Antifaxxers: Vaccine Movement has Lessons for Climate and Science Denial

March 10, 2019

Washington Post:

For more than 30 years in Oregon, cases of tetanus in children were almost mythical — studied in textbooks but never seen in person — thanks to the effectiveness of pediatric vaccination programs.

That streak ended in 2017 when an unvaccinated 6-year-old boy arrived at a hospital in the state, experiencing jaw spasms and struggling to breathe, according to a new case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The child was playing on a farm when he cut his head on something, the report said. His parents cleaned and stitched the wound at home, but alarming symptoms emerged six days later. The boy’s jaw began clenching, and his neck and back were arched — a trademark indication of tetanus called opisthotonus that is caused by involuntary muscle spasms.

He was airlifted to a pediatric hospital, where he was diagnosed with tetanus. It was the first instance of the life-threatening neuromuscular disease in a child in Oregon in more than three decades.

“Fortunately, the emergency department physicians immediately recognized the symptoms of severe tetanus,” Judith Guzman-Cottrill, an author of the report and a pediatrics professor at Oregon Health & Science University, told The Washington Post in an email. “Physicians have all read about tetanus, and we have seen pictures of people suffering from tetanus. … It is profound.”

It would be only the start of a downward spiral and lengthy hospital stay for the boy. When he was first admitted to the hospital, he was alert — but couldn’t open his mouth, the report said. Physicians sedated and intubated him because the spasms of his diaphragm and larynx were causing breathing problems.

The boy was given an anti-tetanus immunoglobulin for his wound, as well as the DTaP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. He was also placed in a dark room with ear plugs, which helped reduce the intensity of his spasms. His scalp wound was cleaned by medical professionals.

Still, the arching of the boy’s neck and back worsened. His blood pressure shot up, and he became feverish. Doctors inserted a tube in his windpipe so a ventilator could help with his breathing, and treated him with neuromuscular-blocking drugs to reduce his muscle spasms. He would remain on those drugs for more than a month, and in the intensive care unit for a total of 47 days.

By the time he was transferred out of the ICU, the boy needed help walking 20 feet. His tracheal tube was removed on Day 54, the report said. On Day 57, he was transferred from the pediatric hospital to a rehabilitation center, where he spent two-and-a-half weeks.

In all, the boy’s medical charges in the hospital amounted to $811,929 — which did not include the cost of being airlifted to the hospital or of inpatient rehabilitation, according to the CDC. It’s unclear from the report who covered his hospital expenses. It took about a month after his rehab for the boy to return to “normal activities” such as running and bicycling, the report added.

“The patient was in the intensive care unit, in critical condition, for over six weeks,” Guzman-Cottrill said. “The complex and prolonged care led to the high treatment cost. In contrast, the cost of one DTaP dose is somewhere around $24-$30 a dose, and this illness could have been prevented with five doses of DTaP vaccine.”

Notably, physicians counseled the boy’s family to bring the child up to date on all of his vaccinations, as well as receive a follow-up dose of the DTaP vaccine.

His family said no.

New York Times:

The parents who are worried or sure about grave risks from vaccines reflect a broader horror that has flickered or flared in everything from the birther movement to “Pizzagate,” that nonsense about children as Democratic sex slaves in the imagined basement of a Washington pizza joint. Their recklessness and the attendant re-emergence of measles aren’t just a public health crisis. They’re a public sanity one, emblematic of too many people’s willful disregard of evidence, proud suspicion of expertise and estrangement from reason.

Again and again, until blue in the face, medical authorities have debunked the renegade assertion that there’s a link between the M.M.R. vaccine, so named because it inoculates against measles, mumps and rubella, and autism. On Tuesday, a group of Danish researchers who looked at more than 650,000 children over 10 years announced that they had found no such association.

Again and again, until out of breath, those same medical authorities have also explained why making sure that all or nearly all children are vaccinated is so crucial: It creates a critical mass of resistance, known as herd immunity, that doesn’t give a disease the chance to spread.

Nonetheless, enough parents plug their ears that the World Health Organization lists “vaccine hesitancy” — a euphemism if ever I heard one — among 10 global health threats in 2019.

They choose their own alternative facts. Take Darla Shine, the wife of Bill Shine, who just announced his resignation as the White House communications director. Last month, amid alarms about new cases of measles, she took to Twitter with the cockamamie claim that not being vaccinated and coming down with measles or mumps was a big-picture plus, a hardiness builder that could help a person fight cancer down the line.

“I had the #Measles #Mumps #Chickenpox as a child and so did every kid I knew,” she tweeted, adding that her own kids were, regrettably, vaccinated. “They will never have the lifelong natural immunity I have. Come breathe on me!” Thanks but no thanks. I suspect my breath is better spent elsewhere.

A week and a half ago, a Republican state representative in Arizona said on her Facebook page that pressure on parents to vaccinate children “is not based on American values but, rather, Communist.” Bet you didn’t know that the original symbol of the Russian Revolution wasn’t a hammer and sickle. It was a syringe.

I shouldn’t joke, and I should add that anti-vaxxers run the political gamut. They’re on the left, their professed concern for social welfare proven hollow by the risk that their unvaccinated children pose to newborns and others who haven’t yet been — or can’t be — vaccinated. They’re on the right, among people who see the government and its edicts as oppressive forces. Paranoia has no partisan affiliation.

For example, anti-vaccine propaganda — some of which was spread by Russian trolls and bots as part of their sowing of discord before the 2016 election — can look as official and trustworthy as legitimate information. “And as websites get better and Twitter becomes something that people not only look at but rely on, it’s very difficult to get away from falsehoods and conspiracies,” Specter told me. “We’re living in a world where facts are just another element of your decision-making process.”

One of the best explanations of that came in a 2016 essay in The Times Magazine by Jonathan Mahler, who noted “a radical new relationship between citizen and truth.” He wrote that millions of people “are abandoning traditional sources of information, from the government to the institutional media, in favor of a D.I.Y. approach to fact-finding.”

New York Times:

“Why are parents not vaccinating their kids? What the hell is wrong with people?”

As a father of two young children, I’ve had outbursts like this on more than one occasion as I sit in my Play-Doh- and Lego-littered family room, reading the latest news about measles and other preventable viruses making a global comeback.

This week, Senator Rand Paul, who has previously fueled the dangerous myth that vaccines cause harm by saying in 2016 that it’s “wrong to say there are no risks to vaccines,” spoke out against government-mandated vaccines at a Senate Health Committee hearing, saying, “I believe that the benefits of vaccines greatly outweigh the risks, but I still do not favor giving up on liberty for a false sense of security.” This was just days after the news that passengers might have been exposed to measles at Chicago’s Midway Airport, even though the virus has been considered eradicated in the United States since 2000.

With a measles outbreak affecting over 200 people this year and arecent study proving yet again that there is no reason to believe that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, known as M.M.R., causes autism, it’s infuriating to know that parents still resist vaccinating their children. But I know people whom I think of as otherwise intelligent and well intentioned who aren’t convinced that vaccines are safe. In the face of their dangerous choices, I’ve been thinking seriously about what I can do to get through to them.

Medical professionals refer to these parents as “vaccine-hesitant.” As much satisfaction as it might offer to bring my family-room rants — What is wrong with you? — to my conversations with them, I’m starting to believe I can’t simply write them off as idiots. Even presenting facts might not be enough. Those of us who understand how important and safe vaccines are might need to meet them where they are, trying to express empathy for the misguided fear they’re obviously experiencing, if we’re to break through to them and encourage them to make choices that can save lives.

This outlook is inspired by conversations I’ve had at home. My wife, Sarah, is a family medicine physician with a public health degree. She has told me that most of the skeptical parents she sees each week aren’t raving conspiracy theorists — bug-eyed stereotypes who write manifestoes in crayon, listen to Alex Jones and live off the grid. They’re people who seem to make rational choices in most other areas of their lives. “Parents are worried about the vaccine side effects,” she said. “They believe they might cause autism in their children or some debilitating illness.”

“Vaccine-hesitant” parents are often influenced by a thoroughly debunked, nearly two-decade-old study that erroneously concluded that the M.M.R. vaccine is linked to autism in children. Since then, a small but highly organized and zealous group referred to as the “anti-vaxx” movement has promoted this misguided propaganda and also intimidated and harassed pro-vaccine doctors. Russia has strategically weaponized this doubt, unleashing bots on social mediato spread disinformation and promote discord, creating a false equivalency between “both sides” of the debate and “eroding public consensus on vaccination.

All of this has influenced friends of mine from the Bay Area and Virginia, otherwise highly informed individuals who pride themselves on sniffing out fake news, to remain skeptical about vaccines. Sarah described their mind-set and those of the patients she sees: “The parents don’t trust big pharma. They don’t trust scientific studies, and they think evidence is always changing. They don’t understand how vaccines work. Some will be like ‘I don’t want to overload my kid’s immune system with too many shots at once.’”

I’ve begun to agree with Sarah, who believes education, personal relationships and counter-narratives are the long-term keys to success and rebuilding trust in health professionals and experts. Her mantra: “Don’t vilify, bully or mock the parents, but try to empathize and teach, and then empower them.” She encourages doctors to actually listen to their patients’ unfounded fears before jumping in with the kind of harsh critiques or judgment that can backfire and solidify their false beliefs. Instead, she suggests doctors acknowledge their concerns and build trust over time, while also providing correct information, facts and relatable personal stories.

It’s obviously difficult to empathize with parents who are “vaccine-hesitant,” as they engage in reckless behavior that is far too dangerous to be left unchecked. The World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 global threats of 2019. And it’s important to remember that these parents are not making choices that endanger just themselves or even just their children — they’re putting vulnerable groups at risk. People who can’t receive vaccines depend on herd immunity to protect them from diseases.

Still, I try to remember that some vaccine-hesitant parents are victims themselves — of misinformation spread through social media. When I meet parents who don’t believe vaccines are safe, it reminds me of my experiences talking to people who believed conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama being a Muslim born in Kenya. I’m not naïve enough to think I can change the minds of all, but I hold on to the hope that by establishing a relationship and offering facts, we can get many of them to come around. (For those who don’t, I hope they enjoyed having a Muslim president.)

 

67 Responses to “Antifaxxers: Vaccine Movement has Lessons for Climate and Science Denial”

  1. A Thorpe Says:

    You have this entirely the wrong way round. The MMR-Autism fraud was based on a peer reviewed paper and was spread by the media. Just like fraud of human caused climate change. The lesson we should learn is to listen to the real scientists not weirdo climate activists and we should think for ourselves.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      The paper was retracted and Wakefield was struck off as a British doctor.

      As for being “spread by the media”, that happens to good information, misinformation and disinformation.

      BTW, which facts do you disagree with:
      (1) the physics of greenhouse gases, and that Venus is hotter than Mercury
      (2) the tonnage of previously-buried carbon that has been combusted into the atmosphere over the past century
      (3) our sun has been quieter (lower output) than usual these past decades
      (4) that polar icecaps and glaciers have been melting at record rates
      (5) that the oceans are getting warmer
      (6) that the arctic jetstream is powered by the difference between temperatures at mid latitudes vs. the Arctic temps

      Be specific.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        Of course both correct and incorrect information is published by the media. But science is based on evidence to confirm theories and the media is not a means to provide evidence. The fact that millions accept what the media says does not make it correct.

        Which do I agree with? If you actually said something specific I might tell you. The laws of physics are well established but that does not mean they are correctly applied. Tell me what you think and I will reply.

        The surface temperature of Venus is higher than the Earth and Mercury has the lowest temperature. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It is due to gravity compressing the atmospheres and the denser atmosphere on Venus results in the higher temperature because the gas laws. This is a well know and established fact and has been used by the aviation industry. Look up the American Standard Atmosphere.

        As for the rest they are observations. They have to be linked to carbon dioxide. How about the fact that the historical temperature and CO2 records from ice cores show that temperature changes first and CO2 follows?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Lord love a duck and JFC!! Here’s A Thro-up once again repeating his nonsense about “the surface temperature of Venus is higher than the Earth due to gravity compressing the atmosphere”. He HAS to be either a POE or the dumbest human being on the planet to keep repeating that.

          And “Mercury has the lowest temperature”?. Compared to WHAT? The inside of his skull?

          Finally, “Which do I agree with? If you actually said something specific I might tell you. Tell me what you think and I will reply”. Yes, Thro-up MIGHT tell you “what he agrees with” if you got “specific”—-don’t hold your breath though—-he hasn’t answered any of our MANY questions yet, in spite of much specificity when we asked them. IMO, he likely is a POE and is just playing with us—-why do we encourage him?.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            And here you are proving that all you are capable of is insulting other people and you can produce no scientific argument to support your case.

            I was replying to a previous comment about Venus, Earth and Mercury. Are you incapable of understanding that Mercury has the lowest surface temperature of the three. You certainly cannot follow a discussion.

            If you think I am wrong then tell the International Organisation for Standardization that they are wrong to publish the International Standard Atmosphere which is based on the physics I quoted. With every comment you justify the label of DUMBO.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ZZZZZzzzzzz…….(GO AWAY, you Moron!)……ZZZZZZzzzzz!!!!!!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Oh, poor dear, just cannot accept that your world does not exist. Try telling the pilot on you next flight not to trust the International Standard Atmosphere and see where it gets you.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Keep demonstrating what an imbecile you are, Throwup. LMAO!

            Telling the pilot not to trust the “International Standard Atmosphere” would likely get one removed from the plane (by people carrying guns) and locked in a small room for further “study”—-save me a seat.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            But it is based on the physics that is used to calculate the temperature change with height on any planet with an atmosphere and the greenhouse effect is not part of the equation. You make a fool of yourself with every comment.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Looking at the “thumbs” count, A Throwup is 4 up to 23 down while all the rest of us are 35 up to 3 down—-that’s as of 1:32 on 3/11.

            That’s also irrefutable evidence of exactly who is “making a fool of himself with every comment”. G-O A-W-A-Y-! P-L-E-A-S-E-!-!

          • A Thorpe Says:

            So what, as I have said before the numbers make no difference. There are no limits on human stupidity. As for go away, then don’t use the internet. Keep your crazy ideas a private matter. You haven’t worked out that every new visit to this page lets people register up or down. These numbers are as meaningless as your science!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “You haven’t worked out that every new visit to this page lets people register up or down”.

            Really? Show us—-keep coming back and thumbing down our comments until the disparity is less embarrassing for you. Otherwise, it’s just another half-assed opinion put out by Crock’s resident moron.

            “A Throwup is 4 up to 23 down while all the rest of us are 35 up to 3 down—-that’s as of 1:32 on 3/11”. MAKE THAT CHANGE (or go away if you can’t).

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I really cannot be bothered but try it. You really don’t like evidence do you, dumbo?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            What I don’t like is low-IQ morons and Dunning-Kruger sufferers strutting around offering their half-assed OPINIONS as if they were laws of physics. You can’t be bothered? LMAQ! You’ve been caught out AGAIN, moron—-if it’s true and so easy, GO DO IT and prove to us that this is one time when you know what you’re talking about.

            You are now at 25 down thumbs on this thread—-show us some “evidence” on how you can “catch up”—-I DO like evidence..

          • A Thorpe Says:

            If you like evidence that it can be done then do it yourself. You wouldn’t believe me anyway nor would you believe that other people had done it, if I said that it wasn’t me. You really are quite stupid.

            I didn’t invent the laws of thermodynamics or the gas law so when I refer to them I expect you to know what they mean and how they are applied, but of course you do not. You don’t understand that radiation is electromagnetic energy and how that is converted to thermal energy by interactions with molecules. As with all your comments all you can do is insult. A skill that is never in short supply on the internet where ignorant dumbos like you can hide your identity.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thank you for once again proving my point. Stop evading the issue and prove to us that you know how to inflate the “thumbs” count—-you are the one who says it can be done, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU. Otherwise it’s just more of your ignorant maundering BS.

            “You wouldn’t believe me anyway nor would you believe that other people had done it, if I said that it wasn’t me” is another one for the “Throwup’s Classic Comments” collection. YOU are the one who keeps demonstrating that you are “really quite stupid”, and it’s your D-K problem that keeps you from recognizing that FACT.

            Would you care to offer a rebuttal to the D-K accusation? Perhaps by finally explaining how it’s gravity that causes the atmosphere to heat up? I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked for that.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I’ve told, every day you can go through the list and click to add up or down. I’ve just done it. How can I prove it? Impossible with a thicko like you. But you could do it yourself but you prefer to continue this argument because your main purpose in life is to insult people. Haven’t you noticed that on this thread that the difference between ups and downs is miving in favour of me? I did that.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I’ve told you that gravity compresses the atmosphere. Do you now deny that the pressure at the surface is higher than 1000 metres above? It seems so. Compress a gas and the temperature increases. The denser the atmosphere the higher the temperature, hence Venus. It is the gas law This is all explained in the American Standard Atmosphere used by the aviation industry but you are in denial of that as well.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Ho-hum—–more gibberish from the resident moron.

            James Maxwell (recognize the name, Throwup?) discussed convective equilibrium in his book Theory of Heat, 1888 ed., pp. 330-331. Maxwell is a far better source on thermodynamics and the behavior of gasses under the influence of gravity than A Throwup, the science-ignorant D-K troll

            ”The second result of our theory relates to the thermal equilibrium of a vertical column. We find that if a vertical column of a gas were left to itself, till by the conduction of heat it had attained a condition of thermal equilibrium, the temperature would be the same throughout [i.e. isothermal”], or, in other words, gravity produces no effect in making the bottom of the column hotter or colder than the top. This result is important in the theory of thermodynamics, for it proves that gravity has no influence in altering the conditions of thermal equilibrium in any substance, whether gaseous or not. For if two vertical columns of different substances stand on the same perfectly conducting horizontal plate, the temperature of the bottom of each column will be the same ; and if each column is in thermal equilibrium of itself, the temperatures at all equal heights must be the same. In fact, if the temperatures of the tops of the two columns were different, we might drive an engine with this difference of temperature, and the refuse heat would pass down the colder column, through the conducting plate, and up the warmer column; and this would go on till all the heat was converted into work, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. But we know that if one of the columns is gaseous, its temperature is uniform. Hence that of the other must be uniform, whatever its material.”

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Oh dear. You missed the key words “in thermal equilibrium” and that he went on to say “The result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere.” etc.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Citation, please? He said it when-where-how? On what page of what book?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            It is the second paragraph after the paragraph you quoted but my version is 1871 and the page is 300. What Maxwell is talking about is a the case of a column of gas in thermal equilibrium.

            In the atmosphere the change in temperature in a column of air is an adiabatic process. This is how the lapse rate is calculated and there is no radiative component which you will see if you look up the American Standard Atmosphere. My version in from 1976 and on page 6 you will see the equations which do not have any radiative greenhouse component. This adiabatic process results in energy exchange between the surface and the top of the atmosphere. However, in a moist atmosphere there is diabatic heating due to condensation, so this a mixture of the two processes.

            Basically, there is a diabatic process where radiation from the sun heats the surface and the energy leaves by radiation. Within the atmosphere there is an adiabatic process which is what we see as weather. The entire system is governed by the law of conservation of energy so a change in one process must be balanced by a change somewhere else. The only way the energy in the earth’s system can change is by a change in the mass, gravity or insolation. A change in the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere cannot add any energy. Only the insolation changes.

            I have told you many times that the assumption of an equilibrium of energy in equals energy out for the earth cannot result in any change in the energy in the earth’s system and all we will see is transient effects due to thermal storage in the oceans and land masses. The assumption of thermal equilibrium point within the atmosphere is also wrong as described by Maxwell. This incorrect assumption creates energy from nowhere because it is essentially a law of conservation of temperature which does not exist.

            Consider also that everything above absolute zero contains energy so plot the temperature changes on a Kelvin scale and the changes in temperature estimated during ice ages are very small from a thermodynamic point of view. We operate in a narrow temperature band which is unrelated to the thermodynamics of the earth. The earth does not care about us and we cannot control the temperature.

          • funslinger62 Says:

            “The earth does not care about us and we cannot control the temperature.”
            ———

            You’re partially right. The earth isn’t capable of caring. But, if it was it still wouldn’t care about us.

            However, the evidence shows that we can control the temperature by adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere to slow down even more the rate at which heat leaves the top of the atmosphere.

        • funslinger62 Says:

          “A change in the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere cannot add any energy. Only the insolation changes.”
          ———

          An increase in CO₂ does not add energy to the system. It slows the escape of energy from the system.

          If the rate of energy added by the sun remains the same, more CO₂ will warm the surface by slowing the escape of heat, not by adding energy.

          It’s not rocket science.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            No it certainly is not rocket science, it is thermodynamics. Slowing down heat loss from an object does not increase the temperature. Put hot coffee in a thermos flask and the heat loss is reduced substantially, but the temperature of the coffee does not increase. It does the opposite, it decreases because there is still a small amount of heat loss from the thermos flask. The only way to increase the temperature of the coffee is by a heating element in the flask. The only way to increase the temperature of the earth’s surface is by adding more heat and they can only come from a heat source – the sun.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “The only way to increase the temperature of the earth’s surface is by adding more heat and they can only come from a heat source – the sun”.

            Another pronouncement from our future Nobel winner who knows more about heat and climate than ALL the scientists on the planet. Yes, ignoring the small contribution from within the earth, the Sun IS the heat source for our planet. Too bad that A Throwup is too stupid or stubborn to admit that it is the quantity of that heat that is reradiated into space (or TRAPPED BY GREENHOUSE GASSES) that ultimately determines the temperature on earth—-at all levels of the atmosphere and all depths of the oceans.

            I keep asking him why the earth is heating up, but he will not answer. Why?
            Perhaps that Nobel is in doubt after all?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            As usual, complete and utter drivel. The entire point of the human caused global warming claim is that the temperature of the earth’s surface is increasing by some means, and the claim is extra CO2. Heat loss from a surface is determined by the temperature but it is not possible for slower heat loss to increase the temperature of the surface. The clue is in the word LOSS. Insulation on your house does not change the temperature in your boiler; without a heat source in the house insulation will not increase the temperature.

            I have also repeatedly told you that there is no such physical quantity as an average temperature. It can certainly be calculated mathematically from temperature measurements but it means nothing. This is because temperature does not depend on the size of the system. Take two unequal masses of water and freeze one of them, say to -2C. Warm the other to 20C. Average 11C. Now add the ice to the water and calculate the equilibrium temperature assuming no heat loss. It will not be 11C. If you want to know how to calculate the temperature then here is a link to a worked example: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111005093858AACyj3j Now do you understand why an average temperature has no meaning in physics and none when it comes to climate change. Of course you don’t DUMBO!

            I have never made any claim about what the temperature anywhere is doing. I have said repeatedly that my concern is that the science behind the claim of human caused warming is utter rubbish because it fails to comply with any of the laws of thermodynamics.

            We are in an ice age and at the moment we are still coming out of the last ice age and are reaching the peak of an interglacial period. Explain the 450,000 years of ice ages and you will have an answer and it is not human released CO2, since CO2 did not have any influence on the past ice ages. It changed as a result of temperature changes.


    • Nice straw man

      Being a medical paper the original article on MMR/Autism was peer reviewed. But, within 2 years, then the results claimed by that paper and the foundational theories were examined & found to be fraudulent and hence the paper was withdrawn from the publication.

      Over 40 years human caused climate change has been demonstrated by evidence in multiple cases and hundreds of papers and no such paper has had to be withdrawn. The theory has been checked and rechecked multiple times and no flaw has been found.

      Compare this to the record of fraud and deception carried out by those opposing the evidence for human caused climate change and the papers of theirs that have had to be withdrawn

      Conclusion

      Try harder, troll

      • A Thorpe Says:

        There is no evidence to link humans to climate change. There is plenty of evidence to show that the climate is changing but observations tell us nothing about the cause. One of the well known papers is by Michael Mann which eliminated past climate history and invented a rapid rise which did not exist. His work has been completely discredited. There is evidence from past ice ages that shows temperature changes before CO2. Papers are controlled by the ipcc and finance is determined by governments. The flaws are in the basic physics. They are there for all to see. The work does not comply with the laws of thermodynamics and thermal energy from the earth’s surface cannot be returned to cause further warming. Show me how it can be done with house heating and I will believe you. Which papers with the true science have been withdrawn. I have lots of them?

        Making statement with no supporting evidence and insulting people does not belong innthe world of science.


        • Your first sentence is a lie; human’s are directly responsible for increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 is directly linked by long established physics to increased heat energy hence changing the climate.

          Your second sentence regarding Michael Mann is a direct libel of Michael Mann and distorts his research. Additionally you are utterly ignoring the overwhelming majority of other research that supports his conclusions

          You even lie and distort about the “laws of thermodynamics”

          You are nought but a troll, ignorant and unable to learn

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You can keep repeating your nonsense but it does not make it true. I did not say that humans are not responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 but it does not heat the earth’s surface. Temperatures can only be increaed by adding energy or by doing work on the system. CO2 does neither.

            Consider an experiment with two equal masses of air and pure CO2 at the same temperature. Now add the same amount energy to both. The CO2 will reach a highr temperature because it has a lower specific heat, but the energy in both will be the same. Now consider that they have the same surface area and are radiating energy into a vacuum. The CO2 will cool quicker because of the lower specifc heat. It is basic physics. There is no trapped heat or back radiation.

        • funslinger62 Says:

          “There is evidence from past ice ages that shows temperature changes before CO2.”
          ———

          (Just to be a bit pedantic, we are in an ice age right now. There is permanent ice on the earth at this moment. We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. End rant.)

          Correct. All glacial to interglacial transitions start with an increase in solar insolation due to Milankovich cycles. The temperature rises first releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere. However, the added CO₂ causes a positive feedback triggering more warming. Eventually, warming follows an increase in CO₂.

          “… thermal energy from the earth’s surface cannot be returned to cause further warming. Show me how it can be done with house heating and I will believe you.”
          ———

          If in a house with all windows open and the temperature at equilibrium, will closing the windows warm the house without increasing the heat added by the heating system? Of course, it will.

          Adding CO₂ to the atmosphere is analogous to closing windows because it slows the escape of heat from the system.

          Are you really having trouble understanding such a simple concept?

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I agree entirely with your view about ice ages. The earth has been in an ice age for at least 450,000 years. There are those who believe the sun is the driver of the earth’s climate but where is any research being done on Milankovich cycles? Those who believe that humans are causing climate change chose to ignore this completely. After than I do not agree with what you say.

            There is not no positive feedback due to increasing CO2. If this was true in the past then there would have been ever increasing temperatures and ice ages would not have followed interglacials. You cannot make statements like this unless you can show how the positive feedback ended. There is no evidence in the graphs of temperature and CO2 showing that there is a positive feedback which results in an increase in the temperature as CO2 increases.

            There is no positive feedback in thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The temperatures always tends to an equilibrium and so there is no feedback mechanism. Adding CO2 to an isolated system cannot add energy to change this. The earth is not an isolated system but the effect of adding CO2 is just the same. It cannot increase the temperature of the surface. Temperatures can only be increased by adding thermal energy or by doing work on the system. CO2 does neither.

            Your example does not explain the question I raised which was how can heat returning to the surface raise the temperature. Your example of the house just reduces the heat loss by a physical barrier. There is no such barrier in the atmosphere. But what you fail to understand completely it the nature of the system you are discussing with the house. Closing the window reduces the heat loss but it is the temperature that is being discuss and the temperature in the case of the house is the temperature of the flame in the boiler. This does not change. Insulation does not increase the temperature of anything. Try adding insulation or closing the windows of a house with no heating system and see what happens to the temperature. The sun heats the surface and slowing the heat loss down does not increase the temperature. You do not know the difference between heat and temperature. Also the atmosphere cannot act as insulation or as a physical barrier like the glass in a greenhouse. Both stop heat loss by convection and the atmosphere is all about convection.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, Throwup IS having trouble understanding “such a simple concept”. His level of scientific knowledge and thinking ability are such it’s a wonder he can tie his shoelaces. Ignoring his usual gibberish about “thermodynamics”, let’s look at some of his errors in this statement—-with minimal comments, since those of us who DO know some science and CAN think don’t need explanations.

            “The earth has been in an ice age for at least 450,000 years”. WRONG!
            “…. where is any research being done on Milankovich cycles?” Only for the last 100 years.

            “Those who believe that humans are causing climate change chose to ignore this completely”. WRONG!

            “There is not no (sic?) positive feedback due to increasing CO2”. WRONG!

            “Temperatures can only be increased by adding thermal energy or by doing work on the system. CO2 does neither”. True enough, but stupid—-CO2 is irrelevant in this context.

            “Your example does not explain the question I raised which was how can heat returning to the surface raise the temperature. The sun heats the surface and slowing the heat loss down does not increase the temperature”. NO? Are you sure? Are you trapped in a semantic dead end?

            “Also the atmosphere cannot act as insulation or as a physical barrier like the glass in a greenhouse. Both stop heat loss by convection and the atmosphere is all about convection”. WHAT? Things “stop heat loss by CONVECTION”? WTF are you talking about?

            Enough time wasted. I will say it again, Throwup—-why don’t you go over to WUWT where your ignorance of science and Dunning-Kruger arrogance will make you a valued member of that communtiy of dunces.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            You have a lot of WRONGs and all of them yours. We have ice core records for the period I quoted and that is the issue. I at least need data on which to base my opinions. Research on Milankovich cycles today is never reported as and of course if it is true you have to deny it because the entire human caused warming assumes there has been no change in the solar energy reaching the earth. It is impossible to amplify thermal energy and that is what feedback implies and it is why we have the second law of thermodynamics. But I doubt that you understand such concepts. You even stupidly tell me the co2 is irrelevant but in your other post you claim it is the cause of temperature increases. UNBELIEVABLE. How does slowing down heat loss in your house by adding insulation increase the temperature in your boiler? If you had an open fire in your house and added insulation would it burn at a higher temperature, NO, NO, NO. Slowing down heat loss cannot increase the temperature of the insulated object. If it could the contents of a thermos flask would increase. You are a fool. Insulation stops heat loss by convection. You don’t know how anything works. My objective is to correct the physics that is wrong which is why I will continue to comment here. Morons need education.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            So, Throwup would now have us believe that he knows more than the scientists at the Department of Energy? No surprise, since his D-K and NPD seem to have overwhelmed his thinking brain.

            https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/weatherize/insulation

            “How Insulation Works”

            To understand how insulation works it helps to understand heat flow, which involves three basic mechanisms — conduction, convection, and radiation…..Most common insulation materials work by slowing conductive heat flow….”

          • A Thorpe Says:

            Consider a building or a human body without any insulation. They lose thermal energy by convection. Insulation therefore slows convective heat loss. FACT.

            Keep on adding insulation and the exterior surface will become so large that the heat loss will eventually be higher than the uninsulated building. FACT.

            Remember the topic of discussion is the atmosphere not house insulation. The atmosphere is a gas with poor insulation properties.

            Remember also why I made this point. It was in reply to your view that CO2 slows the escape of heat. How does it do this? Are you claiming that it is a poor conductor and works like insulation, because it does not. CO2 is around 400 parts per million. It is a very small part of a huge window that cannot be closed.

            Have you read the references I provided. Of course not. You don’t want to read something that proves you wrong and with no means to insult the authors.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Keep on adding insulation and the exterior surface will become so large that the heat loss will eventually be higher than the uninsulated building. FACT.”
            WHAT?

            “Remember the topic of discussion is the atmosphere not house insulation”.
            Then why do you keep bringing up house insulation?

            “Are you claiming that it is a poor conductor and works like insulation…”.
            NONE of us have ever said that. Why are you trying to put words in people’s mouths? Setting up straw men? (straw is a good insulation material, BTW)

            “You don’t want to read something that proves you wrong and with no means to insult the authors”.
            Actually, the biggest “insult to the authors” here is your ongoing misuse and misinterpretation of their work. It’s like printing The Mona Lisa on toilet paper

          • A Thorpe Says:

            With every comment you prove that you do not understand thermodynamics. Here is a reference you can ignore on diminishing returns: https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/76941/The-Diminishing-Returns-of-Adding-More-Insulation.

            Why do I raise insulation. It is because you keep refering to the atmosphere trapping heat and hence warming the surface and this concept is likened to insulation. You don’t even know what you are saying. Every time I have to point out that heat cannot be trapped, that insulation slows down the heat lost from the insulated object, and that the temperature of the insulated object does not increase when heat loss is slowed down. The same laws of physics apply everywhere but you have to understand them first and you do not because you are trying to prove something as correct when it isn’t. You don’t even understand why an average temperature is meaningless and thermodynamics does not get any more basic than that. I assume you have ignored the reference I gave you.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Not to repeat myself, but the “WHAT?” I appended to this outrageously STUPID assertion means that you need to explain it to us, not evade it by mumbling about “thermodynamics” or going off on “insulation” yet again. Especially when the reference on diminishing returns has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value or relevance in it—-just more smokescreening on your part. Just as the semantic games you play around the word “trap” do not clarify but obscure any “science” you’re trying to provide.

            “Keep on adding insulation and the exterior surface will become so large that the heat loss will eventually be higher than the uninsulated building. FACT.”

            I will AGAIN say that this focus on someone other than you likening the greenhouse effect to “insulation” is false, and our talk of the atmosphere “trapping” heat IS correct. YOU are the one that refuses to look at any reference without the extreme and crippling confirmation bias that you display so well.

            You can repeat 1000 times that “an average temperature is meaningless”, and all you will do is further demonstrate your stupidity.

            Regarding “references”, Google “greenhouse gasses trap heat” and you will get 15,100,000 hits. Here’s an excerpt from the very first hit, from UCAR, yet another consortium of scientists that know less than you do. A simple explanation for beginners—-are you going to deny that what it basically says is “the atmosphere traps heat”?

            https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

            The Greenhouse Effect

            Energy from the Sun that makes its way to Earth can have trouble finding its way back out to space. The greenhouse effect causes some of this energy to be waylaid in the atmosphere, absorbed and released by greenhouse gases.

            Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature would be below freezing. It is, in part, a natural process. However, Earth’s greenhouse effect is getting stronger as we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. That is warming the climate of our planet.

            How Does It Work?

            Solar energy absorbed at Earth’s surface is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat. As the heat makes its way through the atmosphere and back out to space, greenhouse gases absorb much of it. Why do greenhouse gases absorb heat? Greenhouse gases are more complex than other gas molecules in the atmosphere, with a structure that can absorb heat. They radiate the heat back to the Earth’s surface, to another greenhouse gas molecule, or out to space.

            Greenhouse Gases

            There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gas molecules all are made of three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecules release the radiation, which will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process keeps heat near the Earth’s surface.

            Most of the gas in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen – both of which are molecules made of two atoms. The atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the Greenhouse effect.

            With more greenhouse gases in the air, heat passing through on its way out of the atmosphere is more likely to be stopped. The added greenhouse gases absorb the heat. They then radiate this heat. Some of the heat will head away from the Earth, some of it will be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule, and some of it will wind up back at the planet’s surface again. With more greenhouse gases, heat will stick around, warming the planet.

          • A Thorpe Says:

            I admit the reference wasn’t appropriate but look up Wikipedia then since you have taken a liking to it and look for the critical radius of insulation on pipes. Houses are not a good example since the area is not assumed to change.

            Your problem and all those like you is that you have made human caused global warming the equivalent of a religious belief and you listen to nothing that rejects your belief. In saying that I am stupid you are also saying the univesity professors who have published papers on average temperature are also stupid. Reflect on that.

            I have looked at the reference and it makes the fundamental mistake that you make about radiation. The mistake is fundamental to your entire belief, and that is all it is. This reference says that radiation is heat, or perhaps more accurately, thermal energy. Radiation is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy. EMR has no mass and so has no temperature since temperature is the kinetic energy of atoms. Radiation in the form of electromagnetic energy travels from the surface to the atmosphere and some EMR returns to the surface. The electromagnetic energy is only converted to thermal energy when the radiation is from a hot to a cold object. The atmosphere is colder than the surface and so there is no warming of the surface by the atmosphere. The law of thermodynamics. There is no greenhouse effect as you describe.

            Is the moon’s surface temperature below freezing? Not on the side facing the sun. There is no point in raising pointless cases of a different earth. With an atmosphere and no greenhouse effect, the sun will still heat the oceans and land masses and they will warm the atmosphere. Gravity will play its part but you are also in denial about the lapse rate calculation in the standard atmosphere model. Do really think that 0.04% of the atmosphere with a low specific heat and colder than the surface cause any temperature increase at the surface? You are an idiot who believes in a new science god that does not exist.

            Sorry about any typos since your website is as useless as you. On a tablet it does not allow scrolling back.

  2. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    One of the ironies of Shine’s statements is that measles has been shown to weaken people’s immune systems for years afterward.

  3. doldrom Says:

    Part of the reason people are sceptical of medical institutions is because of the outrageous gouging that goes on within the medical racket and big Pharma. The government is also not trusted very much, a scepticism that is fueled each time they hide the truth. In many countries in northern Europe this scepticism has much less following, and people view the institutions as being more reliable.

    It’s not just the content or the quality of the information, but a lot of people grade information far more according to how well they trust the source. Clearly there is a message about society in all this distrust which is unrelated to education, science, and communication.


  4. UK Scraps Pneumonia Vaccines Because They Don’t Work – Dr. Mercola, 17 Root Causes Of Pneumonia, How To Recognize Pneumonia, CAUSES, Serious Pneumonia Vaccine Negative Side Effects And Adverse Events, Allopathy Versus Naturopathy
    https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2019/03/uk-scraps-pneumonia-vaccines-because.html

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    The only “lesson” I see here is that the human brain has not evolved far enough to avoid self destruction. “Vaccine hesitant”? “Don’t alienate them by telling them they’re stupid—-educate them”? They can carve that on our tombstones.

    Just another thing for the stupid to latch onto and do nothing about for 35 years until it’s too late and epidemics are raging around the world.

  6. redskylite Says:

    These guys don’t believe the utter shit they put out, they just think they can confuse the issue and slow down urgently needed action. There is a special place reserved for these evil guys.

    The record-breaking, El Niño-driven global temperatures of 2016 have given climate change deniers a new trope. Why, they ask, hasn’t it since got even hotter?

    In response to a recent US government report on the impact of climate change, a spokesperson for the science-denying American Enterprise Institute think-tank claimed that “we just had […] the biggest drop in global temperatures that we have had since the 1980s, the biggest in the last 100 years.”

    These claims are blatantly false: the past two years were two of the three hottest on record, and the drop in temperature from 2016 to 2018 was less than, say, the drop from 1998 (a previous record hot year) to 2000. But, more importantly, these claims use the same kind of misdirection as was used a few years ago about a supposed “pause” in warming lasting from roughly 1998 to 2013.

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/09/global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-myth-refuses-die

  7. dumboldguy Says:

    Hey, Throwup!

    How about explaining how these facts go together?

    1) Venus and Earth are about the same size and mass. Venus’s gravity is 91% that of Earth,
    2) Venus’s atmosphere is ~93 time more massive than Earth’s and Venus’s atmospheric pressure at the surface is ~ 92 times that of Earth’s.
    3) Venus ‘s atmosphere is almost all CO2, which has a molecular weight of 44, while the mix of molecules making up the Earth’s atmosphere has an average molecular weight of ~30, 2/3 as much.
    4) Venus’s average temperature is ~870 F, while Earth’s is ~58 F

    How can two planets about the same size with similar gravity and atmospheres that are not that far apart in average molecular weight differ so much in pressure and temperature? How do those FACTS fit into your BS?

  8. A Thorpe Says:

    You have given the answer yourself. The surface pressure is 92 times that of earth. Remember the gas law. The atmosphere on Venus is much denser, rather like you. It is gravity that compresses the atmosphere and the mass determines the pressure. Look at graphs for different planets. Without gravity there would be no surface pressure because there would be no atmosphere. It would float into space.

  9. dumboldguy Says:

    Gave yourself a thumb up, I see—-you won’t get many for this maundering NON-response.

    Let’s try again—-why has Venus retained 92-93 times as much atmosphere as Earth when it’s gravity is only 91% as strong? Why hasn’t most of it floated off into space?

    • A Thorpe Says:

      For goodness sake. There is still gravity. The gravity on the moon is about 16% of the earth but our astronauts did not float off into space even when jumping in the air. You continue to make a fool of yourself.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The only fool I see is the one who ENDLESSLY avoids answering questions by spouting endless gibberish OR, as in this case, changing the subject. We are not talking about the moon or astronauts, but the atmosphere of Venus. “There is still gravity” you say? DUH!!! ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHY does a planet with similar gravity have an atmosphere 92-93 times as massive-dense-weighty-thick-heavy as Earth’s?

        And also tell us where all that CO2 comes from while you’re at it.

        • A Thorpe Says:

          No you are taking about the atmosphere of Venus becauuse you think it confirms your views about the earth’s climate. You are the one avoiding the subject which is earth’s atmosphere and climate. I have answered all your qustions including advising you not to misquote Maxwell. You are one who uses insults to cover your lack of scientific knowledge and it is here for all to see. I’m sure when scientists researching Venus reach a conclusion about it’s atmosphere then we will both know. Where the CO2 came from has nothing to do with how it behaves since our understanding of physics applies everywhere in the universe. A difficult concept for you though. Answer why astronauts don’t float off the moon. If stopped using such infantile language I might be able to answer. Have you read about the American Standard Atmosphere yet. Obviously not.

  10. dumboldguy Says:

    A Throwup said on 3/12:

    “I’ve told, every day you can go through the list and click to add up or down. I’ve just done it….Haven’t you noticed that on this thread that the difference between ups and downs is miving (sic) in favour of me? I did that”.

    Lets look at his latest delusion—-that ups and downs are moving in his favor.

    On 3/11, the count was 4 up-23 down for Throwup, 35 up-3 down for everyone else

    On 3/12, the count was 28 up-45 down for Throwup, 62 up-29 down for everyone else

    On 3/13, the count was 34 up-70 down for Throwup, 85 up-32 down for everyone else

    For those that can do simple math (which group does not include Throwup, apparently) the following is clear.

    1) Throwup DID go in and give himself a lot of thumbs up and others thumbs down from 3/11 to 3/12.
    2) From 3/12 to 3/13, Throwup got an additional 25 downs while all others got an additional 23 ups, returning us to the almost universal disapproval that his comments evoke from Crockers.

    Now is the time to prove that you can keep boosting your score, Throwup. Show us how it’s done. You’ve had your allowed one vote up or down for each comment. Boost your up total or our down total. Double-Dare you!

    • A Thorpe Says:

      As usual you miss the point completely. I was not arguing that the scores were moving in my fabour, only that the website allowed the results to be manipulated. You first say that I have changed the result, then you say I am allowed only one vote. How can both be true? Your failuure to accept what is going on under your nose explains it all. So, dumbo, why don’t you pack your trunk and head off to the circus. They always need more clowns.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Moron! I NEVER did, said, or even implied any of the stupid gibberish you’re spouting here. You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and your moronic denial and attempts to throw your stupidity back on me fool no one. The only change you accomplished was to give yourself some ups and me and others some downs—-ONLY ONE per comment.

        Put up or shut up! Show us that you are NOT allowed only one vote (which you can change back and forth from up to down and vice versa many times) and run your UP score into the stratosphere (or my DOWN score likewise).

        We’re watching.

        • A Thorpe Says:

          Well I am the one clicking on the numbers the system does allow extra clicks. But what sad men you really are if you are watching the ups and downs. It suits your level of intelligence though since you understand nothing else.


Leave a Reply to redskylite Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: