Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trumpled (Alternative Leading)
#61
(02-10-2016, 10:45 PM)Mav link Wrote:Has the virus mutated in a way that now causes microcephaly?  Is there something else which causes microcephaly which accompanies this Brasilian iteration of the virus but one which will follow the virus to the US and cause birth defects in the US?  There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly.  The exact vector doesn't really matter.  While there's a chance that the US will suffer the same increase, it will be an issue in the Presidential election which will be held s bit less than 9 months from now, a significant figure when it comes to childbirth.

Quote:There's no doubt that Brasil has suffered a significant increase in microcephaly.

Really?

Show me the numbers Mav....or was the record keeping/taking just sloppy or non existent previously?

An S or a Z - that is the question! Smile
Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply
#62
I've noticed a weird trend on this site.  Discussions or debates usually involve people putting their best arguments forward immediately and then discussing the merits of them.  But on here, "discussions" are like poker games where cards are kept close to the chest.  Instead of just saying, "You're wrong because of X, Y and Z", posters are instead saying, "You're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why - you'll have to figure it out yourself".  Then follows a tedious exchange before said poster relents and starts to engage.  Is the idea to build up some dramatic tension? In any event, I wish it would stop and people would get down to tin tacks quickly.  I'm not interested in being a devil's advocate and I'm not intent on winning a debate at all costs.  If someone else has a good point to make, I want to hear it.

I'm willing to wait for further medical and epidemiological developments which unfortunately will take time to occur.  At the political level, though, the possibility that the Zika virus might invade the US and leave widespread birth defects in its wake will raise the issues of climate change and abortion.  After all, even if this scare turns out to be a non-event, there will always be the possibility that real dangers will follow in its wake.  After all, the ISIS attacks in Paris and the attack by ISIS admirers in San Bernadino haven't led to anything more recently, yet the hysteria inspired by them continues to be a real election issue.  For middle America, a personal question would be asked about what should be done if a loved one contracts a virus which may create birth defects which will create lifelong impacts on the whole family.  People are uncomfortable when told that they can do all the right things but still be dealt a bad hand, as with cancer. 
Reply
#63
I would just listen to the experts and not scribes with political agendas.

http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-viru...report/en/

http://www.who.int/features/qa/zika-pregnancy/en/
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!
Reply
#64
(02-11-2016, 12:47 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:I would just listen to the experts and not scribes with political agendas.

http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-viru...report/en/

http://www.who.int/features/qa/zika-pregnancy/en/

Heck, for sure a UN body wouldn't have a political agenda!

IPCC anyone?
Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply
#65
Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change  model?
Reply
#66
http://www.theage.com.au/world/zika-cath...mqx2f.html
Reply
#67
(02-11-2016, 01:28 AM)Mav link Wrote:Are you suggesting the IPCC should be even-handed when 97% of climate scientists support the climate change  model?

Very trite Mav. Don't be a follower.... you know that stat is BS.

Do some more homework Mav.

Here's one decent source from a 3 second Google search. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/th...al-survey/
Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply
#68
just to finish that one off Mav, try

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...ld.iop.org

Funnily enough the relevant stats are 97.1% of the 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW.

In my world 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.6%.

But heck! We all know about stats!

Quote:We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply
#69
Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!
Reply
#70
(02-11-2016, 02:31 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.

What exactly are you saying has been proven MBB?

Certainly, I agree that man does not do the planet any favours vis a vis pollution etc but nothing at all supports a proposition that an increase in CO2 levels cause an increase in temperatures....

In fact, global temperatures (whatever that means - how do you determine an average temperature for the world?) have been static or in decline for nearly 20 years now - all in the face of significantly higher CO2 levels.

Indeed, why is more CO2 a bad things in any event? Why pick on CO2 - after all, it's a cornerstone of all life on this planet!

Finals, then 4 in a row!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)