|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 27, 2009 12:32:06 GMT
steve. Basically, you are owning up to being antiscience by rejecting findings because they aren't completely certain. Fortunately, you are in the minority otherwise we'd still be living in the middle ages without vaccinations...
Now come on steve, history has shown numerous examples of where bad science has been used in vaccinations. just look up fort dix vaccinations for the damage caused by the last swine flu vaccine. We have the same problem here in the uk with the MMR. Have my kids risked this one, not on your life. Will I or my kids be having the swine flu vaccine, no chance. It's another example of goverment forcing things on the populace in a misguided belief that they are helping. With the MMR, the 'science is settled' which is why they refuse to look into any links to autism beyond re-reading the old inadequate data.
If anyone is damaged by the vaccine, just deny it was the cause. Don't do any more research in case you find a link. In government talk, we can afford a few thousand deaths as it MAY save millions.
Don't believe everything you are told steve, the world is full of bad people.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 27, 2009 13:35:58 GMT
steve. Basically, you are owning up to being antiscience by rejecting findings because they aren't completely certain. Fortunately, you are in the minority otherwise we'd still be living in the middle ages without vaccinations... Now come on steve, history has shown numerous examples of where bad science has been used in vaccinations. just look up fort dix vaccinations for the damage caused by the last swine flu vaccine. We have the same problem here in the uk with the MMR. Have my kids risked this one, not on your life. Will I or my kids be having the swine flu vaccine, no chance. It's another example of goverment forcing things on the populace in a misguided belief that they are helping. With the MMR, the 'science is settled' which is why they refuse to look into any links to autism beyond re-reading the old inadequate data. If anyone is damaged by the vaccine, just deny it was the cause. Don't do any more research in case you find a link. In government talk, we can afford a few thousand deaths as it MAY save millions. Don't believe everything you are told steve, the world is full of bad people. That is what I am saying. Vaccination science is not certain. Yet it has significantly improved human health.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 27, 2009 14:25:54 GMT
That is what I am saying. Vaccination science is not certain. Yet it has significantly improved human health. That's great. Unfortunately at this point models have undergone no testing at all and (to continue with the vaccination analogy) we're not entirely certain what organism or organisms we're dealing with in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 27, 2009 16:48:16 GMT
That is what I am saying. Vaccination science is not certain. Yet it has significantly improved human health. And that is fine Steve. But note the primary difference, it resulted in "improved" human health. What you are suggesting in the name of uncertain science will not "improve" human health until first there is a problem with human health to improve upon. For vaccines in every case a human health was first identified then a vaccine is invented and first sample tested before wide dissemination. There is a huge difference when you omit the two middle steps of identifying a problem and the sample testing of the cure. Its typical socialistic idealistic poppycock of throwing tax dollars at all viruses in the hope of ending all disease. Its typical ivory tower nonsense. That approach has been discredited in the indiscriminate use of anti-biotics killing off all the beneficial bacteria as well as the bad ones. . . .in agriculture killing off the beneficial bugs along with the harmful ones. . . .the list goes on. . . .and you cannot discern the difference.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 27, 2009 17:05:10 GMT
That is what I am saying. Vaccination science is not certain. Yet it has significantly improved human health. And that is fine Steve. But note the primary difference, it resulted in "improved" human health. If we get the science right by taking the imperceptable and uncertain steps of each individual science paper, it gives us the (admittedly slim) chance of changing our ways and reversing the decline of our civilization over the next 50-150 years.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 27, 2009 18:33:05 GMT
steve. If we get the science right by taking the imperceptible and uncertain steps of each individual science paper, it gives us the (admittedly slim) chance of changing our ways and reversing the decline of our civilization over the next 50-150 years.
Civilization is on the decline BECAUSE of stupid pseudo science and half brained ideas such as banning CO2 production. Don't worry about the planet, it's doing just fine and will go on doing exactly what it has planned for us with or without our 'assistance'. Civilization on the other hand was in a much better state 30 years ago and will again be in a much better state when the greens are relegated to cleaning up rivers etc. which most people would now support.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 27, 2009 19:20:34 GMT
steve. If we get the science right by taking the imperceptible and uncertain steps of each individual science paper, it gives us the (admittedly slim) chance of changing our ways and reversing the decline of our civilization over the next 50-150 years. Civilization is on the decline BECAUSE of stupid pseudo science and half brained ideas such as banning CO2 production. Don't worry about the planet, it's doing just fine and will go on doing exactly what it has planned for us with or without our 'assistance'. Civilization on the other hand was in a much better state 30 years ago and will again be in a much better state when the greens are relegated to cleaning up rivers etc. which most people would now support. Perhaps one or both of you gentlemen would care to provide some evidence that "Civilization is on the decline". Starting with your definition of civilization would be good.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2009 5:07:07 GMT
If we get the science right by taking the imperceptable and uncertain steps of each individual science paper, it gives us the (admittedly slim) chance of changing our ways and reversing the decline of our civilization over the next 50-150 years. Yee gads. . . .a self flagellator!!! Ever consider psychiatry as a cure for that problem Steve?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 28, 2009 7:59:59 GMT
If we get the science right by taking the imperceptable and uncertain steps of each individual science paper, it gives us the (admittedly slim) chance of changing our ways and reversing the decline of our civilization over the next 50-150 years. Since adaptation costs were said to be lower even with the IPCC and since it's even questionable that those were accurate (given the history of a warmer climate being better)...it seems like the most damaging choice is mitigation...projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and guaranteed to decrease reliability of our energy infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2009 14:05:09 GMT
Since adaptation costs were said to be lower even with the IPCC and since it's even questionable that those were accurate (given the history of a warmer climate being better)...it seems like the most damaging choice is mitigation...projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and guaranteed to decrease reliability of our energy infrastructure. And thats if it doesn't work! If it works its going to cost more!! Its the equivalent of spending trillions to shoot your foot off. Your best outcome is if you miss! Steve would have us spend trillions on a speculative vaccination program for non-existant diseases that some computer model suggests might be possible. . . .as that is his favorite analogy. And all you have to figure out is what the DNA of its going to be. . . .so according to Steve thats a good target for subsidies. I love a truly free private enterprise system because people will actually pursue this stuff; but when you ask the government to do it you lose a lot more than enterprise. I suppose its natural for people to think of the government filling roles it shouldn't. . . .after all the history of nations with authoritarian-style governments is more full of despots than wise rulers.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 28, 2009 16:50:16 GMT
Since adaptation costs were said to be lower even with the IPCC and since it's even questionable that those were accurate (given the history of a warmer climate being better)...it seems like the most damaging choice is mitigation...projected to cost tens of trillions of dollars and guaranteed to decrease reliability of our energy infrastructure. Steve would have us spend trillions on a speculative vaccination program... A vaccination programme doesn't cost trillions. But if you need to make things up to support your argument then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 28, 2009 19:06:07 GMT
steve. A vaccination programme doesn't cost trillions.
Now that is true, it only costs billions. If we could give kids the MMRAGW I'd be all for that one. My kids don't need it of course because they are already well informed and ignore the alarmists.
As western civilizations heads towards state control and the loss of the very freedoms that we all take for granted, the only thing that can save us is nature itself by exposing the fake science that will otherwise enslave us.
|
|