Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Comments 4201 to 4250:
-
Eclectic at 15:06 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @44 :
You may be lucky and get a reply from MA Rodger ~ who knows more about scientific publishing than you & me lumped together and multiplied by twenty.
Published scientific papers (in reputable journals) are where you find real science. Not in personal blogs, newspapers, television reports, etcetera. New ideas & advances can start off a bit "sloppy" but firm up over time with more work done. It can be a bit hit-and-miss in the early stages (never put all your trust in a single paper). Confusion & contradiction rules! . . . at first, anyway. Get used to that, and use caution (and use your own intelligence in a humble way).
Some apparently novel & good papers can later turn out to be poor ~ these get later corrected or retracted or more simply ignored once they are shown to be poor. ( The lattermost is quite common in the medical/biological fields, owing to the vast multiplicity of known/unknown factors that can cause the papers' conclusions to be largely wrong. Which is where the statement applies: "more than 50% of published paper are wrong." Note that this doesn't much apply to the "hard sciences" such as climate physics. )
Petra, you may or may not hear back from MA Rodger. From his earlier comment in this thread, I gained the impression that he thought you were suffering from post-concussion syndrome and should be sent from the playing field.
-
Petra Liverani at 14:59 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Nigel @45
As I said in an earlier comment people are very good at offering alternative explanations for points that seem to favour the hypothesis they oppose but what about their 10 points that favour their chosen hypothesis?
"If germany had a low covid mortaity numbers it might just have something to do with the fact they have the highest number of ICU beds per capita of any country and by a wide margin."
But no excess spike in Germany and Portugal also fits my hypothesis OK? And what about Portugal vs Spain? The lack of excess spike perfectly fits my hypothesis whereas you'd also have to find a reason for Portugal's lack.
Cold and flu themselves do not have distinctive sets of symptoms so can you please list where we see a set of symptoms for covid or any of its variants that distinguishes it from other respiratory illnesses.
I know there are instructions on how to wear a mask, Nigel, of course, but there's no enforcement and even if there were, the way it's worn for the pandemic is nothing like the way it's worn in every other situation guarding against infection so we'd have to wonder why in every other case for guarding against infection the rules are incredibly stringent but we only have guidelines that are far more lax and don't need to be followed in any case.
Have you got 10 points? My 10 points are perfectly fine, they are not "full of holes". I don't say any one point proves anything I just say that each of my 10 points perfectly supports if not favours my hypothesis. Where are your 10 points, Nigel?Moderator Response:[BL] Your challenge to count up "points" is pointless. Any future repetitions of this will be deleted.
-
nigelj at 14:16 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @39
I agree with Eclectics concise summation, and so I don't need go through your entire list.
Regarding why neighbouring countries mysteriously have different covid mortality rates or excess death statistics. If germany had a low covid mortaity numbers it might just have something to do with the fact they have the highest number of ICU beds per capita of any country and by a wide margin. But I have no interest in going through detailed country by country comparisons. because there are huge number of factors involved and I would expect to see varying mortality rates. Its not suspicious for me.
Covid has some similarities of symptoms to the flu and the omicron variant has some similar symptoms to the common cold, but there are most certainly striking differences as well and with covid certain symptoms are much more severe. My point is you dont get basic facts right so have little credibility.
Perhaps America hasn't had rules about how many times you should wear a mask. Before jumping to conclusions this means the whole covid thing is a hoax, did you check other countries? In New Zealand the authorities gave us detailed instructions on mask hygene.
"Deaths are accommodated by both hypotheses. It's just that for one they're said to be caused by covid and for the other, other causes and where there's excess spike in mortality we can also see reasons other than a novel virus."
What other reasons are you suggesting for for excess deaths? Remember a large number of countries reported excess deaths over the last two years. Not all did because covid never got a grip in some communities. But the point is how likely is it that there was a whole lot of different factors (the usual things) that all caused much of the world to have an excess deaths in just those two years? Or that there was some mysterious unknown common cause? Both are incrediblly improbable. Covid is a much more likely and simpler explanation.
Your analysis is so full of holes and mistakes you could drive a truck through it.
-
Petra Liverani at 14:06 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
MA Rodger @35
You refer to pre-publication peer review, however, when certain people wish to do post-publication review, their reviews are rejected. You're familiar with that complaint, no? Of course, if it's not up to standard then why would they publish? That's always a good response, isn't it? Well, it's not up to standard so we won't publish it. The thing is though journals are effectively funded by vested interests. There's the notorious case of Merck and the NEMJ.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-england-journal-and-its-pr-flacksThe thing is that peer-review is taken to mean something very important about a scientific paper, it's meant to establish its credibility and according to former BMJ editor it doesn't.
Moderator Response:[BL] Unsubstantiated accusations that the entire scientific publishing system is corrupt snipped.
-
Eclectic at 13:52 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra, the PCR test is the evidence.
IMO, the PCR technique is a scientific marvel. Useful in crimes; in species identifications; in so many areas. You should learn about it.
Petra, you put forward your 10 points for nitpicking. Don't complain!
-
Petra Liverani at 13:35 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Sure you can play Eclectic but you need to play by the rules. Deaths are accommodated by both hypotheses. It's just that for one they're said to be caused by covid and for the other, other causes and where there's excess spike in mortality we can also see reasons other than a novel virus.
Put forward your 10 points and exclude any points that fit both hypotheses. Then we're talking. -
Petra Liverani at 13:32 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Oops! No doubt it's obvious but just for clarity, 'bearing in mind it is important to exclude evidence that doesn't fit both hypotheses, for example, "case" numbers' should read "fits" rather than "doesn't fit"
Also, just to add, you may find it easy to go in and nitpick my 10 points ... but how easy do you find it to come up with the 10 points that favour real pandemic over fake? That's the question you should really ask yourself, not how you can nitpick my 10 points. A favoured type of argument against points seeming to favour the opposing hypothesis is "but that doesn't prove ...", "but that could be ..." The thing is though, you need to have evidence favouring your own hypothesis not just alternative explanations for what's put forward favouring the opposing hypothesis.
What I always do is bear both the hypotheses I believe correct and the one that opposes it in mind ensuring that all the pieces of evidence as much as possible at least support my chosen hypothesis if not favour it.Moderator Response:[BL] As has been pointed out by following comments, an argument based on "I made 10 points, how many points do you have", is pointless. Especially when your ten points are pointless on their own.
You are engaging in a Gish Gallop - a well-known debating tactic used by people with no scientific basis for their position.
Your use of "both sides" is a classic argument style called the "Uncertainty tactic". Your use of selected "experts" also fits into this argument. As well, you are approaching the "false balance" pretense.
You are now scoring 5 out of 5 on the FLICC scale:
-
Eclectic at 13:25 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @39 :
I have an idle moment ~ so I get to play !
1. we'd have no clue . . . apart from the deaths.
2. Irrelevant. 3. PCR > clinically
4. Irrelevant. Syphilis, Tuberculosis, etc = often no distinctive set.
5. Shocking to act in haste in a crisis. Shocking.
6. Irrelevant.
7. Irrelevant. There should be no Fire Drills without a real fire.
8. Your false dichotomy on masks. ( And my mask is not black on the inside ~ I have bleached it three times since January. )
9. Confusing & contradictory? Welcome to the real world, Petra.
10. Often with multiple contributing causations of death, the certified "first cause" can be a tad "sloppy". Twas ever thus. But stand back and look at the millions of Excess Mortality deaths. Millions. (The conspiracist only looks at one tree ~ the scientist looks at the forest.)
Cheers, Petra.
-
Petra Liverani at 12:25 PM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Nigel @38
"neighbouring countries don't necessarily show the same kind of spike""Ok, but differerent countries have different covid policies, vaccination rates and quality of data. This is a far simpler explanation than some contrived and massively complicated global conspiracy. Occams razor principle."
It's important to note that with regard to simplicity, Occam's Razor refers to the simplicity of how well the evidence fits the hypothesis, not the simplicity of the hypothesis.If two countries didn't have aggressive drug trials while the neighbouring countries did then to see what other factors played a role we'd have to look carefully at what measures were taken. From what I gather from the information I've seen, Italy, at least, had very aggressive measures in place so at first sight the fact that aggressive measures were in place didn't play a role. Of course, if you can point me to how Germany and Portugal's measures protected them from the spike we see in their neighbouring countries I'm all ears. And I put forward evidence that aggressive drug trials were in place that we could easily expect a mortality increase from.
ALL the evidence must be considered.
-— We see aggressive measures in Italy at least - how were the measures in Portugal and Germany better?
-— We see evidence of aggressive drug trials where overdose levels of HCQ were administered (2400mg where 2000mg can be considered overdose level)
-— No OTHER evidence that might suggest the reason for the difference in spikes."Mountains of evidence."
Mountains of purported evidence. What evidence doesn't fit both hypotheses though? That's the question. The fake pandemic hypothesis includes the purported evidence, it includes "case" numbers, it just says "case" numbers are based on faulty science.
Now that the vaccine has been introduced we have another very important variable with regard to mortality figures. For a start, there is clear evidence that mortality is assigned to the alleged "unvaccinated" who've actually had one dose.
https://rubyraymedia.com/index.php/top-stories/plandemic/magnificent-mercola-shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated
Without necessarily putting evidence (but happy to provide where I haven't put it) I put forward 10 points that favour fake pandemic over real. I invite others to put forward 10 points favouring the other way, bearing in mind it is important to exclude evidence that doesn't fit both hypotheses, for example, "case" numbers.
1. Without being told by government and media 24/7 there was a pandemic we'd have no clue.
2. There were 313,000 cases of the flu in 2019 in Australia (far greater in number than alleged cases of covid the following year) and yet no obvious measures were taken and we weren't advised of case numbers on a daily basis or anything of that nature.
3. There is no gold standard test for the alleged covid and the PCR technique is not a diagnostic test which is stated clearly on its packet and also by its inventor, Kary Mullis, and yet "cases" are based purely on the result of the test, they are not clinically diagnosed.
4. The alleged covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms telling it apart from cold, flu, pneumonia, whatever. If testing stopped tomorrow we'd have no clue that anyone had covid as distinct from other respiratory illnesses.
5. The scientific work done to say there was a novel virus causing a new disease and a pandemic was all done at an unscientific haste.
6. A number of things happened before the pandemic that seem rather coincidental, eg, Event 201, in Oct 2019, a pandemic tabletop exercise partnered by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.7. We see clear evidence of people acting as covid patients and hospital drills pushed out as real.
8. There is great debate about the effectiveness of masks in the first place but regardless, dirty masks would surely not be considered effective against infection by anyone. The rules, however, only request compliance to wear a mask with no monitoring of level of hygiene. The rule to wear a mask regardless of hygiene makes no sense and we know that people slip on their masks just for compliance' sake while the inside of their mask may well show blackness - I've heard testimony of this. Even those who wish to maintain the kind of levels of hygiene protecting against infection will simply not succeed because masks against infection are not designed to be worn the way they're worn for this alleged pandemic. What we can infer from this very obviously ineffective measure is that masks are about appearance only, nothing to do with health.
9. In addition to the mask problem, guidelines in general have been confusing and contradictory. Why should we believe any of them are effective?
https://dorseteye.com/the-un-official-coronavirus-guidelines/
10. I have heard from a number of people that covid was put on their loved ones' death certificates when they clearly died from something else. Dr Scott Jensen, also a Minnesota senator, criticises the guidelines for putting covid on death certificates. For this I'll put the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qWmiWf81zIModerator Response:[BL] You seem to be as poorly informed about Occam's Razor as you are about other things you say. It has entirely to do with the simplicity of the explanation, not the evidence.
Your use of the terms "purported evidence" and "alleged", your use of scare quotes around "case", your use of "why should we believe?" "I have heard", etc. are all very clear indications that you are simply rejecting any evidence that does not fit your beliefs, while accepting any anecdotal evidence that you think supports your belief.
This bears no resemblance to a scientific approach.
You have previously been shown the following diagram (twice!). We can now add "re-interpreting randomness" to the list of confirmed behaviours on your part.
-
nigelj at 09:02 AM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @34
"Sure, now I disbelieve so much from the authorities but only because I've clearly identified so many lies"
It depends how you define authorities. Its fair to say politicians and media have been caught being "economical with the truth" but scientists perhaps less so because their work has to go through a peer review process. So when I try to make sense of big, controversial issues I tend to look carefully at what the published peer reviewed science says on some issue, and particularly what most of that science is saying.
But just because people are dishonest doesn't mean something is a hoax! There are many reasons for dishonesty. I recommend a good book: Post Truth, by Evan Davis.
"Some of the anomalies we see in psychological operations are simply not anomalies that we can glide over. They are very distinctive and we can recognise them as deliberate anomalies not accidental."
Yes obviously there are sometimes anomalies and some things do turn out to be hoaxes or conspiracies but you have to be extremely careful and knowledgeable and not jump to conclusions. I've seen nothing that makes me think covid is a hoax.I do see clear evidence of 'anmmolies' suggesting some countries are downplaying the mortality rate, and reasons for doing this are obvious. This is the real "conspiracy".
"Nigel your explanation for a Chinese research team finding Chinese cobras and many-banded kraits to be "reservoirs" of the virus is "flawed early research" but how is that a better explanation than "nonsense"? It really is nonsense because it makes no sense. "
It is nonsense but my point was it doesn't make covid a hoax. There is simply no logical connection between the two. It just might be the Chinsese trying to cover up the true origins of the virus but I have no proof of that and doubt it would be likely. It was just a case of bad science.
"What says it's (covid) a real pandemic rather than fake? "
Mountains of evidence. Just one example. Careful investigations of records show most countries have much higher than normal numbers of people dying over the last two years. This alone is a red flag suggesting the pandemic is real. To suggest this is all faked records is absurd. Because to suggest millions of health care professionals are in on a hoax, and none of them have gone to the media and said whats really going on, is too illogical to take seriously.
"neighbouring countries don't necessarily show the same kind of spike"
Ok, but differerent countries have different covid policies, vaccination rates and quality of data. This is a far simpler explanation than some contrived and massively complicated global conspiracy. Occams razor principle.
This will probably be my last comment because covid is not the real issue and you have already been given infomation on the characteristics of conspiracy theories.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:40 AM on 5 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
This I find especially amusing: "knowing nothing on the subject, I found it compelling."
I don't know that anything else can be added. It sums up the attitude of a large body of people with opinions. I think that Petra has said everything there was to say for everyone else to form their opinion on hers, and the subject is now thoroughly exhausted. I have to say it takes some serious acting to produce a p/F ratio less than 80 on an arterial blood gas but it may not be compelling enough for someone who doesn't know Jack on the subject.
What a pathetic joke.
Moderator Response:[BL] The valid point on having strong opinions on subjects that the writer knows nothing about does not need the snipped closing comment.
-
Eclectic at 23:28 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Moderator, indulge me in yet one more post in this thread, please.
Petra Liverani @33 ,
Thanks, I have now had the chance to see your [linked] videos about the Crisis Actors faking covid in hospital beds. Brilliant.
Yes, I am convinced.
World governments are in a conspiracy to con us, obviously. No other explanation is possible.
Gotta say, that the UK authorities are doing a rather cheap job there. Versus the USA federal government (and 50 state governments) who've been splashing out a real bucketload of money on the job. For the USA, over 1 million "covid" deaths so far [deaths certified, tested, cross-referenced against Excess Mortality minus influenza ].
One million, actually dead.
Now that is what I call Method Acting !
But how much would the Authorities have had to pay these million actors to undergo actual real death ~ the mind boggles. And pay to bribe the dead actors' relatives, friends & neighbours?
Gotta be $squillions !
Petra, it's horrifying . . . and yet I half-admire the Authorities' dastardly cruel thoroughness. The Freudian attraction of pure evil?
Please sign me up to your organization.
Moderator Response:[BL] Although the comments policy does not have explicit statements banning sarcasm, this does get a bit too close to ad hominem and inflammatory commenting.
-
MA Rodger at 23:27 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
I am not sure that this lenghty to-&-fro on the exemplar of COVID-19 is very useful for man or beast. Perhaps a roll-back to the initial intorduction of the subject into this thread would cut the subject off at its in-thread intorduction.
Petra Liverani @4,
You raise Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' and the criticisms of Richard Smith to pre-publication peer review and ask "If eminent scientists criticise "science" why shouldn't we?"
If you bother to read the criticism of science by these two 'eminent scientists', you may find that their criticism is not in any way as broadly based as you appear to have been arguing down this thread.
-
Eclectic at 22:18 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @32 ,
When I googled your question (which you are free to do, of course) the first hit that came up was an analysis [B.Healy et al., 2021] of PCR testing of about 5,100 tests. The result boiled down to around 0.5% false positive ~ a good result in a low-prevalence situation. (The patient may be retested if it was only a single gene positive.)
So, not really a problem. Your question seems off-topic though, considering that this thread is discussing inoculation against misinformation. I also feel that "self-inoculation" (against misinformation) includes you/we gaining an understanding of the psychological presentation of those who promote misinformation ~ is the anti-science person showing signs of being a nutter or political extremist or conspiracy theorist, etcetera?
Psychological abnormalities can be hard to tell, sometimes. (BTW, you have not answered my question @30 about your assessment regarding Dr Bailey . . . but as the Moderator hints, I shall withdraw such a personal reference.)
Extremists and conspiracists are fairly easy to spot, much of the time. They waddle and quack [excuse pun]. But the nutters can prove less easy. I myself know a research scientist (PhD level) who is a member of a local Flat Earth Society ~ an intelligent, friendly, charming fellow, whom you would have no suspicion of . . . unless the subject of the Earth's shape cropped up. ( I haven't dared ask him about alien abductions and so on.)
But examining the mindset of, ahem . . . a contrarian . . . is something which you should be doing routinely, Petra. It can save you wasting time going down the proverbial rabbit-holes. It's a form of self-inoculation, in a way !
Moderator Response:[BL] There is a blog post here at SkS where Covid-specific discussion is probably more on-topic.
https://skepticalscience.com/COVID-19-Vaccine-Communication-Handbook.html
-
Petra Liverani at 21:50 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
@Nigel 31
"You don't have to be a scientist to see certain (covid related) anomalies.""But are they really anomalies?"
The moon landings is a very interesting case because it's the one where I fall out with my sometimes tribe in our disbelief of many things told to us by the authorities and it's one where you can really see people's inclinations to believe blind them to the evidence - just as we see other people's inclinations blind them to the evidence when they're inclination is to believe the authorities.
After I'd woken up to a couple of big lies I thought I'd take a look at the moon landings which I was all set to disbelieve too. I read the book, Wagging the Moondoggie (love the title if not the content), which said they didn't happen and, knowing nothing on the subject at that point, I found it compelling, however, I thought I should check the evidence myself and when I got to the audio between the astronauts and mission control I stopped dead in my tracks. "No way could this be faked," I thought. But, of course, that's just my opinion, isn't it, just like the opinion of those who think it could be faked. The fact is though that no one has identified any fakery in the audio and there's hours and hours of it. Law of Parsimony/Occam's Razor right?
And, of course, everything we see apart from a few seeming anomalies completely aligns with the lunar conditions so very different from the terrestrial.While I may misinterpret or simply miss important evidence sometimes I'm definitely an evidence-based thinker, not an inclination-based thinker simply because I don't have strong inclinations. Sure, now I disbelieve so much from the authorities but only because I've clearly identified so many lies - and this all happened after the pretty advanced age of 53, 8 years ago. I don't WANT to disbelieve them though and I don't disbelieve them on the moon landings and man-made climate change - just most other things. And while I said I didn't believe in covid from Day One that doesn't mean I wouldn't change my mind - it's just no evidence came to light to make me change my mind.
Some of the anomalies we see in psychological operations are simply not anomalies that we can glide over. They are very distinctive and we can recognise them as deliberate anomalies not accidental. The most important quote about propaganda in my opinion is from British psychiatrist Anthony Daniels which he applies to both communist propaganda and political correctness but we can see it applies to all propaganda from power.The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-studyThe thing most people seem to have a problem coming to terms with is that those in power tell us the truth underneath the propaganda - they rub it in our faces and make fools of us. When I learnt of this phenomenon known as "revelation of the method" and "hidden-in-plain-sight" I didn't doubt it for a nanosecond because quite a number of giveaway clues had puzzled me. It seems so counterintuitive but it isn't when you know how power works and what could testify to power better than telling us what they're doing and still getting away with it.
Nigel your explanation for a Chinese research team finding Chinese cobras and many-banded kraits to be "reservoirs" of the virus is "flawed early research" but how is that a better explanation than "nonsense"? It really is nonsense because it makes no sense. Why would researchers look in those two species of snakes in the first place (and the pandemic is barely news at this point) but not others? And if they did look at others did they not find those species to be reservoirs only the two mentioned and if this was the case why not mention it? It doesn't make sense. Have we seen any people falling flat on their faces since Wuhan or people laid out on hospital floors or on the ground? No we have not. These are not the only nonsenses, there are plenty more such as actors playing covid patients.NHS hiring actors to play covid patients
Henry Dyne, Award-winning crisis actor
A crisis actor speaks and shows her contract
What clearly says that the covid pandemic is not a complete fabrication and that everyone labelled sick or dead from covid isn't simply sick or died from something else such as cold, flu, pneumonia, etc? What says it's a real pandemic rather than fake? What's the evidence that clearly distinguishes it as real? What says that a bogus test hasn't been used to make "cases" for an illness that doesn't exist in its own right? Covid has been going for 2.5 years and of the people I've known who've tested positive, some were sick with what could easily be a cold, my neighbour said he felt close to death but recovered in a few days, and someone else had no symptoms. What says my neighbour didn't have a bad flu and the others just had a cold or nothing at all? If government and media didn't tell you 24/7 there was a pandemic would you have a clue there was one? If everyone wasn't made to wear masks, etc would you know there was a pandemic? No, you wouldn't have a clue. How can there be a pandemic that you can only know of through government and media?
We can look at an overall excess spike in mortality in Europe in April 2020 that seems to favour the alleged covid pandemic however when we look at the individual countries and notice how neighbouring countries don't necessarily show the same kind of spike we might wonder about that. Could the fact the spike doesn't cross borders be explained by aggressive drug trials rather than a covid pandemic? Something to very seriously ponder on.
Set the right marker to about Week 25 2020 to see how in the preceding weeks there's a big spike in Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy but not in Portugal and Germany where no aggressive drug trials were conducted.
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/#z-scores-by-country
Oxford, Recovery et Solidarity : Overdosage in two clinical trials with acts considered criminal?Moderator Response:[BL] You have already been pointed to the following graphic.
Since you seem unwilling to evaluate your posts here on this scale, I will do so. I see:
- Overriding suspicion
- Nefariuus intent
- Something must be wrong
- Immune to evidence
and maybe more. The phrase "no evidence ... to change my mind" is a common statement from those that have fallen prey to misinformation.
-
Petra Liverani at 19:27 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
OK, I'll ask a simple question.
What's the rate of false positives for the PCR test and how is that rate arrived at? -
Eclectic at 13:47 PM on 4 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2022
Doug ~ IIRC the final scene of "Canticle" was the priest/monk symbolically shaking the dust from his sandals as he entered the Ark-rocket. As the initial SCOTUS decisions exploded on the horizon . . . or perhaps I am slightly mis-remembering that bit ;-)
Interesting times unfolding now : and we mustn't sleep at the wheel.
-
nigelj at 12:36 PM on 4 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @27
"You don't have to be a scientist to see certain (covid related) anomalies."
But are they really anomalies? I'm not convinced as mentioned in my previous comment up thread. For example you mentioned a person with covid falling over that you felt looked suspicious.Thats rather subjective on your part and perhaps it just looked staged. its important to know covid can make you very dizzy and weak. Its quite likely a few people would fall over. Its also possible that the hospital didnt catch specific cases on the security cameria video,so staged one as a reconstruction and did a sloppy job. Clearly that would not mean covid is a hoax.
And heres an analogy. Do you remember the claims that the NASA moon landing was a hoax and all staged with actors? This was based on what appeared to be anomolies in certain photos of the moon landings. Some of the anomalies did puzzle me, but I could see innocent explanations for several of them becauuse photography used to be a bit of a hobby of mine. NASA also released commentary explaining what caused the alleged anomalies, and there were good and utterly innocent and convincing technical explanations.
But NASAS explanations dont appear to be enough for some people, who go on believing its a hoax / conspiracy. Perhaps there are various possible reasons. Some of these people dont seem very intelligent (Im not suggesting you fall into that category), and its known that some people lean towards conspiracy thinking for innate psychological reasons (easily googled) , and others are probably just throwing mud at NASA because they hate elites or governmnet organisations for ideological reasons. Believing in hoaxes is also a type of security blanket that allows people to blame elites for the problems of the world rather than themselves. And there is also dunning kruger syndrome. My point is there are obvious explanations why some people see anamolies and hoaxes everywhere and think they know better than experts.
So sure we should all question the conventional wisdom, or new wisdon and look out for anomolies, but most anomalies turn out to have innocent explanations that are pretty much irrefutable, so its important to not get stuck in a groove convinced something must be a hoax.
---------------------------------------
Petra Liverani at @28
"Sam Bailey says the experiments done to show the existence of viruses don't follow the scientific method "
Someone says something. Doesn't make them correct. Regardless of the methods used we can identify viruses which really should leave no room for doubt about their existance.
"Electron microscopy (EM) has long been used in the discovery and description of viruses. "
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772359/
----------------------------------------------
Petra Liverani @29
"Dr Sam Bailey has been sacked from her presenter job with NZ TV's, The Checkup, for refusing the jab, struck off the medical register and had her YouTube videos pulled down....I'm really not sure where you're not seeing censorship here."Like the moderator said losing a job over health and safety issues is not censorship. I live in New Zealand and she was in breach of her employment conditions. The governmnet had also made it mandatory for some people to be vaccinated although I cant recall exactly all the groups, but I do recall some were sacked from their jobs. Its just not censorship, although clearly you could argue about the policy itself.
"No argument against what the authorities tell us about the pandemic is allowed in the media."
Plenty of our media in New Zealand do allow such arguments. Stuff.co allow robust criticism of what the authorities claim, but dont allow wild claims that vaccines dont work, because they dont want to be seen to discourage vaccination and put our hospitals into a crisis situation. Call that censorship, but I think its an example of good practical censorship. Like not allowing people to falsely cry "fire" in a movie theatre.
"It's right there in the absence of any dissidence. All things dissident are simply labelled misinformation and ridiculed."
That is a wild generalisation. Instead some specific things get labelled misinformation. You have to then convince people they are not misinformation. You might need better logic and evidence than you have come up with so far.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:03 AM on 4 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2022
Eclectic, indeed it's true.
Even more, there are about a billion arguably useful (for life-support purposes) years left in our main sequence star. A number of cycles of spectacular folly are left available, though none will likely be so grand as ours given the virgin, ample and easily wasted resource endowment we're chewing up. See the book A Canticle for Leibowitz for a rough picture of how our opportunity may unfold.
Given that hope is where we flee when we have no plan and instead must consign ourselves to some fate immediately at hand ("I hope I don't sink even though I neglected to install a bilge pump"), I'm not sure that the concept of deeper time unpacks as hopeful.
But comforting, yes. Comfort being the term for what we offer the bereaved, when hope is played out. :-)
-
Eclectic at 09:11 AM on 4 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2022
Doug , in one sense Peppers may be correct (if unknowingly).
In the opinion of the eminent evolutionary biologist Stephen Gould : if we completely trashed the planetary environment, and all mammals and other higher animals died off . . . it would not matter much, because in about 15 million years or so, new life-forms would evolve to take their place.
A comforting thought !
-
Doug Bostrom at 08:10 AM on 4 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2022
"It is physically impossible that the balance is not there."
Yes, and here in the context of CO2 added to the atmosphere that balance is to do with radiative equilibrium. Equilibrium will happen— accompanied by many changes, mostly of an awkward nature as can be seen if one bothers to check research findings. One can easily calculate a ratio of good/bad by following NR, here. The ratio isn't good.
"That meteor 66 millions years ago ( killed dinosaurs and 3- of every 4 living things on earth) lowered the world 5 degrees overnight and darkened the earth completely sunless for 6 years. 30 degree F drop in 6 years, then swinging higher than previous normal and climbing to 2000-2500ppm once the sun returned. It all came back."
After enough death and dying (aka "evolutionary pressure"), everything was fine— right, got it. And the human species is collectively behaving like a brainless rock, yes. How is this good news, consolation, or reassurance? Meanwhile, thinking in geologic time isn't our nature and as well isn't really helpful in terms of dealing with changes happening right now.
The irony kicker:
"More co2 increases foliage (detected by Nasa's MOTIS), more transpiration, more moisture in the air, more low clouds with higher albedo."
If one bothered to follow NR and rather than instantly singing a comforting cantata of vague hopes instead read only titles and abstracts of papers listed here, one wouldn't make such a glib, facilely optimistic remark. One would know that neither of those claims pencil out as salvation.
-
michael sweet at 08:03 AM on 4 July 2022What role for small modular nuclear reactors in combating climate change?
JHBrewer @47
I found this information:
Some common light nuclei for comparison (the tables are hard to read each time to consult):H - scattering 4,24 barns at 1 MeV, 20,4 barns thermal, capture 332 millibarns thermal D - scattering 2,87 barns at 1 MeV, 3,4 barns thermal, capture 0,5 millibarns thermal He - scattering 7,06 barns at 1 MeV, 0,77 barns thermal, capture impossible C - scattering 2,58 barns at 1 MeV, 4,74 barns thermal, capture 3,86 millibarns thermal O-16 - scattering 8,15 barns at 1 MeV, 3,85 barns thermal, capture 0,19 millibarns thermal
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/helium-as-moderator.637730/
Apparently the cross section of Helium is low for thermal neutrons. It is also interesting that helium-4 cannot absorb neutrons at all, the only element with this property. It seems to me that the main reason the helium has low effect on the neutron energy is its low density since it is a gas, but I could be incorrect. I did not find any references to using argon as a coolant. I guess argon might absorb too many neutrons.
I suggest yiou read the papers summarized in the link of post 23. Here is another link. That source has a number of peer reviewed articles about high temperature gas reactors and the materials they require.
Reading some of the abstracs it seems to me that it is a waste of time to discuss high temperature gas reactors. They are described as needing very large amounts of R&D to build. They are unlikely to be designed before 2050 and will be of no use building out a completely non-carbon energy system in that time frame.
Nuclear power is not economic and the materials to build the reactors do not exist.
-
peppers at 00:53 AM on 4 July 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2022
I see this as a sort of misplaced approach to this issue, as all this data does little to folks passing by your stand at the swap meet. You are addressing people who may be saying there is no changing happening, and I dont think that remains logical. But some may be saying that to be obstinant or antagonistic. For myself, I dont think that change is happening is hard to see. The crisis stated by all this refers to the hockey puc being a precident in history, and the world will now be ending shortly by a runaway cycle. The train barreling down on a next generations child was the fearsome icon. But the world has experienced this before. That meteor 66 millions years ago ( killed dinosaurs and 3- of every 4 living things on earth) lowered the world 5 degrees overnight and darkened the earth completely sunless for 6 years. 30 degree F drop in 6 years, then swinging higher than previous normal and climbing to 2000-2500ppm once the sun returned. It all came back. My point is that, no matter it happening or the source, the world ( the universe ) balances. More co2 increases foliage (detected by Nasa's MOTIS), more transpiration, more moisture in the air, more low clouds with higher albedo. You will find even more paths of balance if you turn your capable eye to the cycling of nature, meaning the inescapable balance of all cycles. It is physically impossible that the balance is not there, I assure you. I am happy to elaborate more if there is interest. Thanks and best, David
-
Eclectic at 22:07 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @29 and prior :
You seem strongly drawn to highlighting (in this "misinformation" thread) the case of Dr Samantha Bailey of New Zealand, whom you have championed [according to Reddit] for more than a year now.
Assuming* that you yourself are not Dr Bailey, it would be a useful case study of misinformation if you would analyse the psychological condition of Dr Bailey.
[ * we cannot expect much insight from actual patients. ]
Not having heard of her before now, I can only speculate on her commercial & non-commercial motivations for denying the mainstream science of viruses, vaccines, PCR's and so on.
Petra, you have had considerable time to study her, and so your thoughts and speculations on Dr Bailey's mindset would be most interesting, I am sure. ( Quite possibly the Moderator may permit discussion of the underlying motivations of individuals who immerse themselves in & publicize misinformation/ disinformation. )
Moderator Response:[BL] Please tread carefully. Discussions of a specific individual are unlikely to be constructive. Discussions of general psychological traits that would lead people to be more or less susceptible to believing misinformation may be appropriate - but should be presented in the context of the information in the blog post.
And for all - keep in mind that there is a Comments Policy here. One specific item that is worth mentioning, as I see signs that is is being threatened by recent posts, is:
Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
Petra Liverani at 20:35 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Nigelj @24
Dr Sam Bailey has been sacked from her presenter job with NZ TV's, The Checkup, for refusing the jab, struck off the medical register and had her YouTube videos pulled down. No argument against what the authorities tell us about the pandemic is allowed in the media. I'm really not sure where you're not seeing censorship here. It's right there in the absence of any dissidence. All things dissident are simply labelled misinformation and ridiculed.Moderator Response:[BL] You keep throwing around the pejorative "censorship".
Losing a job because you will not meet an employer's health and safety requirements is not censorship.
Losing the right to practise medicine due to giving bad medical advice is not censorship.
A decision by a private corporation to disallow the use of their service is not censorship.
Nobody has the right to force anyone else to give access to their megaphone.
"The media" is not a single monolithic entity that acts in unison. "The media" is not required to report every misguided person's pet theories.
-
Petra Liverani at 20:30 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Philippe @25,
Sam Bailey says the experiments done to show the existence of viruses don't follow the scientific method - and her criticism is not very complicated, a major point she makes is that they don't use controls and nor do the experiments to show infection follow the scientific method. She doesn't actually say viruses don't exist although I wish she'd make it clear that she's just pointing out the problem with the experiments rather than saying pathogens causing measles or whatever don't exist. They can, of course, easily exist, it's just that, according to her and others, the experiments to show their existence aren't correct.
And so what if she's wrong? Then argue against what she says. Let her speak. -
Petra Liverani at 19:52 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
BaerbelW @26
There's no point putting forward alleged covid facts. I'm familiar with the alleged facts. What needs to be looked at is the argument against the alleged facts and the response to the argument against. We need to follow the debunking trail.
If we look at this argument debunking the refuters of the alleged facts it looks pretty good ... but then in the comments we see someone debunking this debunking.
https://www.integralworld.net/visser201.html#2
As a non-scientist I can't really follow that very scientific argument but what I can follow are many aspects of the narrative that don't add up that are not of a particularly scientific nature ... and those I put in my page. You don't have to be a scientist to see certain anomalies.Moderator Response:[BL] Alas, I will have to step out of this discussion as a regular participant and take on the role of moderator. This discussion is starting to go off the rails.
You said in comment #23 "..but I didn't believe in covid from Day One." Throwing around terms such as "alleged facts" makes it pretty clear that you are rejecting anything that would go against that initial belief. You are challenging others to to consider alternative explanations, when you clearly will not accept any evidence that goes against the belief you had "from Day One".
Now, you admit that you are not a scientist. This is obvious. Scientists can and do listen to credible alternative hypotheses.
-
BaerbelW at 16:18 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra @23
From your comments it looks as if you'll need to update your understanding about Covid. Here is a link to a wiki put together by a large team of scientists:
https://hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/covidfacts
And as some of your claims smack of conspiracy ideation as some others here have already pointed out, here is the link to the Conspiracy Theory Handbook: https://sks.to/conspiracy
If you decide to read it you should be able to tell which of the 7 traits of conspiratorial thinking make an appearance in your arguments:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:43 PM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra,
You said: "I wasn't trying to prove that Sam Bailey is correct in her claims although I think she is..."
Sam Bailey claims that viruses do not cause disease and even argues that they do not exist. It is a good thing that most people in New Zealand know better than buying in her BS. She is as grotesque a charlatan as one could fetch from the farthest reaches of the imagination.
I have no interest in going on your website to discuss microbiology, molecular biology, or anything else for that matter. I can think of innumerable ways to better use my time. Being open-minded doesn't mean that one should let garbage clutter his mind. The personal experiences of all the people I have cared for who had severe Covid carries far more weight in my own personal experience than the inane reflexion of your handy man.
-
nigelj at 11:31 AM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @23. I've scanned your comments and website. You are making wild allegations about "obvious censorship "without providing any specific examples or evidence.
It appears that you have concluded covid is a hoax and some sort of staged event, because of of some flawed early research on the origins of covid relating to snakes, and one instance where someone is depicted falling over from covid. This is utterly irrational thinking, and classic conspiracy theory ideation. You are taking a small number of issues and jumping to irrational conclusions. Flawed early research does not mean something is a hoax or staged event as you claimed. The person falling over may have been true (you provide no evidence its not true) or a media reconstruction of what has happened. Neither mean covid is a hoax. Your website is classic conspiracy theory ideation.
My cousin is a doctor and got covid early in the pandemic and was quite ill despite being fit and healthy until then. Are you claiming hes making it up? That hes "part of the conspiracy"?
I was talking to a friend recently who had covid and was very ill. Why should I doubt him? He still looked very ill. We have doctors screaming out in our media that hospitals are full of covid patients and they can't cope with the numbers. Do you seriously think they are making this up? If so, see a psyhcologist or psychiatrist for your own good.
-
Petra Liverani at 10:25 AM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Philippe, I readily admit I mentioned the subject of covid and I have no problem with people responding on that subject and certainly see why they have. At the same time, this site isn't about covid so it's not appropriate to get into a big discussion on it. Although I mentioned covid I was really trying to make a general point and I wasn't trying to prove that Sam Bailey is correct in her claims although I think she is, I was saying the approach to dissident views on the subject is wrong and that "science" isn't gospel, that "peer-review" doesn't make scientific claims fact. There should be frank and open discussion and where we see obvious censorship ... then what can one think? Censorship is a kind of fraud.
Just to say I accept the science on man-made climate change but I didn't believe in covid from Day One and it wasn't because of any alleged misinformation from people such as Sam Bailey, it was from what was obvious misinformation from the authorities in the form of images of people falling flat on their faces and laid out on hospital floors and on the ground and a story about a Chinese research team who'd allegedly found two species of snake to be "reservoirs" of the virus (Chinese cobra and many-banded krait) which was promptly "debunked" by a bio-security specialst as "complete garbage". This kind of nonsense is a hallmark of psychological operations. The quote with "complete garbage" seems to have disappeared but we have this story in The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/snakes-could-be-the-original-source-of-the-new-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china-130364
People don't only disbelieve the authorities on the basis of what people such as Sam Bailey or David Icke say. They disbelieve it from their first-hand analysis much of the time and that's what turns them to these people - whether what they say is right or wrong. I asked a handyman who came to my place what he thought of the virus. His simple reply was, "What happened to the flu?"
I have my own page on covid, Philippe. If you're interested in discussing it you can make a comment there or email me at petral@iinet.net.au.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020 -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:06 AM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
David-acct,
Your argument failed on multiple points.
You postulate the future discovery of an unknown forcing. Then you jump on to the hypothesis that said forcing would automatically be labeled as misinformation. Why would that be? If serious scientific work confirms the existence of such a forcing, with multiple converging lines of evidence and multiple research teams obtaining similar results through various methods, nobody in the scientific world will call it misinformation. That is, unless the work is misrepresented and its significance conveyed to the public in a way not supported by the research.
Further, you equate the future discovery of a hypothetical forcing that would be real to the hyping of phenomena that do not constitute forcings. When such phenomena, currently known, identified, and properly investigated, are misrepresented as forcings, it is entirely correct to call that misinformation.
Next point: you argue that stifling misinformation impairs the advancement of knowledge. In fact, it is exactly the opposite that happens. The rapid spread and wide reach of misinformation is a colossal obstacle to the advancement of knowledge. It skews public perception and makes everyone less able to understand a given issue. It distracts, diverting attention and resources away. It has also many other side effects, insidious, and extremely detrimental to long term societal balance.
Finally, you make the ridiculous claim that it is "forbidden to question the consensus." That is a straw man big enough to go vacation at the Burning Man festival. All scientific work that is of quality is welcome in the litterature. Of course, it has to meet certain standards. No work should be given a pass for just questioning anything. In fact, it will likely attract higher scrutiny for doing so, which is entirely reasonable and to be expected in any scientific area. I will reiterate again that what is called the consensus, is not just a consensus of expert opinion. It is a consensus of research results, a convergence of multiple lines of enquiry from multiple teams, using multiple methods. A big picture emerges from that. That big picture is the consensus.
It is good to remind everyone that a common pseudo-skeptic lie is that there is no consensus. When corrected, they jump on to attacking the consensus. The dishonesty of the overall approach will not escape the attentive reader.
It is also necessary to remind everyone that no dissenter's freedom of speech is under attack. This site exists because the public space has been swamped with misinformation, and because the sources of it are loud, aggressive, doing everything possible to drown quality information, attacking people personally, trying to weaponize the justice system against scientists whose message they don't like.
We live in the macroscopic world. There is such a thing as reality. Allowing any and all BS to be on the same plane of validity as legitimate information is wrong, detrimental, dangerous. People who try to convince others that the Earth is flat must called what they are.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:30 AM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Eclectic,
Our back and forth clarifications and exploration of boundaries of interpretation confirm that we are reasonably aligned. Evidence limits what is believable. And the best explanations of what is going on are the ones that are most consistent with, best explain, all of the evidence. And, indeed, that is always open to improvement. The best that any person can do is pursue increased awareness and improved understanding to learn how to help limit harm done.
Regarding a focus on Do No Harm:
I often encounter versions of ‘discourses of climate (action) delay’ that are harmful twists on Do No Harm. Some people claim that reducing or limiting their ability to benefit from something understandably harmful that they benefit from doing or want to do ‘harms them’ (That is obviously an absurd argument commonly abused by people arguing against more rapid ending of the harm done by fossil fuel use. People trying to develop up to a decent basic living are the only ones who can be excused for harm done by their pursuits. And they should be helped to do as little harm as possible in their transition up to sustainable decent basic living).
I believe that a very good explanation for the current problem of limiting the harm of climate change impacts is the massive over-development of harmful fossil fuel use (developed far beyond what is required for everyone to live a decent basic life). That over-development has produced harmful popularity and profitability and related pervasive misunderstanding. Popularity and profitability potently resist correction and limitations. And demands for ‘Freedom to believe and do whatever a person pleases’ are weaponized populist messaging (especially damaging when paired with a circling-of-wagons, echo-chamber, group-think style attempt to defend ‘Our developed beliefs, especially beliefs about the need to protect the perceived superiority of Our group’ from external evidence-based corrections and limitations that ‘Those Others’ are trying to 'impose').
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:52 AM on 3 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Well, now Petra is displaying projection: accusing others of what one is doing him(her)self. Frank Luntz was instrumental in developing pre-emptive projection, which is far more effective than simple post-facto projection. Your attempt, Petra, is rather clumsy.
There is a quote from you from post#4 above: "In fact, NZ doctor, Dr Sam Bailey, who has made extremely iconoclastic claims with regard to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus and viruses in general..."
You brought up Covid misinformation. Nobody else. You did. You were the one who did not "respect that this site was about climate in the first place." In the case of this particular thread, I find it actually appropriate to mention Covid, since the misinformation and disinformation effort about it has been hyperactive and shares many traits with the lies spread by climate pseudo-skeptics. Moderators will tell us to stop if hey see fit.
Then of course, you failed to substantiate your claims. You make very general remarks about Sam Bailey raising questions about viruses in general but makes no effort to explain what said claims are. As for the other assertions, specifically that what was called misinformation has not been identified, you obviously have not substantiated that either.
My conclusion: I am doing exactly what you advocate and apparently are incapable of doing. I am not taking your word for anything. I am skeptical of any and all of your claims until they are properly substantiated. If you offer substance, I will remain skeptical and scrutinize it to make sure it is credible and relevant.
So far you are just waving your hands and accusing others of doing what you are guilty of yourself. I am not impressed.
Moderator Response:[BL] The request to be careful in bringing Covid into the discussion is to avoid turning this discussion into a medical argument.
Covid as an example of misinformation is appropriate, to the extent that is touches on topics presented in the original blog post.
-
Petra Liverani at 20:15 PM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
I see there are a number of replies to my post but I won't respond as I can see the subject veering towards covid and I respect that this site is about climate science.
-
Eclectic at 15:04 PM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Philippe C @17 :
Myself, I find it hard to judge where David-acct is coming from.
His climate argument doesn't make sense ~ so is he using the Covid/CDC argument as a sort of stalking horse in an attack on modern climate science?
Or was the climate argument just a throw-away line . . . a stepping stone on his way to expressing anger (or political resentment?) against authority figures such as the CDC? As you say, the CDC operates in a field of shifting uncertainties re Covid, and - all things considered - has done a reasonably fair job. (Far better than bleach-injecting politicians . . . or stalking horses in need of ivermectin.)
And who could logically object to masks, even if only half effective ?
Perhaps there is an unknown psychological forcing in play !
Let's hope David will redeem himself on the proper thread.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:22 PM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
David,
I am waiting for substantiation on your very strongly worded accusations. There has to be some extraordinary evidence to support such claims.
As a first line health care worker who was in the heat of all this, I am very curious to see what you call "misinformation." I am also curious to see what sources out there were better than the CDC, and came out as having more "credibility."
Anyone staying on top of the evidence as it became available knows the difficulty of having to adapt to rapidly changing information and tailoring a message to the public that would be most likely to limit casualties. Criticizing is easy, especially in hindsight. I am fortunate to benefit from the Up to Date info, which allowed me to understand why and how we used treatment modalities.
I have to say also that, of all the critically ill patients that I saw die of Covid, I do not personally recall any that were fully vaccinated. I do recall a transplant recipient, who was immunosuppressed and only partially vaccinated, and survived. Of course, my experience is anecdote, but it does happen to agree with the data.
About masks: The largest study conducted to date (over 330,000 subjects) shows effectiveness, especially in people over 60.
About vaccines, exactly what evidence are you referring to that shows an intent to deceive (that is what misinformation really is) from the CDC?
-
Eclectic at 13:54 PM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
David-acct @14 , you are making an extraordinary comment.
Firstly, your <"if scientists discover a forcing that is a greater factor than CO2 as a primary driver of warming"> argument is a complete strawman. (Presumably you are talking about the modern rapid "AGW" part of the Holocene . . . i.e. the sole topic of climate controversy during the past half-century.)
A strawman, because no mysterious unknown forcing has shown a niche for its own existence. No evidence has been demonstrated that might point to its possible existence.
Yes, in the past there were suggestions/proposals by Svensmark, Lindzen and others, but all such ideas crashed due to lack of any supporting evidence. But importantly, their "counter-CO2" ideas were not suppressed or censored. Those ideas were examined by scientists, and found to be without validity ~ and they are now in the category of disinformation (their only supporters are crackpots or worse).
The same goes for the continuing purveyors of <"it's all due to natural cycles of ocean currents/ orbits of Jupiter/ etcetera. >" Cycles which are 90% fanciful and 100% unphysical as a causation of [AGW]. These purveyors are desperadoes who a not censored by scientists, but are simply laughed at (or more generally ignored).
David-acct , I should also point out that if a significantly large "unknown" warming forcing were to be discovered, then there would also need to be the discovery of a (simultaneous) unknown cooling forcing (to neatly counteract the modern rise of CO2's forcing). David, I suspect you know in your heart that the chance of such a Double Whammy is infinitesimally small. In other words - you have created a strawman argument. Pigs = flying.
Suppression, stifling, censorship . . . all are fanciful arguments. Let's not waste any more time going down that road.
As to Covid matters : you will need to find another thread to discuss the issue. Unfortunately, you have been extremely vague in your accusations against the CDC. And I strongly suspect you are harboring a hotch-potch of distorted half-truths there ~ but I will wait to see if you can provide any evidence on that other thread. Good luck with it. My initial bet is that you have chosen to be the victim of medical misinformation and/or disiniformation.
Philippe C @7 , I owe you an apology for my slightly ungrammatical misquote "Vive la indifference" @13. It looked better that way for English readers, I thought. You will forgive me I hope, even if the Academie cannot.
-
nigelj at 13:10 PM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
David-acct @14
"I have to agree with petra regarding the free exchange of information even if misleading."
I mostly agree with this. While I deplore misinformation, organisations trying to censor everything that could be misinformation creates obvious problems of excessively suppressing free speech. Its generally better to have things out there where they can be debated.
However I do think a small number of exceptions can be made. We already have defamation laws if people falsely accuse other people of certain things and so I can understand websites being reluctant to post highly defamatory statements. And our media In New Zealand do not publish claims that covid vaccines dont work, or that covid is not worse than a common cold, because it risks causing low uptake of vaccines and massive pressure on hospitals. They do allow a lively public debate on the covid issue in general, including posting material that is contested but they have some limits. The media are walking a fine line, but I see no practical alternative that would make sense and be useful.
Free speech just isn't a simplistic issue to me. I think western countries do ok with free speech overall. If you want real supression of free speech look at China, Russia or N Korea.
"What happens in a decade or so if scientists discover a forcing that is a greater factor than co2 as the primary driver of warming. The censorship of that discovery as "misinformation " ..."
But its very unlikely anyone would censor a genuine discovery like that. It would be reported in the peer reviewed literature and this is not "censored" by governmnets and anyone else for that matter. Studies (of dubious merit) trying to claim global warming is being caused by the sun or adiabatic pressure have been published. Media already publish results of peer reviewed studies of all types.
"Nigel - you mention covid ( an i like dont like the covid deniers). the being said, the CDC has been one of the prime movers of misleading and deceptive studies on covid, ranging from the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of vaccines, boosters, etc. The CDC has lost a tremendous amount of credibility when they are supposed to be the experts. "
You are assuming the CDC studies were misleading or deceptive. You provide no evidence they were those things. Misinformation suggests spreading information known to be wrong, or spreading junk science, or making ignorant statements. I doubt the CDC did that. It looks to me like they were simply wrong. Perhaps they were negligent but nobody has demonstrated that. I believe there is a difference in being wrong and spreading misinformation. We have different words like misinformation, wrong or incorrect information.
But the CDC certainly had some strange ideas about masks. Its almost obvious that masks would at least reduce the viral load gulped down into the lungs, and this can only be a good thing. I was mystified when suggestions were made that masks weren't much use and I wasn't sure whether to believe that or not.
"When the experts try to label scientific inquiries as misinformation, they come across as trying to hide something"
I do not know of anyone doing that. Who specifically is doing that?
-
David-acct at 11:45 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Nigle at 12
I have to agree with petra regarding the free exchange of information even if misleading. What happens in a decade or so if scientists discover a forcing that is a greater factor than co2 as the primary driver of warming. The censorship of that discovery as "misinformation " stiffles further advancement of knowledge ( note that I am not saying co2 is not the primary driver ) - just using that example of the danger of forclosing further scientific inquiry simply because it forboden to question the approved consensus.
Nigel - you mention covid ( an i like dont like the covid deniers). the being said, the CDC has been one of the prime movers of misleading and deceptive studies on covid, ranging from the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of vaccines, boosters, etc. The CDC has lost a tremendous amount of credibility when they are supposed to be the experts.
When the experts try to label scientific inquiries as misinformation, they come across as trying to hide something
In summary everyone loses when attempts are made to stiffle "misinformation" . In the case of covid, much of what was labeled misinformation has turned out to be true.
Moderator Response:[BL] Misinformation is not the same thing as incorrect information. In a situation where available information is changing rapidly, incorrect information will be replaced with better information, and advice will change as a result. This is expected in any normal scientific endeavor.
Incorrect information becomes misinformation when better information shows that the earlier information was incorrect - and the person repeating the misinformation is either unaware of better information or (more commonly) simply will not accept any alternatives.
-
Evan at 10:47 AM on 2 July 2022Climate Confusion
wayne@17
Let's separate the time lag from the equilibrium temperature. If we stabilize at a particular CO2 concentration and hold there for a sufficiently long time, the temperature will rise to a level that corresponds to the radiative forcing associated with that particular CO2 concentration. The relationship is something like this.
- 350 ppm CO2 leads to 1C warming
- 400 ppm CO2 leads to 1.5C warming
- 450 ppm CO2 leads to 2C warming
- 500 ppm CO2 leads to 2.5C warming
And so on. So if we stabilize CO2 at 420 ppm and hold it there for 100 years, we will eventually warm to about 1.7C. The time lag to get to that temperature depends on a lot of complicated interactions in the biosphere. Under current GHG emissions, there is about a 30 year delay, but that delay could increase or decrease depending on how our emissions change. But in any case, the final warming is linked to the CO2 concentration.
The reason we would lock in the current temperature anomaly if we were able to achieve net-0 emissions today, is that under net-0 emissions the atmospheric CO2 concentration would slowly decrease to a level that corresponds to the current warming. Considering we are at about 1.2C today, if we achieved net-0 emissions today, and stayed at net-0 emissions for a sufficiently long time, then presumably CO2 concentration would eventually drop to something like 370 ppm, a concentration that corresponds to 1.2C warming.
Hope that helps, and hope the real climate scientists in the room don't find too much wrong with my description.
-
Eclectic at 10:05 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
OPOF :
Ah yes, that protean word "balance" ~ which each reader takes to his own interpretation. I should not have used it. My intention was a meaning of: well-rounded argument including the full spectrum of genuine components. Genuine scientific information and pragmatic effective ways of tackling AGW. Difficult indeed, to state briefly . . . as would be needed, when commenting at a news-site, where pithy brevity is desirable (and where using the Carborundum method of bulky information . . . may well defeat your idiotic opponent, who will retreat in disgust . . . but will probably count as a Pyrrhic victory, because uncommitted readers will likely do a TL;DR . )
"Balanced" was not meant (as you seem to infer) as an even-handed presentation of good socio-political policies along with sham or token policies.
Our friend Petra Liverani appears to feel that a balance means that people should be presented with scientific information and misinformation. Truth and falsehood together, unendingly, without any reasonable summary to guide the casual reader.
Petra seems to feel it is distastefully authoritarian to use scientific truth as the criterion. ~ All is relativism, and we are unable to recognize absolute facts: and we should not even try. Crackpots & quacks are just as worthy as the actual experts. Vive la indifference !
-
nigelj at 08:59 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani @4
"To call a medical doctor who has studied scientific papers and points out what she thinks shows errors in scientific method a conspiracy theorist or a spreader of misinformation is the wrong approach. "
Could you at least provide a specific example, details and a link. Because I don't know of that happening quite like you say. There would be more to it. I believe you are creating a strawman. Things that get labelled misinformation are instead wild claims that vaccines dont work, or covid is just like the common cold, or that bleach will cure covid. Things that we know through science are false.
It's probably hard to precisely define misinformation, but something contradicting the weight of scientific evidence is good enough for all practical purposes. Interesting article on misinformation here:
Like PC I have a very low tolerance for the rabid covid deniers. They are idiots, and they need to be told they are idiots.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:32 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Thanks again for the feedback.
I do make briefer presentations when commenting on news sites. But I found that the very brief comments were easily responded to with misinterpretations that could not be refuted by a direct requote of the original comment.
As a result, I often find my longer comments, but still briefer than the sharing of understanding I practice posting here, responded to with character attacks which other readers quickly spot as the acts of someone who is being unreasonable.
Regarding 'balance': The pitfall is potentially compromising a better understanding by 'pursuing balance'. The weak climate harm reduction leadership actions by the 'supposedly' most advanced nations through the past 30 years are due to 'balancing' interests.
As an engineer I learned that the only valid interests were the ones totally within the broad sphere of Do No Harm. Interests outside of that sphere do not deserve to be part of a designer/builder/developer's considerations.
My MBA education, and work experience, exposed me to many types of people with interests outside the sphere of Do No Harm.
btw, I did recently present balance by giving some credit to the EU for being able to agree to no ICE sales by 2035 in my comment on the SkS "Climate Confusion" post. The interests opposed to that action accepted the result but are still hoping to harmfully compromise it by getting hybrid ICE vehicles to be allowed.
-
Eclectic at 07:17 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
OPOF @8 and prior :
Yes, admittedly it is very difficult to achieve a presentation which is both brief and yet nicely balanced. The regular readers here have colossal attention-spans, and cope easily with 20-paragraph comments. Yet not so much, at other venues ~ where the readership is less invested, and desires some variety spiced with optimism (rather than a large porridge bowl of doom & gloom).
Although I am not a chef, I do picture the ideal as something like a Chinese Banquet. Dozens of small plates, arriving sequentially over time. Unlike the Swedish one, the English language is rich in synonyms, and the diners expect many different tastes to arrive at the table (even though the total nourishment amounts to the same). And the Grand Chef aims to keep back some of his famed specialities, to tempt the diners to return on other days.
-
wayne19608 at 06:53 AM on 2 July 2022Climate Confusion
Evan @ 5
If we stabilize at 420ppm. At .2C per decade and a 3 decade lag we end up with 1.2 + 0.6 = 1.8C but the change from 280 to 350 resulted in 1.2C so there is still another 0.6C to consider which would bring it to 2.4C. I know its not a linear relationship but I doubt its going to break in our favour. The numbers just dont seem to match up in my mind. Land use is obviously a big factor but that doesnt seem likely to go our way in the near future either
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:22 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petra Liverani:
You seem to be confusing the argument "there are all these problems and inaccuracies in this presentation, therefor it is misinformation" with the argument "I labelled this misinformation, therefor it is wrong". The first is drawing a conclusion based on the evidence, whereas the second is a form of a fallacious ad hominem.
If you read the OP carefully, it argues for looking at the evidence. Your argument, which dismisses it all because you claim "misrepresentation is a weasel term", is exactly the sort of ad hominem dismissal of the argument that you seem to be against in others. Once you have dismissed the term, you dismiss any argument that uses the term regardless of the evidence that supports the argument.
You then throw in the terms "censorship", "consipiracy", etc. You are using emotional trigger words, without providing much evidence to support your argument.
You then argue that these information sources labelled "misinformation" should be refuted based on evidence, but you follow this with a very strong claim that the term "misinformation" is used as the refutation. (Your exact words are "we're told that anything against the mainstream narrative is misinformation.")
If you were to take the time to review this site (which focuses on the refutation of climate science mythis - "misinformation") you would see that there is gobs of discussion of how these climate myths are wrong.
When claims that oppose the "mainstream narrative" have been refuted - often many, many times - and people that refuse to read the refutations or respond to them continue to make the claims, then those people are indeed spreading misinformation.
Moderator Response:[BL] Adding a moderators note to my own post, since it is intended as general advice to all participants.
Please keep in mind that this site is for the discussion of climate myths. In this blog post (reposted from another site) the topic is misinformation in general, so some latitude is allowed with respect to comments staying on topic. We do not, however, want this area to become a place to debate other sciences, such as Covid. Covid discussions will be tolerated only to the extent that they are on-topic to misinformation per the blog post.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:32 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Eclectic @3,
Regarding 'brevity'.
Being brief without being open to harmful misinterpretation is challenging. It is even more challenging to be brief when presenting thoughts that challenge and contradict developed fundamental misunderstandings, thoughts that helpfully question developed norms by focusing on the harm done rather than excusing harm done because some people benefit. And it is especially difficult when challenging developed popular and profitable misunderstandings that are part of the illusions of advancement and superiority that are produced by harmful pursuits of benefit and power (the diversity of power: political, economic, social, generated for use ....).
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:26 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Petral Liverani,
Questioning the science can and should be done, it is different from pulling a smoke screen over the eyes of the gullible who are incapable of critical thinking and too scientifically illiterate to realize what's being done to them. The crap floating around on social media and elsewhere is nowhere close to what Feynman had in mind.
Baileys' technique is similar to that of the comic duo G&T, little more than playing on words to fool those who are eager to be fooled . One can wonder why so many rush to embrace that nonsense, instead of questioning it, like they advocate should be done for all scientific work. After all, there is no reason to not scrutinize with the highest rigor the works of those who say you should scrutinize others.
I've read the idiotic tripe from Bailey. It can only fool someone so ignorant that they can't realize she is saying nothing of substance. Anyone who can be convinced that it constitutes appropriate challenge to real scientific information has problems with basic undertanding of language. That's how bad it is.
As an aside, I have personally cared for critically ill Covid patients, I've proned them, I've seen the CT scans of their completely destroyed lungs, I have seen them die, I have worn the protective garb and respirator for hours on end. I do not take kindly to lies and nonsense related to this particular issue. I have also looked into some of what epidemiology is about. Virtually everyone commenting on it has no clue of what it entails. Most physicians know very little about it, except infectious disease specialists. TV pundits and bloggers are completely clueless.
I have seen misinformation and disinformation about this so blatant that even calling it that is flattering. I have seen people who bought into it without applying the scrutiny that they ironically were told they should apply to other information. They were so steeped in denial that they still believed they were having some minor ailment when they were dying of the disease. Your argument does not sway me one bit. There are such things as disinformation and misinformation. Sam Bailey's junk is a perfect example of it. It would deserve to be in a disinformation textbook.
AFP says everything there is to know about it. Nobody with half a brain would bother paying attention to such a fool.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:41 AM on 2 July 2022How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
Eclectic @3,
Thank you for the suggestion to use the term "harm" less, replacing it with a diversity of synonyms.
Policy and legal development are focused on "harm reduction". I do occassionally use versions of 'damage' and 'ruin' and 'destroy'. But in many instances damaging and ruinous and destructive do not fit as well as harmful.
