Bad science ....

Digit · #51 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 02:45 PM

According to some of my reading Zan very few of the people actively involved with the IPCC are/were climatologists. I take eeyore's comments on board about mathematicians, but my point was that a mathematician may well be needed to collate, interpret, etc, but that in no manner qualifies him to comment on the accuracy of the original research work.
Apparently many of those who signed never even attended the symposium, they received a copy of its conclusions and were asked to sign if they agreed with it.
Many apparently refused simply because they had no access to the original research, as I would have done.
Remember the Cold Fusion fiasco?
If anyone is to assess the skill of the cancer surgeon who operated on me I would prefer it not to be a mathematician!

Roy.

zan · #52 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 03:03 PM

But a mathematician could give you an accurate probability that you would survive the procedure carried out by that surgeon

Sorry, I know that's pedantic!

The thing is that a problem as vast as climate change needs a multidisciplinary approach. You need oceanographers to measure the ocean currents, climatologists to study past and current climate, astrophysicists to assess the effects of the sun, geologists to assess the prehistoric data, economists to assess the costs of action vs inaction, mathematicians and statisticians to actually create a model and provide as good an answer as they can, as well as biologists, chemists etc to monitor secondary effects on species numbers, ocean acidification and so on. All of them are needed to both carry out the primary work and evaluate it (mathematicians and statisticians would be vital in this as they would assess the methods used to interpret the original data, which you could argue is the most important step anyway).

On the other point you make, I would also not sign a document that I agreed to something I'd never seen, so fair enough, and if that's true I agree it's a pretty poor state of affairs for such an important topic. On the other hand, I'm deeply suspicious of statments that begin with 'apparently'

Digit · #53 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 03:09 PM

True Zan but I strongly suspect that any Consultant who rises through the hierarchy sufficiently to judge other consultants would be able to count, and based on my own experiences I can assure that there is more to a surgeon's skill than his death toll!
Here is another example of those who question, not so much the science, but how it has been interpreted and used by those who we would hope know better, like politicians!

http://brneurosci.org/reviews/satanic.html

and look at this list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Roy.

zan · #54 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 03:24 PM

I know, I was just being pedantic, sorry! And I agree about politicians, I think they are often the worst for short-term planning because of the length of time they're in office...

I don't really want to get into an argument about the ins and outs of climate change though because it's not an issue I am qualified to comment on. I try and keep an open mind, and if it turns out I was wrong, and global warming isn't our fault then great, I'll be happy. Maybe we'll have wasted resources on 'green' research or had to cut down on our comforts more that we'd have liked to along the way, but I can live with that I think. What worries me more is that misinterpretation of data or even perfectly correct statments about scientific research, but that isn't properly explained will just lead to confusion and apathy amongst teh public, which would be disastrous if global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.

Digit · #55 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 03:31 PM

Agreed, I think people are being bludgeoned into accepting a given line.
I would love to see a debate between both parties, but I suspect there would be blood on the carpet before the end!

Roy.

Bullseye · #56 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 10:20 PM

Re, Mercury and the MMR, I did not state the mercury was the sole cause of autism with the MMR,merely that rates of autism have fallen where mercury has not been present in the MMR. Many people have had health problems with mercury fillings,when fillings have been removed and replaced with other non mercury amazingly the health problems have after a short while dissapeared,placebo effect no doubt

.As for "all the reports about MMR being safe",when it happens right in front of your eyes it does bring more than a tiny seed of doubt into your mind !.Of course everyones tolerance to mercury must be exactly the same,just as everyones ability to consume alcohol is the same.................ah,no wait...............

pressld2 · #57 (**permalink**) 25-06-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weirdwolf

Whilst I am very sorry that your son has a disability the immunization link to autism has been disproved by numerous studies.

I'm sorry but I think that statement is just as much "bad science" as the daily Mail article that Paul kicked this thread off with. No study has ever "disproved" a link between MMR and autism. Numerous studies have failed to find a link but that is emphatically NOT the same as disproving a link.

There is much talk of Andrew Wakefield's research being discredited but has it really? I remember reading that he had not been completely open about who was funding his research but I have never seen, in any media, anyone suggesting that he faked evidence or that his methodology was flawed. Of course this could just be another example of the media having a field day with the original scare story and not bothering with the "it was all a panic over nothing, weren't we silly to get you all worked up" story. I don't know.

What I do know is that if my boys (both of whom had the MMR, fortunately without any serious side effects) were born today they'd get the measles vaccine - privately if necessary - but they wouldn't get the MMR.

Dave P.

RobSutton · #58 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pressld2

........

There is much talk of Andrew Wakefield's research being discredited but has it really? I remember reading that he had not been completely open about who was funding his research but I have never seen, in any media, anyone suggesting that he faked evidence or that his methodology was flawed. Of course this could just be another example of the media having a field day with the original scare story and not bothering with the "it was all a panic over nothing, weren't we silly to get you all worked up" story. I don't know.

...........

Dave P.

I think there were indeed serious flaws in his methodology, lack of controls, small sample size and so on..

Professor Trisha Greenhalgh appraises Andrew Wakefield et al

and yes you can't disprove (or prove) it but larger, well designed, better controlled research projects have failed to find any data to support his conclusions.

zan · #59 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 10:57 AM

We looked at the case surrounding the MMR in one of our biology labs a few years ago, and while I can't remember all the details of it, the research we saw suggested quite clearly that there was only a significant risk of autism in children who showed certain contraindications, and in those cases should not receive the vaccine. For children without those contraindications, the vaccine had not been shown to be linked to MMR.

ollyk · #60 (**permalink**) 26-06-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zan

We looked at the case surrounding the MMR in one of our biology labs a few years ago, and while I can't remember all the details of it, the research we saw suggested quite clearly that there was only a significant risk of autism in children who showed certain contraindications, and in those cases should not receive the vaccine. For children without those contraindications, the vaccine had not been shown to be linked to MMR.

While a bit off topic, it would be interesting to know what those contraindications are? Are we talking behavioral or family history etc?