Bad science ....

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Cellarman

Paul

Just because it don't agree with what you believe, don't make it rubbish!

no but the fact that it contradicts itself multiple times, contains half truths and downright untruths and is littered with misconceptions and simple errors does ...

[Bullseye]

Well the Polar Bear bit is true, think it's something like (and at this time of night I'm not looking it up),17 populations increasing,2 stable and 2 dwindling.
As for the MMR bit,when you have a child who has had the MMR jab then gets a really bad reaction to it,a dangerously high temperature, and just drifts away into his own world,when this happens in front of your own f***ing eyes and it's your own son,then maybe you can say something about it !,of course it's never going to be addmitted it would cost billions !(Denmark stopped putting mercury in its MMR jabs,since when autism has dropped by 60%),do a bit of research before you make facile comments !.Interview with an immunologist, "Would you give your children the MMR ?", "Good grief no !".
I despair of most people,they just believe what they are told it's like the "information superhighway" was never there !.Thankfully there are lots of specialists (who are funded as long as they say the right thing !)who can tell us the truth !.Oh, I give up,1984,it was meant to be a warning,not a freaking manual !.

[Digit]

And check out the history of sun spot max and min against Earth's temp. It's quite interesting, well documented and with a lengthy history.

Roy.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

As for the MMR bit,when you have a child who has had the MMR jab then gets a really bad reaction to it,a dangerously high temperature, and just drifts away into his own world,when this happens in front of your own f***ing eyes and it's your own son,then maybe you can say something about it !,of course it's never going to be addmitted it would cost billions !(Denmark stopped putting mercury in its MMR jabs,since when autism has dropped by 60%),do a bit of research before you make facile comments !.Interview with an immunologist, "Would you give your children the MMR ?", "Good grief no !".
I despair of most people,they just believe what they are told it's like the "information superhighway" was never there !.Thankfully there are lots of specialists (who are funded as long as they say the right thing !)who can tell us the truth !.Oh, I give up,1984,it was meant to be a warning,not a freaking manual !.

Bullseye - I deeply sorry to hear that you child had a nasty reaction to an MMR jab; you don't tell us the long term sequelae though.

Sadly, your reply is precisely what Paul was complaining about.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

............Denmark stopped putting mercury in its MMR jabs,since when autism has dropped by 60%...........

Demonstrating that you should give people mercury compounds and that the MMR is harmless?

I despair of most people,they just believe what they are told it's like the "information superhighway" was never there !.Thankfully there are lots of specialists (who are funded as long as they say the right thing !)who can tell us the truth !.Oh, I give up,1984,it was meant to be a warning,not a freaking manual !.

See where the misinformation is coming from:
Bad science: It's not what the papers say, it's what they don't | Comment is free | The Guardian

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Digit

And check out the history of sun spot max and min against Earth's temp. It's quite interesting, well documented and with a lengthy history.

Roy.

Yes, indeed very well studied especially by John Eddy who died last week.
John A. Eddy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - however neither Eddy nor any other serious scientist suggested that solar activity was responsible for recent climate change.
Planetary warmth correlates with solar activity to an extent; but sunspots do not correlate with the continuous and acceleratingwarming tendency that we are witnessing.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Well the Polar Bear bit is true, think it's something like (and at this time of night I'm not looking it up),17 populations increasing,2 stable and 2 dwindling.

Actually according to the IUCN polar bear group its a total of 19 populations of which 5 are declining , 5 are thought to be stable (though at risk of decline), 2 are increasing (both of which are very near land) , 6 have deficient data and 1 has no data at all

they also say

Because polar bears feed almost exclusively on ice-associated seals, changes in the sea ice that affect access to prey will have a negative effect on the bears.....Polar bears are totally reliant on the sea ice as their primary habitat. If climate change alters the period of ice cover, bears may be forced on shore for extended periods and forced to rely on stored fat. If these periods become excessively long, mortality will increase. Such changes are thought to be occurring in western Hudson Bay. Further, if the ice changes in character such that there is more open water, young cubs which are unable to swim long distances may suffer greater mortality. Sea ice is also used for access to den areas and if ice patterns change, existing den areas may be unreachable. Another factor is that in some areas, warmer temperatures and higher winds may reduce ice thickness and increase ice drift. Because polar bears must walk against the moving ice (like walking the wrong way on an escalator) increased ice movements will increase energy use and reduce growth and reproduction.

which shows the potential for climate change impact on all polar bear populations even those which are currently stable.

full info here IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

mind you the authors of the peice paul is complaining about are right that polar bear populations have more than doubled since the 50s - arround 10,000 in 56, now arround 25,000 (down from over 27,000 in the early ninetys) - but they overlook the rather large fact that the bears were being heavily hunted prior to 56, but are now protected. There are no reliable population figures prior to the 56 study, but annectdotal evidence suggests that the population was a lot higher than 25,000 prior to the advent of the repeating rifle.

[Digit]

That may or may not be so Paul. The reason I say that is that there are at least two cycles of sun spot activity and at the moment the activity is the lowest ever recorded as the cycles seem to have coincided.
May be, may be not, time will reveal all.

Roy.

[Meta menardi]

Bullseye, how do you square your last post with

"Just take the safety labels off and let the issue resolve itself ." ?

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Meta menardi

Bullseye, how do you square your last post with

"Just take the safety labels off and let the issue resolve itself ." ?

Yes,my bad,I did'nt check out the available info first (though not a lot was available at that time), I was more naive 15 years ago,have since learned never to trust any sort of "authority".
And I'll take your post as an attempt at humour,hopefully directed at me and not the unfortunate disability inflicted on my son ?.