Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Unpersuadables: When Facts Are Not Enough
There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research. As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway
There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change this view.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald Warner dismissed scientists as "white-coated prima donnas and narcissists ... pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the role of mad cranks ... The public is no longer in awe of scientists. Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to them any more."
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company - and precious few journalists - with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world. But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells us to trust nothing, to believe only what can be demonstrated. This contradiction is fatal to public confidence.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they'll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals that publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
But there's a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology - from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No - casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn't far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.
Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead us out of the wilderness. "We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince ... We need to be taught to believe by a true believer." Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to persuasion.
In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research on misinformation. This shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted".
These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information." The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained.
While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing line lies isn't quite right. It doesn't describe the odd position in which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts, I spend much of my time defending the scientific establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most divisive project I've ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts, the more virulent the abuse becomes.
This doesn't bother me - I have a hide like a glyptodon - but it reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative titles, they can reach to the other side. But in doing so they will surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them. As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as likely to kick against science as those who respect it.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don't want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life's work.
- Posted in
100 Comments so far
Show AllFrom Day One, I've loved science--geology, paleontology, climatology--
But I had to settle for an English degree instead, because of my innumeracy and lack of intellectual rigor.
It was over thirty years ago that I learned about peak oil, climate change, overpopulation.
Now I watch us fall off the cliff with detachment.
It's all coming true.
Goddamn us. We're just pathological apes.
Please don't insult apes with this kind of comparison. When an ape is in the water, and it is fatigued, it gets out of the water so as to avoid drowning. It is instinctively endowed with individual critical thinking and the ability to convert it into action. American human beings won't even admit to being wet unless someone they and a majority of the membership of their "camp" places faith in tells them they're wet, or a spokesperson identified with an enemy camp tells them they're dry.
There was a fictional character called "The Lawgiver" in a really great movie I saw when I was a kid who had written down for future generations of apes all about this problem with humans.
This article hits on the most basic problem - finding the mechanism(s) through which to communicate issues to those who dont care about them.
This is why the article from Chris hedges yesterday was a little Utopian.
Love
Zero
Later this century, once the disastrous effects of climate chaos become apparent to everyone, it will be interesting to see how the corporate-"conservatives" and their propaganda ministry, the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media), spin those effects and their causes.
It's God's punishment for__________________ .
(Fill in the blank with whatever the rightwing is harping on that week.)
It'll disappear down the memory hole, and/or be blamed on liberals. Documentaries and docudramas will be produced depicting heroic conservatives desperately warning of the dangers of climate change as (insert name of most recent Democratic president at time of broadcast) sits on his/her hands and does nothing. See ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' for an illustration of what I'm talking about.
The Oilarchy is depending on GW disasters for more profit and control.
"Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students."
I'll nominate this sentence for the "Witless Claim of the Day" award. The suggestion that people who study art, literature, and philosophy are to be equated with pseudo-literature morons quivering in their church pews is beyond ignorant.
My degree is in literature (I thought that it was important to teach young people how to write) and I have always enjoyed reading and learning about scientific issues, especially those with heavy political import. I don't think that I'm alone among my fellow humanities majors.
Monbiot is generally a pretty good writer and the rest of the article is fairly sound (although it tells us nothing new). I'll chalk that statement up to temporary insanity.
q
My degree is in history, but that statement to which you object is not that far off the mark. Don't forget that there has long been a rivalry between those students who get science degrees and those who study arts. When I went to university, the science students were often quite smug about their ability to get 'real' jobs...
There are many former humanities students that go on to careers in denying the existence of scientific fact. A good number of them work for 'creationist' nutjobs, some have found a place in working against the facts pointed to by climate scientists. If it were profitable, I am sure you would be able to find some who worked against the idea of gravity.
"There are many former humanities students that go on to careers in denying the existence of scientific fact."
There are former science students who do the same thing.
q
Astrophysicists are doing an effective job themselves without the help of humanities graduates in spreading misunderstandings and inconsistencies about gravity that have set astronomers and theoretical physicists in pursuit of mystical "dark matter" and even more mystical "dark energy." See the presentation in Chapter 24 of my on-line book Tarakayana at:
http://home.roadrunner.com/~markwrede/Fiction/TARAKAYANA.pdf
In defence of the astrophysicists, they do admit that the existence of 'dark' matter or energy is a total guess. They think it's there, but they have no evidence of it, they have some evidence that there is something out there, but not a clue as to what it actually is.
Gravity is one of those strange things in science, there is less evidence that it exists than there is that evolution happened. Yet, there is a great deal of money to be made from denying the theory of evolution. Gravity exists, how and why it exists are one of those unknown things from what I've read.
Saturnalia: "In defence of the astrophysicists, they do admit that the existence of 'dark' matter or energy is a total guess. They think it's there, but they have no evidence of it, they have some evidence that there is something out there, but not a clue as to what it actually is."
Read this month's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN about "dark matter." Scientists are not quite as clueless about this phenomenon as they once were. Its function may be as a basic organizing, balancing component of energies of various kinds, including the process of thinking or our brain's over-all activities, even or especially when we are asleep.
Interesting read.
/cm
P.S. One is considered wise when s/he realizes how much s/he does not know, but s/he is open to finding out.
To be eternally curious is to never stop being "The Magic Child" [a marvelous book by Chilton Pierce].
I can't believe he didn't even mention the impact of organized religion. It is the single greatest center of "encampment" thinking -- encampment being something I've mentioned here (now seemingly confirmed by studies) as the mechanism most important to how people decide whether or not they believe any particular thing is a fact. And this was a huge factor well before organized religion expanded its reach by founding phony "science" institutes to disrupt academia. Most fundamentalist religious leaders assume that key discoveries of science undermine "facts" of the Bible, and that undercutting any element of the Bible collapses its entire legitimacy, and by extension, their own capacity to exploit the belief in biblical infallibility for personal gain. It would help if science didn't allow lies about its discoveries to be disseminated by people looking to make money ("don't worry, it's not so dangerous, and the parts that are will be quickly solved by the miracles of science").
As Monbiot describes, the reason for today's problem with facts is that most of the information we'd use to make independent decisions about things is either incomprehensible (science) or inaccessible (politics -- whether or not there were WMD's is entirely based on with which reporters of the info you place your faith, since you can't see it yourself). So ordinary people simplfy, categorize, generalize -- and the communication channels they trust for those processes are the ones associated with the camps with which they personally identify.
The reason debunking a myth serves to reinforce the myth is found in process of encampment thinking itself. If you believe the person or camp that told you there are WMD's, and it is debunked by the other camp (which is the only way it will be debunked, since Camp A is selling Story A to advance it's own agenda, and Camp B is refuting it to stop that agenda), then all that registers is that Camp B is telling you the new story, not the quality of the refutation, and since you never believe anything you hear from Camp B, and you can see they're trying to harm the reputations of the leaders of Camp A, you dig in and believe the false story even more. If Fox News or Focus on Family started promoting the idea that the word "blue" was concocted by power-mad liberals who wanted to manipulate people's understanding of the sky, so as to better extend tyrannical secular liberal control over you and your family, a portion of the population would start to believe the sky is some other color. And the next day, when Rachel Maddow interviews the head of the National Science Foundation to explain how preposterous that is, and that the sky happens to reflect a portion of the spectrum that corresponds to what has historically been referred to by the word "blue," (along with an incomprehensible explanation of how the seemingly clear atmosphere has substance to it, and a "surface" of sorts, in order to demonstrate how other frequencies get filtered and refracted while some get reflected) a substantial proportion of the population would become absolutely certain that the sky is NOT blue.
I saw this just last month in my own town. The School Board wanted to cut energy costs by installing some green technologies. Only the ones that would pay for themselves in utility savings within the length of their own payment schedules were selected. But the voters shot it down by a huge majority following expensively disseminated claims by "conservative camp" leaders that the stuff was too expensive (cleverly leaving out the other variable, the expense of continuing the traditional energy purchases). Then there was the counter-claim by proponents showing the extra variable, and the cost savings (which conservative tax rebels supposedly care about), but since the refutation came from a camp conservatives identified as "liberal" (the School Board), that immediately got turned around into "greenies who think they're smarter than us are trying to rip us off," and that's when 1500 additional people who never even voted in a school election suddenly appeared to shoot it down. Now their taxes are going to keep going up, but they're happy because they stopped "the liberals." Now nobody has the slightest idea how to control energy costs (not to mention greenhouse gas emissions), because the public won't approve a bond. That's the reality of it.
Which brings us back to "utopian" Hedges. We can't get change through ballot processes by winning the war for facts. We can only get change if "our" camp starts a resistance program rather than a myth-busting program.
Steve Greenfield
And the real question is, could your school's budget afford to spend that money now even if it would cut costs later? Even if the overall costs are less later, many times you simply cannot afford the expense at the momeent. Apparently it couldn't as you point out they refused to borrow money (bond) to put your favored plan into action.
Perhaps it was simply a question of monetary restraint?
Veritas, I agree that the upfront cost of renewable power systems can be somewhat high, in the absence of incentives through tax subsidies, legislation mandating a certain percentage of renewables, etc. But overall costs - as measured by the cost of electricity (COE) - have dropped sufficiently, that with proper financing, it is possible to justify an investment in renewable power even today in many places. Bring in favorable legislation, remove the tax loopholes for the big power industry, remove all forms of subsidies to them, put a price on pollution, then renewables can become more than competitive. Especially with mass production kicking in.
I mention legislation as desirable because, historically, all kinds of incentives were given to big utilities, and it's not fair to expect the renewables to compete when the playing field is not level. And the incentives for renewables don't need to be permanent - they can be gradually tapered down, so as to avoid distortions of their own and other unintended consequences.
Yes, we could afford the up-front cost. That was the whole point of creating a bond. When you borrow the up-front cost over any particular number of years for repayment, the bottom-line financial question becomes "is the monthly payment on this bond less than the monthly energy expenses we'd pay over the same period without the new equipment?" If the answer to that question is yes, then you'd think it's a "no brainer." Unfortunately, too many people have no brains, but there is a law permitting them to have the same one vote as people who do have brains.
And if you think what happened in my town is grotesque, just a few weeks earlier something even more grotesque happened. A county education system was looking to replace a rented building that is old and in very poor condition with a modern building they'd own. The rent was so high that the annual payment on the loan would have been less than the current rent, and they'd have a brand new building they'd own, instead of a crappy old building they rent. Two weeks before the vote, angry anti-tax attack ads appeared in local media, and public opinion started to sway against. Three days before the vote, it was discovered that the ads were paid for by the landlord. But since that info was brought to light by bond supporters, the strength of the opposition only increased, and the bond failed by a solid margin. This is where we see the juncture of both the tragedy of the commons and the limits of democracy in modern, corporate-sponsored polarized politics. It's too easy to blame Congress's internal mechanisms and politicians' career goals for our inability to solve society's problems. It's We The People that make all this possible.
Real campaign response from Adlai Stevenson: During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!'
Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, I need a majority!' That's only gotten worse as we "teach to the test" and can only get education aid for programs that emphasize memorization and learning by rote over critical thinking. It's a closed loop. Thinking people will never be a majority. That's the real legacy of the "Reagan Revolution," and why the merger of mainstream politics with organized religion was so effective. We are moving further and further from being thinking people, and recent Supreme Court decisions have ensured that will only get worse. That's why resistance is the only viable option, and even for that, the window is closing.
Steve, I agree - it should have been a no-brainer, when the monthly payment on the bond was shown to be less than or even comparable to the current energy bill. And the other example you cite - is so very similar, and equally depressing to hear. I say "depressing" because it's hard enough to find thinking, responsible people to come forward and put together sensible alternatives. And when you see their proposals shot down by the "majority", it's going to take even more commitment and passion for other people to come forward. Perhaps it's best to be dispassionate while approaching such issues, and to keep pushing, irrespective of the short-term wins and losses. And to keep in mind that important changes have often happened due to the efforts of a small minority, many of whom have even been forgotten by the thankless majority, even while enjoying the fruits of such changes.
And when it comes to propaganda, it never ceases to amaze me to see how easy it is to scare some people using bogus arguments. Take any major issue - climate change, healthcare, tar sands operations in Alberta, etc. - right-wing politicians and media routinely throw around the scary words - jobs, economy, government control, socialism, etc. - and the sheeple fall in line so easily. And mass distractions on TV don't help either.
Steve Greenfield
Ok Steve! Then we are left with you original thought. To paraphrase...There is no defense against the Brain Dead. Who wants to pay more for less. Shhheeesssssh!
But be assured, these folks are not half as stupid as reported. They have lost trust in government. And rightfully so. Looking at our school budget and seeing where the money goes, I don't want our fools to have another dime. (We own all our building though and energy saving measures were installed 6 years ago so its not the same)
Lest trust the people will bring a little hope in November and make a change.
Alcyon
I'm for removing the incentives to power companies! We are deregulated and they are ripping us.
The problem with putting a price on pollution is you usually end up with something like Cap and Trade. Very bad. Put the price on the power.
Wind and solar can only do so much. We have more wind generation than anyone,in my state, but it still only gives us 5%. I already know that those two technologies are incapable of replacing our power needs. And bio-fuels are an expensive joke.
So we need to clean (and blend) our current tecnologies as much as possible, push conservation and best use. And most important, research.
I'm struck by your mention of sudsidies...when is the last time you saw a public discussion about "all kinds of incentives were given to big utilities, and it's not fair to expect the renewables to compete when the playing field is not level"?
Veritas, putting a price on pollution does not have to lead to cap-and-trade. A carbon tax would work just fine. But expect right-wingers and free marketeers to suddenly become champions of welfare of the poor - by insisting that a carbon tax would hurt the poor disproportionately. Suggest to them other ways of sharing the burden "proportionately" - that is, proportionate to one's wealth and income.
And I cannot stress this enough - that the "cap" part in "cap-and-trade" is the most important factor. Without putting a limit on total carbon emissions, that is, capping them at some progressively declining level, *NO* meaningful change will come about in the short term. And we need drastic reductions in emissions *in the short term*.
It's unfortunate that this point has been largely missing in all the cacophony. Maybe that was the whole point, all along - to completely muddy the issue, sufficiently enough to ensure there would be no meaningful action. Agreeing or disagreeing on something is totally secondary, as long as there is *NO* action. In that sense, the denial industry has succeeded (once again). And you should stop being offended by the use of the term "denier" or "denial industry". As far as I'm concerned, they are used to refer to "paid" deniers.
Steve Greenfield, great post - perfectly complements the Monbiot article. Interesting, though depressing, story about the School Board's proposal, and how the word "liberal" can be used to scare people into doing (or opposing) anything. My only hope is that the number of people who are sane outnumber this other kind.
Excellent post!
Sioux Rose
STEVE G: Great post. You put into words quite well a phenomenon I'd also observed. That's why I often relate the power of "team" sports, for it has much to do with the same group-think you're exposing.
KITAJ (3:40) and BARDAMU (1:31) Excellent posts, as well.
Good post the rise of science denialism particularly among the New Agers on the left is very alarming to me for it IMO mirrors fundie Christian irrationality on the right. When I see anti vaccine articles on Huffington Post it makes me cringe and shudder that we are going back to a new dark ages. Climate deinalism and anti vax are an achilles heel to the counter culture now IMO.
stereohead, I think you seem to make some needless generalization here - starting with the term "New Agers". I don't read Huffington Post regularly - so I don't know which vaccine you're talking about. But having read and heard other opinions on a couple of recent vaccines that are being pushed, I am willing to wait before I decide about their usefulness and safety. Of course, since I don't know enough, I wouldn't recommend to others one way or the other. However, if there are those who know more, and decide to take a stand against some drug companies pushing stuff that is either not needed, or could be potentially harmful, I don't see that as "science denialism".
"Science" is not the exclusive preserve of western countries, let alone drug companies. What if it turns out *some* of the "conventional wisdom" pushed by today's medical establishment on matters of nutrition and health is wrong? Practicing medical doctors are already challenging some commonly held beliefs among the establishment, and are pioneering their own treatment methods, including a drastic change in diet. And so what if some of these "new" approaches happen to coincide with some "New Age" ideas?
I realize I'm writing this without bothering to find out which vaccines you were referring to.
I am talking about exactly the sort of science denial anti vaxer stuff you seem to have swallowed to at least some extent:
http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html
More atheism and science, less "spiritual" credulity please!
I had clearly said "a couple of *recent* vaccines that are being pushed". Not knowing *which* recent vaccines that *I* was talking about, you post a link to some web page on "vaccine denial", which itself has a link to another site on "Denialism", and go on to say "exactly the sort of science denial anti vaxer stuff you seem to have swallowed to at least some extent". It's *exactly* this sort of "needless generalization" that I wrote about above. Are you saying just because some vaccine is introduced in the market, everyone should go out and get one? I'm not talking about the vaccines that have already proven their effectiveness. I'm talking about the RECENT ones.
I got my flu vaccine shot this year and didn't get the flu if that is what you are talking about I'd say yes get vaccinated. There are a fair number of people I have run into recently who seem to think vaccine is some kind of depopulation plot, I hope you are not one of those people? Sadly I run into them on counter cultural groups I frequent on face book fairly frequently, very annoying, a lot of them are global climate change deniers and hate science as well. The level of science illiteracy in the U.S. compared to Europe is shocking, and don't even get me started on creationism.
The reason for the depopulation conspiracy theory is that Baxter Pharmaceutical really did try to release a bird flu vaccine that contained live virus, and it really might have been disastrous:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html
That, combined with the unusual degree of hype about swine flu, makes people suspicious. The combination of peak oil and climate change mean that a massive and unprecedented depopulation is going to happen, anyway. The thinking goes that "the elite," whoever they are, would like to ensure that they're among the survivors. Surely people with billions of dollars who can see what's coming have a plan to save themselves. Anthrax really was sent through the postal system soon after 9/11, the Tuskegee experiments were really performed, etc. The actual evidence for this supposed depopulation plot is thin, but we couldn't put it past them out of hand. Proceeding with a "business as usual" economy in itself is a decision to depopulate the planet.
It's a different line of thinking than the vaccination/autism stupidity, which got started with a Lancet paper that was outright fraudulent.
BTW did you know Cuba independently manufactures vaccine to give to it's population? If vaccination is some western imperialist plot by big pharma to poison us or some such rot as some new Age irrationlists claim does that mean Cuba is participating hand in had with imperialist U.S. corporations? That makes no sense at all. Chavez BTW also vaccinates his population. More rationalist leftism like that please fewer paranoid New Age anti rationalist beliefs please, thanks!
All anti science irrationlist "spirituality" does is empower big oil to bambozle people to think AGW isn't happening if you believe it isn't happening and other balderdash.
The scientific method as usually applied in society today:
What we can prove is true. What we can disprove is false. What we can't prove or disprove either because our current abilities or our axiomatic assumptions, we will use "probability" to determine likelihood until we create new assumptions or better technologies.
However, "probabilities" can and usually are twisted due to self-interest and misunderstanding. In fact, many people often see black as white or vice-versa, or see such sharp colors as gray or vice-versa.
As to your vaccine example, they have undoubtedly saved lives and are effective, but criminally negligent errors (the Baxter case or the thermiseral in vaccines) require investigation and punishment. To deny the use of vaccines is foolish, but to deny the dangers of mercury is also foolish.
If we consider the history of science, the most speculative fields in science, the ones most on the edge of the research in the mind, medicine, life, and energy, are the most likely to yield fruit. However, as you point out in new therapeutic compounds (and as I may add, engineering and construction techniques), we shouldn't be surprised if ancient people discovered similar principles, if only phrased in religious or non-modern terms.
The skepticism of science towards phenomena considered "religious", "mystical", or "occult" is healthy, and the ability to consistently invalidate such falsehoods is certainly necessary. However, when virtually every human race throughout history seems to leave records of similar, currently unexplained events (much of it lies in the fields of cryptozoology and parapsychology), which they couch in religion, scientists have a duty to explain them without relying on ancient religion, modern pseudoscience (the rationalist mass delusion theory or archetypes/collective unconscious), or close-minded denial.
Actually the thermisol link to autism claim was formally withdrawn by the Lancet after it was shown the lead author had a conflict of interest and falsified data, did you not get the memo?
"The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet is fully and formally retracting the 1998 study that sparked the autism/vaccine scare. That study allegedly found:
Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, … We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.
Since its publication, study after study could find no such correlation between vaccination and the development of autism. The immediate reason for this long overdue retraction is that the U.K.'s General Medical Council just sanctioned lead researcher on that study, Canadian gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, for acting unethically. "
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/02/the-lancet-finally-withdraws-i
See also:
"Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who in 1998 sparked the public controversy over whether the MMR (mumps measles and rubella) vaccine is linked to autism, may have faked his data. Wakefield and others published a small study of only twelve subjects in The Lancet claiming it was evidence for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Wakefield 1998). As a result, compliance with the MMR dropped from 92 percent in the U.K. down to 85 percent, and measles cases soared from only fifty-eight cases in 1998 to 1,348 cases in 2008. Fears have also spread to the U.S., where measles cases are also starting to increase.
Wakefield’s paper has already been thoroughly discredited, and subsequent studies have shown convincingly that there is a lack of association between MMR or vaccines in general and autism. For example, one of the key components of Wakefield’s theory is that autism is linked to gastrointestinal disorders in some children, potentially allowing the measles virus from the vaccine to enter the bloodstream and wreak havoc. A replication of Wakefield’s experiment by Mady Hornig was published last September in PLoS ONE (Hornig 2008). Hornig found no correlation between MMR and autism and also did not find the measles virus in the guts of children with autism and GI complaints, directly contradicting Wakefield.
Far larger than the scientific controversy stirred up by Wakefield, which has largely been settled, is the storm of ethical concerns regarding his scientific behavior. In 2004, ten of Wakefield’s co-authors withdrew their names from the original publication, and The Lancet’s editors published a retraction, citing undisclosed conflicts of interest by Wakefield (Lancet 2004). Specifically, Wakefield did not disclose a large consulting fee he received from attorneys representing clients suing over claims that their children’s autism was caused by MMR. In fact, eleven of the twelve children in Wakefield’s study were part of the litigation. Further, nine months prior to publishing the study, Wakefield applied for a patent for a new MMR vaccine that he claimed was safer. He therefore stood to make phenomenal profits from scares over the current vaccine’s safety (Deer 2008)."
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/autism-vaccine_link_researcher_andrew_wakefield_accused_of_faking_his_data/
See also for the formal withdrawal annoncement:
http://press.thelancet.com/wakefieldretraction.pdf
Your last paragraph is just opaque to me could you explicate would you are trying to say a little more clearly? Crypotzoololgy isn't really a legitimate field of study I hope you know?
http://www.skepdic.com/crypto.html
The precautionary principle towards chemicals (especially mercury compounds, which are known to be toxic) still should apply though. Just because the MMR case was disqualified because of conflicts of interest doesn't mean vaccines should contain mercury.
My last paragraph meant something like this.
The tested theories of science are mostly correct (the advancement of science creates ever closer approximations to reality), even if they override traditional religious, mystic, or occult belief. However, if a current phenomenon (like unknown large creatures, such as the recently discovered giant sea squid) is currently tied to religious, mystic, or occult thought, but is widely claimed across the human race and human history, then scientists have a duty to launch rational investigations on causes rather than deny such ideas out of hand or rely on semi-rationalist, semi-scientific excuses (like mass delusion, archetypes/collective unconscious triggers).
Cryptozoology isn't as easy a field as two centuries ago (since there are far fewer new species to find), and ultimately, one's methods need to produce physical proof, but to discard what native people or repeated travelers claim simply because one doesn't have the means to prove it yet is ignoring evidence (even if one must sift the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, with such stories).
In short, if science isn't settled on something, then the default condition should not be to deny what is unproven (as many scientists and rationalists are prone these days to do), but to openly investigate and speculate until one reaches a conclusion.
By the way, some of the theories against unknown creature sightings are testable. Get people who never heard of/don't believe in a given "legendary creature" to enter the suspected region without human contact. If some of them start reporting phenomena similar to those described in the historical record, one could then discard that theory. (Of course, some of these areas are so rarely visited one may need 50-80 year records to get good results, but I'm sure the physicists trying to find proton decay or trap a neutrino could relate).
Steve: Nice comment. Thank you. I see the process at work in people like my father. He didn't attend college and has always felt insecure about his own intelligence. Twenty five years ago, he was helping my brother-in-law install a garbage disposal. My b-i-l (who is a doctor and a religious conservative) corrected him on a couple things - not because he's any smarter but because he was following the installation directions!
Twenty five years on, and even though they have much in common (religious conservatism), my father will automatically dismiss anything my b-i-l says, as if to assure himself that he's just as smart. Still! After all of these years.
I call it comparison-mind. When we compare ourselves with others, our minds will always find a way to come up short. And when we come up short, we'll look for ways to bring 'the other' down to our level. Even if it means going against our own best interests.
The Humanities crack is the most ignorant statement I've seen lately, but I believe its typical, not temporary insanity.
Monbiot accuses every one of attacking scientists who are just trying to tell us the "facts"...the "truth" but we are just knuckledraggers that can't understand complicated things or whats good for us.
The truth is he doesn't address the Gore problems with the truth nor the problems revealed recently with the facts and scientists veracity. We won't even mention politicians veracity.
He simply cruises on asserting the same old line, everything is settled, factual, you idiots are just too stupid to comprehend our intricate intellectual arguments.
"deniers" as an argument is finished and those that continue to indulge in it are damaging the argument even further.
Times change, circumstances change and ideology must evolve with those times. Changes must be made or stop wasting everyone's time.
It is true that time and circumstances change. The problem is that circumstances are changing in the way that the climate scientists have been saying they will change. The chances that they are wrong about global warming is small, too small to have any confidence in. The sportswriter Grantland Rice once quipped about people who believe in long shots by saying:
"The race does not always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
Harping on a few emails that show that scientists are human does not change the fact that the Artic is melting.
sheepherder
Very true.
My point is that its not just a few e-mails. Gore has been discredited, he simply made too many mistakes, too many claims that turned out to be false. The Un has fully discredited themselves as has a number of other folks including the leading GW guru in England.
Alcyon and Ubrew12 guided me to areas that convinced me that we have a problem, but most people know only what they see and hear. They have been told all this for years and suddenly falsehoods are revealed. People tend to distrust government in any case, to distrust big in effect.
End result, the same old songs will not work, in fact they hurt. Insisting on calling people deniers, insulting anyone that doesn't agree and insisting that the science is settled when its obvious that its not...will not work.
I think a new approach is needed.
"The UN has fully discredited themselves"
Eh? Would you be talking about some mistake within a large
report?
I'm speaking exactly of claims based on no science at all, but a magazine artuicle I believe it was.
Denying those things is exactly what I'm talking about. Trying to minimalize the falsehood just reinforces the damage.
Little mistakes in big report, e-mails meant nothing, etc....unfortunately folks are NOT as stupid as some would like to assume.
Best to stop singing old songs is my final point.
-
There's some doubt that this (correcting you, Veritas) can work, in the probability that you won't check back here. Plus the probability your thoughts are settled and closed to the way I present stuff.
And your rejection of Gore is only an unspecific broadbrush smear -- "too many mistakes" of which you identify zero, so, again, there can hardly be discussion or debate of thoughts you have chiseled in stone, un-amendable, un-refinable.
And I ordinarily wouldn't lift a typing finger to help you out of your gravity well -- there are so many in it that it feels futile to address one individually, but ...
It so happens in advance of the release of Karl Rove's new book, reprinting distortions and lies and bullsh!t he shoved in Americans' ears and skulls, a review copy for the book-reading fact-checkers at Media Matters [ http://mediamatters.org/ ] has provided the specific statements that are known lies and, just today, Media Matters has started a list of truths and facts against each fault found of liar Rove.
And today's start includes a half-dozen Rove lies about Gore corrected. If any of Rove's lies are included in your biased generality "many mistakes," then perhaps the truths will be news to you, here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003080030
Going Rove: "Courage and Consequence" is full of falsehoods
and in particular, about Gore:
3. Rove revives tired smear that Gore wrongly said "that he had created the Internet"
4. Rove revives Gore-Love Story smear
5. Rove falsehood: Gore said he had "discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster"
I suppose the most majority of Americans knows that when the ballots of Florida 2000 were ultimately counted, in defiance of the despotic Supreme Court ruling to not count them, that more ballots were marked for Gore than for any other candidate. And that the guilt of the Administration and the Court for theft and fraud of voters' votes, has been and is the motivation for saturation propaganda over-bashing Gore -- trying to hide guilty consciences of the thieves, which further tangled-web lies can never hide in themselves.
- -
For what it's worth I join you in seeking and calling for a new approach. (Re-)Normalization might save so many many lives.
What I've thought of so far is we need to re-emphasize reading. So, then, first: BOYCOTT Pay TV (cable or dish). Don't merely turn the idiot box off, that's not enough. CALL your Cable Company and say: "CANCEL my SUBSCRIPTION, I refuse to pay the bill for a 'bundle' of channels while I don't ever watch half of them. When you are ready to bill me for only the channels I watch, then I might listen to your sales pitch." And hang up. And DON'T PAY.
When cable TV's cash cow milked into feeding partisan politics, (a billion dollars a month per channel, NOT COUNTING advertising sales revenue), is bankrupted, by We the People BOYCOTTing bundled 'cable' TV, then we will smash the rightwing-going fascist State that has entrenched in America in the last 35 years, since pay TV started, with its dumbing down crushing the spirit of America.
Then, second: Read about this movie, book, and foretold future. Here's the Martha's Vineyard Gazette review in advance of the film festival opening there this weekend:
http://www.mvgazette.com/article.php?24631
(quote)
Friday, March 5, 2010
Prophet of Doom Finds Joy as Film Stirs Efforts to Survive Oil Crisis
By MIKE SECCOMBE
Think of humanity as a herd of caribou living on an arctic island with no predators and abundant sustenance. We reproduce wildly until inevitably the sustenance, the energy source, is overtaxed and collapses.
Then we begin to die. In the case of humanity, billions of us.
The analogy and the dark prophecy are Mike Ruppert’s. And he argues it already has begun, this great dying, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
For the resource that has sustained human civilization for the past hundred or so years, which underpinned the quadrupling of global population and on which our whole industrial civilization is built, is in accelerating and irreversible decline. That resource is fossil fuel, and in particular, oil. ...
(end quote)
A source for further reading on the topic, fresh daily, here:
http://theoildrum.com/
-
Gore is not a climate scientist he's a damn spokesmodel and a bad one at that, the point is the science is sound from several lines of evidence like paleoclimatology looking at fossil C02 bubbles compared to changes in fauna and flora, the fact that we know that heat radiates through C02 but can't get back out thus we have the mechanism of AGW
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/12/07/science/20091207_CLIMATE_TIMELINE.html
as well the evidence both from current weather stations, tree ring data and farther back from paleoclimate climate data like I described above that overall temperatures are trending upward in a way closely correlated with the increase in greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere. So Gore's ineptness as a spokesmodel or a couple of minor errors in an IPCC report are not the point, the point is the overwhelming evidence that AGW is real and we need to do something about it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
Read these articles and *think* beyond the propaganda presented on the heavily fossil fuel industry funded MSM.
No actually you are a dupe of oil company propaganda and climate gate has been throughly refuted by climate scientists. See here for more details as to what actual peer reviewed scientists already know about the nature of AGW:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Some of us get it. But the reason most people don't get it is that biologically we are "short term thinkers." Evolutionary biology made us think about when will we eat next, where are we going reside against the wild, and how many "enemies" to our existence are in the immediate area. The future existed as myth-god, spirits, Valhalla, etc.
Formal education is the only way to lift humankind from our evolutionary prison.
"Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science."
The solution is good free universal public education. Unfortunately, it's too late for the dumb ol' USA. Thirty years of purposely bad public education has worked as intended. The resulting two generations of ignoramuses are permanently stuck in the right-wingnut mentality.
Public school education in the US has been so ruined by political agendas such as "no child left behind". I cannot imagine that anyone has benefited from such stupidity from GWB. Public education in the USA is in serious decline, dragging other aspects of the empire with it.
The rich have benefited very well from the stupidity of GWB.
The ruin of public education has been helped by "no child left behind", but I remember when it all got started. As soon as the public schools in the south were desegregated, all of the white fat churchy golf-playing assholes sent their own white children to all-white "christian" schools. After that, they became anti-tax rock-ribbed NRA republicans, dead set against paying any taxes to the "gubmint" (and public schools).
The Republican Party, that used to be the Party of Lincoln, is now the Refuge of Rich Racists who would rather see the whole USA go down in flames rather than give the working person a much needed and well-deserved break (or have their daughters sit next to a negro at school).
we will awaken...the only question, to me, is:
will we be awakened by the planet, by our fellow men, or by our selves?
how does one 'self-awaken'? and quickly? zen? panic? could we 'fake it until we make it'?
one of the struggles with consensus is common interest...
if each of us were to outline the 'goal' of future life, what would it be? do we agree on priorities? close enough?
that seems pretty important...the planet will only stand so much...
finally, are our solutions dependent upon others for their success? how many, and which? if they don't?
would greater freedoms around things like sexual expression and psychedelic exploration be a carrot to anyone?
Voltaire once noted that people would rather believe than know.
I trace the problem back to the Sputnik in 1957. Science, formerly a genial presentation of plain-spoken people, became a "career path" in order for us to catch up with the Russians. Young scientists became hard-driving careerists who generally made science less palatable and more secretive. At the same time, using social science for legal arguements wound up politicizing social science, confusing hard physical science in the public mind with political agendas. THEN came poor public education, attempting to make science "entertaining" and accessible by dumbing it down to the point where the empirical impulse was lost. Science museums became just another light show.
A return to evangelical religion became a perfectly reasonable response to a world in which science was forbiddingly obscure at one level and dumbed-down at another, and often used to sell commodities and politcal views. And nobody but the late Molly Ivans (a poly sci major from Wellesley) ever ridiculed our politicians for their scientific ignorance.