Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise.

There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to many people. If accepting the consensus would lead to that plan of action, then the consensus can not be accepted.

Climate change consensus wouldn't be worth rejecting if it didn't lead to a plan of action.

You might think this violates the purity of science or something (which was already violated by that fraud) but science is not the issue here. At this point, nobody is doing science. The issue is a struggle for/against imposing heavy-handed economic control that severely changes the world's balance of economic power. Most likely the enforcement would require war. The control itself can be objectionable, even without the issue of international competition, because many people insist on a high level of personal economic freedom.

So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification.

>At this point, nobody is doing science.

Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.

The modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies is to use science as an excuse to achieve some goal, such as totalitarian control of the economy.

To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them.

If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it?

In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim.

I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist.

Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.

> In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus

You just proved the parent's point...

How so?

Quoting verbatim from the GGP, >Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths" and > the author is trying to burn religious texts and dissenting viewpoints to their "settled science".

If "skeptics" understood what the Navier-Stokes equations do, it would be easier to sympathize.

> or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective.

How did we prove that it doesn't work? I agree that it doesn't work, but I have a very hard time imagining how to make a study to prove it.

Here's a large study indicating that states with the highest abstinence education level had 25% higher teen pregnancies than states with the lowest level [1], after not controlling for Hispanic teen population, the teen population demographic with the highest birth rate. Whereas, here's one claiming that state policy affected STI rates, but not pregnancy rates [2].

edit: these studies consider "effective" to mean "reduces teen pregnancy + STI rates". Many organizations including WHO consider what they call comprehensive sex education to be a human right, in which case abstinence-only education can never be effective.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918400

About the first: Correlation does not imply causation. It's very difficult to be sure if the same communities that makes laws to force abstinence-only education also make other laws like forbidding than teenagers get sexual counseling in hospitals without their parents. (And it's imposible to be sure unless you kidnap all the children and put them in two isolated islands in randomized groups.)

Also, they classify the states according to the legislation about abstinence-only education:

0: no mention of abstinence

1: mention, but no promotion

2: promotion of abstinence

3: stressing abstinence as the fundamental teaching standard

It's very interesting that the pregnancy rates for 0 is very similar than 2. 1 is better, 3 is worse. Perhaps the states that don't mention it apply a strong implicit social pressure?

About the second one: I didn't expect this result.

Have you had a look around PubMed?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

I also don't know what the evidence suggests specifically, which is why I'd have to do a survey of the academic literature or ask about the consensus.

You are right, and this thread is depressing.

How is the common man supposed to know that there isn't anything strange in the vaccine? Governments have forcibly sterilised segments of their population before.

Ask your doctor about it instead of listening to a Facebook group.

After the opioid crisis why should I trust my doctor?

Some kind of bullshit multivariate game theoretical common sense analysis in your head about the different interests at play and their degrees of impunity vs. mandated responsibility and the estimated probability that you're being lied to in the context of your variable knowledge of the technologies and concepts involved idk lol that's how I do it.

Not everyone has a doctor.

This implies a level of trust in doctors that many people lack.

(Also vaccinate your kids dammit)