Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2006
Another Brand of Denialist
|
|
Thread rating:  |
GMCarter - 30 May 2006 00:33 GMT PAUL KRUGMAN: Swift Boating the Planet
A brief segment in "An Inconvenient Truth" shows Senator Al Gore questioning James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie doesn't give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.
And that's a story worth telling, for two reasons. It's a good illustration of the way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as heroes. And it's a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue: you're going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules.
Dr. Hansen was one of the first climate scientists to say publicly that global warming was under way. In 1988, he made headlines with Senate testimony in which he declared that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." When he testified again the following year, officials in the first Bush administration altered his prepared statement to downplay the threat. Mr. Gore's movie shows the moment when the administration's tampering was revealed.
In 1988, Dr. Hansen was well out in front of his scientific colleagues, but over the years that followed he was vindicated by a growing body of evidence. By rights, Dr. Hansen should have been universally acclaimed for both his prescience and his courage.
But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.
Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen's predictions. As evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place.
In fact, the chart Dr. Michaels showed was a fraud that is, it wasn't what Dr. Hansen actually predicted. The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being "on the high side of reality."
The experts at www.realclimate.org, the go-to site for climate science, suggest that the smears against Dr. Hansen "might be viewed by some as a positive sign, indicative of just how intellectually bankrupt the contrarian movement has become." But I think they're misreading the situation. In fact, the smears have been around for a long time, and Dr. Hansen has been trying to correct the record for years. Yet the claim that Dr. Hansen vastly overpredicted global warming has remained in circulation, and has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak.
There's a concise way to describe what happened to Dr. Hansen: he was Swift-boated. John Kerry, a genuine war hero, didn't realize that he could successfully be portrayed as a coward. And it seems to me that Dr. Hansen, whose predictions about global warming have proved remarkably accurate, didn't believe that he could successfully be portrayed as an unreliable exaggerator. His first response to Dr. Michaels, in January 1999, was astonishingly diffident. He pointed out that Dr. Michaels misrepresented his work, but rather than denouncing the fraud involved, he offered a rather plaintive appeal for better behavior.
Even now, Dr. Hansen seems reluctant to say the obvious. "Is this treading close to scientific fraud?" he recently asked about Dr. Michaels's smear. The answer is no: it isn't "treading close," it's fraud pure and simple.
Now, Dr. Hansen isn't running for office. But Mr. Gore might be, and even if he isn't, he hopes to promote global warming as a political issue. And if he wants to do that, he and those on his side will have to learn to call liars what they are.
monty1945@lycos.com - 30 May 2006 08:43 GMT The "other side" doesn't play by any rules? Come now, Mr. Carter, even you can't be that audacious! If something is to be called science it must meet the criteria of the scientific method. All variables must be controlled for and there must be experiments performed many times by different scientists to verify the claim. All relevant information: methods, data, etc., must be made public for examination. Anything else is something other than science. In the case of "global warming," there is evidence, but the scientific method cannot be used here for obvious reasons. It will become a political issue because of this unfortunate fact. What is more regrettable is that with "HIV/AIDS" there is no reason whatsoever for the scientific method to be ignored, in favor of associations, links, surrogate endpoints, markers, correlations, etc. The technology is available to determine exactly what the molecular level sequence of events is, and so the question must be asked, if the establishment people don't like "dissidents" why not make the determinations and shut them up once and for all? Of course, all attempts at doing so to this point have failed utterly. Not only that, but the existing virus literature is inconsistent with the "HIV/AIDS" claimn (that is, that a virus can do undetectable harm over the course of a decade, then kill a person within several months, with no way of doing anything to prevent it). Very "deadly" viruses kill within hours or days, and will kill up to about 25% of the population. Anything more than this is very rare. Apparently, in at least most such cases, it is the body's inflammatory response to the virus that is the problem, not the virus itself. Moreover, "retroviral" phenomena appears to be the effect, and not the cause, of damage being done. What is doing the damage? TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma, PGE2, etc. All of this is well known, but you have decided to listen to the "bug hunters." And if they understood "disease," there would be no "AIDS" nor any of the other of the "epidemics" (or predicted "epidemics" of "diseases" these days. It is all based upon models and assumptions, and they have been demonstrated to be wrong. It will not end because politics has replaced the scientific method, and people like yourself are the unwitting (apparently) pawns of those in charge (and with a great deal to lose). Perhaps one day you will realize that rhetoric cannot replace good science, but until then countless people will have to suffer and die needlessly. I am willing to put up all my assets to demonstrate that I am correct in any scientific claim I advocate, if those who oppose me are willing to do the same. Never has anyone even showed interest in negotiating, though one person said he worried that lab rats would suffer (by feeding them 30% daily calories in fresh coconut oil). For those with open minds, take note of how such people divert, evade, attack personally, and refrain from responding to BASIC scientific inquiries.
GMCarter - 30 May 2006 10:40 GMT >The "other side" doesn't play by any rules? Come now, Mr. Carter, even >you can't be that audacious! After having watched the grand arc of denialist bullshit lo these many years, I don't think my view that you denialists do not play by any rules is hardly an audacious conclusion.
>If something is to be called science it >must meet the criteria of the scientific method. Yes.
>All variables must be >controlled for and there must be experiments performed many times by >different scientists to verify the claim. Been there, done that. For the existence of HIV and its role in AIDS.
>All relevant information: >methods, data, etc., must be made public for examination. Anything else [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >must be asked, if the establishment people don't like "dissidents" why >not make the determinations and shut them up once and for all? Why don't you actually read any of the data that are out there?
>Of >course, all attempts at doing so to this point have failed utterly. Of course, most denialists are only glancingly familiar with the data.
Oh, I'm tired of reading your crap.
George M. Carter
Chris Noble - 31 May 2006 05:07 GMT > Very "deadly" viruses > kill within hours or days, and will kill up to about 25% of the > population. Anything more than this is very rare. Apparently, in at > least most such cases, it is the body's inflammatory response to the > virus that is the problem, not the virus itself. Sure. If you jump out of a 30 storey window it's not the fall that kills you but hitting the ground.
Despite tour posturing you appear to have very little grasp of science.
Your pseudoscientific claims are found here.
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
Here's a tip for you. Why don't you try to convince other "rethinkers" that Arachidonic acid overload is the cause of AIDS aswell as all other chronic diseases? If the the other "rethinkers" are following the "scientific method" then they should come to the same conclusions as you.
Chris Noble
monty1945@lycos.com - 31 May 2006 11:20 GMT I am more than willing to spend MY OWN MONEY if anyone is willing to take me up on one of my experimental offers. Thanks for citing the link - I didn't want anyone to think that I was promoting something, so you have done it for me! I do not sell anything to anyone, but I freely provide ideas. Note how my post on this newsgroup asking for the "HIV/AIDS" claim be stated as a scientific hypothesis has been ignored, even though you two love to attack any hint of "dissident" criticisms. Your understanding of science speaks for itself, as anyone with an open mind can judge from the posts you write. The only thing anyone might justifiably criticize me on is why I waste my time with such closed-minded individuals who are not willing to engage in a reasonable discussion of scientific issues. My response would be that I hope there are a few people who are willing to think, and then realize that the "HIV/AIDS" claim has never been presented as a scientific hypothesis, and all the promises (e.g., vaccines) and all the predictions (e.g., worldwide pandemic within a few years, quick spreading to the hetersexual population) never happen. "HIV/AID" is good in one respect, though - it shows how not to do science, and it also demonstrates what happens when profits, reputations, grants, etc., are valued much more highly than the scientific method.
wilyretrovirus - 01 Jun 2006 02:10 GMT "Despite tour posturing you appear to have very little grasp of science."
Still at it, Chris? Stuck in this purgatory, being the playground bully to people without degrees in the sciences who are trying to understand what's going on. You must feel like a VERY BIG MAN here. Pathetic, really.
But these folks without degrees must be a threat. Otherwise, why did you EVER spend so much time debating Paul Whiting? He's just some homo asking questions about "AIDS" (and the "logic" behind it).
Now, as I remember, Georgey-poo has something of a habit of telling people they will die of "AIDS" (such compassion!). He told that to Paul (and myself) on a number of occasions. Poor Georgey, Paul's still alive and well, despite all your hexing. Some of us just aren't infected with the psychological "AIDS" virus.
GMCarter - 01 Jun 2006 12:07 GMT snip
>Now, as I remember, Georgey-poo has something of a habit of telling people >they will die of "AIDS" (such compassion!). He told that to Paul (and >myself) on a number of occasions. Poor Georgey, Paul's still alive and >well, despite all your hexing. Some of us just aren't infected with the >psychological "AIDS" virus. Wilypoo, dearest, there's only a very few people on the planet I wish would die.
You're not one of them. None of the denialists are, really.
And David P used to say he was healthy and well. He was. Til his CD4 count went down to the level at which the risk of opportunistic infections increased. And he developed OIs.
And he died.
Unless you and/or Paul happen to be the rare folks whose CD4 counts remain high despite HIV infection, this will very likely happen to you if you do not take any treatment.
I do not wish it. I merely predict it. A prediction I hope does not come to pass.
But of course, none of us is immortal and we must all face our death.
George M. Carter
Gary Stein - 02 Jun 2006 22:42 GMT > The "other side" doesn't play by any rules? Come now, Mr. Carter, even > you can't be that audacious! If something is to be called science it > must meet the criteria of the scientific method. All variables must be > controlled for. Well being that approximately 90% of the knowledge obtained by mankind does not meet your above criteria should one assume you live in a mud hut and cook over a camp fire Monty? If not how is it that you take advantage of so much technology that according to you has no basis in your so called definition of the Scientific Method?
Are you aware that the modern integrated circuit depends on Quantum Physics in order to function and be designed? If Global Warming does not met your definition of the Scientific Method then neither does Quantum Physics.
Gary Stein
|
|
|