematical and musical calculations, don’t know that their wives are adulterous.
Due to their fervent intellectual pursuits, Laputans are also depicted as becoming so lost in thought that they do not move unless struck by a “bladder”, many of their heads have become stuck reclined to one side, and they often suffer from strabismus: one eye turns inward and the other looks up “to the zenith.” The Laputans’ oddly-focused eyes are Swift’s parodies of the microscope and telescope. So intent are the Laputans in their scientific studies that they cannot function in the everyday world, or even perceive it.
You poor child.
Using the word “disinformation” when you are basically a scientific illiterate, makes you look like a gormless know-nothing clown.
You seem to have chosen that status.
If you’re tired of pointing things out, you can always just leave.
Keeps pointing to his own a**e…..
Has not presented one meaningful comment since he took griff’s place.
Is that a new word… postet?
“And a lot of stuff postet here isn’t properly sourced, as I have pointed out in the past.” source ?
Even the trusted sources of the past have been corrupted by the constant media “climate change” news blitz.
Says the guy who specializes in insulting everyone who disagrees with it.
The only thing you have ever pointed out regarding sourcing, is to whine whenever a source you disagree with is used.
You mean like using Al Gore and Mickey Mann’s “science” stuff.
Al Gore, he who lauded his ‘beloved mentor’ Prof Revelle, who indoctrinated him into global warming. But when Revelle, retired and announced he was wrong on global warming due to NASA’s satellite evidence, Gore referred to him as a ‘senile old man’.
Meanwhile your lack of support of this stupidly conceived paper goes noticed.
Cheers.
You must be related to John Kerry. Stupid comments are his epitaph.
That’s why I like WUWT. I’ve debated with climate nut jobs- and by comparison to the level of intelligence I see here- there’s no comparison. The climate nut jobs are children by comparison.
WUWT – a candle in the endless darkness.
Yes, I find a lot more meaningful and knowledgeable discussions here than anywhere else.
Your comment is lame.
I’m pretty sure the paper doesn’t use the term “troglodyte” or “troglodytes.”
That’s just some snark in the title of the post.
Once again I see you have not actually bothered to read anything you might disagree with.
I have never in my life seen such a pathetic set of arguments and remedies for anything no less climate change. The list of disinformation and actions is great, we should publish it as a projection of the researchers into reality.
One has to wonder whether this is to correct the researchers own cognitive dissonance regarding “Climate Change”? They need to be working for the Babylon Bee.
My take as well.
Their report is more like The National Lampoon, which was nastier and more mean spirited.
Those of us here, can rest knowing that sooner or later–hopefully sooner rather than later–reality will bite them in the rear.
“a set of broad-spectrum psychological inoculations”
AKA Indoctrination. The list of “misinformation” is so good it hard to see how it did not convince them.
Remember the research on how to get the population to follow Covid restrictions/vaccinations??
Well they tell you..
For example take “”” Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions Are ‘Mathematically Impossible’”””
(actually I think Schmidt said “highly implausible” and they got it wrong), but then take
“””When confronted with such misleading information about the science of climate change and the actions to mitigate it, remember that the IPCC, the most comprehensive review on the scientific agreement behind climate change and climate action, found that among thousands of climate scientists with the highest degrees of expertise ‘there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change’. Studies have shown that the consensus about anthropogenic climate change among expert scientists ranges from 97% to 99%. IPCC scientists from all cultural backgrounds and nations stated in the report that ‘It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and they are in agreement that urgent climate action is needed for a better planet and society. “””
Now do you trust Schmidt when he says as an expert there are problems with models or do we not trust this climate expert and thus refuse the inoculation!?
This would be funny if it wouldnt be so sad.. how did that ever get through review? Someone really should write the journal . .
In spite of well conducted research proving psychological “academic” literature is rife with irreproducible drivel, the usual suspects continue to fill the pages with nonsense in order to reduce human society’s collective IQ. This report is likely of no use to anyone except as pig feed but let’s see if we can’t at least spruce up the abstract:
“We conducted an entirely unscientific exercise to prove that despicable propaganda techniques can’t convince people with critical thinking skills to believe what we all believe, and to act with the same irrational suicidal abandon that we advocate in social policy. We will have to find some more coercive way to achieve compliance.”
“In summation, they hope their fauxearch will lead to actual results if someone does a better job at indoctrinating or manipulating people.”
Just like socialism, they just haven’t found the right people to do it RIGHT!
“Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence.… Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time.…
In our long striving to recover for the Western world a unity of sensibility and of thought and feeling we have no more been prepared to accept the tribal consequences of such unity than we were ready for the fragmentation of the human psyche by print culture.”
Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy, The Making of Typographic Man, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1962.pp 157-158
“Almost no protective effect from the inoculations”.
Perhaps they should consider why:
It is not possible to inoculate from reality. Foolish to try. ‘No protective effect’.
One might simply put it this way:
PROPAGANDA is NOT an INOCULATION from REALITY.
It was for myusername.
Mr Istvan: It is not possible to inoculate from reality, but they realized that if they used the word “sedate”, people might be wary. And from reading above, 1) sedating us is what they prefer, but 2) they chose their words very carefully, so as to not alarm the patient (us).
their “inoculations” didn’t work just like the covid shot didn’t work … and for the same basic reason
…
they tried to treat something that is not a real problem … spikes and “climate change”
Slight disagreement. At the beginning, COVI19 was a serious disease for the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes and obesity. Diagnosed by ‘ground glass’ X-rays of deep lung tissue. Bad. But it was always destined to mutate toward higher transmissability and lower morbidity. That is how viruses evolve to survive.
By the time the novel mRNA vaccines were available, it was merely a bad URI ‘cold’. No vaccine was by then needed, but the push anyway was unbelievable. And the rushed so inadequately tested novel vaccines turned out to have bad side effects like myocarditis. Not a good look.
And Fauci should be strung up. Not only did he fund the gain of function research at Wuhan (likely origin) via cutout EvoHealth, he lied to Congress by denying it (each incident punishable by up to 5 years in prison), and advocated masks even after we knew the virus was at least partly aerosolized and there was a mountain of experimental evidence saying masks would therefore not work.
A vaccine that didn’t work as advertised was really not needed, and turned out to be downright dangerous. And it is the same folks–social scientist do-gooders–who want us to believe everything else they have to say. Thanks but no thanks.
The first time anyone in the west heard of the COVID virus was when pictures were leaked out of China, showing how hospitals in the Wuhan region having to store patients on gurneys in the hallways, because all of their rooms were full.
Aww, and like every other pickshur wiff collors, Marky fully believed thosed posed foties of ded peeple taking selfies in their cadaver bags.
How long did you parrot the bat-soup crappola, Marky? Or waz you also turned away from them overflowing hoppitalls wiff alla da ded boddies lying around?
Puerile little twit.
Mr. cilo: Can you post a single instance of Mr. W parroting bat soup crapola? Outta left field.
What color is the sky in your world? Assuming it even has one.
He wouldn’t know. Can’t see the sky from his mom’s basement.
Yep, and if you have not already read about it , see the case of the 500 billion dollar man on the high-wire( court case on alternative covid treatment- early covid era) legal case . Really shows how evil the government has become. This is truly a larger battle now – good against evil. ( useful idiots are easily recruited for the “ evil “ side. Be it COVID or climate or whatever.
There’s a certain type of person who will believe absolutely anything, except the truth. The simpler and easier to explain something true is, the less likely those people are to believe it. 9/11, the moon landings, Earth is a sphere, Kristen shot J.R…
Even in fiction, when an author spells out precisely how an event played out and how the characters figured it out, some people refuse to accept it and go off on a fantastical explanation of how they think it went, and they’re *serious about it*, not just engaging in playful whimsy.
It is and never was a vaccine in the usual usage of that word.
However, by agreeing to continue agreeing with each other, the all knowing consensus has proven that all of those things have happened.
By insisting on clinging to something as unreliable as data, you have proven that you are resistant to the consensus and hence need to be re-educated.
Well, I for one think the current state of climate science is much worse than just a few failed predictions (to which I would add the fact that according the McCarthy and Caesar wrote 6 weeks ago:
“both the magnitude of the trend in the AMOC over different time periods and often even the sign of the trend differs between observations and climate model ensemble mean, with the magnitude of the trend difference becoming even greater when looking at the CMIP6 ensemble compared to CMIP5.”)
If Alimonti and Marian are correct “that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events” or McShane and Wyner have a point that “the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.”
there are serious problems for attribution studies (of which the authors cant even tell us why they got it wrong!) or the value of proxy reconstructions.
CMIP6 models show very clearly that CMIP5 and older got the clouds wrong (a far bigger problem than a hot spot somewhere in the arctic oceans or tropical troposphere)
So what is the current factual basis of climate science? CMIP6 models are good? Measured by what metrics? The same ones which gave a pass to older models with wrong clouds?
Should I mention that the CO2-cycle model looks different in any IPCC report so far? But they all have in common that the highest decay amplitude is always connected to the shortest residence time in the atmosphere, if needed to
!! humans could turn back the CO2-clock a few decades within a few years that is what IPCC science clearly shows !!
Nothing any climate researcher said in the last decades can escape these few critical published studies! (And personally I really like McKitrick showing that attribution math is fundamentally flawed)
Almost all the climate models have been hotter than the actual weather. Good models are over and under the actual outcome. It shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the models.
Yes, but if you AVERAGE the bad models you get a GOOD result!!
sarc
Thank you for holding your nose and weeding through this cesspool of “research” because it is a great example of the nonsense used to support the great transition.
Sensible people will get innoculated against the mind mush artists at Nature Human Behaviour
One pseudo science trying to justify another pseudo science.
Mr. Leskovar: Yes, it’s pseudo all the way down to the turtles.
I’m so sorry but I’m going to descend to their level ##
Forgive me
But I am never going to be convinced of anything by someone answering to the name of:
Toby SpamBurger
This is Monty Python. and Spam Fritters (close but not quite) are to die for if done properly
https://www.dontgobaconmyheart.co.uk/spam-fritters/
(##) The oldest ‘trick’ in the school playground=
i.e. If someone doesn’t agree with you it’s patently because they are mentally deranged
How do they not realise that?
Spam, wonderful spam….
Spam pattie. dipped in batter… fried, with tomato sauce.
Remember it well from when my parents were “breadliners” many, many years ago
Mr. Peta: I noticed that, too, in fact they all look like made-up names. Who’d want to put his or her real name on that tortured bit of psychobabble?
Tobia Spampatti (0000-0003-0714-6494) – ORCID
It appears to be real.
His parents must’ve hated him to give him a name like that.
Oh… to be a spam pattie!
Consider the first name spelled backwards is AI bot.
My initial reaction was, takes ten years to develop a proper inoculation, right? But that last one, Positive Emotions inoculation (PEi) has been in development ever since the Japanese built a bridge on the river Kwai. “Be happy in your work!” said the Colonel, and boy did that bridge get built! As they improve their communications of these disinfo-busting points, their world view will come into focus- they are the guards, we are the bridge builders. This time, officers (like our host) work extra hard.
I was under the impression that PEi’s were psychedelic drugs? Or did the Beatles go wrong at some point? sarc
Actually the whole movie was misleading. The real bridge was metal and at no point did the conditions in the camp improve. If you want something to compare it too, Himmler would be a far better example.
Mr. Dena: What movie??
Try laughter, it might loosen you up.
Weren’t you referring to “The Bridge on the River Kwai”?
Old one: I cleverly left out reference to the movie to setup the exchange!
Obviously, I was referencing the movie, but the accuracy of such detail had nothing to do with my comment. I couldn’t resist a bit of ridicule to make the point.
There were two bridges, first a wooden bridge, then the one with several steel spans on concrete pillars. They were across a branch of the Mae Klong river which was near the Khwae Noi river. Khwae means river, tributary, or stream, noi means small. English speakers often mispronounce Khwae as “kwai” which means buffalo in Thai.
So “River Khwae” would be river river or river tributary.
Due to the popularity of the book and movie, in 1960 the Mae Klong got renamed to Kwahe Yai or Big River from its origin to where the Kwahe Noi joins it.
The wooden railroad bridge was repaired and used for a time as a vehicle and pedestrian bridge after WW2. I haven’t found when it was removed. The concrete and steel bridge is still in use, with one span having a different style, having been replaced by Japan as part of war reparations, nevermind they built it and allied bombers blew it up.
The wooden bridge looked nothing like the one in the movie.
So, was Higgins in the original Magnum P.I. building a model of the movie bridge because he really wasn’t a POW there and didn’t know what it looked like, or was he really a POW and building a model of the movie bridge because nobody except people who were there would know what the real bridge was like? “Nice bridge model. Which one is it?” “The bridge over the Mae Klong where I was a prisoner of war in the second world war.” “The may what river?” “Oh, pardon. It was renamed Kwahe Yai in 1960.” “Ohhhh, the Kwai River! I love that movie. Heyyy, your model doesn’t look anything like the real bridge.”
Easier to make a model of the movie bridge and not have to deal with the clueless.
The 20 climate misinformation statements are, for the most part, excellent statements of what we believe I’m shocked that they were willing to present them in a way that makes us seem reasonable. The bit about cultural elitists pushing climate change is self-evidently correct, which might lead people to believe that maybe the rest of those statements are true as well.
So, what you are saying is this May Be another scam paper publishes to show how poorly “peer review” works?
Or a thinly veiled attempt to pass off some AI generated nonsense as something real.
Yes, this bit –
was stated openly by UN official Ottmar Edenhoffer.
Do they want us to believe the UN’s position on climate change or not?
The so-called social sciences are not science. Their use of mathematics is mere camouflage. Their results are not reproducible except via things like confirmation bias. Perhaps the worst is the pretense that Political Science is anything more than opinions founded on nothing.
The social sciences don’t have anything to do with the chemistry and physics of this debate. The really important part of the argument is that the climatistas are in league with the federal government. AGW is accepted as a fact by Uncle Sam and his army of bureaucratic elves must agree with the assessment or hit the road. John Kerry would be home watching soap operas if he wasn’t scolding the proles for flying from Boston to Naples to kick back for few days. Probably as far south as one can go since the Florida Keys must be submerged by now. By the way, Las Vegas betting parlors are giving even money odds that Kerry wears a wig.
The physical sciences of chemistry and physics have relatively little to do with the debate. Most of the noise is coming from the social scientists who know nothing much about nearly everything.
The noise is based on and perpetuated by academia. Their “discoveries” are amplified and broadcast by media, government and opportunistic entrepreneurs. Many climatistas move back and forth between all four factions. The social commentators are those with no credentials other than “concern”. Greta Thunberg is a prime example. She has no credibility.
In fact, what really drives the issue is no kind of science. It’s all about money, especially in the US, where everything has a price tag.
So name one homo sapiens social construct where it is not all about money, i.e., what it takes to survive.
As I’ve been saying for years, whenever you see the word “social” being used as a modifier, you could replace “social” with “not” and be equally accurate.
Social science equals Not science.
Social justice equals Not justice.
It would be far more honest.
I’m quite disturbed by the frequent use of the word ‘inoculation’. I’m about up to HERE with inoculations right now.
“ Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled….”
That’s all I needed to read in order to discern propaganda from objectivity.
Wow! I learned something! The list of ‘anti science’ misinformation they give, shows that they are very aware of the objections of thoughtful sceptics. I didn’t know that. After all, they don’t have
scientific knowledge to understand the science, so they rely only on trusting what they are told by the consensus.
Remember the consensus burnt all those witches in Europe and America in the 15th century because of the bad weather and a pandemic. Maybe if we could waylay them on the pathways and find the right way to inoculate them we could get them to see the truth.
Mr. Pearse: A very good point, proving that they are willfully blind, not merely befuddled.
Alot of excrement piled mountain-high there. One short but appropriate response to it would be “Stop the bullsh*t now.”
https://youtu.be/jvujypVVBAY
Just Stop It
All you peasants need are sturdy sandals, so GIVE until it hurts! Funny how they get all twisted in knots about those of us who do not do/believe as we are told.
Wow, sounds like a “papal bull”.
The IPCC was explicitly set up to push that message, I would be incredibly surprised had they not declared it.
The UN also has the loudest voice on the planet.
> “Accuracy inoculation”
I have so many rejoinders it is hard to know where to begin. I’m pretty sure if the true accuracy of climate “science” were laid out the entire field of inquiry would be relegated to that of astrology.
It’s Kafkaesque.
“A scientific consensus inoculation explaining that among climate scientists there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change”
I don’t think that anyone here or in general society disagrees with this, either. The most obvious human influence is the UHI and land use changes (for instance, snowfall on Kilimanjaro has decreased as the forests around the base of the mountain have been cut down).
Where we disagree is, among other things, the magnitude. Eight billion humans are of course going to have -some- impact, but the government’s own data shows that we are playing a bit role, observed climate change is much smaller and less consequential than the divine models predicted (nearly every prediction so far has been proven dramatically wrong), they keep adjusting the data and methodologies, and the world is far more productive in terms of agriculture and the biosphere as a whole (global greening) today than it’s ever been.
We will not abolish capitalism to fight the contrived phantom of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2020 when COVID spread worldwide, human emissions of CO2 dropped by 6% according to the International Energy Agency, yet the rate of increase of CO2 didn’t change a bit.
That is a natural experiment that shows human emissions of CO2 aren’t causing the continuing rise in CO2.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/global-energy-and-co2-emissions-in-2020
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
“A scientific consensus inoculation explaining that among climate scientists there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing climate change”..
…unless you count Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Will Happer, Willie Soon, John Christie, Roy Spencer, et al.
Why ignore those well regarded scientists? Because they don’t concur with the narrative that these psychologists believe.
It’s full speed ahead with the climate religion. I wonder when the first church of climate will be announced and invitations to the ground breaking sent out? Bet these authors have their hearts set on high positions in the church. Climate Bishop, Climate Priest, Climate Chardinal?
Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes
The abstract author thinks the debate was then, and it’s been settled ‘decades ago’. Hint to author: if the word ‘science’ is used, it bears with it never-ending debates. It’s a continuous process, and better evidence may be introduced at any time to overturn such old beliefs as ‘the sun rotates around the earth’ or, more stupidly, ‘the science is settled’.
Here’s a D-minus. Please rewrite with proper supporting evidence.
Disinformation (newspeak) — Facts or conjecture that does not fit the predetermined or official narrative.
Yep, that table is a really good reference to the actual REALITY of things.
A great set of tweets. 🙂
We should thank them.
Have copied them into a word file for later use. 🙂
In view of the fact I make no claim to being highly educated, could someone please explain to me what a ‘scientific consensus’ is?
In real science, there is no such thing.
In social or political science it is whatever the current virtue-seeking fad is.
Hope that helps. 😉
I don’t think there is such an animal. Scientists rarely concede anything.😉😊
A scientific consensus is when you can’t prove something.
Mr. Layman here.
There was a time when the ‘scientific consensus’ was the the Sun and the planets revolved around the Earth.
Someone looked more closely and realized that was not true. He said that they all revolved around the Sun in circles. That eventually became the ‘scientific consensus’.
Someone else looked more closely and realized they didn’t revolve in circles but rather in “ovals”.
There was a time when the ‘scientific consensus’ believed in abiogenesis. (Rotting meat produced maggots. Rotting straw produced microbes.) Then along came people like Pasteur and others that showed otherwise.
And so it goes in all fields of genuine science. Accept but keep looking then accept the new when shown to be true..
But today, in climate-political science a term ‘scientific consensus’ is used to shut down anyone who “looks closer”. If someone does look closer and reaches a realization different than what they like?
‘Scientific consensus’ is and excuse to dismiss without consideration.
“Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled….”
It was never settled.
They refused to debate.
They demonised and ridiculed and cancelled people that tried to debate.
Then they declared the debate over and won.
They never debated fairly.
If they had debated and won, there would be no need for this constant stream of psycho-tripe. Skeptics never wanted to waste so much personal time and energy fighting for the truth. But ask yourself why is it so easy for a tiny number of mostly volunteers with a fraction of the resources to be so destructive and threatening? You can’t unilaterally decide that you won and it’s over.
https://youtu.be/CfBuvRk1thQ
Off topic (but only slightly). You tube served up this gem today for my edification. Climate change will cause 5 million deaths It never stops, does it?
The current cold weather kills about 4.6 million people per year compared to about 500,000 killed by hot weather.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
I moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Los Angeles, California, which is a 14F 7C increase in temperature, and loved it. And they are screaming about a 1.5C temperature increase being a disaster. I even liked coming back to Cleveland. When you know what the weather is like you can prepare for it.
I’ve been a psychologist for many years, began with the study of attitudes and attitude change. One of the depressing facts of life is that the field of psychology, which once aspired to a level of empiricism and rigor, has degenerated into, well, this. In another way however, it is good because these would-be crusaders have made the lethal error of focussing on content, not attitude, thereby dooming their efforts at “inoculation” to failure. They cannot weaponize what they don’t understand, and far be it from me to elucidate.
Are they describing themselves?
I find it interesting that they’re using what is, in essence, a psychological model to justify climate models. Once again, it’s models everywhere.
We’re a counter movement?
I had no idea we were that organized.
Click on the paper, click on the author names, click on google scholar.
You will see that they are all at it. Using psychology to change behavior. In this instance, it’s to fight climate realists. Previously, how to combat range anxiety etc.
Nasty people.
They could make themselves useful with the bushfire stats-
DFES Commissioner Darren Klemm reveals firebugs have lit more than 300 fires in WA since October (msn.com)
Story tip – WATCH: Hillary Claims ‘Climate Change’ Killed 500,000 Last Year, ‘Particularly Pregnant Women’ – PJ Media
One more lie from Hillary Clinton.
She lies when the truth would sound better.
World ends tomorrow. Women and children hardest hit.
Alan Jones destroys the AGW cult
Chris Bowen Destroyed by Alan Jones at Sydney Rally – YouTube
Well that was a painful read. I had to look up psychological inoculation, I thought they were making up words.
This is yet another example of how thin the CAGW argument is. They are resorting to manipulation rather than teaching. Speaking of anti science these guys are loaded with it.
The only proper response is for our side to publicly challenge them to debate us. They think they are so damn smart they should make short work of us. My guess is they are cowards and would run scared if forced to face a true skeptic.
Many of them have been challenged. And they always run away because they know they cannot win and we cannot lose based on objective reality. None of their past predictions have come true, a lot of their ‘science’ is just physically (methane in a humid world) or chemically (ocean acidification) wrong, and their solutions do NOT work at scale.
But they won’t stop because the academic climate alarm pay is good. As are the green renewable subsidies.
Yes I agree with you Rud but I still think it would be a good idea to publicly challenge them, make them say no.
Their recommendation seems to be to tell people over and over again that everyone has to accept what they’re told without question because: argument from authority.
Next step: Outlaw Missouri. The “Show Me” state needs to take somebody’s word for it. Or perhaps California can change from the “Golden State” to the “Trust Me” state. Anyone want to buy a pair of breeding mules? They are a great investment for green energy alternative transportation.
This is commonly referred as ‘taking the piss’. A whole heap of AI generated word salad to get a factual table published. Could you imagine trying to get table 3 published in a skeptical paper.
We Trogs aren’t quite as dumb as we seem to the elites.
That is when I knew to stop reading as it was going to be the usual pile of gobblegeddlygook crap.
Meanwhile these FACTS keeps getting unaddressed: NO Hot Spot exists.
NO Positive Feedback Loop exists and after 30 years of waiting for their predictions to show up….. this means their stupid AGW conjecture is a long running failure.
Settled…. my ass!!!
Here’s a climate feedback loop-
Artificial turf on median strips, traffic islands creating heat and a barrier for a real green city, petitioners say (msn.com)
Deplorables: Hey you lot are contributing to UHI.
Council: First up we only recognize CO2 global heating and secondly we’re reducing fossil fuel consumption with not needing rotary hoes mowers and dethatchers and visits with utes.
Plus ten times as many people die from the cold as from the heat. About 4 million more die from the cold each year.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
I glanced at the lead author’s name: Tobia Spampatti. Somebody has to be putting me on…..
I do love me some sociologist gobbledygook in the morning. This nonsense is what passes for science in the over educated idiot class.
The reference to the talk the inestimable Ross McKitrick gave (to the Heartland conference I believe)… This should be given far more prominence by the better educated scientists here. It seems to pull out the keystone upon which this climate scam is constructed and could be used to bring the entire edifice back to earth, could it not?
Sadly, I think that most of the politicians in Parliament, have been ‘inoculated’ by these people. Maybe it’s time to remove the green benches and subsidized bar, and replace them with stalls and bails of hay. Instead of calling ‘order’, replace it with Hee-Haw.
All of which boils down to there is no such thing as MAN MADE global Warming. The earth is bigger than even the egos of these ‘scientists’. THAT is settled science.
These guys should have gone into advertising.
I’m sure there are shelves full of various types of snake oil that needs to be sold.
Who says stupid people can’t get well paid jobs??
I am not anti science, I am pro science, real science, the science practiced by Feynman et al not psuedo, make it up as you go science. Nature should be ashamed of itself for publishing this bushwah.