Do climate skepticism and vaccine skepticism share the same roots?

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"."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.200...

and;

"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...

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.

Yep. They use the same tactics as many other antiscience movements such as creationism and alternative medicine.

There's a word for all of these: denialism, the act of denying science or history for ideological ends. They aren't skeptics, who base their arguments on evidence, instead they base them on emotion.

The word "skeptic" would imply someone who is equally inclined to be skeptical about both sides, who would be inclined to dig deeper to weigh the balance of peer-reviewed science supporting either side, which would result in the realization that there isn't single shred of valid science supporting a contrarian view on climate change.

While no one likes to be labelled "in denial," even when (or especially when) they are. Lete's be fair and realistic: denial is a normal and healthy psychological reaction to mortal threats. The prospects for the planet are not pretty, so it's attractive to put on a cavalier, optimistic face, and to avoid looking at only valid scientific data which might burst the happy bubble many people have built around themselves.

It may be useful to note however that this does not in any way make science realists any better than the so-called deniers. I haven't seen anyone analyzing the numbers in a rational way and advocating a logical, effective response, with success being measured primarily on a global basis (as it must be... we're all on the same warming planet).

The "elephant in the room" which no one wants to acknowledge is that we can't stop climate change any time soon. Science tells us that the excess CO2 already emitted every year will remain a warming influence on the planet for 1000+ years, and on a global basis we're well on track to double or triple total global annual emissions (while scientists tell us that we clearly need to freeze at current levels, and preferably decline ASAP).

Here's the clear barrier to global reductions: developing nations produce half of all greenhouse gasses today, but represent the vast majority of emissions growth, so it's mathematically impossible to stop climate change until they stop building coal power plants (China and India alone have 500 more planned for construction). Despite this simple fact, politics being what it is, there isn't a single treaty or proposal under discussion to address the problem globally. So until we have a solid proposal that some group of people with power and influence are advocating, exactly who is entitled to point fingers or pin names on anyone else? Hypocrites perhaps, but we're all responsible, pretty much everyone that I see speaking ont he topic anyway, for sidetracking the discussion away from the critical and necessary "net global result" focus.

Exponential growth in China and India alone could double global emissions in one to two decades, so about the best we can do at the moment (under current political rule) is to buy locally-produced goods and prepare for the worst case scenario that we're on track to achieve.

However, the growth and pollution in developing nations is to manufacture goods for developed nation populations (and for retailers such as Wal-Mart), so a key component of any solution will be to bring back manufacturing to developed nations, where we have the ability to insist upon investment in cleaner power generation (40% of global emissions) and minimize transportation emissions (the second biggest category at 20%). We also need to curb black soot emissions (60% as strong an influence as CO2), mainly a developing nation problem.

First we'll need to elect entirely new political representatives who are intelligent and honest enough to take the difficult but necessary steps to minimize the global damage and destruction that we pass on to our children. Neither of our two current political parties here in the U.S. are even remotely honest with us on topics such as global warming and immigration (a major contributor to U.S. population and emissions growth). The first order of business must be to properly define the acceptance of so-called "campaign contribution" bribes as treason, to remove crooks from the process and to restore politics to the role of public service.

Yes, they are all science denialists. They refuse to accept evidence. Their position is one based purely an emotion,

@ Angel: I'd never get mad at you. Well, just a little bit... sometimes :)

The mistrust is in "junk-science" and the lies that come from it. And there's plenty of junk science in the world. I trust those authorities in the field who don't get their material from left-wing politicians and junk-science organizations. There are plenty of valid authorities who use real science to debunk the global warming scam.

No, more likely than not those people believe in AGW and believe every theory they hear on man's destruction of the planet.