Sorry about contributing to a hijack. Vaccination has nothing to do with Arctic Ice - except that scientific method matters to both. Will stop after this.

Eddo the only references I recognise (1,4,6,8) in your list were about lack of efficacy not ill effects and fit with inactive vaccine or decline in immunity over time or effects of immuno-deficiency due to other factors (e.g. poor nutrition). Your Mr Classen was new to me. At risk of appearing obvious I note he has a potential financial interest and draws his net very wide.

"can't be displayed because it contains errors"
So much for the hockey stick theory - straight from the machine's mouth!

Ah! Tom. Here we have the solution to why you think the way you do, your computer is filtering the information coming to you. My laptop displays the graph perfectly, it's in "science is good" mode, whilst yours is in "advances come through cultural shifts" mode and is saying fiddlesticks to hockey sticks.

Here's another hockey stick that does not augur well for the near future.

Ah, the echo chamber alive and well

I think that the problem is that over a human lifespan we see little change. This is especially true in the UK with our variable weather.
Bill Bryson said this about our weather:
"Sometimes it rained, but mostly it was just dull, a land without shadows. It was like living inside Tupperware." (Notes from a Small Island, 1995).
Tacitus, the Roman historian said in 49:
"The sky is overcast with continual rain and cloud"

So little change in 1946 years.

This is why we need to be less subjective and more objective to global temperatures, we cannot rely on our own feelings about weather, let alone climate.
The British still hark on about 'the summer of 76', 39 years ago.
But how good was it really.
Just looking at mean UK temperatures, 1975 was warmer, as was 83, 89, 90, 95, 97, 98, 99, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09. 2010 was colder.
Looking back in time to 1910, 1911 was warmer, as was 21, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 49, 53, 57, 59
So over this 100 year period (a long lifetime, my Grandmother saw most of it) and using 'the summer of 76' as a base, then in the years between 1910 and 1976, we had 13 hotter years in 66 years, since 1976 we have had 16 hotter years in 34 years.

What people remember about '76 is the dryness and sunniness, not the temperature. They have confused themselves.
Moral of this is to not trust opinion, just go look at the data for yourself, it is pretty easy to do.

Regarding marktime's graph, it's worth noting that the last dip in CO₂ between about 120,000 years ago and 18,000 years ago was the last glaciation (“ice age”). Coming out of that corresponded to an increase in CO₂ from about 190 to 270 ppmv, an increase of 42%. Since then we've gone from 270 to 400 ppmv, another increase of about 48%. Since temperature seems to change in proportion to the log of the concentration it looks like where in for quite a big change in the world even keeping to 400 ppmv (for which we'd have to cease emissions pretty much immediately). As marktime so gently puts it, this doesn't auger well.

Posted By: EddoFor example, is light a wave or a particle? It behaves either way depending on the intention of the observer. Does this mean some part of consciousness is creative? In which case we are God, whatever that means?

Hear this one a lot, and it bugs me. The double slit experiment gets abused a lot by hippies. The only thing the wave-particle duality tells us is that the wave model and the particle model only accurately represent some properties of the real world. Light doesn't change form between waves and particles; in reality it's never a wave and never a particle. They're inaccurate models that we use because they're accurate enough in certain circumstances and are simple to understand.

Posted By: marktimeMy laptop displays the graph perfectly, it's in "science is good" mode, whilst yours is in "advances come through cultural shifts" mode and is saying fiddlesticks to hockey sticks.