global warming- what's your take?

[S209]

You didn't look well enough.

Please explain

[aygart]

Please explain

There is disagreemnet regarding climate models

[aygart]

Just to be clear, I am pointedly not taking a position that climate change does not exist. It seems to me like it does and the data presented by those who support that claim seems convincing to me. This is, of course, a layman's feeling and has no real standing.

[yuneeq]

People should not disseminate theories without some evidence backing them up. You can have whatever theories you want, but without evidence, it’s just more noise.

Where have you seen “theories” published in any scientific journal without evidence backing it up?

Theories don’t have be based on data in order to be valid, nor should there be baseless speculation. But yes, absent of true evidence, journals will publish viable theories. It’s literally part of the scientific process.

For COVID, the science behind animal to human transfer leaves very few realistic options for how this transfer occurred. Immediately,, the wet market theory was proposed, but was proven false by February. How long was that theory propagated? Then you have the lab leak theory which has a lot going for it - the proximity to ground zero, extremely unique access to novel viruses, history of previous leaks and breaches of protocol, China’s block of independent investigators, the list goes on and on. This has always been a leading theory that should have been strongly considered and deeply investigated until proven false.

[yuneeq]

“The politics”? What in “the politics” changed, in your opinion?

See my post up thread, there were plenty of scientists not discrediting the idea last year (though you may not have seen that in the media much) and more credible evidence has now come to light, somewhat shifting the direction.Sorry, what exactly do you mean by “the politics”? Vagaries don’t cut it. “The politics” is a great way to end a conversation because there’s no way to refute it. Is there a specific political goal being attained by specific people that wasn’t attainable earlier that is somehow relevant to a lab leak theory?

Pretty obvious I am referring to Trump and China. Anything that can be painted as racist or a desire to shift blame to China became the only valid theory.

[aygart]

Pretty obvious I am referring to Trump and China. Anything that can be painted as racist or a desire to shift blame to China became the only valid theory.

That this even needed to be answered

[zh cohen]

more credible evidence has now come to light, somewhat shifting the direction.

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by “more credible evidence had come to light”? Vagaries don’t cut it.

As far as I know, there is no significant new data that has lead to people being more willing to accept the lab-leak theory

[S209]

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by “more credible evidence had come to light”? Vagaries don’t cut it.

As far as I know, there is no significant new data that has lead to people being more willing to accept the lab-leak theory

There is now new information about multiple people at the Wuhan lab who were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms in November.

ETA: Here

[S209]

Pretty obvious I am referring to Trump and China. Anything that can be painted as racist or a desire to shift blame to China became the only valid theory.

Again, too vague. What happened specifically now in politics to make things change? I can understand why initially there would have been a knee jerk reaction to anything Trump proposed, as well as a desire to paint him as racist. (Of course, you’re dead wrong, which is surprising coming from you. You are completely ignoring the fact that the WHO and scientists in general were pointing to the wet markets as the most likely origin 3 months before Trump or Cotton said a word about labs. But at least I can understand why you’re saying the media was so virulent about it).

But what has changed? Why now? Why not many months ago? What politics have changed in the last month so as to make this the new “science”, if it’s all just “politics”?

That this even needed to be answered

Not only that, I still don’t understand it.

[S209]

There is disagreemnet regarding climate models

What about the specific point I stated as undisputed fact? Is there disagreement regarding that? If there is, please point to it, because it’s not on that list.

I’ll be the first to tell you models can be inaccurate. That has nothing to do with what has happened until now, nor what can reasonably be expected by a neutral observer in the near future, all models aside.

[S209]

Theories don’t have be based on data in order to be valid, nor should there be baseless speculation. But yes, absent of true evidence, journals will publish viable theories. It’s literally part of the scientific process.

Really now. Please link to an article in any journal worldwide that has no evidence backing it up whatsoever. I’m not talking about conclusive evidence, I mean anecdotal, observational, anything.

That’s not how science works. People develop theories because of something they believe indicates the theory to be true, and then they attempt to prove it through replication. But you won’t get published for a theory that has absolutely no legs to stand on, and you shouldn’t.

We may just be arguing over semantics.

For COVID, the science behind animal to human transfer leaves very few realistic options for how this transfer occurred. Immediately,, the wet market theory was proposed, but was proven false by February. How long was that theory propagated? Then you have the lab leak theory which has a lot going for it - the proximity to ground zero, extremely unique access to novel viruses, history of previous leaks and breaches of protocol, China’s block of independent investigators, the list goes on and on. This has always been a leading theory that should have been strongly considered and deeply investigated until proven false.

You are forgetting that there have been multiple other similar outbreaks in China over the last couple of decades, not anywhere near Wuhan, also believed to have originated from wet markets. Those almost certainly did not come from a lab. To now pretend like a leak from a lab was always the leading theory is ridiculous. Also, I’m not so sure the wet market theory has been “proven” false, even if most of science has agreed at this point that it’s quite unlikely.

As I’ve stated repeatedly, the theory has been investigated from the beginning as a possibility, hence the information we are seeing now. It just wasn’t necessarily the best theory all along. Mind you, for all the talk about the media using it against Trump, Trump was equally biased the other way- he ran with the idea because he could use it to deflect blame from himself by pinning it more on China (and the media hated to see him with a winning idea, of course). He was loving it, despite the fact that it could very possibly (and may still) prove wrong.

[Yehuda57]

HCQ was not treated like any other emergency treatment with preliminary signs of potential success would usually be treated because Bad Orange Man said something about it.

[aygart]

What about the specific point I stated as undisputed fact? Is there disagreement regarding that? If there is, please point to it, because it’s not on that list.

I’ll be the first to tell you models can be inaccurate. That has nothing to do with what has happened until now, nor what can reasonably be expected by a neutral observer in the near future, all models aside.

From the article I linked to
https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

[aygart]

Again, too vague. What happened specifically now in politics to make things change? I can understand why initially there would have been a knee jerk reaction to anything Trump proposed, as well as a desire to paint him as racist. (Of course, you’re dead wrong, which is surprising coming from you. You are completely ignoring the fact that the WHO and scientists in general were pointing to the wet markets as the most likely origin 3 months before Trump or Cotton said a word about labs. But at least I can understand why you’re saying the media was so virulent about it).

But what has changed? Why now? Why not many months ago? What politics have changed in the last month so as to make this the new “science”, if it’s all just “politics”?Not only that, I still don’t understand it.

I give up.

[biobook]

HCQ was not treated like any other emergency treatment with preliminary signs of potential success would usually be treated because Bad Orange Man said something about it.

Not true.  HCQ was used soon after the French doctor (followed by Dr Z) said it works.  Clinical trials were started almost immediately. 

[Yehuda57]

Not true.  HCQ was used soon after the French doctor (followed by Dr Z) said it works.  Clinical trials were started almost immediately.

That's a simplification of what the French doctor claimed, and my assertion was not that it wasn't studied, but that it wasn't treated the same way, i.e. that the trials and studies were not given the same credence trials with similar results would be given for emergency treatments for a global pandemic. The following is lengthy, but gives a pretty good accounting for the timeline:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale

[S209]

I give up.

Do you have an answer?

[S209]

From the article I linked to
https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

He claims the climate has been cooling?

[S209]

HCQ was not treated like any other emergency treatment with preliminary signs of potential success would usually be treated because Bad Orange Man said something about it.

Agreed.

I also have agreed repeatedly that media bias has strongly influenced the way we hear and react to things, and probably the speed at which we reach some conclusions. But you can bet your bottom dollar we’ll find out soon enough if HCQ is actually proven effective. Thus far, it has not.

[Yehuda57]

Agreed.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale

This piece demonstrates much of what I've been saying about how politics and the media change the way "science" is conducted and published, not just how it is spoken about by the left-wing media. There is no way to look at the broader medical community's actions in relation to HCQ, from the FDA, to the premier medical journals; from state and Federal public health officials to private doctors and conclude that "The state of the information ecosystem is strong."