Related Articles

13 Comments

  1. 1

    Jeff Waugh

    Y2K is actually a good example of an global problem that we managed to address. Perhaps we succeeded because to the casual observer, it was a wholly abstract idea, but to the audience that mattered (software developers), it was easily grasped and relatively easy to fix — sure, it was a big task, but mostly a simple one.

    Climate change doesn’t seem as abstract — the average person in the street can say “hey, it’s very hot this summer” or “gosh it’s snowing all over the UK”, or worse, “look at the shape of that chart!” … but as we keep saying, weather isn’t climate.

    The apparent cause and effect of vaccines (as described by anti-vaxx dopes) wouldn’t seem as abstract to a parent desperately trying not to believe that they’re grieving. It’s a comfortable way to attribute blame, and can even sound vaguely science-y. Who can blame them?

    Remember, there were Y2K deniers, too!

    Reply
  2. 2

    Most Peculiar Mama

    “…To address climate scepticism, it would be useful to look to other scientific controversies which have also caused harm…”

    With AGW allegedly going to heat the planet to hell and move us all to a more tropical-like existence, the time is right to re-visit the best ‘vaccination’ for malaria.

    How many MILLIONS of children would still be alive today if DDT wasn’t banned?

    Reply
  3. 3

    Captain Col

    A very tenuous link between the tactics used by both sides of two totally different issues. The implication is that climate sceptics (like me) are too stupid to see the ‘good’ science of the AGW advocates and cling to a few minor misconceptions. Sorry, but I have the time to read all about both sides of the debate. I’ve changed from a believer to sceptic based on many good scientific arguments which were much harder to find in the media a few years ago. So much for 50:50 media debates.

    And I’ve had myself vaccinated, for which there was less need for debate.

    Reply
  4. 4

    JamesH

    “How many MILLIONS of children would still be alive today if DDT wasn’t banned?”
    When did Most Peculiar Mama stop beating her children?

    Since DDT was never banned for malaria eradication, there is no answer to this question.

    Hypothetically, if DDT had been banned for this purpose, more countries would have invested sooner in insecticide-impregnated bed-nets, which are more effective and cost less. This would probably have saved on the order of 100,000 lives or so.

    CC says “I’ve changed from a believer to sceptic based on many good scientific arguments”. Name three, with links to peer reviewed publications supporting them, which have not since been refuted by further work.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Most Peculiar Mama

    “…Since DDT was never banned for malaria eradication, there is no answer to this question…”

    Unsurpisingly, you’re the only one implying it was.

    “…links to peer reviewed publications…”

    The peer review process is D.E.A.D. Rendered a monumental joke by corrupt scientists and carpetbagging bureaucrats.

    For you to invoke its inviolate majesty is nothing short of desperate irrational stupidity.

    Everyone else has moved on…you should too.

    Reply
  6. 6

    JamesH

    MPM, are you incapable of reading your own posts, or just incapable of reading?

    Reply
  7. 7

    sherinakken

    Its really easy to let the press and drug companies & TV ads tell you what to think
    But………
    #1 – just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, does mean it isn’t valid (journal owned by a company beholden to many drug companies)
    #2 – he never said MMR caused autism – Here is the summary of the paper – read for yourself
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/fulltext
    #3 – full paper here, that Lancet retracted –
    http://www.autismresourceconnection.com/documents/Ileal-colonic-lymphoid.pdf
    last paragraph “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps,& rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome & its possible relation to this vaccine.”
    #4 it is a paper on 12 children – children with chronic enterocolitis & regressive developmental disorder. A paper – not a study
    #5 – other studies
    http://www.la-press.com/clinical-presentation-and-histologic-findings-at-ileocolonoscopy-in-ch-a1816
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/3/383

    Read for yourself – that is hard for most……..don’t let political machinations by drug companies and the powers that be fool you
    Sheri Nakken, RN, MA

    Reply
  8. 8

    CID

    This seems a little apples vs oranges. On the one hand you have vaccines, with a wealth of verifiable data and easily and often replicated experimental data. On the other hand you have the climate change debate, mostly based on theoretical data (eg tree rings) and modeling which, it has been pointed out, is based on more theories and conjecture and is slimmed down for faster processing.

    I greatly resent that it’s automatically assumes I’m an idiot because I’m not convinced on AGW. I can assure you, by any measure, I’m not. What’s wrong with weighing up the evidence before taking a position? It was easy to discount the ant-immunisation bunk with a huge body of evidence and very few credible dissenters. Not so AGW – there is a rising tide of credible dissension.

    For the record – I believe the climate is changing. It has always changed, and will always change. I think it’s supremely arrogant to suggest that ants like us are the cause and even more so to believe any political action we are able to spur will have any impact. I believe we don’t know with any degree of certainty how the climate even works. I know that with any movement such as this there are people waiting in the wings to make huge piles of money. I believe the ETS is one such opportunity, hence it’s push by the local Goldmann Sachs rep, Malcolm Turnbull.

    I also believe that, if real, this is not a political problem it’s a people problem. WE have to solve it, not governments. And it’s not hard to take steps – go off the grid with solar panels and you not only abate coal generation, you begin their decline in way no government would ever have the will or way to do.

    While I remain unconvinced of the church of AGW, I’m more than happy to take steps. Worst case, I’m right but we have a richer environment for it.

    Reply
  9. 9

    Captain Col

    JamesH says:

    ‘CC says “I’ve changed from a believer to sceptic based on many good scientific arguments”. Name three, with links to peer reviewed publications supporting them, which have not since been refuted by further work.’

    Whatsamatta Jimmy? Can’t you work the internet? Just type ‘climate change’ into google and start reading the 57 million entries, sort the wheat from the chaff and you’ll find at least three yourself. Go for it. You might learn something.

    Reply
  10. 10

    JamesH

    Capn Col:
    Oh, I thought when you said “good scientific arguments” you meant arguments actually backed by scientific research, as opposed to “random crap I found through google”.
    If you can’t specify your sources or what exactly led you to “change from believer to sceptic”, what good is your assertion that such “good scientific” arguments exist?

    Reply
  11. 11

    Andrew F

    An interesting article with a similar theme, apparently written about the same time as this one, adds another factor: “follow the money”. See it here:
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2690687/what_do_autism_and_global_climate_change.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2019 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey