Poll

Is Global warming real and are humans significantly contributing to it?

Not Real
10 (13.3%)
Real + Significant Human Contribution
19 (25.3%)
Real But No Significant Human Contribution
13 (17.3%)
Unsure
4 (5.3%)
It's a moot point everything is up to Hashem
29 (38.7%)

Total Members Voted: 75

Author Topic: global warming- what's your take?  (Read 46006 times)

Online Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5432
  • Total likes: 15396
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #180 on: July 21, 2021, 09:56:16 PM »
Actually, it's 4,200 words, and I read the whole thing.  Not a fan.  Where do I start?


1) there are pandemic protocols that were not used in favor of the lockdown methods. Incidently, I myself knew of Dr Fauci because I had heard a show of him talking about such protocols not long before Covid.
2) I don't think the behavior described in the article can in any way be honestly described as a "back and forth."
3) You fail to explain why scientists on one side were accepted even when their studies and models proved incorrect, while others were subject to disciplinary action from their universities when their studies and models were not disproved, and have since proved more predictive.
4) it's not that their work was discredited by being proved wrong, but they were discredited as researchers and not able to even publish their findings.
5) It is absolutely bullying to go after their employers and attempt to have them stripped of credentials.

These aren't Facebook quacks. These were respected, renowned experts who were shafted for differing. Aside from those who publicly said they would no longer study covid because of the politics, how many others were there?

We all know people who are sick or died because of lockdown, like cancer patients who didn't get treated in time, etc. But you can't even debate the topic because you are then "anti science" or a covid truther/denier.

You are right, the public is unable to properly read the science, myself included. But it's been quite clear that politics has been driving the science from the get go. I'm quite far from a conspiracy nut, and you can read my posts from the beginning of Covid. I was staunchly pro lockdown. I got an immense amount of crap from my family for suggesting there not be events the week of Purim last year.
But then as things started to play out, every alarm bell started ringing. The hypocrisy, double standards, and gaslighting were off the charts.

Anyway, like always, we won't agree, though I maintain my high regard and respect for you. I did think that some of the examples in the piece might give you pause, but alas.

Offline biobook

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2020
  • Posts: 1422
  • Total likes: 1724
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #181 on: July 22, 2021, 12:10:46 AM »
Anyway, like always, we won't agree, though I maintain my high regard and respect for you. I did think that some of the examples in the piece might give you pause, but alas.
On the contrary, I often agree with you, and appreciate when you write what I've been thinking so that I don't even have to bother to post.  The examples did give me pause, and I paused, and I googled, and I read, and then I figured I'd better stop pausing and at least post something before I go back to reading.  So my first post was just a start.
Quote
1) there are pandemic protocols that were not used in favor of the lockdown methods. Incidently, I myself knew of Dr Fauci because I had heard a show of him talking about such protocols not long before Covid.
Like what?  IDK what you're referring to.

Quote
2) I don't think the behavior described in the article can in any way be honestly described as a "back and forth."
Right, that's exactly my point.  What would have been expected in normal scientific discourse is that if Ionnadis or Adams or the others disagreed with their fellow scientists, they would look for more data, put together a more convincing argument, increase their conversations with other scientific contacts, etc.  Instead of that kind of "back and forth" with other scientists, trying to better understand the situation, they took to the press to write opinion pieces, telling non-scientists that the experts were wrong to impose lockdowns.  That's not the way better understanding of science develops.
Quote
3) You fail to explain why scientists on one side were accepted even when their studies and models proved incorrect, while others were subject to disciplinary action from their universities when their studies and models were not disproved, and have since proved more predictive.

Models are simply attempts to predict how a disease would spread.
Tierney says "Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”".  Yes, that's right.  AIDS was a complete puzzle when it first appeared, and everyone was afraid that it could be communicated by simple contact.  Makes one appreciate the intense work done to understand covid.  It was 2 years before the AIDS virus was identified.
He says "[Life magazine] cited a study by Robert Redfield... predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals."  Yes, that's right too.  And, in fact, that prediction was borne out in Africa.
But then he says "Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility."  First of all, they weren't "wrong."  It wasn't a right-or-wrong question.  It was an attempt to project what will happen in the future, based on what we know now, if we do nothing at all.  With more information, and with attempts to prevent spread of the disease, those predictions naturally change. When the weatherman predicts that we'll be hit by a hurricane, and the hurricane veers in another direction, we don't fire the weatherman because his prediction was incorrect.  And when the rebbe says "If the kids go to movies, they'll go OTD" and the kids go to movies, and they don't go OTD, we don't fire the rebbe for incorrect predictions.  When the doctor predicts that the patient he's treating will live 3 months and the patient lives 3 years, we don't fire the doctor.  "Mistakes" is not the appropriate term to refer to these failures to fulfill a prediction.

The modeling techniques used by epidemiologists for covid are standard for the field.  I don't know who you're referring to by those whose "studies and models were not disproved, and have since proved more predictive."

Quote
4) it's not that their work was discredited by being proved wrong, but they were discredited as researchers and not able to even publish their findings.
Tierney says this, but this is very misleading.  He says "After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine..."  A non-scientist might think that a scientist writes up a research paper, sends it to a journal, and it gets published.  But it is more common for it to be rejected, especially if it is sent to these top journals, and the scientist may rewrite it and submit it elsewhere.  JAMA, for example, says its "acceptance rate is 5% of the more than 15,000 major manuscripts it receives annually and 2% of the more than 11,000 research papers received." 

Tierney continues, "...and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities."  How does Tierney know this?  The only way to know the reason is to read the editor's letter to the scientist, which often includes peer review, that is, comments from other scientists who can critique the research.  The fact that he doesn't quote that sort of evidence suggests that he didn't have access to it.

Quote
5) It is absolutely bullying to go after their employers and attempt to have them stripped of credentials.
I don't think they were stripped of credentials.  That is, I don't think their MDs or PhDs were rescinded.  Their employers simply announced that their colleagues didn't find them credible.

Quote
These aren't Facebook quacks. These were respected, renowned experts who were shafted for differing. Aside from those who publicly said they would no longer study covid because of the politics, how many others were there?

The only ones we know about are the ones Tierney wants to tell us about.  He clearly has a biased view, and selected only those people who would support his argument that "Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus."


Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19149
  • Total likes: 15308
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #182 on: July 22, 2021, 12:11:14 AM »


Actually, it's 4,200 words, and I read the whole thing.  Not a fan.  Where do I start?


With regard to "the way "dissenters" are bullied, discredited, and suppressed":  The only one I'll grant you is "discredited." Yes, they were discredited, because most of their colleagues thought they were spreading misinformation. But they were still able to work and to disseminate their ideas, so they weren't "suppressed."  They weren't persecuted or tormented - Having people disagree with you is not "bullying". 

Was there actual research that discredited them at the time? That is definitely not the way the article presents it. Do you have alternative facts about that?

Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19149
  • Total likes: 15308
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #183 on: July 22, 2021, 12:13:52 AM »
On the contrary, I often agree with you, and appreciate when you write what I've been thinking so that I don't even have to bother to post.  The examples did give me pause, and I paused, and I googled, and I read, and then I figured I'd better stop pausing and at least post something before I go back to reading.  So my first post was just a start.Like what?  IDK what you're referring to.
Right, that's exactly my point.  What would have been expected in normal scientific discourse is that if Ionnadis or Adams or the others disagreed with their fellow scientists, they would look for more data, put together a more convincing argument, increase their conversations with other scientific contacts, etc.  Instead of that kind of "back and forth" with other scientists, trying to better understand the situation, they took to the press to write opinion pieces, telling non-scientists that the experts were wrong to impose lockdowns.  That's not the way better understanding of science develops.
Models are simply attempts to predict how a disease would spread.
Tierney says "Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”".  Yes, that's right.  AIDS was a complete puzzle when it first appeared, and everyone was afraid that it could be communicated by simple contact.  Makes one appreciate the intense work done to understand covid.  It was 2 years before the AIDS virus was identified.
He says "[Life magazine] cited a study by Robert Redfield... predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals."  Yes, that's right too.  And, in fact, that prediction was borne out in Africa.
But then he says "Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility."  First of all, they weren't "wrong."  It wasn't a right-or-wrong question.  It was an attempt to project what will happen in the future, based on what we know now, if we do nothing at all.  With more information, and with attempts to prevent spread of the disease, those predictions naturally change. When the weatherman predicts that we'll be hit by a hurricane, and the hurricane veers in another direction, we don't fire the weatherman because his prediction was incorrect.  And when the rebbe says "If the kids go to movies, they'll go OTD" and the kids go to movies, and they don't go OTD, we don't fire the rebbe for incorrect predictions.  When the doctor predicts that the patient he's treating will live 3 months and the patient lives 3 years, we don't fire the doctor.  "Mistakes" is not the appropriate term to refer to these failures to fulfill a prediction.

The modeling techniques used by epidemiologists for covid are standard for the field.  I don't know who you're referring to by those whose "studies and models were not disproved, and have since proved more predictive."
Tierney says this, but this is very misleading.  He says "After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine..."  A non-scientist might think that a scientist writes up a research paper, sends it to a journal, and it gets published.  But it is more common for it to be rejected, especially if it is sent to these top journals, and the scientist may rewrite it and submit it elsewhere.  JAMA, for example, says its "acceptance rate is 5% of the more than 15,000 major manuscripts it receives annually and 2% of the more than 11,000 research papers received." 

Tierney continues, "...and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities."  How does Tierney know this?  The only way to know the reason is to read the editor's letter to the scientist, which often includes peer review, that is, comments from other scientists who can critique the research.  The fact that he doesn't quote that sort of evidence suggests that he didn't have access to it.
I don't think they were stripped of credentials.  That is, I don't think their MDs or PhDs were rescinded.  Their employers simply announced that their colleagues didn't find them credible.

The only ones we know about are the ones Tierney wants to tell us about.  He clearly has a biased view, and selected only those people who would support his argument that "Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus."
I don't think that @Yehuda57 was endorsing every premise of the article.i definitely don't.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Online zh cohen

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Posts: 1738
  • Total likes: 1771
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: 412
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #184 on: July 22, 2021, 12:16:20 AM »
The bump remains unaddressed

You don't understand. If you found out about an alternative view that means it wasn't suppressed, and if you don't know about it it's because it doesn't exist...

Online Euclid

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 5148
  • Total likes: 6386
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #185 on: July 22, 2021, 12:19:17 AM »
You don't understand. If you found out about an alternative view that means it wasn't suppressed, and if you don't know about it it's because it doesn't exist...
Schrödinger was a conspiracy theorist.

Offline biobook

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2020
  • Posts: 1422
  • Total likes: 1724
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #186 on: July 22, 2021, 01:04:05 AM »
Was there actual research that discredited them at the time?
I think so, but I'll have to read some more.  But not now.
Quote
That is definitely not the way the article presents it.

I know, the article is slanted to support Tierney's opinions.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19149
  • Total likes: 15308
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #187 on: July 22, 2021, 09:19:15 AM »
I think so, but I'll have to read some more.  But not now.
I know, the article is slanted to support Tierney's opinions.

It is most definitely a slanted article, but there are some very real issues that you seem to have missed. Here are some examples:

Quote
The cheapest shots came from BuzzFeed, which devoted thousands of words to a series of trivial objections and baseless accusations. The article that got the most attention was BuzzFeed’s breathless revelation that an airline executive opposed to lockdowns had contributed $5,000—yes, five thousand dollars!—to an anonymized fund at Stanford that had helped finance the Santa Clara fieldwork.

The notion that a team of prominent academics, who were not paid for their work in the study, would risk their reputations by skewing results for the sake of a $5,000 donation was absurd on its face—and even more ludicrous, given that Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, and the lead investigator, Eran Bendavid, said that they weren’t even aware of the donation while conducting the study. But Stanford University was so cowed by the online uproar that it subjected the researchers to a two-month fact-finding inquiry by an outside legal firm. The inquiry found no evidence of conflict of interest, but the smear campaign succeeded in sending a clear message to scientists everywhere: Don’t question the lockdown narrative.

This describes exactly the reaction seen so many times when people criticized the way some Governors disregarded the safety of seniors in nursing homes. Anyone who had any bit of direction different than what they were saying suddenly became total deniers. The same went in the opposite direction when anyone mentioned any level of restriction there were some who responded with "lockdown forever" accusations. I have personally been on the receiving end of that from both ends many times here on this forum as have you.

Quote
To break the silence, Kulldorff joined with Stanford’s Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford to issue a plea for “focused protection,” called the Great Barrington Declaration. They urged officials to divert more resources to shield the elderly, such as doing more tests of the staff at nursing homes and hospitals, while reopening business and schools for younger people, which would ultimately protect the vulnerable as herd immunity grew among the low-risk population.

They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a deadly “let it rip” strategy and an “ethical nightmare” from “Covid deniers” and “agents of misinformation.” Google initially shadow-banned it so that the first page of search results for “Great Barrington Declaration” showed only criticism of it (like an article calling it “the work of a climate denial network”) but not the declaration itself. Facebook shut down the scientists’ page for a week for violating unspecified “community standards.”
It is not like these are fringe scientists. These are all at respected institutions and their research has been relied upon until they came up against orthodoxy. In the early days of COVID, there was so much unknown due to the newness of the disease. It is to be expected that there should be varying results. The entire concept of "consensus" at that point is simply laughable. The data was so scant that there could not have possibly been enough research done to have come to such a consensus. That such terms were used is the best illustration of it having ZERO to do with science.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Online Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5432
  • Total likes: 15396
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #188 on: July 22, 2021, 05:04:49 PM »
On the contrary, I often agree with you, and appreciate when you write what I've been thinking so that I don't even have to bother to post. 
I was referring to this thread, but thanks :-)

Like what?  IDK what you're referring to.

The USA has protocols and plans in place for all types of disasters, including pandemics. This was one of the things that Trump was criticized for at the start, that he had gutted the team responsible for putting such plans in place.


Right, that's exactly my point.  What would have been expected in normal scientific discourse is that if Ionnadis or Adams or the others disagreed with their fellow scientists, they would look for more data, put together a more convincing argument, increase their conversations with other scientific contacts, etc.  Instead of that kind of "back and forth" with other scientists, trying to better understand the situation, they took to the press to write opinion pieces, telling non-scientists that the experts were wrong to impose lockdowns.  That's not the way better understanding of science develops.

I'm not sure the timeline was quite like this. Did they print op-eds before getting their studies hammered? Why were they at fault for trying to get their studies out there any more than the others were for getting theirs out? I don't think this is an accurate way of describing how things played out.


Models are simply attempts to predict how a disease would spread.
....

I agree, he misrepresented things to strengthen his point. But his point still remains true. The predictions didn't pan out, and yet we still don't say they were "wrong", discredit their work, impugn
 their character or motives, nor prevent them from publishing work in the same field again.

JAMA, for example, says its "acceptance rate is 5% of the more than 15,000 major manuscripts it receives annually and 2% of the more than 11,000 research papers received." 
The fact that he doesn't quote that sort of evidence suggests that he didn't have access to it.
I'm well aware of how rare it is to get papers published. But herein lies further issues with the world of science today - an issue raised by many scientists - is that the system for how papers are accepted is broken, and scientists have proved that. Look at the fake HCQ study that was withdrawn. There was a scientist who published a fake paper on chocolate causing weight loss a while back. During a pandemic, where the data is new and ever-changing, the process will inevitably be a little different. They are going to have to accept studies that aren't as robust as they would usually like just because that is what is available. I think this essay makes a strong case that acceptance is driven heavily by politics, which is problmatic.


I don't think they were stripped of credentials.  That is, I don't think their MDs or PhDs were rescinded.  Their employers simply announced that their colleagues didn't find them credible.

The essay makes mention of numerous instances of pressure placed on Stanford and other institutions to disassociate themselves from the researchers. When else do we see institutions making such statements about their researchers? And what of their credibility was actually disproved?

The only ones we know about are the ones Tierney wants to tell us about.  He clearly has a biased view, and selected only those people who would support his argument that "Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus."

I don't think you understood that line. I'm asking how many others were there who decided to stop studying covid or didn't publicize their work because of the politics *without announcing it*. He mentions one, and I'm assuming he wasn't alone, though obviously, I have no way to know that.

Like @aygart said, I don't agree with everything he says, and he is as slanted as the media he so eagerly criticizes. To say the fear-mongering caused more harm than the virus? That's quite a leap. But to deny the very harmful effects of the fear-mongering is also dangerous. Just yesterday a respected doctor told viewers on CNN "Delta is coming for your children". When scientists state the risks for children are low and suggests that parents/schools asses the risk/reward for lockdown regulations more carefully, they are lambasted and treated like truthers.

Offline biobook

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2020
  • Posts: 1422
  • Total likes: 1724
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #189 on: July 23, 2021, 12:52:52 AM »
1) there are pandemic protocols that were not used in favor of the lockdown methods.
The USA has protocols and plans in place for all types of disasters, including pandemics. This was one of the things that Trump was criticized for at the start, that he had gutted the team responsible for putting such plans in place.
The White House Pandemic Playbook isn't really a how-to guide with specific protocols to follow.  It aims to facilitate decision-making by providing a series of questions to ask and appropriate government agencies to consult.  It includes decisions that would be made when a possible pandemic is first suspected in a foreign country, as well as if it appears in the US. 

These are questions like What is the rate of transmission?  Projected number of cases?  What is the robustness of contact tracing?  Can the disease be effectively screened in travelers as a means to stop transmission?

It does have one list (p. 45) of possible methods to mitigate disease in the community, such as home isolation of the ill and quarantine of the exposed, closing schools, social distancing and "telework", cancellation of large public gatherings, widespread use of personal protective devices.  Lockdown was not used instead of these, but in addition to these, at a time when the disease was spreading more quickly than scientists could figure out how to slow it down and when hospitals were at risk of being overwhelmed.  This is totally in keeping with the spirit of the Playbook, which basically says "Think of everything needed to mitigate disease."  I don't see anything here that could be construed as opposed to lockdown.

What would have been expected in normal scientific discourse is that if Ionnadis or Adams or the others disagreed with their fellow scientists, they would look for more data, put together a more convincing argument, increase their conversations with other scientific contacts, etc.  Instead of that kind of "back and forth" with other scientists, trying to better understand the situation, they took to the press to write opinion pieces, telling non-scientists that the experts were wrong to impose lockdowns.  That's not the way better understanding of science develops.

I'm not sure the timeline was quite like this. Did they print op-eds before getting their studies hammered? Why were they at fault for trying to get their studies out there any more than the others were for getting theirs out? I don't think this is an accurate way of describing how things played out.
Yes, that was the timeline.  Ionnadis's opinion piece appeared in StatNews on March 17, 2020, just one week after Purim.  Ionnadis argued that we don't have data to show that the virus is really dangerous, so we shouldn't take extreme measures to stop it.  He doubted it would cause a significant number of fatalities.  "Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction?" https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

I'm not saying he's at fault for publishing that, but that he should have had a good enough understanding of epidemiology to understand that there would be criticism from other scientists. 

After that, he (with Bhattacharya and other MDs) tried to get the data he said was unavailable, that is, the prevalence of coronavirus infections in their area (Santa Clara).  The results were published in April 2020, and concluded that there were many more positive tests than expected, so presumably many more infections.  Therefore, the fatality rate was much smaller than previously thought (0.17%) making is similar to flu, which causes an annual 30,000 deaths.

Ionnadis claimed that this supported their idea that lockdowns were not needed. 

He could have, like most scientists, shown the paper to other scientists for comments, or discussed it with them, so that he could revise the paper so as to incorporate their suggestions or forestall their criticism.  But - the timeline shows - on April 20, two days before the pre-print appeared online, he went on FoxNews to use this data to argue against lockdowns. Another co-author made the same claim in a WSJ opinion piece.

Once scientists did read the paper, they found that it was not a well-designed study.  Problems include the particular antibody test he used (remember, the early tests weren't consistently accurate) and the way he selected participants (basically asking for volunteers, and at that time the only way to get a covid test was to volunteer, so he likely got an over-selection of people who'd been infected, rather than a random sample).  Also, the statisticians who read it said that the statistical analyses used were faulty. 

Tierney's description is "But merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets."  No, they became targets because they did shoddy research.  Tierney makes no attempt to answer these justified criticisms, and merely quotes Ioannadis' response "Every paper I've written has errors."  (He and his co-authors did revise the final published paper in response to some of the criticism.)

Another type of criticism came from a whistleblower who learned that some of the funds that supported the study were not acknowledged.   While it doesn't necessarily have an impact on the data, it is required by universities that researchers acknowledge their funding, so that readers can decide whether the author might have a conflict of interest.  Tierney brushes this off as "trivial objections," but universities don't consider it trivial.  Their response sounds outrageous, in Tierney's writing: "But Stanford University was so cowed by the online uproar that it subjected the researchers to a two-month fact-finding inquiry by an outside legal firm."  But in fact this is the kind of standard operating procedure that each university has in place to deal with whistleblower reports of possible misconduct, and he's provided no evidence that "online uproar" instigated it.  No conflict of interest was found, and the researchers don't seem to have suffered any consequences.

So in answer to your questions, Did they print op-eds before getting their studies hammered?  Yes, op-eds and TV interviews to the general public before presenting their research to scientists and benefitting from peer review.  Why were they at fault for trying to get their studies out there any more than the others were for getting theirs out?  Because they were not only presenting shoddy research, but were presenting it to non-scientists who couldn't evaluate it, and claiming that it provided support for their previously published opinions on lockdowns.

Online Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5432
  • Total likes: 15396
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #190 on: July 23, 2021, 10:20:25 AM »


Thanks for taking the time. That's a pretty thorough rebuttal to many of the claims  :)


Online Euclid

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 5148
  • Total likes: 6386
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #191 on: July 29, 2021, 06:50:53 PM »
Lakewood with its third Tornado Warning (not Watch) in the past couple of weeks. I don't recall ever having even 1 before.

Offline Jellybelly

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Aug 2016
  • Posts: 1207
  • Total likes: 1050
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #192 on: July 29, 2021, 08:55:26 PM »
Lakewood with its third Tornado Warning (not Watch) in the past couple of weeks. I don't recall ever having even 1 before.
I just assumed that there’s a new guy at the NWS and he’s trigger happy.
Or some lkwd kid figured out how to do it from his Hatzolah radio

Offline CountValentine

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 17350
  • Total likes: 7859
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips -1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Location: Poland - Exiled
  • Programs: DAOTYA, DDF Level 3, 5K Lounge
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #193 on: July 29, 2021, 09:06:26 PM »
I am shocked by some off the positions some have taken in this thread, NOT!!!
Only on DDF does 24/6 mean 24/5/half/half
Dow Jones Industrial Average Tops 40000 for the First Time

Offline yelped

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2015
  • Posts: 11825
  • Total likes: 4372
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 43
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #194 on: July 30, 2021, 01:20:49 AM »
I just assumed that there’s a new guy at the NWS and he’s trigger happy.
Or some lkwd kid figured out how to do it from his Hatzolah radio
Most likely they have better detection techniques and equipment these days.

Online Euclid

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 5148
  • Total likes: 6386
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #195 on: July 30, 2021, 05:37:50 PM »

Online Euclid

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 5148
  • Total likes: 6386
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
    • View Profile
Re: global warming- what's your take?
« Reply #196 on: August 09, 2021, 08:44:50 AM »
Fun news day today

Online Euclid

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 5148
  • Total likes: 6386
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 5
    • View Profile

Offline CountValentine

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 17350
  • Total likes: 7859
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips -1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Location: Poland - Exiled
  • Programs: DAOTYA, DDF Level 3, 5K Lounge
Only on DDF does 24/6 mean 24/5/half/half
Dow Jones Industrial Average Tops 40000 for the First Time

Offline S209

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 7582
  • Total likes: 4029
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Gowns By Shevy
  • Location: Lakewood
  • Programs: Marriott Gold, Star Alliance Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, National EE, Rock Royalty Wild Card, Wyndham Diamond, MLife Gold, Caesars Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Uber VIP, IHG Platinum Elite, ANA Platinum, DDF Lifetime Prez Platinum Elite, AmEx Platinum
Quote from: YitzyS
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.