If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Here it is, the only pie graph you'll ever need to deal with the next climate-change-denying idiot   (slate.com) divider line 954
    More: Spiffy, pie charts, climate change  
•       •       •

37662 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



954 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 05:29:16 PM

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


Autism must cause global warming research papers. In all the years that autism has gone up, so have the number of pro-global warming people.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:20 PM

ChopperCharles: Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is.


That's the issue on Fark. It's already resolved in the scientific community.

The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming.

No, that's a fake debate invented by skeptics. CO2 has followed global warming in the glacial cycles, as predicted; those same glacial cycles require this CO2-induced greenhouse feedback to explain the amplitude of the cycles. The same greenhouse effect that is now operating. At the present time, CO2 is causing global warming and overriding the glacial cycle.

Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.

This is true and relevant to the glacial cycles. But this ocean solubility pump is too small to fully explain either the CO2 changes in the glacial cycles, or the current CO2 changes. And there are many other independent lines of evidence (about six, last I counted) conclusively linking the present CO2 increase to humans.

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Only if you're totally ignorant, as you appear to be. Orbital cycles are of the wrong phase, magnitude, and even sign to explain the current warming. And solar output observably has not had a significant increase over the period of modern warming. (It had some contribution to the warming in the early 20th century.)

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

If the next ice age were due in a century, that might be relevant, but it's not. The present choice isn't between global warming or an ice age. Long term, it might be, but if you were honestly concerned about that, you'd be advocating for using up a fraction of our fossil fuels slowly to stabilize temperatures when they're needed, rather than using them all up now and overshooting, when they're not.


Charles.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

You do realize that the greenhouse effect is called so because that's legitimately how greenhouses work, right? Like, there is a real-world application to this theory that proves it correct?


The greenhouse effect does not work along the same principle as an actual greenhouse. Just sayin'.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:41 PM
I dunno - I think I'll wait until the green-text guru tells me why more than 99.8% of the articles are wrong and less than 0.2% are reliable.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:11 PM

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

You do realize that the greenhouse effect is called so because that's legitimately how greenhouses work, right? Like, there is a real-world application to this theory that proves it correct?

The greenhouse effect does not work along the same principle as an actual greenhouse. Just sayin'.


Based on his posts in this thread, I get the feeling that that dude isn't all that bright.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:19 PM

Graffito: Xexi: The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread

Then what does? How do you know what, if anything, is factual?


Appropriating minute amounts of data from an object billions of years old, and basing a hypothesis from that compilation, enables any facade an individual wishes to pursue.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:33 PM
Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.



--------------------------


You aren't serious are you? Really, let me know if you're joking and I will unpink you.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:50 PM

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part

The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study

1. No we wasn't, at least not wrt to global warming. He had problems with the Hockey Stick Graph and the scientific malpractice behind "hide the decline" and still does, but he never doubted recent global warming.
2. Do you have a citation that shows that the Koch brothers funded this research in an effort to disprove global warming?


Richard Muller did the study, and wrote an NYT Op-Ed titled "The Conversion of a Climate-Change skeptic

The Koch brothers funneled $1 million to the Cato Institute, an institute that denies the existence of climate change

Any other questions or are we good now?
 
2012-12-11 05:33:03 PM
They will still be idiots.
 
2012-12-11 05:33:10 PM

ChopperCharles: Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is. The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming. Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.


PLENTY of the trolls around here deny that the climate is getting warmer. They come in here with their little graphs that show 1998-2008 and a line with a very slightly negative slope and say LOOK YOU'RE IDIOTS, before we chase them away with a can of Raid.

CO2 is far and away the best fit of all the possible forcings. According to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team (the once-denialist group that became convinced when they did their study):

"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect - extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Both are ENTIRELY measurable, and both COMPLETELY fail to explain the observed warming.

For instance, the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature team found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun to temperature forcing has been "consistent with zero".

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

Just because you like being warm doesn't mean it's what's best to keep the planet habitable by human beings.

Charles

Signing posts? What are you, 60?
 
2012-12-11 05:34:02 PM

amoral: I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive.


The rate of rise of CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented as far as we know, although the amount of rise is not. (Even so, this amount of rise hasn't been seen for millions of years.) The total increase in CO2, over the period of time depicted in that graph, is indeed almost entirely the result of human activity.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:07 PM

OregonVet: cameroncrazy1984: God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.

You can't and you won't. So stfu already. Be sure to cash in your CO2 stock before it crashes. You need cabbage to buy kool-aid you know.


WTF are you on about?
 
2012-12-11 05:34:44 PM

amoral: because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus,


Then show is the tiniest bit of research.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:51 PM

fuhfuhfuh: I guess it is safe to say that the thread has proven the headline wrong.



Never underestimate the power of derp.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:59 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.



--------------------------


You aren't serious are you? Really, let me know if you're joking and I will unpink you.


Oh come on, that's obviously a joke. And quite a funny one. Welcome to Fark?
 
2012-12-11 05:35:02 PM

Bullseyed: GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.

I flipped a coin and it came up heads 332 times in a row. You're a fool for saying the next one might be tails!


Heh. You might not be making the point you think you are. Keep in mind that the probability of a coin coming out heads 332 times in a row is (if memory serves), 0.5^332. This, of course, should have told you that you can reject the idea that the coin toss is random. Given such overwhelming evidence, indeed one would be "a fool for saying the next one might be tails".

More importantly, the fact that you would still cling to the assumption that particular coin had, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence suggests that you may be putting far too much faith in preconceived ideas instead of evidence.
 
2012-12-11 05:35:06 PM

Xexi: Appropriating minute amounts of data from an object billions of years old, and basing a hypothesis from that compilation, enables any facade an individual wishes to pursue.


The age of the Earth is irrelevant to this discussion. It's like arguing that we need 4 billion years of data to understand synoptic weather patterns.
 
2012-12-11 05:35:29 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

You do realize that the greenhouse effect is called so because that's legitimately how greenhouses work, right? Like, there is a real-world application to this theory that proves it correct?

The greenhouse effect does not work along the same principle as an actual greenhouse. Just sayin'.

Based on his posts in this thread, I get the feeling that that dude isn't all that bright.


I'm not the one that assumed that scientists that measure land temperature don't take variables into account. Just saying.
 
2012-12-11 05:36:16 PM

Damnhippyfreak: More importantly, the fact that you would still cling to the assumption that particular coin had a chance of coming up tails, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence suggests that you may be putting far too much faith in preconceived ideas instead of evidence.


That makes more sense.
 
2012-12-11 05:37:21 PM

maxheck: turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires. 

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)


It's just a fact...I'm not assuming anything like you are....Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....
 
2012-12-11 05:37:28 PM
What I'd like to see is how the people who are horrified by what climate scientists say and denigrate their work have to say about how "DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE WILL KILL THE ECONOMY!"

I'm sure that one would be backed up by reputable science. Economists and all.
 
2012-12-11 05:37:31 PM

Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.


My god, you've got it. You should write a paper on it and submit it to all the journals.
 
2012-12-11 05:38:10 PM

amoral: Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]

I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive. You do more harm than good, because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus, and then they feel like they have the right to dismiss whole reams of evidence, because they found a bad apple.



How is the current rise in CO2 not the result of human activity?

www.climatepedia.org

Can you point out that part of the CO2 increase which is not anthropogenic?
 
2012-12-11 05:39:49 PM
data.giss.nasa.gov

According to the URL, that graph comes from NASA. Interesting.

Anyway...

What I get from that graph is that temperatures fell sharply from 1940 to 1950. Therefore, I must conclude that the rise of Nazism and/or global warfare can reduce the temperature anomaly significantly. I'd wager that industrialism was pretty high during that time as most of the world was busy building tanks, ships, planes, guns, bombs, testing nukes, etc, all things that put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I propose we reanimate Hitler (he's not really dead, you know) and pick a fight with Iran, Syria, Lybia, Russia and whoever else might want to fight for a bit. It should only take about 40 years of global war to return to pre 1900 temperatures.
 
2012-12-11 05:40:05 PM

Kazan: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.


My google-fu is weak today. I've been looking for margin's of error for the different proxies and cannot find a set number, even a loose discussion.

I did see a figure somewhere in reading up on ice cores, on the wiki, and a LOT of talk of what makes testing difficult, but no forthright actual margins.

I'm curious, because we're talking about tenths of a degree in recent centuries...doesn't help in arguing against skeptics.
 
2012-12-11 05:40:57 PM

TabASlotB: So the entire climate science community is in on the scam then? From every relevant research institution? In governmental research groups that don't have to compete for funding, too? In countries around the world? At some point "it's all a scam to keep grant money flowing" collapses under the size of the supposed conspiracy. Not to mention that fabricating data with public monies is career suicide when it's discovered and probably actionable fraud...

As a young scientist, I can make my bones proving the graybeards wrong about something. Why wouldn't I?


It's not a conspiracy, but funding panels and peer review can be very political. I didn't say it's all a scam, but just keeping the grants flowing takes more than just being a good scientist. There is a bit of a political edge to it. I don't mean Dems and Repubs. I mean, basic stupid soap opera backstabbing shiat.
 
2012-12-11 05:41:04 PM
turnerdude69:

maxheck: turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires.

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)

It's just a fact...I'm not assuming anything like you are....Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....

Then you'll have to present it better than "Well, A happened, so A can never be something we contributed to!"

I said nothing at all about stopping it, but you did say something about causes.
 
2012-12-11 05:41:59 PM

Oznog: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.


I'm as old as you are, and you are a liar.

Either that, or your elementary school science curriculum was developed by barnyard animals.
 
2012-12-11 05:44:50 PM
Questions for the deniers: How does a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas since the Industrial Revolution NOT cause warming? Is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide also part of the grand socialist plot? Have physicists since the 1880s been in on it as well?
 
2012-12-11 05:46:16 PM

turnerdude69: Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....


That's not a fact. We already passed the peak interglacial thousands of years ago, as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles, and have been, on average, gradually cooling into the next glacial period.

www.globalwarmingart.com
 
2012-12-11 05:46:31 PM
montaraventures.com
 
2012-12-11 05:46:45 PM
FYI SevenizGud comes into every climate change article and trolls the hell out of it, no point giving him facts he is here just to get you guys worked up.
 
2012-12-11 05:47:35 PM
Flash_NYC:

Also, for you AGW folks. Just what event, event or data would falsify AGW? In other words, how would we know if Global Warming stopped?

If it stopped corresponding with what we observed in the real world?
 
2012-12-11 05:49:10 PM

Bullseyed: doyner: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.

Lots of theater, English and history majors in here.


I know you're not talking about me, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:49:40 PM
I'll believe Bill Plait is serious about taking on climate change when he has a discussion with Judith Curry.
 
2012-12-11 05:50:26 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:

Questions for the deniers: How does a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas since the Industrial Revolution NOT cause warming?

Friendship (among molecules) Is Magic!

That, and wishful thinking Wanting. 

Positive reinforcement from people on the radio who tell you what you want to hear helps transcend reality as well.
 
2012-12-11 05:50:27 PM

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


It's been a while since I really checked up on this one, and not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:

The original study "linking" Autism and the MMR vaccine had a sample size of 12 children and dodgy methodology. Even then the study didn't find a link between the vaccine and Autism but a link between a bowel condition in children who had autism who were vaccinated. Of the 12 children in the study 5 had known developmental problems before receiving the vaccine and three never even had autism.

The big question is why parents latched onto this rather questionable study rather than the multitudes of far sounder studies on diet, obesity, exercise, smoking, alcoholism or any other factors that the parents can change that would benefit their children. Hell - when Jamie Oliver tried getting kids to eat vegetables, parents were out protesting and smuggling kids burgers and fries. Parents ignore a vast array of medical knowledge, or even fight it on a regular basis - why on earth did they have to latch onto this one rather than a study on how kids eating diets low in artificial additives and processed foods have better attention spans.

Most studies on the link between autism and the vaccine also relate to this bowel condition and not to a causative link, and they typically use extremely small sample sizes of a few dozen kids.

There have been several HUGE studies done on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. IIRC the Netherlands did a study looking at every child vaccinated in the entire population over a 30 year period and found no link. The Japanese did a similar study comparing rates before and after they switched vaccine methods and found autism rates went up (when they stopped using MMR) but attributed this to improved diagnosis rather than actual increased rates.
 
2012-12-11 05:52:37 PM
It's nonsense. And worse, it's dangerous nonsense. Because they're fiddling with the data while the world burns.

It doesn't matter. We're beyond the tipping point. All that's left is minimizing the damage and mitigating the results.

The climate change deniers won. Good luck, folks.
 
2012-12-11 05:53:21 PM

hutchkc: Damnhippyfreak: olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.

If I recall the warming on Mars was due to bad data, but don't quote me on that one.


I believe he prefers to be called "Lore".
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-11 05:54:26 PM
What I find questionable is the data insisting it is wholly manmade and the conclusion that we MUST do something to change it if it is.

See the world undergoes climate changes constantly. It always has, that's what drives evolution. It happened before man picked up it's first club, much less built it's first combustion engine or bottled it's first flouro-carbon. If indeed it does kill off mankind years from now so what? That's how nature corrects itself. We will either be replaced by some other species or our genetic ancestors will adapt and mutate to survive the new environmental reality until the Earth goes through another cooling cycle.

Climate Change as it is being presented is religion, not science. The earth must be preserved as it was to preserve humanity. That is pretty much the opposite of what science has taught us about the Earth and evolution.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Richard Muller did the study, and wrote an NYT Op-Ed titled "The Conversion of a Climate-Change skeptic


Richard Muller in 2008: "The bottom line is that there is a consensus - the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] - and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.

[Y]ou need to know how much power you can get in a solar cell, how much power you can get from wind. There are technologies called clean coal, which both candidates have favored. You have to recognize that oil is now considered dangerous and therefore we need to reevaluate some of the technologies that we once dismissed because they were [also seen as] dangerous, like nuclear. We should reevaluate [nuclear energy] and see if it is more or less dangerous than coal. Things like solar and wind may get a lot cheaper, but they aren't cheap enough yet for countries like China, so they are not an immediate solution."



The Koch brothers funneled $1 million to the Cato Institute, an institute that denies the existence of climate change

The Koch brothers fund all sorts of things. Do you think they fund the Cato Institute strictly because the Cato Institute denies global warming? Oh wait, they don't. They just advocate against carbon taxes and regulation.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:39 PM

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and p ...


I know, right! This is so true!
These guys totally believed the biggest bunch of horshiat and then science came along and proved them all wrong and they went, like, crazy mad over that fact and demonized everyone in science and basically lied through their teeth all the while getting paid major bucks by the fossil fuel industry to confuse stupid people....wait...this didn't end up where I thought it would. Never mind.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:56 PM

maxheck: That, and wishful thinking


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If the most profitable industry in the history of the human species saw an existential threat from quantum physics or the Theory of Relativity... there would be legions of C-students flooding the internets, insisting that Einstein and Heisenberg were frauds engaging in "junk science".

I'm right about this.
 
2012-12-11 05:57:56 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.

It's been a while since I really checked up on this one, and not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:

The original study "linking" Autism and the MMR vaccine had a sample size of 12 children and dodgy methodology. Even then the study didn't find a link between the vaccine and Autism but a link between a bowel condition in children who had autism who were vaccinated. Of the 12 children in the study 5 had known developmental problems before receiving the vaccine and three never even had autism.



It was also written by a doctor trying to market his own "improved" vaccine.
 
2012-12-11 05:58:45 PM
All this arguing about the causes, but as usual no one even attempts to suggest a fix for it.
 
2012-12-11 05:58:49 PM
Mr_Fabulous:

maxheck: That, and wishful thinking

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If the most profitable industry in the history of the human species saw an existential threat from quantum physics or the Theory of Relativity... there would be legions of C-students flooding the internets, insisting that Einstein and Heisenberg were frauds engaging in "junk science".

I'm right about this.


And this applies how? I'm not familiar with your thesis. 

/ Pretty sure I know, but want to hear it.
 
2012-12-11 05:59:06 PM

Digitalstrange: See the world undergoes climate changes constantly.


We know this. That is irrelevant to the question of what's causing the change now. Try to spend some time learning why scientists believe humans are causing the present warming before tossing out non sequiturs.

If indeed it does kill off mankind years from now so what? That's how nature corrects itself.

Gee, I can't imagine why people don't take your argument seriously.

Humanity has an interest in preserving itself. The historical observation that other species have gone extinct in the past is not a normative argument for allowing our species to do so.
 
2012-12-11 05:59:42 PM
Omg a Pocket Ninja post and all of you assholes are replying to it as if it's serious!?
 
2012-12-11 05:59:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Kolg8: Got it. When there is a consesus on an issue, the majority has to be right. Which is why the earth is a flat object, with a sun that revolves around it.

You realize that the flat-earth concept was not scientific, right?


"Scientific method" is how we define it. At the time, it was widely accepted, for a really long time. Unfortunately it turned out wrong. (Seriously, Imagine how cool it would be if the earth was flat.)
Today we define it differently. Who's to say that our method won't turn out to be just as faulty?

IMO today scientists get too much credit for theories. Scientists develop theories then get paid enormous salaries to study/test these theories for their entire careers.

As a side note: Does anyone have a template for request funds from the NSF? I've got a good theory that's gonna take me at least 25 years to prove.
 
2012-12-11 06:02:59 PM

Joe Blowme: FTA:" when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science"

HAHahhahahahahah climate gate


Eight separate investigations, and not a single one found any evidence of wrongdoing.

You have this vast trove of information at your fingertips... why don't you use it?
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report