Do climate skepticism and vaccine skepticism share the same roots?
Are these born of the same traits or biases? I was thinking about skepticism towards climate science, and skepticism about vaccines. Many people in both groups seem to:
* mistrust science * mistrust authorities in the field of study * appeal to conspiracy theories * make heavy use of anecdotal evidence * misunderstand relevant statistics * discount scientific consensus and large-scale studies * put short-term/personal concerns above long-term/societal welfare
What do you think, same basic behavior & attitude, or is one group on firmer ground?
2011-01-20T21:13:13Z
I didn't say anything about either side being stupid or inferior, and I don't mean to insult anyone. I was just listening to the story the other day about Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine scare, and thought about the population of people who were convinced that vaccines were a scam/conspiracy/whatnot, and thought about some of the reasons for that, and whether it might be some of the same reasons people dismiss climate science.
There are thoughtful, valuable skeptics in the world, and I appreciate that, it's part of how science works. But there are also people who can be easily mislead for various reasons, some of which I list above. I wonder how much the groups overlap.
2011-01-21T13:24:10Z
J S : thank you for ruining my day ;) (and bursting the temporary little mini-bubble I keep around me at most times)
Spanner2011-01-21T02:28:09Z
Hi Eric. I don't normally see this section. I'm jumping into this after seeing it on my contact's answers section. while I agree with Rhianna to an extent I would take some issue with her answer. (only a bit, don't get mad)
With the vaccine scares you can finger exactly were the scare came from and it's quite straight forward to debunk it. Those that still choose to be anti-vacinne have to go out of their way to delude themselves.
With global warming it's slighty different. In that case the burden of proof was initially on the scientists to show (the public as well) that this effect was happening. (with anti-vac it was the crazies who had the burden of proof) Whilst I don't doubt that man-made global warming is a real thing I could forgive someone for not being sure because 99% (percentage is completely made up) of what you hear about global warming is just that it IS happening and that it is your fault. There is little on how they know what they know. The PR battle isn't being won as well as it could be. The university of essex email debacle really didn't help. The initial story got so much press but as the explainations dribbled out they were mostly ignored.
I suppose if you are talking about active deniers then perhaps but personnally as someone who took no active interest in climate science I am a late convert to the side of accepting global warming and if I'm brutally honest, which I try to be, I'm mostly there because of the amount of people I respect that are totally sold on it. I'm like the bride of an arranged marrage trusting her family when set up with a goodlooking kindly man and hoping I'll come to love him.
Have you done any research about Vaccines? The FDA and Big Pharmaceutical company's make millions off of the public being sick.
Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine.
Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines. Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria.
yes, both started by shadowy powerful groups for economic gain.
tobacco started it;
"In 1972, Tobacco Institute vice-president Fred Panzer outlined his industry's "brilliantly executed" defence strategy. A key tactic was "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it" while "encouraging objective scientific research."
then climate change, evolution and various medical denialists used the same very efficient tactics.
"A coalition of US coal and electricity companies set the tone in the 1990s with the creation of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). It's purpose: to "reposition climate change as a theory not a fact"."
"Nevertheless, some connections exist that hint at a wider agenda. For example, there is considerable overlap in membership between the vaccine and HIV deniers, says John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Both movements have massive but mysterious funding.
Consider, too, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a lobbying group for private medicine. It showcases nearly all denialist causes. In the past two years it has published articles claiming that HIV tests do not detect HIV, second-hand smoke does little harm, smoking bans do not reduce heart attacks, global warming presents little health threat and proposals for a US vaccination registry are "not really about vaccines but about establishing a computer infrastructure... that can be used for other purposes later". It repeatedly published discredited assertions that vaccines cause autism.
It is tempting to wonder if activists sympathetic to climate and evolution denial might be grasping opportunities to discredit science in general by spreading vaccine and HIV denialism.
The conservative character of much denial may also explain its success at winning hearts and minds." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true
That is one side of the skepticism. the other sides come from misinformation from the media, political agendas trying to refute climate science, propaganda such as "follow the money," and "climategate." people are not morons for thinking that AGW is a hoax or fraud, they are just mislead. everyone makes mistakes. Let's just try to let these people know that they are mistaken and not though insults or scare tactics, since those never work. peace!
EDIT
I am not sure what you are getting at with this question. what is you agenda for asking this? are you saying that people who don't trust vaccines are stupid and therefore inferior? thusly AGW deniers are stupid and inferior? again. insults and scare tactics do not work. there's not much you can do with people who are willfully ignorant.
EDIT A.D. I am sorry, my mistake. i see a lot of questions on here trying to belittle the other party. guess i was hasty to judge. peace!
They have a lot of traits in common - mistrust of authority, mistrust of government, paranoia, etc.
But they also have some major differences. The main driving force behind AGW denial is opposition to the solution - regulation/pricing of carbon. AGW deniers start out with the conclusion that the AGW theory must somehow be wrong, then go looking for ways to justify this incorrect notion.
I don't think there's any specific motivation for people to start out with the assumption that vaccines are harmful. Perhaps they're just paranoid people who mistrust doctors or the government in general. Perhaps their kid got autism and they're looking for something to blame. But I don't see that same underlying motivation that AGW deniers have.