Scientists are now testing a new type of vaccine that will “immunize” people from denying man-made climate change.
This new form of inoculation uses a scientific technique to brainwash people into believing something, even if nobody can prove that its real.
Vox notes further:
In the battle between facts and fake news, facts are at a disadvantage. Researchers have found that facts alone rarely dislodge misperceptions, and in some cases even strengthen mistaken beliefs.
That’s just as true for climate change as it is for any other politically polarized issue in the U.S. The theory of identity-protective cognition, developed by Yale Law professor Dan Kahan, holds that we subconsciously resist any facts that threaten our defining values — and better reasoning skills may make us even better at resisting. People who are more scientifically literate, for instance, are even more divided about the risks of climate change than those who are less scientifically literate.
In this way Vox and researchers are right: Facts “rarely dislodge misperceptions.” But that can be said about those who believe the hoaxers, no matter how many times the facts prove the climate change lie. And it’s not about “defining values;” for climate change realists, it’s about proof, and the hoaxers don’t have any, at least, no data they haven’t doctored or changed.
Which begs the question: If you have to lie about the data, then how factual is your case?
Nevertheless, because there are those of us who demand proof before we agree to dial back our lifestyles and live once more as though we were still in the 18th century — all while transferring hundreds of billions in wealth and job opportunities out of our country — we need to be tricked into believing the lie.
Writing in the journal PLOS One, John Cook, a cognitive scientist from George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication — which sounds suspiciously like a propaganda mill disguised as an academic research center — and colleagues noted that when 100 study participants were given “misinformation” by itself, their views remained very strong along political lines. However, when a separate group was warned first that there was a general strategy to use misinformation in campaigns, the polarizing effect dissipated completely. Researchers noted, “in this case, they were told that fake experts had often been used by the tobacco industry to question the consensus about the effects of tobacco on health, and were shown an ad with the text “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating.’”
The second group had been mentally “inoculated” with hand-picked information, essentially, by Cook and his team who designed the study.
“Nobody likes to be misled, no matter their politics,” Cook said, adding that “inoculation messages” like the one he used for his study are necessary so that people are supposedly put on alert for fakery, which makes them more likely to question the information they’re getting.
But again, this is the problem: So-called “climate scientists” are putting out garbage information in the first place, yet are labeling it as the real thing, while simultaneously calling people who are already scrutinizing information they’re being given about “climate change” deniers who believe “fake science.”
The goal of Cook and all the other lunatic followers of the Church of Climate Change is to quash all disagreement on this issue, period — nothing more. The fact is they are the deniers, not us. We have actual science and data on our side.
And no amount of psychiatric “inoculation” is going to change our minds.