Stargazer said, “Being a sceptic is not like being a Christian. As we know, all you need to do in order to be a Christian is to say you are one. Nothing more.”

If you believe (as you all may) that Christianity is a farce, based on myth, lacking the ability to change a person on a fundamental level, then his/her statement is true.

However, if you look at what Christianity requires of believers, it is easily recognized that simply saying one is a Christian does not make it so. There are issues of moral choices, salvation, repentance, and how well one truthfully represents the Christian way of life. To assume that there are no rules or requirements attached to religion – any religion – at all, seems a bit odd.

So, in a worldview in which Christianity is considered legitimate, saying “all one has to do is say they are a Christian and they are one” is false. Saying “merely calling oneself a Christian does not make them one” is true.

But, of course, in alternate worldviews, worrying about such technicalities must be akin to wondering if a tree cares that a dog has just raised its leg.

What brochure did you receive? I’m looking at the VIS for DTaP from the CDC that is given to every family at our clinic every time they are given DTaP, to review prior to giving a the shot. I believe it is the most commonly distributed vaccine information in clinics. You should be able to find it at http://www.immunize.org/vis.

Section 3 describes, in plain language, reasons why a child should not get DTaP, including previous adverse reactions. Other reasons to not immunize that are not specifically listed in this statement are well recognized by doctors, such as certain immunodeficiencies (for live viruses anyway) or certain other medical conditions. I’m not sure why you believe that doctors are not aware of these.

I don’t think anyone here thinks that parents are bad when they have a medically legitimate reason not to vaccinate. That’s one reason why widespread vaccination is so important – to protect those who legitimately cannot be vaccinated. But sometimes parents do not get vaccinated based on beliefs that are not based in science, and put their children at risk of dangerous disease. I’m glad you recognize that autism is one of those beliefs. However, it is important to know that a family history of a reaction is not usually a medically legitimate reason not to vaccinate, as many “reactions” are not true vaccine reactions, and it is unlikely that the predisposition to such reactions would be inherited.

Thanks for raising these valuable points.

Have you ever seen a tiny child coughing itself to death from an easily preventable disease?

There are a whole list of things that a doctor should be wary of when vaccinating, but most don’t bother to warn people of such things or be aware of them themselves. Even if one out of a thousand react for whatever reason, that is still a lot of people and we should be aware of any/all effects that MAY occur – just like any other drug/medicine on the planet – but most doctors don’t even pause to inform people of this.

I’m not in any way behind the autism thing in ANY way – but there are other LEGIT reasons to be careful about these things we’re giving ourselves and our children. Caution should always be exercised and patients/parents informed as to any POSSIBLE effects. It just seems that when we’re handed vaccine brochures, nowhere does it list the people that SHOULDN’T have them, as is done with any other type of medicine.

People should be given information on these things and allowed to make a choice, based on both the good and the possible bad of such actions. It seems that it’s either YES or NO – but it shouldn’t be that way. I delayed my sons vaccinations (and refused some completely) due to reactions in my family and that doesn’t make me a bad mother, it makes me a good one for being aware of my family history and making a choice on behalf of my son. I’ll make sure that HE is aware of this history so when he has kids, he can make an informed decision with his doctor as well.

Painting ALL people that don’t fully vaccinate their kids as evil isn’t fair – there are MANY legit reasons to say no or delay them – but this is rarely brought up. It’s not ALL or NOTHING for everyone, and not everyone said no because of some made-up autism link.
Remember there ARE legit reasons for some to say no!

Wakefield is a bigger ahole than most aholes because he continues to play the victim of big pharma. He’s still in the limelight as the poster boy for the vaccines=autism myth. I believe he’s currently living here in the U.S. and performing some kind of consultation service. He was on Coast to Coast a couple weeks ago whining about how he was unfairly ousted, blah blah. They practically made him out to be some kind of underdog hero. *sigh* The radio show host was sure to keep the vaccines=autism debunked myth alive and well. The more they’re proven wrong the more they deny they’re wrong.

Wakefield was kicked out of medicine for valid and good reasons, whether he has any decency left to admit it or not. Reasons including to protect innocent people from being suckered and deliberately mislead by medical charlatans like himself. But misinformation and lies have a life of their own, unlike the kids and people he persuaded not to vaccinate and ended up dying because of what he told them.

It is very likely that those reading this blog post who have not already planned to attend this year’s TAM (TAM8 July 8th – July 11th), will not be able to attend. But TAM8 will have a strong Science Based Medicine “track” plus a potentially interesting panel discussion titled Global Climate Change and the Responsibility of the Skeptics Movement. Penn, nor Teller, won’t be there for this panel as they will be traveling for European performances.

You can see the full TAM8 schedule (and weep if you can’t go) here:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/882-the-amazing-meeting-8-2010-schedule.html

It is said that there will be a DVD of the proceedings available sometime after the meeting.

George

PS. I’m kind of hoping some one will reassuringly convince me that I’m wrong about this view expressed here so please do try!

If CAGW is really as certain and as bad as predicted – if we can’t all live a Western or near-Westernised standard of life then it may, horribly, come down to a case of who takes out who first.

*If* we don’t get *them*, and *if* the CAGW predictions are as sure as some think then we have reason to fear them getting us *first*.

The Greens argue the planet is over-populated, we effectively need what could be called with gallows humour, a “Human cull” and that a population crash via the usual four horseman will happen regardless whether we start and control this or have it happen in uncontrolled “natural” circumstances.

So, if it comes down to it who do you guys want as the leading world powers – the United States or China? Your nation(s) or theirs? Given just these options would you wish to be the side doing the genocide or doing the compelling to misery and hopelessness for the foreseeable future for generations to come or the side getting exterminated or forced into perpetual poverty, misery and hopelessness?

I really don’t like this idea myself.

I wish there was a better alternative.

But the bleak logic above is inexorable and hard to see any way around.

If CO2 emissions are necessary for a good quality of life & prosperous happy nations – and they are – if we have to cut back Co2 on a planetary scale as the CAGWists argue – then billions of extra people developing as they wish into high Co2 emitters = Catastrophic Global Warming.

Ergo, we cannot all emit Co2 at civilised levels and have prosperous happy nations.

Therefore do we want our nations to be forced to poverty and misery – or will we be forced to make other nations live in poverty in misery?

Can we co-operate & compromise? Not really as the climate summit fiasco at Copenhagen proved and if there’s only so much to go around then we’ll fight for our own interests as is human nature 101.

So I really hope the CAGWists are wrong about the “Catastrophic” nature of AGW and that it isn’t that bad or we find a realistic technological cure. (BTW. no, renewables aren’t really – they’ve been tried and tested since the 1970′s oil crunch and found wanting – its nuclear with its attendant issues or something else new and radical and probably likley to have its own drawbacks.)

Otherwise, if I were a cold-hearted general on either side (which I’m not!) I’d be contemplating my first strike(s) about now.

Please don’t blame me for pointing out this grim reality please. I don’t like it either.

I’m NOT actually advocating war or genocide rather than carbon laws and taxes.

I, personally, do NOT *want* any of this to occur & I find the thought of this logically realistic scenario scary and depressing. Very.

I’m just saying I think that this is what will quite likely happen regardless whether I or you or anyone wants it to occur or not.

Because of basic logic, because of human nature, because of harsh realpolitik realities.

I’ve just followed where logic combined with a realistic understanding of human nature and economics leads.

People can be skeptics and disagree with AGW. Skeptic doesn’t mean ‘agree with everything other people who call themselves skeptics do’. He’s skeptical of AGW. Many people are.

The majority in fact whether we like it or not. It seems that among the general public the level of certainty and the level of concern reagrding the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global WArming (variously known as CAGW, AGW, the Greenhouse effect and climate change) has diminished and the “skeptics” are in the majority and certainly control the political debate at present.

Insulting most people who are no longer or never were convinced of CAGW is NOT the best way to convince them of your cause. I think we do have to remember this & that a series of recent media-science scares Y2K, Swine flu, etc .. have proven exaggerated and “squibs” in the public perception – rightly or wrongly.

Plus there’s the fact that the Global Financial Crisis and many economic issues are taking priority for people and far-off CAGW is likely a concern for when other more immediate “hip-pocket”" issues are in play – worrying about “Global Warming” is essentially a luxury reserved for prosperous times.

Most people just don’t want new taxes and laws. They never do but *especially* not now and in reality governments are NOT going to impose such measur esto fight CAGW without first having evidence that is blindingly, overwhelmingly, in-your-face compelling and public support.

Reality is that we just won’t take action on CAGW until there is really NO doubt at all – not just in the scientific community but among the broader public. Scientists, sadly, are increasingly seen as too political on this and as just another lobby group – like it or not.

Most likely this means NOT until something incredibly dramatic has happened and, probably, almost certainly in fact, not until it is too late for it to make enough difference *if* the most extreme (& even some higher end “moderate”) CAGW models are right. That’s the harsh truth.

@33. JJ Says:

Penn knows his take on AGW doesn’t jive well with the skeptical community and he’s been called out for it, in person – at least at TAM7, probably at other times too. His response was political but it was honest and it shows an honest problem with the AGW topic itself – that it cannot be separated from politics. There is an implicit position that comes along with simply admitting the existence of AGW and it lies in the ‘A’.

Yes -and also in the C in the “Catastrophic” component of the better CAGW acronymn.

Having once been a believer in CAGW back when it was the “Greenhouse Effect” I was later utterly disconvinced of it and made skeptical of “climate change” after readingProf. Ian Plimer’s skeptical book on CAGW and by personally attending Plimer’s lectures and meeting with the man himself. (For the record I think Plimer is quite convincing and sincere in what he says.) Since then I have been – very reluctantly – convinced that, yes, the GW part is probably real despite the oddity of 1998-2005 being hotter than recent years.

I am – grudgingly – even willing to concede that yes the ‘A” part is on the balance of plausibility more than likely accurate too.

However, I’m still NOT concvinced by the ‘C’ part. Will AGW really be *that* Catastrophic? Will AGW have benefits too that off set its problems? Will it be anywhere near as civilisation destroying as the CAGWists say &n might their jeremiads be looked back upon with teh same “well that was a big deal – NOT!” disdain we, whether rightly or wrongly, mostly have for the Y2K bug and swine flu fears today?

I think it is always legitimate to question the science and the scientists behind it.

I think skeptics like Penn (& Burt Rutan & Harrison Schmitt) play an important role and that having opposing voices aginst the mainstream is often a good & useful thing that make sure we do get things completely right.

I think it is legitimate to ask if the potential future benefits in slowing the supposed C(?)-AGW are really and *truly* worth a hell of a lot of severe economic pain right now. There are real people’s livilihoods and national interests at stake here and that should NOT be forgotten.

Nor should it be forgotten that any Western Carbon cuts – however painfully obtained and however many people’s lives get ruined in the process – will need to be added to by even more major cuts made by nations like China and India if they aren’t going to be a totally waste of time because those far larger more populous, developing polluters will quickly make up any C02 emission shortfall.

Sad reality is that the West is serious about stopping CAGW then it cannot ALLOW China or India or other rising nations in Asia and the third world ( Eg. Brazil, Korea, etc .. ) to become like us. To develop.

Which raises the very grim and serious questions of can we stop them & do we have the right to?

How far are you Warmers willing to go to end the hypothetical CAGW threat?

Far enough to nuke Beijing or set bioweapons loose on the slums of Mumbai?

Such blunt and brutal actions may be the only option if CAGW is to be averted.

Cure worse than disease?

Penn – Please less of the camera 1/2/shaky cam stuff. It makes me feel like I’m in orbit around you, and that’s disturbing at many, many levels.

His response was political but it was honest and it shows an honest problem with the AGW topic itself – that it cannot be separated from politics. There is an implicit position that comes along with simply admitting the existence of AGW and it lies in the ‘A’.

At least that’s what I see in others – it seems many people out there are politically minded enough to see that there will be implications from the ‘A’ in AGW being fact.

I don’t have to agree with Penn on all things but I think he is a Good Thing for skepticism.

That said, Penn annoys the crap out of me. So entirely convinced of his own righteousness. Like Bill Maher, he’s a perfect example of why the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Both are generally smart people who make some really good points about some subjects, but are utterly ignorant and wrong about others. The problem in both cases is the arrogance of assuming that because they are right about some things, they are right about everything. But one can use the excellent points they make when they without endorsing everything they say.

People can be skeptics and disagree with AGW.

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming; Penn is simply a cynic in this regard, not a skeptic. A skeptic demands evidence, which has been provided, he simply doesn’t like. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

@Hedgie
People can be skeptics and disagree with AGW.

To do so honestly requires the embracing of a form of radical skepticism, a philosophical position that is neither honourable nor practical.

Of course, Penn is not even a limited form of radical skeptic, because his support of vaccination is based on acceptance of the science and the expert voices.

…if he calls himself a skeptic then he is one…

Um…no.

AGW is at this point beyond most doubt. Do we have an effect on the climate, and is spewing massive amounts of greenhouse gases having the result of the climate getting warmer? It seems so. To deny AGW at this point is not far from being anti-vaccination or not believing in evolution.

Can you be a rational sceptic and still believe all sorts of crazy things? Of course if all it requires to be a sceptic is to say you are one, then there will be no scepticism to stop you from believing anything.

And what is this weird accusation that we don’t like him simply because he’s a libertarian? Of course I would never want to live in such a society, but that’s not the only reason I can’t stand him. I sometimes suspect that libertarians, who want less or no government “intrusion” or regulation, are less than comfortable with the idea that some activities may actually be harmful and therefore required to be regulated by a government. But I could be wrong.

Maybe he’s got some sort of evidence that our civilisation is not causing a climate change. Other than quoting some random magazine from the 70′s or get the expert opinions from a libertarian think tank. I haven’t seen it and I have never heard that he has presented such evidence, but I am sure we are all waiting for it.

Wrong or right on any topic, if he calls himself a skeptic then he is one and the people here bitching about him ‘lowering the tone’ of skepticism are, in my view, lowering the tone of sapience.