Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[LongQ]

This should really be linked on the Science thread but it seems to have been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks and one can't help but feel the reported deficiency in the medical science covered by the article may be as much political (in terms of business politics and revenue opportunities for the US health providers) as scientific.

So I'll post it here for now and maybe on the science thread later.

It's not (yet?) a Climate change linked subject - but is is about politics in society and activities to influence via appeals to science. For most people it is probably more personally involving than the strange matter of Climate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/...

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

This should really be linked on the Science thread but it seems to have been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks and one can't help but feel the reported deficiency in the medical science covered by the article may be as much political (in terms of business politics and revenue opportunities for the US health providers) as scientific.

So I'll post it here for now and maybe on the science thread later.

It's not (yet?) a Climate change linked subject - but is is about politics in society and activities to influence via appeals to science. For most people it is probably more personally involving than the strange matter of Climate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/...

That one has been brewing for some time. The original research on cholesterol was carried out on rabbits, after which the findings were rabbited / parroted without much thought. Seeing rabbit arteries fur up after being fed unfeasible amounts of cholesterol was enough for some 'scientists' to warn of the dangers to humans, without stopping for a moment to consider any implications from the fact that rabbits are herbivores and don't normally consume cholesterol. Not forgetting that 75% to 80% of the cholesterol in humans is not dietary. Add a healthy dose of the epidemiological fallacy, cherry picking, and bingo, cholesterol is demonised!

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 26th May 15:06

[turbobloke]

Worth a note of its own:

Dr Martin Scurr said:

I think we're at a tipping point where cholesterol is concerned.

Not as bad as previously thought.

[rovermorris999]

Perhaps cholesterol is just pausing.

[turbobloke]

It's hidden away in the deep oceans bowels.

[Beati Dogu]

Hiding away with all the Liberal Democrat voters.

[turbobloke]

Harsh but fair.

[richie99]

I bet 97% of scientists agreed that cholesterol caused heart disease. Still, not to worry, only thousands of people died unnecessary deaths as they ate food with massive amounts of sugar but low cholesterol.

You could rewrite practically the whole article but substitute CO2 for cholesterol and global warming for heart disease.

[rovermorris999]

Likewise gastric ulcers caused by stress except it turns out, after much poo-pooing from the 'experts', that it was a bacterial infection cured by a course of antibiotics.

[turbobloke]

Not forgetting bat sonar.

Or the invisible atmosphere on Mercury.

Etc.

[TheExcession]

richie99 said:

I bet 97% of scientists agreed that cholesterol caused heart disease. Still, not to worry, only thousands of people died unnecessary deaths as they ate food with massive amounts of sugar but low cholesterol.

My old man is a cardiologist. He flatly refuses to take "prescribed" statins, he says it's called getting old, and unfortunately what happens is you're approaching death.

What seems to be going on with chasing the 'cure' is that there are way too many side effects caused from the prescribed medicine, and often these are worse than the disease.

Whether our (perhaps not so educated) people's opinion point of view is better than the expert's is a really hard one to call. Because very simply the 'experts' are often wrong.

I'll just quote the following recent correspondence with my old fella. Please remember that this fellow suffered a stroke recently but was working on the mathematics of blood flow in your arteries. (Previously he had a few issues trying to get published in the Lancet etc etc etc)

I've quoted the text in full, it is full of typos which you will have to excuse, but I think deserve their place. The message however is everything you'll need to know in addressing the great global warming swindle.

He said
"the problem is the that editors are not critical enough and its their fault if they aloow rubbish to be published in their journals everybody wants to publish to try and prove they are right. one of my old bosses said he never belived anything until he had visited the author and worked alongside him in his lab he would then know by personal experience if he was telling the truth. also the current attitude to wards science as a search for truth is quite wrong see qoute below for correct attitude ‘Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game’.

‘It is not the possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent critical quest for truth’.

‘Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards the infinite yet attainable aim of ever discovering new, deeper and more general problems, and of subjecting its ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.’ (Karl Popper, in ‘ Logic of Scientific Discovery’) it is this illusory aim that leads to the publication of bad science which seeks to try and prove that it is always right you should never be afraid to be sshown to be wrong

dad"

[turbobloke]

TheExcession said:

My old man is a cardiologist. He flatly refuses to take "prescribed" statins, he says it's called getting old, and unfortunately what happens is you're approaching death.

What seems to be going on with chasing the 'cure' is that there are way too many side effects caused from the prescribed medicine, and often these are worse than the disease.

Whether our (perhaps not so educated) people's opinion point of view is better than the expert's is a really hard one to call. Because very simply the 'experts' are often wrong.

I'll just quote the following recent correspondence with my old fella. Please remember that this fellow suffered a stroke recently but was working on the mathematics of blood flow in your arteries. (Previously he had a few issues trying to get published in the Lancet etc etc etc)

I've quoted the text in full, it is full of typos which you will have to excuse, but I think deserve their place. The message however is everything you'll need to know in addressing the great global warming swindle.

He said
"the problem is the that editors are not critical enough and its their fault if they aloow rubbish to be published in their journals everybody wants to publish to try and prove they are right. one of my old bosses said he never belived anything until he had visited the author and worked alongside him in his lab he would then know by personal experience if he was telling the truth. also the current attitude to wards science as a search for truth is quite wrong see qoute below for correct attitude ‘Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game’.

‘It is not the possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent critical quest for truth’.

‘Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards the infinite yet attainable aim of ever discovering new, deeper and more general problems, and of subjecting its ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.’ (Karl Popper, in ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’) it is this illusory aim that leads to the publication of bad science which seeks to try and prove that it is always right you should never be afraid to be sshown to be wrong

dad"

[perdu]

Wise man your dad, Ex

[turbobloke]

Mrs TB has witnessed outbreaks of extreme weather....reporting on the BBC, confirmed as being linked to a lack of causality reporting.

[jshell]

Well, we're saving the melting glaciers... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32802588 by sending ice to Antarctica.

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

Well, we're saving the melting glaciers... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32802588 by sending ice to Antarctica.

[Diderot]

turbobloke said:

LongQ said:

This should really be linked on the Science thread but it seems to have been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks and one can't help but feel the reported deficiency in the medical science covered by the article may be as much political (in terms of business politics and revenue opportunities for the US health providers) as scientific.

So I'll post it here for now and maybe on the science thread later.

It's not (yet?) a Climate change linked subject - but is is about politics in society and activities to influence via appeals to science. For most people it is probably more personally involving than the strange matter of Climate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/...

That one has been brewing for some time. The original research on cholesterol was carried out on rabbits, after which the findings were rabbited / parroted without much thought. Seeing rabbit arteries fur up after being fed unfeasible amounts of cholesterol was enough for some 'scientists' to warn of the dangers to humans, without stopping for a moment to consider any implications from the fact that rabbits are herbivores and don't normally consume cholesterol. Not forgetting that 75% to 80% of the cholesterol in humans is not dietary. Add a healthy dose of the epidemiological fallacy, cherry picking, and bingo, cholesterol is demonised!

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 26th May 15:06

Not to mention a whole sector of the food industry springing up offering solutions to a non-problem and in turn creating ones that are far worse in their wake.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

turbobloke said:

LongQ said:

This should really be linked on the Science thread but it seems to have been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks and one can't help but feel the reported deficiency in the medical science covered by the article may be as much political (in terms of business politics and revenue opportunities for the US health providers) as scientific.

So I'll post it here for now and maybe on the science thread later.

It's not (yet?) a Climate change linked subject - but is is about politics in society and activities to influence via appeals to science. For most people it is probably more personally involving than the strange matter of Climate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/...

That one has been brewing for some time. The original research on cholesterol was carried out on rabbits, after which the findings were rabbited / parroted without much thought. Seeing rabbit arteries fur up after being fed unfeasible amounts of cholesterol was enough for some 'scientists' to warn of the dangers to humans, without stopping for a moment to consider any implications from the fact that rabbits are herbivores and don't normally consume cholesterol. Not forgetting that 75% to 80% of the cholesterol in humans is not dietary. Add a healthy dose of the epidemiological fallacy, cherry picking, and bingo, cholesterol is demonised!

Not to mention a whole sector of the food industry springing up offering solutions to a non-problem and in turn creating ones that are far worse in their wake.

So many parallels on so many levels.

[LongQ]

jshell said:

Well, we're saving the melting glaciers... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32802588 by sending ice to Antarctica.

Spokesperson seems a bit off message thought.

""We are probably the only scientific community whose archive is in danger of disappearing from the face of the planet. If you work on corals, on marine sediments, on tree rings, the raw material is still here and will be for many centuries," he says."

Corals? I thought we had been told they were all going to disappear imminently due to Ocean accidification.

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

jshell said:

Well, we're saving the melting glaciers... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32802588 by sending ice to Antarctica.

Spokesperson seems a bit off message thought.

""We are probably the only scientific community whose archive is in danger of disappearing from the face of the planet. If you work on corals, on marine sediments, on tree rings, the raw material is still here and will be for many centuries," he says."

Corals? I thought we had been told they were all going to disappear imminently due to Ocean accidification.

After surviving the MWP, RWP, etc. Curious!

Listening to the shrill hysteria of believers, if the planet was a car the only thing that would be left in working order beyond 400 ppmv would be the ash tray - and its future use would be to contain the dust from our bones after we all burn in the heat.



Ho Ho Ho