Academic Heresy Hunters

Academic Heresy Hunters

Did you know, dear reader, that not every person in the world believes in the Everettian (many worlds) multiverse? Shocked, aren’t you. Maybe even outraged, our favorite emotion. I know I am. I know how you feel.

How can people not believe that every time a measurement of a very tiny object is made, entire new universes are spun off, each exactly the same as ours, but each taking only one of the possible new values of the thing measured. Never mind this requires infinite energy and some overseeing entity to ensure each new universe gets the proper value. The Science has declared this theory true and it is therefore our duty to believe it.

It’s appalling in this late day and scientific age that science deniers exist, and are allowed to exist. It’s obvious multiverse deniers should be hunted down and that they should have their awarenesses raised. The hard way, if necessary.

I was so amazed and incensed about this denial that I followed the example Dimitrios Gounaridis and Joshua P. Newell in their Nature: Scientific Reports paper “The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States” and used AI—AI! AI! AI!—to make maps of multiverse denial in the USA. Like them, I got my denial numbers from trolling around Twitter, searching for malcontents, scientific scofflaws and other bad people.

Here’s what I came up with, a heat map, showing denial hotspots in red.

This map is science itself, and must be believed. Because it used scientific techniques, done on a computer, and AI. Further, the map is a true map, for I did find an instance of multiverse denial on Twitter, and the denier does live in Michigan, the greatest state.

For the poster was me.

I am nothing if not inconsistent.

Now this stunt I made you read, asinine as it is, is no different, at all, in essence from the stunt Gounaridis and Newell pulled off.

Their peer-reviewed effort is just as useful at deciding the truth of “climate change” as my stunt was at deciding the truth of the multiverse. Indeed, mine was better because at least the (many worlds) multiverse has a well known definition that can be understood and therefore critiqued. “Climate change”, on the other hand, has no fixed definition and is allowed to float, depending on the use to which it is put, which is intolerable.

Sometimes “climate change” means that the earth’s climate has changed, which is true and doubted nowhere. Sometimes it’s that all or most of the change is caused by man, which is true, false and uncertain: true that some is, but only because all creatures affect the climate; false (obviously) that all change is due to man; and uncertain how much is due to man. Sometimes “climate change” means a political stance you must embrace that involves it’s “solutions”; resistance to the “solutions” is called “denial” too.

And there are more meanings beside these.

We can sometimes back out the definition authors had in mind. Let’s see if we can do that here, by looking at their Abstract (my paragraphification):

Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States. We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change. This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income.

The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists. As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience. As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns.

Let’s see what we have: Preposterous self-importance; denialism (a state); gratuitous covid vax mention; woke measure of “carbon intensity”; conspiracy of coordinated enemies who sow disbelief; Orange Man bad; misinformation and the call for both censoring unapproved ideas and propaganda.

That “knowledge vulnerability” is new to me. Sounds like the kind of effeminacy typical in woke academia. They use it like this: “Climate change denialism is also a risk, in the form of knowledge vulnerability.” Aha.

You can only know what is true. (But you can believe anything.) These guys are saying, therefore, that “climate change” is true, and beyond doubt. Which is not possible because there is no fixed definition of the term. What they call true is false, or at least undefined. Which makes this paper is yet another instance of the electronic inquisition for the rooting of out of heretics. But this one uses “AI”.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. Leonard

    Lol it’s like the academia version of Spinal Tap!

  2. From SE MIchigan where we love global warming

    70 degrees F. yesterday February 27, 2024

    Less snow this winter than any time since the late 1970s.
    Spent 1o minutes snow shoveling the driveway so far this winter versus up to once a week in the late 1970s and early 1980s

    The “study” from U of M was just an extended insult of conservatives using big enough words to sound scientific, It used Twitter as a data source so was not scientific at all.

    The climate change religion defines climate change as CAGW coming in the future. There is no doubt about their definition. There is a lot of doubt about their CAGW prediction, which began in the late 1950s (oceanographer Roger Revelle) and was defined with numbers in the 1979 Charney Report. We are still waiting for CAGW to show up.

    The bottom line is climate change means a prediction of global warming doom being blamed on humans. Meanwhile actual global warming in the past 48 years was very pleasant — no bad news at all. Give us more of that. And our plants would enjoy more CO2 too.

    But none of this matters because scientists say global warming will kill your dog.

    If you are feeling good but would prefer to be annoyed, and get nauseous, read the U of M report

  3. Leo

    No mention of the poor track record of the climate models in making predictions. Not the slightest hint that there might be a valid reason for uncertainty.

  4. Cary D Cotterman

    Only 14.8 percent of Americans don’t believe in CAGW? No matter how cynical I am, I’m still often startled by how many gullible, dumb people there are. If 85.2 percent of us are sheep, there’s no hope.

    As far as the “multiverse” is concerned, I’ll leave that fantasy to the Sheldons of the world who spend too much time in comic book shops.

  5. Incitadus

    Deception is the bedrock of consciousness itself, it is the most lethal political weapon
    of all time. The ability to convince the masses of absurdities leads inevitably to atrocities.
    There are abundant examples peppered throughout the arc of human history. All that
    is old is new again tyranny, slavery, poverty, and famine are upon us. The climate crusade
    is the control knob on your freedom and prosperity, and though at first sight it appeared innocuous
    enough, it’s true purpose should by be manifestly clear to all by now. Yahh you vill eat zee bugs und I vill
    eat zee steak und lobster, soon you vill know what zee poachers felt in zee king’s forest.

  6. David M. Albert

    R.G. says “The climate change religion defines climate change as CAGW coming in the future. There is no doubt about their definition. “. He is probably right when they are arguing for policies to prevent the future catastrophes but they do not use a
    consistent definition of “climate”. The kids trial here in Montana had at least a dozen witnesses for the plaintiffs that all used the term “climate event”. The context of their testimony clearly indicated that they considered bad weather to be climate and everyone of them had witnessed it deteriorating. This included even their experts and not just the kids.

  7. Johnno

    BRIGGS, YOU FOOL! You’ve blown a GLORIOUS opportunity to demonstrate that Climate Change is NOT simply restricted to our dimension’s terrestrial sphere, nor simply our solar system, or even our entire universe!

    Climate Change is a MULTIVERSAL ISSUE!!!

    Every alternate Earth’s human-like population out there is a contributor to the problem!

    All current policies must be thrown out! Preferably, recycled!

    Grind all current strategies and solutions to a HALT, and redirect ALL of THE SCIENCE ™´s resorces and brain power toward finding and signing binding agreements with ALL of the other THE SCIENCE ™s out there before returning to solutions, leaving us in peace until they do!

  8. PhilH

    Pompous gits.

  9. Neil

    “Sounds like the kind of effeminacy typical in woke academia.”
    Something to savour. Watch this space.

  10. Peter Morris

    I’ve made my peace with the fact that we’re all going to end up on trains.

  11. Jim H

    Are we supposed to sing Cielito Lindo for AI AI AI?

  12. Forbes

    Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change belief across the United States. We estimate that 85.2% of Americans believe in climate change. This belief is highest in the northeast and western U.S. It also persists in larger states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income.

    Do I get any grant funding??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *