Studies don't identify patients by name. They say things like "a 29 year old female in Iowa". It's not even fucking legal to identify a patient in a public medical report. You'd lose your license for that, not that any reputable journal would ever publish it.
You want secret science? Tamiflu. Doctors can't get data on the failed trials, it's withheld y the pharma co's.
Government are told by the company it works and they provided the results of some of their trials but not all. Government everywhere were talked into stockpiling this stuff. Turns out it takes about 12 hours off a weeks worth of symptoms. Vitamin C does better than that by the government own studies.
Rumsfeld pushed tamiflu through, one of his companies makes the stuff.
If the GOP wants to stop this kind of shit why would you want to stop that?
The only valid secrecy is national security - nukes an stuff, and things can already be redacted because of this.
That's not how medical research works but go ahead and convince me otherwise.
Plus you and I both know we're not talking about medical data here. Christ knows there's enough secrets all there already; doctors already complain big pharma withholds information and there is an initiative to try to fix this. See Dr. Ben Goldacre's Ted talk entitled "Batting bad science"
"An earlier version of this general effort used language that would forbid reference to models in policy making."
Hi. Math major here. Let me explain something about models.
They are a mathematical simulation of a natural phenomenon.
The test of a model is how well it tracks reality. If if predicts behaviour correctly we can have some confidence in the model.
The error bars of the climate models are 75%. That means a chimp tossing a coin could guess better. You can't make public policy from that.
75% error looks like this: 2 + 2 = 7
The climate models are 25 years old now and with refinements over the years should be pretty good. But they're not, they're so bad you can pretty much throw them out.
NASA pointed out they were wrong (and confirnmed Dyson) in 2010. 8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Here's a graph of all the climate models compared to actual temperature measurements. See the divergence? http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
"When your hypothesis doesn't agree with nature, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman.
Do they sell the copper in secret too? Maybe I'm crazy but don't annual reports from mining companies list minor details how much yield the mine makes to entice investors.
If you're gonna make shit up at least base it on reality. Secret science that relies on secret mine output. Good God man listen to yourself, you're advocating just letting Corporations call the shots. What do we even need government for? Just let the Corporations run it all./me - runs away screaming.
"The way this bill is crafted makes it perfectly clear that good science is not the goal. Emasculating the EPA is."
If making the data the EPA makes policy on available to anybody is emasculig the EPA then the EPA deserves to be emasculated.
We don't have secret laws in this country, how would you know if you've broken one?
Secret science is a hideous idea. We can disagree on how we should handle a situation, that's policy but the fundamental facts of the matter do not improve with secrecy.
"There is ample evidence of Ocean acidification to suggest that CO2 needs to be treated as a pollutant."
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing that evidence of this and of any harm..
I can tell you ahead of time corals have genes that switch on to handle heat and co2 and they have survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past and that this is not affecting reefs which by some miracle are only dying near man where he pollutes; in the open ocean coral is fine.
Dr. Bruce Carlson produced a wonderful video demonstrating the resilient capacity of coral reefs if humans would simply stopped interfering with nature. http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars? http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.
Slashdot Mirror
Which part of "has genes it can switch on to handle this" did you not understand?
Coral doesn't "suffer" the very delicate animal either keeps growing or dies.
Bad analogy.
All XP gets regular updates. They have to or the net would break.
What is Turkey actually saying? What are the pesky details?
Why don't you look at the video and tell me which parts are false.
I've seen it. I was sorta surprised. If it's accurate (and I haven't checked all of it) then it does indeed raise a few questions.
What if the video is accurate?
Have you seen it?
If not then yours is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
Go watch it then we can talk.
No question a lot of people died.
Did you look this up?
The word was created in the 1940s decades after the Armenian thing. Please verify this for yourself.
I watched the video.
I have to say it does make a good case for the Turkish point of view.
If it's non-factual it should be debunked.
But you might want to have a look at it.
I was, I admit, kinda surprised at it, it did not meed my assumptions at all and pointed out how little I knew.
Go watch it and see what you think. Tne we can talk about it on an informed basis.
No, outside experts are scientists. Anyone can look up their credentials.
Lobbyists are, well, lobbyists. They are registered and this can be looked up.
Straw Man argument.
Studies don't identify patients by name. They say things like "a 29 year old female in Iowa". It's not even fucking legal to identify a patient in a public medical report. You'd lose your license for that, not that any reputable journal would ever publish it.
"science, by definition, cannot be secret."
This gets modded to 0?
You want secret science? Tamiflu. Doctors can't get data on the failed trials, it's withheld y the pharma co's.
Government are told by the company it works and they provided the results of some of their trials but not all. Government everywhere were talked into stockpiling this stuff. Turns out it takes about 12 hours off a weeks worth of symptoms. Vitamin C does better than that by the government own studies.
Rumsfeld pushed tamiflu through, one of his companies makes the stuff.
If the GOP wants to stop this kind of shit why would you want to stop that?
The only valid secrecy is national security - nukes an stuff, and things can already be redacted because of this.
Patient names don't show up in studies. The may use first names, initials, numbers, but there are laws about medical privacy.
If you have to have secret laws based on lies you can't call that science. That's propaganda.
Bullshit. Provide evidence what you said is true.
That's not how medical research works but go ahead and convince me otherwise.
Plus you and I both know we're not talking about medical data here. Christ knows there's enough secrets all there already; doctors already complain big pharma withholds information and there is an initiative to try to fix this. See Dr. Ben Goldacre's Ted talk entitled "Batting bad science"
Note also secret data is considered bad science.
You can only discredit science with facts, verifiable facts. If it was discredited then it was garbage. It cannot be discredited with falsehoods.
Do you even logic?
"Science of course is always correcting mistakes. That's what it's all about." Freeman Dyson
"An earlier version of this general effort used language that would forbid reference to models in policy making."
Hi. Math major here. Let me explain something about models.
They are a mathematical simulation of a natural phenomenon.
The test of a model is how well it tracks reality. If if predicts behaviour correctly we can have some confidence in the model.
The error bars of the climate models are 75%. That means a chimp tossing a coin could guess better. You can't make public policy from that.
75% error looks like this: 2 + 2 = 7
The climate models are 25 years old now and with refinements over the years should be pretty good. But they're not, they're so bad you can pretty much throw them out.
Freeman Dyson warned about this:
"Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...
NASA pointed out they were wrong (and confirnmed Dyson) in 2010.
8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Here's a graph of all the climate models compared to actual temperature measurements. See the divergence?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
"When your hypothesis doesn't agree with nature, it's wrong" - Richard Feynman.
Do they sell the copper in secret too? Maybe I'm crazy but don't annual reports from mining companies list minor details how much yield the mine makes to entice investors.
If you're gonna make shit up at least base it on reality. Secret science that relies on secret mine output. Good God man listen to yourself, you're advocating just letting Corporations call the shots. What do we even need government for? Just let the Corporations run it all. /me - runs away screaming.
Because global warming is a lie and the GOP are going to call out the dems on this.
If global warming is only true because of secret data then it probably isn't true.
That is not a strawman argument that is a very valid hypothetical argument. At least it was when I took formal logic in University.
You're making shit up.
Even if it were true, corporate trade secrets don't trump public policy!
If you make public policy based on private corporate data.... um, you can't see the problem with this?
Patient data is always anonymous. Show me one instance where it isn't. You can't.
Huh? We use terms like "patient A" or "patient 1212" or "Ellie P". Full names are never used in medical reports.
You just made that up didn't you?
Go look in Medline. If you don't know where that is you have no right talking about what medical reports look like.
fyi, pharma companies hold data secret from doctors and doctors are furious:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_g...
(it's near the end ~15 mins)
"The way this bill is crafted makes it perfectly clear that good science is not the goal. Emasculating the EPA is."
If making the data the EPA makes policy on available to anybody is emasculig the EPA then the EPA deserves to be emasculated.
We don't have secret laws in this country, how would you know if you've broken one?
Secret science is a hideous idea. We can disagree on how we should handle a situation, that's policy but the fundamental facts of the matter do not improve with secrecy.
It kinda already is. How much experience do you have with this and what do you actually know about it?
Why do you assume outside scientists are republican? I'm not but I have a BIG problem with secret scientific data.
In theory all products of government are public domain (since the public paid for it) and this is fundamental "open and transparent 101".
Can you explain why secret data should be used to make public policy?
My god yes, look what it's done to Arctic sea ice in 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Oh crap, there's no change.
Damn you NASA and your pesky satellites, get with the program here.
"There is ample evidence of Ocean acidification to suggest that CO2 needs to be treated as a pollutant."
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing that evidence of this and of any harm..
I can tell you ahead of time corals have genes that switch on to handle heat and co2 and they have survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past and that this is not affecting reefs which by some miracle are only dying near man where he pollutes; in the open ocean coral is fine.
Tree of life with time scale
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Historic co2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Corals can turn certain genes on and off to cope with heat
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Dr. Bruce Carlson produced a wonderful video demonstrating the resilient capacity of coral reefs if humans would simply stopped interfering with nature.
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
Total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
For cold water corals, warming is beating acidification to drive a growth spurt
http://arstechnica.com/science...
It's not up to anyone to deny global warming (or "Climate Cringe" us it's not called) it's up to those who believe in it to prove it's true.
The arctic sea ice all grew back - how does that happen in a "warming world"
Source: NASA.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
And it did this when Co2 was rising. If it was true that the loss of ice would make the world warmer because less is reflected back what does it mean now it's all back? Cooler yet maybe?
CO2 stopped rising:
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...
NOAA data shows cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA PR guys mislead if not flat out lie:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
For most of earths history it's been about 8 degrees warmer. In historical context we're in a temperature trough and have nowhere to go but up:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
The polar bears are fine. One nutjob saw two cubs swimming and that was enough to start that alarmism. The latest monograph on the bears shows their population is increasing. It was down by 2/3 till we stopped most hunting, but look at what's still taken. Anyway the ice is back so who cars?
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Sadly this means that nutjob Cruz is right and Obama and Sanders are dead wrong, although I suspect they really mean "fight pollution" but it's better for optics for the worst polluters to say "we're fighting climate cringe" than "yeah we still pollute like crazy. Notice the regulatoin address pollution andnohtin gelse.
Don't tell me it's warming, show me your evidence and I'll tell you if it's warming or not. Notice they never post temperatur graphs any more? Just weasel words like "10 of the warmest years occured in the past 20 years" - that's equally true with descending temperatures too. What they don't say is "each year is warmer than the previous one". Alti they's using outliers here, who cares about transitory peaks the trend is what matters and that's downward.