Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

daniel wrote

Also https://dagens.klassekampen.no is a radical left publication (literally english: the class struggle, a far cry from Breightbart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klassekampen

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

3

daniel wrote

I stated the primary source. The only reason resenett was there is because it didn't have a paywall. But regardless, pick the straw man and attack the source rather than the reality of the information. The boat did get marooned in 3 meter thick ice in late July in the Arctic and that smacks in the face of the predictions from the so-called experts.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

4

daniel wrote

Right, it's not simple. But you can't make hyperbolic predictions that the Arctic will be ice free by 2014 and then not get called out on it when it demonstrably and utterly fails to come to happen. In fact recent years have seen increases in the thickness of Arctic ice. Don't kill the messenger.

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

daniel wrote

I think they make sense in certain situations, but I also think they are over prescribed. I know from biology and medical studies that a newborn infant doesn't really develop its immune system until at least 18 months and relies on the mother's antibodies for the initial post-birth period. So I think it's unethical to push vaccines on scared new parents immediately after a kid is born, because the efficacy is not proven at that age group, yet the risk profile is the same or higher. Beyond age 3 or 4 I think the likelyhood of harm from reasonably administered vaccinations (ie. not 10 in a single visit, but one or two at a time spaced a few months apart) is extremely low. I also think that childhood diseases which are relatively benign should probably not be vaccinated against unless the kid is in a high risk group, ie. a kid with cancer or AIDS should be protected from chicken pox, but an otherwise healthy kid can be allowed to catch it and develop immunity naturally if so desired by the parents. the problem with vaccinating healthy populations against relatively mild childhood illnesses is that the immunity is not lifetime and no long term studies have been done yet on these populations. with chicken pox for example, if you catch it, you're more or less immune for life, but with the current generation many of them will likely require booster shots or loose their immunity as they age and possibly suffer shingles, etc. Customer for life.

It's a risk versus benefit scenario... would I get vaccinated against anthrax? Today, no, but if I was going to a warzone, yes. Would I get vaccinated against HPV, no. If I was working in adult film industry, yes.

−3

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

daniel wrote

I make a very fine living as a petroleum engineer. Thank you very much. JUST KIDDING!!!!

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

daniel wrote

Don't like it, change the wikipedia entry.

0

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

daniel wrote

Sometimes it's not about the source of the research or the author or the article reporting on it, it's just about the objective facts. If someone collects a hundred studies and writes a paper about their conclusions, then a bunch of the original study authors come out and explicitly state that their research was misrepresented - that is a problem.

It's even a bigger problem when their objections are ignored, and the incorrect findings of the meta analysis are repeated continuously forever. This applies to any topic, not just climate. It's misleading and when intentional, it's unethical.

−1

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

daniel wrote

facts are incongruent with my narrow world view, let me try to insult a stranger on the Internet

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote (edited )

1

daniel wrote

Up until this point I've been a civil engineer (forgive the pun), but you contribute nothing but trolling and sock-puppeting, and never add anything of substanative value to the discussion. Only misdirection and strife. I wish you the best, but I can't engage juvinile antics. Have a nice day.

−2