Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Warthaug]

How about the pandemic of bird flu that the consensus of experts said would have consumed a third of civilization by now?

Please provide a quote of one scientist who made the above claim. Having worked in the field of infectious disease and immunology for over a decade I know you cannot - as no scientist has made that claim. You're confusing media hysteria with actual science. That you cannot tell the difference is telling...

The concern about bird flu is simple - we're overdue for a severe flu pandemic, the bird flu represents a perfect virus for such a pandemic, and the current conditions (i.e. population densities, air travel, etc) are ripe to allow it to spread.

I also notice that you failed to mention that there has been a very active, world-wide attempt to prevent the spread. So far its been successful. Who knows what would have happened if such an attempt was not made.

Their models of a single virus epidemic couldn't accurately forecast a year or two into the future,

No models were involved, and I challange you to prove otherwise. The H5N1 flu virus simply represents a potential threat - one which we are countering through direct action. And in a not surprising turn of events, taking the scientifically defined course of action has so far prevented a breakout.

Maybe you should stop getting your scientific information from fox news, and actually read something - anything - written by actual scientists. Because so far you've demonstrated little more then a frightening ignorance of science, the claims of scientists, and what has been demonstrated to date.


Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

It's not a matter of getting rich, it's a matter of survival. If you buck the paradigm, you get no grants and if you get no grants, it's Walmart greeter time.

Does your ignorance know now bounds. I've worked as a scientist for over a decade, and applied for (and held) multiple grants. Holding the status quo is a sure fire way of not getting money and killing your career. Science is about pushing boundaries, learning new things, and expanding our knowledge.

You don't do that by holding the line.

Just as a personal example - my top three publications all overturned long-held ideas. My last grant was based on trying to overturn a >20 year old theory which is considered a cornerstone of my specific field. I just switched jobs (and fields), and my new grant applications also are based on trying to generate new theories of atherosclerosis.

Or, in other words, every single paycheck I have received in my decade of working as a scientist has been based on doing the very thing you seem to think should cost me my job.

And if you think that there is no money out there for GW sceptics, you're sadly mistaken. There are millions of dollars available - particularly from private sector sources - for that sort of research.

If you can fund your lab by saying the earth is flat, you will do so and worry about whether the science is correct later.

LOL. That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

Look at medical research.

My area of expertise. This should be interesting.

Dollars are thrown at diseases according to how politically popular they are,

<insert sound of irritating error buzzer here>. 100% wrong. Most medical funding is handed out by scientists, to scientists. All you need to do to get money is to demonstrate that you're ideas are good enough for money. A good friend of mine researches a bacteria that gets transfered from oysters to humans. It kills maybe a dozen people world-wide each year. She is loaded. Clearly, it isn't just how "sexcy" the disease is.

These days most funding is handed out to projects which have implications for multiple diseases. For example, my last grant had implications for sepsis, HIV/AIDS and MS (and lead to clinical trials for the first two). Had I put in a grant for any one of those alone its all but guaranteed I wouldn't have got a single penny.

not according to the threat they pose. Breast cancer, for example, gets massive funding, even though it isn't the leading cause of death or disability in women.

Actually, among the cancers, breast cancer isn't that well funded. Most cancer funding is directed towards general cancer biology, with only modest amounts being directed towards specific types.

Oh, and breast cancer one of the most common cancer among women, making it a big issue for 50% of the population.

I snipped your examples, but strangely enough they prove that science works. Both were examples of therapies which were hypothesized to help, but after being used were found to not work. So we did what we're suposed to do - look for methods that do work.


Bryan

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Warthaug

So this thread isn't completely hijacked as a biomedical thread, let me just respond to your allegation that breast cancer isn't that well-funded, so that others here will see how much of a medical research expert you are:

the NIH funding alone, not counting the massive clinical dollars that go to disease research from private industry, here are the 2007 grant levels off the NIH website compared to the most recent yearly death rates from the CDC (the funds, in millions of dollars earmarked for specific clinical trials of specific cancer types):

Breast 551 annual deaths 41,000
prostate 306 30.000
lung 262 160,000
colon 246 55,000

Thus, breast cancer, with half a billion dollars per year, gets more than lung and colon combined in NIH dollars, despite being responsible for only 1/5 as many deaths as those cancer types. This isn't sexism, since prostate gets an inordinate amount of dollars too (aging senators like this funding, perhaps). Yes, breast cancer is a concern for women, but you can be just as dead from colon and lung cancer, male or female.
And where I come from, half a billion in grant money for one disease, not to mention the billions spent by big pharma, doesn't qualify as "not that well funded." Give me a break.

You cannot be serious in asserting that politics plays no role and grants in science are awarded solely on how meritorious the science is? Please tell me what planet you live on so that I can come play in the cotton candy forest and ride the pretty unicorns.

 

[kelpmermaid]

I have alway wondered how death statistics are calculated. As an example, my father's death certificate would seem to indicate that he died of heart failure. in reality, that was the result of treatment for a different condition, which I won't name here. Does anyone really know what is behind the actual numbers?

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

I have alway wondered how death statistics are calculated. As an example, my father's death certificate would seem to indicate that he died of heart failure. in reality, that was the result of treatment for a different condition, which I won't name here. Does anyone really know what is behind the actual numbers?

I can't speak for death certificates outside of Pennsylvania, but our certificates list a cause of death AND secondary diagnoses that are contributory as well as how long each diagnosis was present. For example, the certificate may say: cause of death: pulmonary embolism (< 24 hours) as a result of a) deep venous disease (1 month), b) adenocarcinoma of the lung (14 months). Technically, every death is due to cardiac failure, so researchers look to secondary diagnoses. Also, our death certificates have a place to report concurrent diseases even if they were not immediately contributory to death.

Of course, CDC statistics depend on accurate reporting, and no doubt the number of any disease is generally under reported (look at flu statistics). Often, little thought goes into many death certificates, particularly in cases where it is obvious that no legal or other controversial problems might arise (the 95 year old nursing home resident, for example). There is no reason, for the sake of my argument, however, to believe that any single cancer is more or less accurately reported than any other.

Epidemiologists usually look to a variety of data sources and use small, well-studied populations, then extrapolate to the population as a whole.

 

[Lopaka]

Maybe you should stop getting your scientific information from fox news, and actually read something - anything - written by actual scientists. Because so far you've demonstrated little more then a frightening ignorance of science,

You might gain more credibility if you avoid letting your politics leak into your posts, and stop continually labeling anyone that presents the opposite viewpoint as "ignorant".

 

[Warthaug]

You might gain more credibility if you avoid letting your politics leak into your posts, and stop continually labeling anyone that presents the opposite viewpoint as "ignorant".

I didn't label you as ignorant because of you viewpoint, but rather because you seem to lack a basic understanding of the underlying science (i.e. how the earths average temperature is measured), and of the actual data in support of the science (i.e. calling a field consisting of over 100,000 scientific publications "obscure").

As for politics, I made no such claims of the sort. If anything, I've been harping on the very simple fact that this is too political, and we need to listen to scientists, not politicians and special interest groups, about this stuff.

I notice that once again you've dodged dealing with the data...

Bryan

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

In the news today:

China has told an international meeting that it has no intentions of capping carbon emissions at all, saying that it needs unfettered carbon output to fight poverty. The news story also said that China is about to overtake the US as leading annual producer of so-called greenhouse gases. Moreover, the International Energy Agency has calculated that China alone was responsible for 58% of the world's total carbon dioxide output for the period 2000-2006. Take that, America haters.

As I said, this is a dead topic. If the country responsible for almost 60% of the globe's carbon emissions refuses to change its policies, then we can drive our hybrids and screw in all the little squiggley light bulbs we want. If carbon dioxide is a problem, then we are doomed. Unless, of course, we want to go to war with China, too.

This will all be moot, however, if Iran gets the bomb. Then the planet's temperature in the year 2020 will be approximately 10,000 degrees C warmer than now. Give or take a degree.

 

[Lopaka]

I didn't label you as ignorant because of you viewpoint

I am following the posts, and merely pointing out your manner in posting is a bit rude and a touch hysterical. I had no comment on the science being debated.

As for politics, I made no such claims of the sort.

Whenever someone snidely refers to people watching Fox News, it is a dead giveaway as to their political persuasion. Keep it neutral, polite and others will read your stuff. Otherwise you risk (if you care) readers seeing your screen name and passing on without reading. I do this often with particular members.

If anything, I've been harping on the very simple fact that this is too political

Agree 100%, which is why I and others point out having Gore as high priest is a big mistake if you are trying to communicate with about half the US.

I notice that once again you've dodged dealing with the data...

Think you have me confused with Shakey, I am here for the education and amusement, not presenting data.

 

[ekremer]

I have alway wondered how death statistics are calculated. As an example, my father's death certificate would seem to indicate that he died of heart failure. in reality, that was the result of treatment for a different condition, which I won't name here. Does anyone really know what is behind the actual numbers?

I don't post often but this is a wonderful point. I don't think scientists and the media go back to the source of data often enough in this day an age. This brings me back to GW, do a search on some of the locations of the data points in the US for temerature readings. You may be surprised just how many are compromised by things like AC exhast, jet exhast, and black top radiation.

Just something to think about.