Restoring Science To Its Rightful Place

Just wait until the next 1,000,000 arrive. Methinks it's time for Canuckistan to close our borders, not only to muzzies, but the southern one also to an Amerikin not a resident for at least 10 years.

The Science on Global Warming isn't science. Global warming is a THEORY. There have been exactly ZERO experiments that prove increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere results in heat being trapped any longer than at lower concentrations. Vaccines, on the other hand, have been proven through numerous experiments to work. However, this doesn't mean that Global Warming is a false theory, only that it hasn't been proven true. It also doesn't mean that vaccines are safe for 100% of the population.

No no, global warming

"Global warming is a THEORY..."
No, no! David Suzuki said it's science. You're wrong. Last paragraph.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/ipcc-report-climate-change_b_4026114.html

Ugh. No.

Quantum mechanics is a theory.

Global warming doesn't even come close to being a scientific theory.

So you say my friend; "Vaccines, on the other hand, have been proven through numerous experiments to work"

Oh, really? So why are these "experiments" seemingly unavailable to refute the "tinfoil hat" claims of the vaccine theory skeptics? If you spend any actual time seeking the studies that validate the pro vaccine lobby's position, you come up against science that makes the global warming guys look "unbiased" by contrast.

I would argue that the financial/social/political interests behind the AGW scam used the "vaccine science" as their model. Further investigation into other avenues of purported "scientific" disciplines reveals similar "three card monte" methodology, seemingly benefitting the same financial/social/political interests referenced above. Now it may well be that all of the preceding is just poor optics and that all is well.

However, when a scientific theory is defended by belittling its critics, rather than demonstrating the robustness and repeatability of its claims, absent any extraneous compounding variables, you know the theory is based on faith and comfort, not fact. If you purport to be a "fair broker" you have to acknowledge this as fact.

To The Grey Lady. You asked:

Why is it that the science on Global warming is false/untrue/bupkiss/ kool-aid drinking lemmings, but the science on vaccines is sacred......

The "science" on global warming is radiative physics. That bit is so well established that to doubt it is to show yourself a luddite fool. Radiative physics can apply in many areas, climate being one. Those of us who study heat transfer understand that there comes a point where CO2 increases become relatively inconsequential in terms of heat transfer. CO2 increases continue to help plants grow better though so in total increasing CO2 is a good thing. If this site works like I have seen in the past, my name is a link to my (moribund) blog. There is a little ditty there called "The Path Length Approximation". Have a gander. It shows why the latest peer reviewed papers are all lowering the estimates of the heating impact of FURTHER increases in CO2.

"The "science" on global warming is radiative physics."

Geez. Here I was thinkin' all along that it was a branch of astrology. Just not as accurate as the zodiac stuff. Radiative physics, eh...who'd a thunk it!

It probably doesn't confer total immunity. A fair percentage of the California cases were supposed to have received the full immunization regime.

"Is autism worse than being dead?"

It is if that was your one shot at the perfect designer baby that was going to be so much more successful than everyone else's.

Ah yes, the designer baby. That perfect accessory for the perfect BoBo lifestyle.

The young trophy wives with their spray-on yoga outfits and diamond rings the size of a goose egg, so chic with their designer babys swaddled in designer bunting and German strollers that cost more than a Smart Car.

I see them in Oakville frequently. There's a Whole Foods in Oakville too. Everyone complains about the prices, but whenever I drive by the lot is always full.

Their kids are at risk of polio. the working farm kids out here in Hooterville, not so much.

The Grey Lady asks: "Question: Why is it that the science on Global warming is false/untrue/bupkiss/ kool-aid drinking lemmings, but the science on vaccines is sacred......."

Because the "vaccine sceptics" aren't challenging the science on vaccines. The science of it isn't in question. They're running a propaganda campaign against vaccines based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I'm a trained medical professional in physical therapy. To be a member of the profession I took a series of medical statistics courses and learned how actual science is done in the medical setting. I know how to tell if a certain treatment is beneficial, harmful or makes no difference. More importantly, I know how to tell if a study design will do what an author says it does, or if he's full of it.

I'd vaccinate any kid of mine based on the existing schedule as approved by the Ontario authorities, knowing that although there ARE risks of bad outcomes, the kid is more likely to get hit by lightning.

Because I looked it up on PubMed and read the f-ing papers. Duh.

I did the same thing for gun control, that set of papers did not fare so well in my evaluation. Nor have the Global warming ones. Objectively assessing the papers reveals that they are 100% b0ll0cks.

Also, external realty check: there is no epidemic of kids getting fragged by vaccinations, and there would certainly be one if the scientists and vaccine companies all lied. Rather, the number of catastrophically bad outcomes is similar in magnitude to the number of people struck by lightning. The same cannot be said of Glowball Warming or gun control, barely a day goes by that another new revelation of misdeeds is not made public.

Don't be a sucker. Go do the numbers and make up your own mind. Its not that hard.

If one of those studies was the 2004 CDC study better recheck your data. One of the lead authors has just been granted immunity by the US House of representatives for his testimony regarding cooking the data on that paper to both "hang" Wakefield and reassure the public on MMR. Google Dr. William Thompson. One of the other CDC lead authors on the same paper went on to head Merck's vaccine division...

"Because I looked it up on PubMed and read the f-ing papers. Duh."

"Because I looked it up in the IPCC and read f-ing papers. Duh."

Check out the acronym GIGO in computing science. Your belief is justifiable based on your assumptions, sadly your assumptions are the same as the AGW guys, same sh*t, different pile.