Green Building magazine: Arctic sea ice

61 to 90 of 108

- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: SteamyTeathe man who always drives across a red light, when asked why his reply was. "My cousin always does it".
Suddenly he stops at a green light, I ask why, he replies "in case my cousin is coming the other way"
and my current favorite Yogi Beara one -
" I always go to everyone's funeral, otherwise they won't come to mine".
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: fostertom
Remember, one by one the respected instiututions and professions of society have discredited themselves in ever-more cynical public perception - politicians, journalists, bankers, captains of industry, police ... The arrogant way (some) scientists carry on, they'll be next to fall.

The difference with scientists, though, is that their experiments can be replicated (or not). This peer review is the unique difference that none of the other professionals have. Individual scientists may be discredited, but that's precisely because their experiments cannot be replicated (e.g. the autism caused be vaccination debacle; cold fusion etc. etc.). Anything that cannot be explain by current theories requires new ones or refinements - but the new hypothesis must be capable of accounting for all existing manifestations of the phenomenon in question (e.g. relativity still gives the same results as Newtonian gravitation for "everyday" speeds etc.). Some observations cannot be explained by classical theories, one such example being the quantization of radiation. The photo-electric effect can only be explained by quantum mechanics; classical mechanics does not work here.

And so it is with AGW. The mechanisms of the greenhouse effect have been known since Arrhenius's time (and are due to the way bonds work in certain molecules). We can easily compute what the mean temperature of the earth would be without CO2; none of this is mysterious. Of course, in the past, there have been other sources of CO2 (and this excess eventually gets converted into limestone) - but there has never been a case of high global surface temperatures and low CO2 levels - at least as far back as we can infer the temperature and CO2 levels.

Ordinary people can have opinions, of course, but in many cases they're simply incorrect. Believing something does not make it true unless you can design an experiment to test and reproduce your hypothesis. This is the power of the scientific method.

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthorbot de paille
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
I spent my entire life believing and being told by scientists that too much dietary cholesterol was bad for me and would lead to heart disease.

love this quote re peer reviewed science:

"Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," nutrition science critic and Stanford University professor John P.A. Ioannidis wrote. "In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?"
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Posted By: Paul in MontrealThe difference with scientists, though, is that their experiments can be replicated (or not)
The equivalent has been true of every religious belief system since time began, to that sub-group of its adherents who see themselves as 'true believers'.

To them, all previous or alternative religions are wrong because theirs alone has that unique 'something' built into it that proves beyond doubt that at last this one is the real truth. That 'something' (in case of Scientism the Creed is Scientific Method, Replicability etc) is absolutely conclusive, to the true believers' complete satisfaction, constantly reinforced by the selected range of stuff that they hear/read, and the fellow believers that they mix with.

Exactly same has been true of umpteen religious belief systems, previous and current. Scientism is no different. Science does not inherently demand that true-belief. It's only those scientists who choose to become true-believers, who promote Science to the religion of Scientism, that hamper themselves with that psychological baggage. I know plenty of awesome scientists who don't go that route.
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: bot de pailleI spent my entire life believing and being told by scientists that too much dietary cholesterol was bad for me and would lead to heart disease.

Exactly - and how do you design a repeatable experiment on nutrition which can isolate a single variable? It is very very difficult. How many different gases are in the atmosphere at concentrations above 0.1%? Only a handful - and most of those are not varying to any extent. See the difference?

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Ah, healthcare and medicine is my area of knowledge. Best not divert onto that one. But (can't help myself here) what needs to be mentioned is complicity in duplicity within scientific circles. Specifically in reference to the medical field, scientists have to earn a living and there is a lot of pressure on them to provide the (positive) results that pharmaceutical companies are paying them for. So when a clinical trial is not so great, or borderline, well a little statistical massage or exclusion of data or a parameter, does the trick. The drug comes onto the market for 5 years, by which time its efficacy has been properly assessed, and the data reviewed if suspicions are alerted. Every 3 to 5 years a certain drug arouses suspicion due to inefficiency. The drug is investigated, the drug company gets fined Â£100,000 to Â£300,000, but has meantime recouped development costs, several millions worth. Why are the fines so low? Because every pharmaceutical company would become bust very quickly, and that is not in the national interest.
This is a highly contentious area, but I am also sorry to say that links between vaccination and autism do exist, and the CDC in America recently experienced repercussions from whistleblowing. Here is a link I just pulled up now,but have not read properly yet http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/obama-grants-immunity-to-cdc-whistleblower-on-measles-vaccine-link-to-autism/
This particular issue has been going on for some time, so several sites will have data on it.
I am not inviting comment, since this has nothing to do with Arctic Sea Ice!
It is just information sharing. If anyone wants to discuss further, I am open to it, perhaps on another thread.
- CommentAuthorMike George
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Posted By: Paul in MontrealThe difference with scientists, though, is that their experiments can be replicated (or not)

Yes, that is the correct definition for me - replication at will.
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Eddo</cite>but I am also sorry to say that links between vaccination and autism do exist,</blockquote>

Except this study published today says otherwise: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444

Which does one believe? Some quack site or the Journal of the American Medical Association?

By the way, the main writer for Health Impact News has this bio: "Brian Shilhavy â€“ Brian Shilhavy is the Managing Editor and Founder of Health Impact News. He has a BA in Bible and Greek from Moody Bible Institute, and an MA in Applied Linguistics from Northeastern Illinois University." No further comment necessary.

Are you also a cellphones/wifi/smartmeters-cause-cancer sort of guy?

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Or a sort of guy who believes that leopards can be persuaded or bullied into changing their spots? Well, perhaps they do, but only when they're ready to.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
â€œbut I am also sorry to say that links between vaccination and autism do existâ€

I searched for the â€œwhistleblower'sâ€ name and got pages of links to sites I'd not heard of. Snopes and dailykos were the only two I recognized before running into the area of obviously irrelevant links:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/29/1325706/-The-fictional-CDC-coverup-of-vaccines-and-autism-movie-time#

Wish the dailykos one didn't use such loaded terminology but they're worth a read, I think.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: bot de paillelove this quote re peer reviewed science:

"Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," nutrition science critic and Stanford University professor John P.A. Ioannidis wrote. "In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?"
Indeed, that's why you need to look at the wider consensus and try to make a rational evaluation of the strength of the overall evidence rather than look at the results of single recently published studies. Unfortunately, the press are dreadful about this.

(And, yes, if the cholesterol thing is as I understand it (nobody seriously checked whether cholesterol in food gets into the blood) then that's inexcusable. Still, I'll wait for a bit more clarity on the matter.)
- CommentAuthorbot de paille
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Posted By: Ed Davies
Posted By: bot de paillelove this quote re peer reviewed science:

"Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome," nutrition science critic and Stanford University professor John P.A. Ioannidis wrote. "In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?"
Indeed, that's why you need to look at the wider consensus and try to make a rational evaluation of the strength of the overall evidence rather than look at the results of single recently published studies. Unfortunately, the press are dreadful about this.

(And, yes, if the cholesterol thing is as I understand it (nobody seriously checked whether cholesterol in food gets into the blood) then that's inexcusable. Still, I'll wait for a bit more clarity on the matter.)

Scientists now play the PR game trying to get headlines for their work so that they can secure funding. The medias behavior is a direct result of the way that many scientists are now presenting their work.

As for the wider consensus, almost all published research papers are written with and in reference to previous relevant papers/research anyway, its a requirement of peer review.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Paul in Montreal</cite>Are you also a cellphones/wifi/smartmeters-cause-cancer sort of guy?</blockquote>
You already knew the answer,Paul! Psychic? I can tell...

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Paul in Montreal</cite>Which does one believe? Some quack site or the Journal of the American Medical Association?</blockquote>
In order to keep an open mind, both,I think. Both have clear agendas. One does not have to believe what either say, according to one's rationality, just curious about possibilities. As a scientist, question everything, no matter how absurd or irrelevant it seems - my outlook.
- CommentAuthorbella
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
OK Tom, Pace. I grant you that scientists are neither better nor worse than anyone else as people and yes homosapiens can be pretty mad, bad and dangerous to know. But the discipline of science is just a way of dealing with some of life's uncertiainties - as it turns out the discipline is rather effective and that is why the source material matters so much. Why that should annoy anyone I simply don't get.

On the cholesterol point - a very good example of the need to go to the source material. More than 30 years ago biochemical/nutrition science already knew that the cholesterol found in blood and tissues was largely synthesized in the body and that genetics largely explained the harmful high cholesterol levels exhibited by some individuals whose cholesterol production was high. Cholesterol lowering drugs e.g. statins work on that bit of the body chemistry. Those damn scientists will just keep beavering away.

The "cholesterol in food is bad for you" messages came from the manufactured food industry, who wanted to promote their low cholesterol foods, and healthy lifestyle "experts" writing in magazines and newspapers, earning a crust by scaring the readers and no doubt getting the odd fee from newspaper moghuls and food manufacturers. These guys either don't read the source material or read it and know it has to be "bent" to serve their purpose. Same techniques used for tobacco, alcohol - aahhhhhhhh.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Ed Davies</cite>I searched for the â€œwhistleblower'sâ€ name and got pages of links to sites I'd not heard of. Snopes and dailykos were the only two I recognized before running into the area of obviously irrelevant links:</blockquote>
Oh, the alternative lot love this sort of thing, and will milk it into absurdity. One has to carefully filter the wheat from the chaff. I think even Wakefield came out to denounce the CDC with over the top comments, as I recall, but then again he did lose his job.
I realise I sound contradictory - got a foot in both camps - got psychic friend and purely rational friends. I feel a bit like Constantine the Great, who on his deathbed chose to be baptised, just in case the Christians were right after all.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Posted By: bot de pailleScientists now play the PR game trying to get headlines for their work so that they can secure funding. The medias behavior is a direct result of the way that many scientists are now presenting their work.
That's both true and unfortunate. Cause and effect go both ways, of course, but the main point is that you need to take this into account in evaluating individual papers and, particularly, in evaluating press reports of individual papers. When the press says â€œscientists sayâ€ they usually mean â€œsome scientists we talked to say todayâ€. What other scientists say on the same subject often doesn't get covered very well. Only by reading round the subject a bit can you see the wider picture.

Can you imagine a press report starting â€œPoliticians sayâ€¦â€?
- CommentAuthorbella
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register for failing to declare his professional and financial interest (acting for claimants, charging substantial legal fees) in the very subjects whom he included in his report associating autism with vaccination. He also had a financial interest in single vaccine use. This was no ordinary scientific dispute.
- CommentAuthorPaul in Montreal
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: bellaWakefield was struck off the Medical Register for failing to declare his professional and financial interest (acting for claimants, charging substantial legal fees) in the very subjects whom he included in his report associating autism with vaccination. He also had a financial interest in single vaccine use. This was no ordinary scientific dispute.

And yet, despite all that and him admitting to fraud, people still believe there is a link between ASD and the MMR vaccine.

Yet at least those good folks at the JAMA could take actual real data and start with the hypothesis "there is a link between ASD and MMR" and then see if the data supported this hypothesis. It does not, and anyone is free to do the statistical analysis for themselves with those over 97,000 pieces of data. This is the difference between the same hypothesis being made in those Health Impact News kind of sites and the likes of the JAMA. You can't escape the numbers, unless you cheat (which is essentially what Wakefield did, to his discredit and disgrace to his profession).

Paul in Montreal.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Absolutely right, but no really good clinical trials have been done for vaccination vs non vaccination. This gives the doubters so much fuel. A few very small trials have generally come up negatively (vaccinated cohort generally more susceptible to infection by wild strain of vaccination organism than non-vaccinated). Plus the individual cases where someone says "my child changed overnight after the vaccine and no-one believes me". I think there is so much fear of a negative (or uncertain) clinical trial result that one will never be conducted. The excuse for not conducting a gold standard trial is "unethical to deny the control group the chance to be vaccinated". Poppycock.
- CommentAuthorbot de paille
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
No idea about the link between vaccinations and autism

My daughter ended up in re-animation and then intensive care for a number weeks after she was given her triple vaccine a few years ago. Its was touch and go for a few days and something I hope no other parent ever has to experience. The doctors suspected a double virus/bacterial infection but were never able to determine the reason/cause of the illness.

I was in London recently and talking to some parents/friends who absolutely do not believe that vaccines pose a health problem and yet they all were able to recount stories of close friends whose children fell ill, sometimes with autism directly after being given the MMR vaccine. I'm not anti vaccine either and yet it was strange that as we were talking we were all able to recount similar stories.
- CommentAuthorbella
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Children get sick often, I am very sorry to say. That is why the Danes took a whole population approach to studying MMR vaccination. All infants free of fever or other unwellness were vaccinated with MMR (with parents permission) and followed for the same number of weeks before and after. They counted adverse events and found the same proportion before and after. The Daily Mail never mentioned this finding.

This does not mean that adverse events due to vaccination NEVER occur, just that these are very rare by comparison with what occurs in unvaccinated populations. Vaccines are not given to children with compromised immunity (say on treatment with anti-cancer drugs) because they cannot mount an effective immune response. They have to rely on the immunity of their peers (in this case to measles, mumps and rubella) to protect them because they may also develop especially unpleasant complications to such viruses if exposed.

I do not know of any study which has found vaccinated children MORE susceptible to wild strains of measles, mumps or rubella viruses. That would be a truly extra-ordinary observation. A few children vaccinated in childhood may nevertheless get the illness due to any poorly looked-after vaccine (so inactive) or much later due to immunity declining over time (nature).
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Our neighbour swears her son changed overnight after the MMR. It's a story I've heard many times, unfortunately. So, I want to believe the evidence I see, not what I'm told to see. Subjective evidence is valid, in my books.
I would recommend you think carefully about boosters,etc. I know of one case where an adverse reaction was poo-pooed by the MD, the next dose given on the due date, then straight into hospital with encephalitis and permanent brain damage.
The very worst thing a parent can do is to give paracetamol to quell a fever after vaccination. It completely stops the immune response needed to make the vaccine "take", or to cope against the cocktail of nasties in the vaccine. Yet Calpol is licensed for post-immunisation fever. Insanity.
I can recommend alternative protocols if you like.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: bella</cite>I do not know of any study which has found vaccinated children MORE susceptible to wild strains of measles, mumps or rubella viruses. That would be a truly extra-ordinary observation.</blockquote>
Will get back to you with these in a while,if you are patient...
- CommentAuthorbot de paille
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
"Children get sick often, I am very sorry to say."

thank you captain obvious
- CommentAuthormarktime
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Am I alone in thinking that this thread has been hijacked? Do we really want to go down the MMR/Autism path when the OP asked a question about the Antarctic? Eddo reminds me of an earlier contributor who was fond of blitzing the forum with links. I fear we are in for the same type of crap if we continue to feed the troll.
- CommentAuthorSteamyTea
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015 edited
Anyone read Ben Goldacre's (Mother is a good singer) books?

Bad Pharma
and
Bad Science

He shows the corruption that went on in the profession.

I think generally, and from my own experience, that scientists who are working 'on the bench' are a pretty honest lot.
The people paying for it is a different story and not one I am really qualified to comment on.

I do find it odd that people that think that climate change is not man made, also tend to think that there is a link between MMR and Autism. They also like the idea of 'alternatives' that tend to be painless and no risk i.e no real treatment.
This does lead to some more serious conditions being missed or never diagnosed. I have personal experience of this, though that is in no way proof of anything.

I think it is about time that this was watched again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
He is much more eloquent than I am.
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Bella,
Here is a medley, re. mainly measles, for your info. See attached file too.

P Aaby, K Knudsen, T G Jensen, J ThÃ¥rup, A Poulsen, M Sodemann, M C da Silva, H Whittle. Measles incidence, vaccine efficacy, and mortality in two urban African areas with high vaccination coverage. J Infect Dis. 1990 Nov ;162(5):1043-8. PMID: 2230232

InÃ¡cio M Mandomando, Denise Naniche, Marcela F Pasetti, Xavier VallÃ¨s, Lilian Cuberos, Ariel Nhacolo, Karen L Kotloff, Helder Martins, Myron M Levine, Pedro Alonso. Measles-specific neutralizing antibodies in rural Mozambique: seroprevalence and presence in breast milk. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Nov;79(5):787-92. PMID: 18981523

L Sekla, W Stackiw, G Eibisch, I Johnson. An evaluation of measles serodiagnosis during an outbreak in a vaccinated community. Clin Invest Med. 1988 Aug ;11(4):304-9. PMID: 3168353

A J Hall, F T Cutts. Lessons from measles vaccination in developing countries. BMJ. 1993 Nov 20;307(6915):1294-5. PMID: 8257878

Peter Aaby, Henrik Jensen, Francois Simondon, Hilton Whittle. High-titer measles vaccination before 9 months of age and increased female mortality: do we have an explanation? Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2003 Jul;14(3):220-32. PMID: 12913835

T L Gustafson, A W Lievens, P A Brunell, R G Moellenberg, C M Buttery, L M Sehulster. Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. N Engl J Med. 1987 Mar 26 ;316(13):771-4. PMID: 3821823

R M Davis, E D Whitman, W A Orenstein, S R Preblud, L E Markowitz, A R Hinman. A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Sep ;126(3):438-49. PMID: 3618578

B S Hersh, L E Markowitz, R E Hoffman, D R Hoff, M J Doran, J C Fleishman, S R Preblud, W A Orenstein. A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health. 1991 Mar ;81(3):360-4. PMID: 1994745

N Boulianne, G De Serres, B Duval, J R Joly, F Meyer, P DÃ©ry, M Alary, D Le HÃ©naff, N ThÃ©riault.[Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage]. Can J Public Health. 1991 May-Jun;82(3):189-90. PMID: 1884314

S A de Oliveira, W N Soares, M O Dalston, M T de Almeida, A J Costa. Clinical and epidemiological findings during a measles outbreak occurring in a population with a high vaccination coverage. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1995 Oct-Dec;28(4):339-43. PMID: 8668833

N Coetzee, G D Hussey, G Visser, P Barron, A Keen. The 1992 measles epidemic in Cape Town--a changing epidemiological pattern. S Afr Med J. 1994 Mar ;84(3):145-9. PMID: 7740350
- vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf
- CommentAuthorEddo
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: marktime</cite>Am I alone in thinking that this thread has been hijacked? Do we really want to go down the MMR/Autism path when the OP asked a question about the Antarctic? Eddo reminds me of an earlier contributor who was fond of blitzing the forum with links. I fear we are in for the same type of crap if we continue to feed the troll.</blockquote>

Marktime, the troll is your own fear and insecurity, not me. You are in transference. Deal with it.
I did say I would happily continue this on a different thread if asked. No-one asked me. If this is your way of asking, let me know politely.
I won't contribute any further to Arctic Sea Ice, in consideration of you, who I am sure, is still a nice person, underneath it all.
- CommentAuthorEd Davies
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
Posted By: marktimeAm I alone in thinking that this thread has been hijacked?
Nope, you're not alone. Been desperately trying to keep it at least on the level of how non-scientists should evaluate scientific ideas rather than anything too specific off topic.
- CommentAuthorSimon Still
- CommentTimeApr 22nd 2015
JHC

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Eddo</cite> So, I want to believe the evidence I see, not what I'm told to see. Subjective evidence is valid, in my books.</blockquote>

Anecdote is not evidence. That's core to scientific method - experiments at scale, with control, to attempt to screen out observational bias. My son's just had MMR, I'm know he's had it and I"m worried about it, hence I'm going to extrapolate from any minor incident until I create the issue I'm trying to observe.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Eddo</cite>Ah, healthcare and medicine is my area of knowledge. Best not divert onto that one. </blockquote>

And I think you've hit on the key difference. Coming from a financial background, and having watched the wire, with a bit of psychology thrown in, my control check is "follow the money". Scientific method should be rigorous but can be subverted - even simply by hiding negative results and only publishing positive (if you haven't read Ben Goldacre's books you really should).

So the questions become -
Who has funded the research?
Who stands to profit?

Medical research into drug effectiveness is almost exclusively funded by drug companies with a huge financial incentive to show positive results. A fair bit of dietary research is funded by agricultural/food industry interests which has to throw it into some doubt. Tom - having a strong belief in scientific method does not mean I don't retain a degree of skepticism.

However, I don't feel the need to have the same degree of skepticism about research into the origins of the universe. Or for that matter research into water divining (exactly who stands to make large financial gains from proving this to be nonsense?). I group climate change in this category - I can see lots of evidence that a lot of the 'denial' evidence has been funded by oil companies or other concerns with a strong interest in the status quo but I really don't see who would be profiting from the vast consensus that it is a measurable and real effect.

Anecdote I know but I've met climate campaigners and scientists and they're not getting wealthy. I've met oil industry workers and they seem really well paid.

61 to 90 of 108



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

Green Building magazine: Arctic sea ice