[Vamp018]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Yup.

Tinfoil Hats.

What size, with or without AC? I can ship yah one free from Area 51, Rachael NV welcome center lol.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Ad Hominem.

Contrary to Zip's sneaky insinuation I never claimed Richard Muller was a "warmist pusher".

What I claimed was -

$1:

pushers of the warmist catastrophe cult at Ars Technica

Which is an ad hominem!

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

just as they claimed...

$1:

The culprit that time was Fox News

To Ars Technica, you see, Fox was nothing more than "a culprit". They also attempted to marginalize new evidence from other sources with cheap, insulting snark.

That's the problem when you start throwing the ad hominem tag around. Finding the innocent.

Pointing out someone's bias isn't an ad hominem. Dismissing their argument because you don't like their bias is.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Counter attack is not attack. If you don't want your opinionators attacked, don't use the ones that initiate such attacks.

Attacking opinions with opinions is pretty much what debate is!

For example, misquoting the article is a sloppy attack. Let's look at the rest of the paragraph you partially quoted:

$1:

but the issue was the same: the raw data from temperature measurements around the world aren't just dumped into global temperature reconstructions as-is. Instead, they're processed first. To the more conspiracy minded, you can replace "processed" with "fraudulently manipulated to make it look warmer."

Why do they have to be processed at all? Because almost none of the records are continuous. Weather stations have moved, they've changed the time of day where the temperature-of-record is taken, and they've replaced old thermometers with more modern equipment. All of these events create discontinuities in the record of each location, and the processing is used to get things into alignment, creating a single, unified record.

Which is totally accurate. You can't change the measuring equipment, and try to have the raw data collected fit into the same statistical trend because it will not.

As Zip also points out:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's not all about BEST, it's just a good counter-example to this bit about everyone fudging the numbers. It's good because according one of the lead authors, he wasn't expecting to agree with NASA/NOAA.

Which is consistent with the ARS article.

So, no, this isn't the biggest science scandal ever, it's not even a blip. I'd say the biggest science scandal ever is the anti-vaxxers who still think vaccines cause autism, causing many children to die of preventable disease is a much bigger scandal.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd say the biggest science scandal ever is the anti-vaxxers who still think vaccines cause autism

The folks who object to the vaccines mostly object to mercury (thimerosol) being used as a preservative in their medicines.

Even the US FDA is changing its defensive tone on thimerosol and in their most recent guidelines they're tacitly encouraging pharmaceutical firms to remove thimerosol from their products based on documented instances of neurological harm to children exposed to ethyl mercury and methyl mercury - the two forms of mercury that have been used to compound thimerosol.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccin ... /UCM096228

Myself, I haven't had a vaccination of any kind since 2009 and, curiously, I haven't had the flu since the last time I had a flu shot.

In response to concerns about mercury my HMO is now providing mercury-free vaccines and mercury-free medicines and they're phasing out mercury in their medicines completely by January 2016.

I should add that part of the reason they're doing this is because whenever a vial of mercury-laced vaccine is dropped or spilled the MSDS for thimerosol requires a Class One HAZMAT response which is bloody expensive. So the hospitals are figuring that their increased costs in using vaccines sans mercury will be offset by savings in not needing to call for a $250,000 cleanup response every time someone fumblefingers a vial of vaccine.

[BeaverFever]

Ok, Let's recap the 3 main principels of the Climate Denier argument, shall we?

1) Global warming is vast world-wide consipiracy involving thousands of previously respected people and institutions in government, academia, and the media around the globe. In fact, they're almost all in on it.

2) "Warmists" aren't just wrong - they're lying to you and they know it!

3) "Warmism" will lead to disaterous policies that will destroy civilization as we know it...energy will become unaffordable and/or scarce, along with our livelihoods and modern conveniences.

Now some questions for the Denier group:

Q1: What do Deniers claim is the motive for this vast world-wide "warmist" conspiracy?

The Conservatives' "Warmist Conspiracy" lacks a crucial element: motive.

We know where the conservative motive to lie comes from - on topics from food safety to the environment to labour standards to financial regulations and beyond, Big Business has a financial interest in policy issues and wants to protect profits. Big business funds public disinformation campaigns for their own purposes and conservatives, who are openly the "pro-business party" dutifully fall in line; especially in the US where politicians at all levels can be bought Wholesale. For example it's no secret that Big Coal is not an impartial party on the Climat Change and it spends alot of money to support "Anti-warmist" politicans and ideas.

But what is the "liberal" incentive? Are they secretly being paid off by newborn babies, fuzzy seals and trees?

Remember, Deniers would have us believe the following dubious claims:


- "Warmists" know their lies will destroy civilisation and the economy;

- And yet, "warmists" divert the majority of their time, money, and professional reputations to spreading something they already know is false and will have disasterous consequences for all, including the deniers themselves and their institutions.

-And yet still desipite the above, "Warmists" are not a few radicals in an apocalypse cult but a massive worldwide network of thousands of the worlds most estemed scientists, insitutions, and professionals all conspiring together in secrecy for these lies.

- And YET EVEN STILL, entire universities and government agencies and indeed entire national governments are falling in line instread of rebelling agains something which is supposedly so obviously false, the right-wings' amateur sleuths like NF can debunk it with a quick google despite having no eduction in the area.

Sound plausible to anyone? Of course not. But then the right-wing nutters aren't one for logic and rational thought....the liberals are doing it "because they're evil so just accept it at face value and don't ask any more questions or else it means you must be be commie islamist atheist liberal too."

Q2: Why do conservatives spend so much time and effort on this subject?

Of all the things going on in the world this always seems to be #1 or #2 in the Conserviative news feed (depending on what "The Muslims" have been doing this week). The reason is because Big Business pays money to keep this topic at the top right-wing blogs and in the mainstream media wherever they can. People get rich pumping out this drivel to dancing puppets like NF, and they do so that other people can keep getting rich pumping out pollutants to the rest of us.

The truth, NF, is that there is no looming castrophe even in the unlikely even that the Climate Change theory has it wrong.

First of all, there are at least 63 different sub-national energy jurisdictions in North America alone, plus 2 federal ones, plus all the jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere. That creates a lot of room for different places to enact differnt policies and people will be able to see what works and what doesn't.

Second of all, if an energy policy doesn't work somewhere, it's not going to descend into a Mad-Max like post-apocalyptic world. Policy will just be adjusted long before any national energy shortage, economic meltdown or societal collapse....and life will go on as normal. If say Nova Scotia some day comes to realize that "Warmist" hysteria caused them to build too many windmills and not enough gas plants, then they'll just start building more gas plants any maybe take some windmills down. See? It's not that scary is it?

Relax Dude.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Relax Dude.

You should take your own advice.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Ok, Let's recap the 3 main principels of the Climate Denier argument, shall we?

No, and because this primary claim is wrong anything that derives from it is most likely to be wrong as well.

The skeptic argument is fundamentally based on the idea of "Climate Sensitivity".

That is - how much effect does human emitted CO2 have on climate? It is not debated that there is some effect. The debate centers on how much.

The side that likes to think of themselves (I would say innaccurately) as the consensus says the effect is overpowering, and crisis, catastrophe, perhaps even apocalyptic catastrophe must follow.

The skeptics say this estimate of climate sensitivity is exaggerated and the evidence required to prioritize a resultant, and inevitable crisis or catastrophe is not there.

Subsections of both groups then appear to develop their favored conspiracy theories.

One says "Wicked capitalists are changing weather and climate as a result of their sick need for profit. And we're all gonna die."

The other side says, "No we're not, and the guys who are fear mongering you into believing that lie know it. What it's really about is creating a crisis, then turning up to require more political power to stop it. What some might call the Progressive MO."

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Even the US FDA is changing its defensive tone on thimerosol and in their most recent guidelines they're tacitly encouraging pharmaceutical firms to remove thimerosol from their products based on documented instances of neurological harm to children exposed to ethyl mercury and methyl mercury - the two forms of mercury that have been used to compound thimerosol.

If by changing you mean continuing a program that started in the late 90's...yes.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_timeline.html

$1:

1999
The FDA reviews the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines and finds no evidence of harm, but as a precautionary measure, recommends removing thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to infants.

November 5. CDC states that vaccine manufacturers, FDA, and other agencies are working together to reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines, or to replace them with thimerosal-free vaccines, as soon as possible.

October 20. ACIP reviews information about thimerosal in vaccines provided by CDC's National Immunization Program and several vaccine manufacturers regarding the availability of vaccines that do not contain thimerosal as a preservative.

July 7. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issue a joint statement that says "there is no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule." The American Academy of Family Physicians issues a comparable statement soon after.

For the record, they still haven't found any evidence of harm, but I guess we need to replay the same tune every 10-15 years...keep it fresh.

I still don't understand why I should be afraid of a chemical, regardless of it's toxicity, when I will BREATH in more of it, every week, than a lifetime supply of every vaccination I need.

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

For the record, they still haven't found any evidence of harm, but I guess we need to replay the same tune every 10-15 years...keep it fresh.

I still don't understand why I should be afraid of a chemical, regardless of it's toxicity, when I will BREATH in more of it, every week, than a lifetime supply of every vaccination I need.

The problem is that mercury is a neurotoxin and exposure to mercury is never a good idea. Especially in children.

So regardless of other considerations with vaccines I find myself supportive of the removal of mercury from vaccines.

Yes, you're right that the exposure to mercury with each vaccine is relatively low - but what about kids who (like myself at age 14) had to have almost ten different shots at the same time? In my case my exposure was in the toxic range according to the manufacturer of thimerosol.

Also, if we're dealing with a child in your environment where you're exposed to mercury every day then what happens when we add to that existing amount? What new threshold of toxicity do we discover?

Better not to worry about it in the first place. Take the mercury out of the vaccines and it's one less thing to worry about.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Also, if we're dealing with a child in your environment where you're exposed to mercury every day then what happens when we add to that existing amount?

Come to think of it, best keep the kiddies away from the twisty light bulbs.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

(You know I'm kidding, right. )

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yes, you're right that the exposure to mercury with each vaccine is relatively low - but what about kids who (like myself at age 14) had to have almost ten different shots at the same time? In my case my exposure was in the toxic range according to the manufacturer of thimerosol.

Unless you are about the size of a mouse...not much.
Thimerosal is toxic at 98mg/kg (subcutaneous animal testing/rat), and the acceptable limit in vaccines is <25mcg...so, you would need to administer approx 3,920 vaccinations within 14 days to kill it. And, that is assuming that you have the absolute maximum amount of thimerosal in the vaccine.

Thimerosal MSDS - pg 5, 11. Toxicological Information

$1:

Also, if we're dealing with a child in your environment where you're exposed to mercury every day then what happens when we add to that existing amount? What new threshold of toxicity do we discover?

In my environment? Mercury is a natural element, it is in all of our environments.

$1:

Better not to worry about it in the first place. Take the mercury out of the vaccines and it's one less thing to worry about.

When my house burns down, I will definitely worry about the antique dinning table. It won't be my primary worry, and I sure as hell won't get burnt to save it, but I will still worry about it.

Sorry Bart, we have way bigger fish to fry, in terms of toxic substances in our environments, than the irrelevant amounts of thimerosal in vaccines.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

What it's really about is creating a crisis, then turning up to require more political power to stop it.

As I mentioned, this is a flawed theroy:

1) Governments already have full authority to regulate pollution and energy so exactly what is the "more political power" you think they are after here????? Like specifically what new power is it that you think they're after?????

2) Considering recent governments (mostly right-wing) have grabbed the power to spy on, idefinitely detain, torture, kill, and other "disappear" anyone they deem fit with practically no oversight, and also bomb/wage undeclared foreign wars at will and it took them so little effor to do so, doesn't it seem silly that you think there's this vast global conspiracy whose only outcome would be some increase in environmental regulation (which, as I mentioned, governments already have full authority to do)?

I mean, if anyone wanted to exaggerate an existential threat so that they could seize new powers from the courts and the constitution well terrosism is the easy route to go and it's already happening. Why would they choose THE ENVIRONMENT of all things??? IT MAKES NO SENSE MAN!!!

3) Even if some self-serving cabal of politicians was pushing this agenda from their capital building in quest for this magical environmental power (whatever that is) how does this become a global consipiracy with so many different jurisdictions and credibile scientists and institutions involved?

Why would the actual scientists, the universities, the agencies like NASA - who are the "boots on the ground" actually doing the work - go along with it? They have nothing to gain and if it is as you say, then they would also have lots to lose.

[BartSimpson]

peck420 peck420:

Sorry Bart, we have way bigger fish to fry, in terms of toxic substances in our environments, than the irrelevant amounts of thimerosal in vaccines.

Fortunately the problem is being addressed regardless of your dismissal and in due time thimerosol will no longer be used in vaccines.

If it's of any consequence, you can have my share.

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If it's of any consequence, you can have my share.

Due to the requirements of my out of country health insurer, and my propensity for touching rusty metals inappropriately...I probably, already have...

[Thanos]

One can always go back to taking colloidal silver to cure all ills.



Negatives: turns your skin grey/purple/blue, eventual kidney collapse.
Positives: makes you part of the in-crowd on the Ron Paul/Dr. Oz circuit.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

One can always go back to taking colloidal silver to cure all ills.



Negatives: turns your skin grey/purple/blue, eventual kidney collapse.
Positives: makes you part of the in-crowd on the Ron Paul/Dr. Oz circuit.

Dr. Oz even got Papa Smurf to come on the show!