I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner

Appropriate reaction, I think. It's a problem on both sides of the debate, and I don't think I'm just being nostalgic in saying it didn't used to be. It's funny, working in psychology, we responded to the replication crisis quite well I think (after a period of bristling at the temerity!), there was a movement, with some strong support to take considerable steps not to p-hack, not to overreach on low powered trials... I moved to pre-prints and eventually to using a full pre-print service for papers. Now it's like the wind has been taken out of those sails and the rest of pop-science has looked at the old habits of psychology and thought "we'll have a bit of that". I really felt like we were getting somewhere, but then it all just fizzled out (round about the time social media took off...), it's one of the reasons I quit academia for the consultancy gigs.

Now it's ten times worse. It's all about 'the message' and hang the rest. I don't know why we bothered.

If I come across bitter and resentful, it's because I am.

the same mud-slinging Olivier started — Isaac

Did I start it, really? I recall that you accused untold numbers of non-descript people of being criminals and profiteers, among the many many insults you keep dishing out here.

I was only pointing out at the obvious fact that not every body argues in good faith. I even said that everyone of us once in a while argues in bad faith. You insisted on making it all about you you you.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

And the antivaxxers, provaxxers, flat earthers, round earthers(?), Democrats, Conservatives, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and everyone else nodded in agreement. And all facepalmed when seeing the idiots do so too.

Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too. — Olivier5

Because you say so or because this is your dream? Or are you just stating the obvious for no apparent reason. You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? This is because money is a dirty word now and no matter who states that global warming can only be resolved by economics no one wants to listen because to say that is to say to the general public 'rich is good and capitalism will save us' ... that is all it seems people hear when that is NOT what is being said.

The crux is the poorest need cheap energy. The more they get the less poor they will be and the more able they'll be to switch to more costly/efficient long term ways of consuming energy.

Another issue attached to this is food production and ideas of going vegan. There are professors at the height of the field who point out that meat production is perfectly viable and more environmentally friendly in many areas compared to soybean and other crops. The big issue is people are scared of 'GM foods' and make the whole industry less safe and more costly for everyone in terms of the monetary cost and the environmental cost (aka the ECONOMIC COST).

I'm not angry about this. It is just the way humans operate. It can be overcome with education to some degree ... and again we're back to square one with poverty preventing this. I'd say whatshisface who wrote the pop science books abut human history gets one thing spot on. We're led by 'stories' and currently this is a problem due to the way in which we're communicating - or rather 'trying' to communicate in the face of new technologies.

Nothing about this is simple. The only certainty I see in all of this is that humanity could probably do a lot more to be a lot more efficient in many different areas. The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at.

I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust. — Srap Tasmaner

That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. It is disturbing to understand this fully but once you can kind of accept it (although I don't mean do nothing about it) then there is a hope.

I believe, in my biased mind, that if I can do my utmost to guard against falling into this trap (even though I will) then it will have a knock-on effect. I might be wrong but it's a bias that doesn't seem to have too many obvious draw backs atm :D

Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.
— Olivier5

Because you say so or because this is your dream? — I like sushi

Because it stands to reason, I believe. There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. In fact there's good reason to believe funding for such research will be diverted to more pressing needs as emergencies start to pile up.

You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? — I like sushi

Nope, I don't understand that.

capitalism will save us — I like sushi

I am unaware of the precise argument being made here. I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. And it relies on many unproven assumptions. It could be just another smokescreen paid for by the oil industry. There's been many of those.

Rich people will be by and large okay, comparatively, or so they think, which gives them limited incentive to act. The poor will die first.

Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at. — I like sushi

It would take a massive paradigm shift away from 'more stuff' and towards 'better life'. A lot of people feel insecure about this because 'more stuff' gives them a simple metric of success and validation: how much money they make, how big their house or their car is, etc. But how does one measure quality of life?

I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. — Olivier5

It is a problem in and of itself trying to get people to look beyond their own doorstep. There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases. It is a vicious circle. The best way to break the cycle is to get as many people out of poverty as possible. Then we're in a better position to directly address the next steps of the process.

In the meantime cheaper fuel is the only realistic way of getting people out of poverty - by innovating more efficient coal power stations and gas power stations, whilst furthering research and development into nuclear power (which is NOT a solution but one step towards helping in a way much more significant than current renewables (ie. wind and solar).

These things are already happening but sadly the political scene is swept up in a frenzy of clueless individuals ranting about the end of the world and misrepresenting numerous data sets simply because they fit into their narratives. It has gotten so bad with the current media channels that where the ignorance was mainly on the side of those that are not in a position to be very well educated about matters as this now it has seriously infected those that should really know better (have some 'epistemic responsibility').

There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. — Olivier5

Of course. The alternative is it's already out of our hands though. That seems to be pretty clear. Events in the past have led to innovation where people presented doom and gloom scenarios. Crops were modified, immunisations got rid of diseases and we're not far off landing people on Mars.

Stating this isn't the same as saying 'don't worry about it'. I'm just saying things are not as bad as they seem half of the time but that doesn't mean we should worry and plan ... meaning it is better to PLAN then worry. The hysteria surrounding this topic is a detriment to making and understanding a reasonable course of action that can be implemented and adjusted when mistakes are made (which they will be) and/or new data presents itself (which it will).

Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;)

There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi

That makes no sense. Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. Those rich nations, not currently in demographic growth, are the main cause of the problem. And will remain so for decades. African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. Their demographic growth is not affecting the climate at all.

In short, no direct link exists between CC and demographic growth in developing countries. They might start to contribute to CC in the distant future, once we're all going to cook already.

Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;) — I like sushi

And yet:

The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. — I like sushi

working in psychology, we responded to the replication crisis quite well I think — Isaac

Agreed! I find I sometimes have to point this out to people who point to the replication crisis as more evidence that science is bullshit. It's more evidence, not less, that science is, at least, intended to be a self-correcting communal enterprise. That is its great value, not the supposed "scientific method".

One particularly nice example of this is "the blowback effect" that was very widely reported because it provides an all-too-neat explanation for the entrenchment of people's political views. Unfortunately the original study failed replication. I heard the principal author interviewed and he laughed, well, I have a choice now, don't I? I can retrench or I can admit that their study was a lot better than mine, so yeah, there is no evidence of a "blowback effect".

That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. — I like sushi

There are mantras of the programming community we might learn from:

1. There are only two kinds of programs: those so simple they obviously have no mistakes, and those so complex they have no obvious mistakes.

2. If you write a program as cleverly as you can, then, by definition, you are not smart enough to debug it.

I have come to believe that my fascination with formal methods in philosophy is, in part, a flight from the responsibility of thinking, a desire to be able to build a machine that answers will fall out of. On the other hand, the motivation for thinking in small, simple, verifiable steps is itself honorable, and to some degree a bulwark against nonsense. (This is one of those things the fellow next door, who thinks logic might be evil, doesn't get.)

Tu quoque, ? :roll: Sorry, it's not the case that "anything goes". Do get vaccinated. :up: :smile:

, cognitive biases and such — they come to the fore in the public square, when exchanging ideas, arguments, and such — don't want to transfer those as well.

Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. — Olivier5

I know. China is looking into nuclear innovations.

The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases — I like sushi

For Africa and Asia it will continue to swell. For everywhere else not a great deal. Population stability comes through decreasing poverty. Energy consumption is a primary marker of poverty.

Energy consumption in a country (per person) is generally higher the higher the GDP. This is why I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption.

The issue is not IF we should use more energy but HOW we source this energy. Solar is a possibility for Africa perhaps but for many other places relying on the weather isn't very practical. Innovations in new materials for insulation is one more step. There are many possibilities to use energy more efficiently tha go beyond mere production.

If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically - this is quite obvious in the US and Europe where the population is falling or only slightly increasing.

African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. — Olivier5

Yes. But if the aim is to reduce population growth then it is to Africa and Asia the focus needs to go. To stabilise the population it needs to go up up up NOT down. They will use more energy if they want to get out of poverty (it is necessary). To get out of poverty the cheapest sources of energy are what they'll look for.

It does sound counter intuitive to suggest that having more children will stop population growth.

I clearly don't have any solution to any of this (who does). My point was, and is, stopping economic growth means holding people back. It would not prevent population growth. To stop population growth the population has to rise as quickly as possible. Too many people is not an issue, the issue will be not enough energy resulting in more apocalyptic scenarios that will overshadow any climate change (barring a meteor strike).

In the western world there is more concern about 'super rich' people avoiding taxes and pointing at their carbon footprints than there is for looking at actual practical long term solutions to dealing with climate change. Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it.

I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption. — I like sushi

That's fair.

If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically — I like sushi

The main problem causing CC is not population growth, as I see it, but the emission of massive amounts of greenhouse gazes by developed countries.

Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it. — I like sushi

Climate change is also impacting natural habitats.

What it boils down to for me is I see money and resources being poured into areas that make a negligible difference (if anything) because it suits the media's narrative (which is nearly always hyperbolic).

This has infected how governments respond too. This is clear in the whole Covid reaction too. At first no one cared and now they all care WAY too much after the main fear has mostly subsided (ie. developing a vaccine). Now we're gaping into a chasm of increased poverty and less reason to be concerned about the environment.

We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet.

I just hope for, but don't expect, people to actually start learning to resist calling each other 'stupid' or boxing them up in a package of some ism so as not to listen to them anymore. I don't ever expect to get there myself fully I just hope to improve, adjust and try and be true to what I think rather than worry to much about what others think and do. The age old 'live by being an example' but constantly failing :D

:flower:

Lomborg is the guy the WSJ climate deniers and every other person who doesn’t want to appear ridiculous cites as a source. I’m very familiar with him, yes.

He’s been thoroughly debunked over and over again. He’s not a climate scientist. What he’s doing, as has been pointed out many times, is basically saying we should do nothing about climate change because there are bigger problems out there, and that the solutions proposed will do very little or be harmful to the goal of lowering emissions.

If you want to throw in with that, that’s very revealing, yes. You’re welcome to. I’ll go with the overwhelming scientific consensus from actual climate scientists.

Reviews, by scientists, of Lomborg’s books:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist

Is your argument that the health services in several major countries, the Lancet and the BMJ are touting a theory which is on a par with UFOs? — Isaac

I’ll repeat: vaccine mandates have been around for decades — at schools and many workplaces. The sudden resistance to them is due to politicization and the anti-vax movement, of which you’re caught up in — which is why you’re arguing against mandates.

Also, as you know I live in the United States, not the UK.

That they now can is new technology. — Isaac

It’s not new technology.

So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?
— Xtrix

Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'. — Isaac

So you mention newness because you want to highlight the risks, despite acknowledging that they’re safe. Do I have that right?

Hmmm. Man, the more I read about climate change and realistic (meaning now, not in 5 years) solutions, the more complicated it is. It's very hard. Not that we can't find areas in the economy that need to stay underground (literally) or that we can't isolate areas of major concern, we can.

There's too many pieces: how do you deal with people in developing countries, such as were I am at, while telling them that "personal responsibility" is important for climate change? It is but it is not. If we ALL stopped using plastic and oil, then yes, we will reduce emissions. But on a person to person basis, the way a part of environmental movement is moving (mostly, though not exclusively, the corporate sector), does virtually nothing.

Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. It will be resisted and implementing these changes is a phenomenal challenge. But I don't know how to tell a poor person that they can't eventually live a semi-decent life, because we can't use oil anymore. Yes, in a couple of decades, life will be insanely hard to live in, some places being unlivable. But what matters for them is now.

So yes, there are solutions. But even among the people there are so many "guilt shaming" or whatever, that makes this even harder: "You eat meat!" "You don't drive an electric car!" "You came by airplane" "You're using too much AC", etc.

Not to mention the need for technology which captures emissions, it no longer suffices to stop extracting, we need to remove this from the atmosphere.

Damn.

We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet. — I like sushi

We can also see the positive impact of halting part of the economy on GG emissions and natural habitats. It gave nature a break. And perhaps that is part of the solution too, or indicative if it. We can change radically if we want to. We've proven it with COVID.

Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. — Manuel

That’s exactly right. The people profiting off of destroying the environment— mostly the fossil fuel industry— have tried to suppress the data, deny, delay, and convince people that it’s their individual responsibility to recycle and use more efficient lightbulbs (in other words, more delay tactics).

Now companies admit there’s a serious problem, after years of denial, and you see greenwashing everywhere. That’s “progress,” I guess.

It’s a good example of epistemic responsibility. Much easier (and better for business) to simply deny the severity of this issue. Better to listen to opportunistic political scientists like Bjorn Lomborg, with his books titled “False Alarm” and the like. Much more comforting.

Because I gave a link it doesn't mean I hang on his every word. I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist?

I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'.

The science is that we'll need billions and billions of solar panels to replace other sources (not that I am saying that is the plan). Solar is something that should be used more widely in richer countries for sure! Wind power is currently more viable I think, but not everywhere is great for it.

I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. I look to see what is a reasonable mistake to make and what isn't.

Small things do count. We can individually make small steps. Really though I am COMPLETELY pessimistic about what will happen but I hope for the best. That said I don't believe in acting like the sky is going to fall on us either.

Nothing comes for free. Humanity has taken massive strides and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another (as is always the case). I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others as the brief uplifting feeling you get will have to be paid for by everyone else trying to build bridges rather than walls.

There are good people in positions of power trying to make a difference. They will fuck up. They will make the right call for the wrong reasons, or the wrong call for the right reasons.

My general view of humanity is we don't think we react. If we see a fire in the garden we grab and it and bring it into our house to figure out how to put it out. Sometimes the house catches fire and sometimes we get lucky and realise how lucky we were after the matter of fact.

There is that I guess. We're not exactly great with dealing with threats over the horizon though.

I've said for years education is key ... but frankly I don't even know what that means or where to begin :D Often enough our mistakes lead to discoveries. I don't think we'll ever give up though and the further we get into this age of communication the better our chances of getting through it mostly intact.

Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important.

Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important — I like sushi

Yes. I mean, realistically, this shit is going to hit the fan. We've waited for too long now. It's already hitting it, in slow volumes so to speak.

My guess is, it'll get worse every decade until a lot of people die.

Then, it will get worse still for a few thousand years, while that gigantic screw slowly comes to a halt.

Then it might get better.

Yupee.

We've waited for too long now. — Olivier5

And this was because of an active campaign of disinformation, mainly targeted at the US, and paid for by big fossil fuel interest. Their messages were diverse, changing and incoherent but they spent a lot of money on spreading them, including through social media.

It is important to not be naive about this. Bad faith, artificial mistrusts and lies are usually not coming from nowhere, or just from some crackpot or another. Sometime they are paid for by a competitor to the product, project or person being bashed.

Arguments in bad faith, such as those usually promoted by CC deniers, can make some people rich, while hurting others. It's not a joke, it's a con. And if you propagate their lies, you're their victim, and you can make other victims.

So coming back to the OP, we can have whatever opinion we fancy having on anything, I would say, but we do have a moral responsibility in trying to filter out such paid-for influence from our sources, our thinking and our own communication. Don't be a sucker.

Obviously the point is profit. But an "externality", as it were, is to make even more people aware that there's a problem with climate, which is being recognized by more and more people. It's a kind of disingenuous epistemic model, but not totally absent in content.

Heck, if there were a law that forced, say 10% of profits of big companies, to go directly to climate issues, instead of very marginally (sometimes) useful charity work, this would pave the way for new technology to come along and absorb emissions, which would be good.

But without inter-nation state cooperation, this just won't be possible, I don't think. But how to get the science through to people who are skeptical - not even considering deniers - is quite the challenge.

I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist? — I like sushi

I'm not familiar with his views on climate change, although from what I've read he does seem in the same group as a Stephen Pinker, who I otherwise greatly admire and respect. I hope they're right in their optimism.

I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'. — I like sushi

Yes, "others" in this case being actual climate scientists. I should say: it's not strictly "climate denial," so I retract that. It's a new tactic: delay. They say it's not so bad -- or if it is, there's little we can do about it -- or, as in the case of Lomborg, even if we do things about it, it won't have any significant impact and so we might as well turn to treating tuberculosis and other more pressing issues.

Again -- why this is the first thing you cite is very telling. Not NASA, not NOAA, not the IPCC, not the Royal Society, not any climate research institution in the world -- not world-renowned climate scientists, not any credible scientific organization. No: Bjorn Lomborg, the political scientist of the Hoover Institute who writes regularly for the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal editorial page. After all, he's not as bad as those awful climate deniers.

Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.

To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg's skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".

These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist

I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. — I like sushi

I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others — I like sushi

Fine. I don't think Lomborg is a moron or a lunatic, and never said so. But I've looked at his work seriously and carefully, and it's incredibly misleading -- and I believe deliberately so. It sells books, and gets a lot of attention -- particularly from the political right.

I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option. — I like sushi

I'm suggesting that we in the developed nations should scrap cars, in the third world there are not nearly so many, and many people use bicycles, small motorcycles, tuk tuks and so on for transport. Turn city lights off at night. Restrict plane travel to what is necessary; no more indulgent overseas trips for the prosperous.

All of this of course to be phased in, not instituted overnight. Not that I believe any of this will happen. We will most likely just muddle along blindly, as usual. At least it looks like wind, solar, hydrogen might be given more support than the fossil fuel industry, and hopefully some good will come out of that.

Anyway the very idea that we should be going full steam ahead with economic growth and burning fossil fuels to power it is ridiculous in my view. Given you seem to be supporting what I consider to be a absurd strategy, there is little point in me saying more than that now.

Indeed, something you should try every now and then.
— baker

:lol:

Coming from you, this is hilarious. — Xtrix

*sigh*

Make no mistake: I'm not writing this because of you or for you, but because of some other people reading this.


The sad irony is that you're manufacturing my dissent. You ascribe to me stances I don't hold, and then you argue against them, and smear my name in open forums.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.

There's a pithy saying -- "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, but the religious man puts his life on the line for what he believes."

And in this case, you're like the religious man. While I think scientific claims should be held much more lightly, more cautiously, for it is in their nature to be temporary and to be replaced with newer ones, as scientific research permits.


All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum.