Vaccines and climtae change. Are scientists failing to communicate science properly.

Crea · 22-09-2016 12:56PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Every thing has side effects if I take an a pain killer it has a side effects, I take a risk when I get on a bus use the dart or drive my car everything in life involves some risks: In the case of vaccines the befits out weight the negatives by an enormous amount its as simple as that.

I know that you are right but we are told that vaccines are harmless and they aren't. The logic that some people will put to this is that if they are lying about this what else are they lying about?
The MMR anti vaxers are brilliant at twisting information. They have managed to invent a whole new "medical" condition (leaky bowel) because of miscommunication of side effects.

Outlaw Pete · 22-09-2016 01:10PM

Publication bias and research misconduct are far bigger issues for society than any miscommunication by the scientific community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M

22-09-2016 02:21PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Imagine how far ahead of the US Ireland would be if we followed their methods in science training in education. We're currently ranked 14th while the US is ranked 28th in the latest PISA rankings. We really should do things more like the US.

Elliott S · 22-09-2016 02:58PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Climate IS always changing... it just depends on your window. Unless you're saying the ice ages and times between them were just a spot of weather.

Yup, but that's not what the concerns over climate change are about. It's the speed at which these changes are occurring.

Crea · 22-09-2016 03:48PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Publication bias and research misconduct are far bigger issues for society than any miscommunication by the scientific community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M

So we can't believe anyone and can't know what drugs are safe or not because the negative results aren't published.

RDM_83 again · 22-09-2016 05:07PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I get that its AH so we have to do a bit of hating on A) Irish education

Irish Language C) Religion

Does participating in Science as a kindergarten child help with these decisions adults make?
Does taking religion classes mean people can't understand the scientific method?

Both of these are blatantly false agenda pushing notions, people used the Variolation which was genuinely dangerous to a significant minority and they were uneducated religious nutbars by modern standards.

We don't need a push on science as such, to reach a point where your going to have a good understand of the mechanisms and so on your going to need a university degree.
We need people to have a basic understand of statistics and their usage and the scientific method, thats it, it doesn't require an overhauling of education, it could be combined with economics and politics so on to make it more broadbased too.

It doesn't need to involve switching around tons of hours, people don't like religion and the Irish language thats fine but IMO argue that point rather than laying every failing on them.

Edit: If changing this made a difference England would have a far superior school system to the ROI, instead if your not wealthy enough in England to go private or move to the right postcode your pushing your kids into a faith school because of how well they perform.

22-09-2016 05:10PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I get that its AH so we have to do a bit of hating on A) Irish education Irish Language C) Religion

Does participating in Science as a kindergarten child help with these decisions adults make?
Does taking religion classes mean people can't understand the scientific method?

Both of these are blatantly false agenda pushing notions, people used the Variolation which was genuinely dangerous to a significant minority and they were uneducated religious nutbars by modern standards.

We don't need a push on science as such, to reach a point where your going to have a good understand of the mechanisms and so on your going to need a university degree.
We need people to have a basic understand of statistics and their usage and the scientific method, thats it, it doesn't require an overhauling of education, it could be combined with economics and politics so on to make it more broadbased too.

It doesn't need to involve switching around tons of hours, people don't like religion and the Irish language thats fine but IMO argue that point rather than laying every failing on them.

Fantastic post.

steddyeddy · 22-09-2016 05:12PM

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nobody denies climate change the climate is always changing.

Actually the head scientist of a certain research facility in the UK doesn't accept that the climate is changing at all.

steddyeddy · 22-09-2016 05:14PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Publication bias and research misconduct are far bigger issues for society than any miscommunication by the scientific community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M

That's a bigger problem in pharmacological research TBF.

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2016 05:28PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually the head scientist of a certain research facility in the UK doesn't accept that the climate is changing at all.

Indeed, and there are doctors who believe anti-vaxx conspiracies, structural engineers who think the twin towers couldn't have collapsed as described, scientists who believe creationist theories

Thankfully we can rely on consensus

It's still an uphill battle against old beliefs, woo, nonsense, magic and stories, I mean a third of Russians believe the sun revolves around the earth.. but at least it's not two-thirds

Slowly getting there

Special Circumstances · 22-09-2016 05:34PM

Elliott S wrote: »

Yup, but that's not what the concerns over climate change are about. It's the speed at which these changes are occurring.

When is the next terminology change expected :pac:

"I know we said that but what we meant was..."
"Yeah that didn't turn out to be as big a deal as we all said it was at the time but there's a new concern that really is a big deal now..."
"Yeah we used to call it that, now we call it this which isn't accurate either but the other thing was a bit inconvenient"

Climate change has bad communication of science written all over it. Buy diesel it will save the world!

RDM_83 again · 22-09-2016 05:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nobody denies climate change the climate is always changing.

Actually the head scientist of a certain research facility in the UK doesn't accept that the climate is changing at all.

I don't get this?like does he just ignore geology, paleonology, ice cores everything that shows that climate is naturally cyclic even without man?

22-09-2016 05:50PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

When is the next terminology change expected :pac:

"I know we said that but what we meant was..."
"Yeah that didn't turn out to be as big a deal as we all said it was at the time but there's a new concern that really is a big deal now..."
"Yeah we used to call it that, now we call it this which isn't accurate either but the other thing was a bit inconvenient"

Climate change has bad communication of science written all over it. Buy diesel it will save the world!

Also it has been hijacked as an issue to beat people round the head so to be speak, by both the extreme right keep burning oil and the left going on about ecological wisdom.

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2016 05:58PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Buy diesel it will save the world!

You keep mentioning this.. but it appears to be your own personal notion

Diesel produces slightly less emissions than petrol hence relatively more interest by environmental types, greens, etc.. however they'd still prefer you buy a petrol-hybrid or electric car (which still have an environmental impact, albeit slightly less)

Maximus Alexander · 22-09-2016 05:59PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This! Saying people disbelieve climate change isn't helpful, nobody disbelieves that the climate changes they disagree that humans are having a significant or measurable impact.
Then there is the thing that maybe we're having a significant impact but the natural cycle would be as harmful to western civilization. Like all we're doing at the minute is living in a warm inter-glacial period.

But this is clearly not the case, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to say so. Randall Monroe has created an excellent illustration here that distills this down to a relatable visual that anyone could understand, for example.

But the problem is that people don't want to understand it. For whatever variety of reasons, about which I could only speculate, some people decide not to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and anything that happens after that only serves to entrench them further. Confirmation bias kicks in, they talk to people and read things that support their view. If you disagree with them, then you're subject to the backfire effect. I'm actually not sure what, if anything, can be done to reach people once they've picked their side and I think it's unfair to blame it on scientists communicating poorly. Scientists collect evidence and present conclusions, but they can't control what goes on inside the human mind.

Some won't believe it until the sea waters are up to their waist. Even then there'll be those that tell you "it was God's will".

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to imply that I'm impervious to the above psychological failings. But being aware of them and accepting that they also apply to me at least allows me make a good fist of trying to spot when it's happening and perform some evasive maneuvers. That's the kind of sh*t that needs to be taught in schools imo.

Special Circumstances · 22-09-2016 06:07PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You keep mentioning this.. but it appears to be your own personal notion

Diesel produces slightly less emissions than petrol hence relatively more interest by environmental types, greens, etc.. however they'd still prefer you buy a petrol-hybrid or electric car (which still have an environmental impact, albeit slightly less)

I can see very little evidence of any opposition to diesel from eco warriors before the VW thing broke. Even now it's very much up for debate if they believe diesel is anything but awesome. I don't see much campaigning to ban it like! Who cares about the massively increased emissions of NOx and PM compared to petrol, low CO2 wahoooo! Let's not even bother testing emissions from diesels at all, levy that dirty petrol!

It is my own personal motivation - I like to see pseudo-ecoheads continue to defend diesel for all applications everywhere. Or, I like to see them admit that "yeah it was a mistake, but we're really certain about this other stuff!". It's win win really.

Which camp are you in? "Diesel uber alles" , or "no really, all of the other eco initiatives and information are 100% legit"?

Nonoperational · 22-09-2016 06:11PM

It's really quite bizarre your obsession with Diesels.

22-09-2016 06:12PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I can see very little evidence of any opposition to diesel from eco warriors before the VW thing broke. Even now it's very much up for debate if they believe diesel is anything but awesome. I don't see much campaigning to ban it like! Who cares about the massively increased emissions of NOx and PM compared to petrol, low CO2 wahoooo! Let's not even bother testing emissions from diesels at all, levy that dirty petrol!

It is my own personal motivation - I like to see pseudo-ecoheads continue to defend diesel for all applications everywhere. Or, I like to see them admit that "yeah it was a mistake, but we're really certain about this other stuff!". It's win win really.

Which camp are you in? "Diesel uber alles" , or "no really, all of the other eco initiatives and information are 100% legit"?

Or where do you stand on nuclear power :pac:

Special Circumstances · 22-09-2016 06:13PM

Nonoperational wrote: »

It's really quite bizarre your obsession with Diesels.

It's more of an obsession with bad science and pseudo science. Some people tackle "nutritionists", or "homeopathy" etc etc, I object to "diesel is so clean and healthy". They are all different heads of the one monster though.

RDM_83 again · 22-09-2016 06:36PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

But this is clearly not the case, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to say so. Randall Monroe has created an excellent illustration here that distills this down to a relatable visual that anyone could understand, for example.

We're in an interglacial at the minute though, thats my point? His graphic shows a long gradual warming then we enter the holocene where its fairly stable, like lowest ice age temperatures (which aren;t on that graphic would be catastrophic)
There has been a significant temperature change in the last 200 years, its most likely anthropogenic.
However my point is that the natural global cycle could be devastating for western civilization, a period like the younger dryas which doesn't register on that global scale would devastate Western Europe and that was a fast snap.

I'm not denying anthropogenic climate change is probably happening, personally I'm more worried about the approach of a Malthusian limit due to longer life expectancies and better living standards in the 3rd world but saying we should kill the poor isn't PC for some reason :-o

Special Circumstances · 22-09-2016 06:39PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

We're in an interglacial at the minute though, thats my point? His graphic shows a long gradual warming then we enter the holocene where its fairly stable, like lowest ice age temperatures (which aren;t on that graphic would be catastrophic)
There has been a significant temperature change in the last 200 years, its most likely anthropogenic.
However my point is that the natural global cycle could be devastating for western civilization, a period like the younger dryas which doesn't register on that global scale would devastate Western Europe and that was a fast snap.

Heretic! BURN the witch! Death to the infidel!
Only true believers must remain!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm not denying anthropogenic climate change is probably happening, personally I'm more worried about the approach of a Malthusian limit due to longer life expectancies and better living standards in the 3rd world but saying we should kill the poor isn't PC for some reason :-o

A cynic might say the "CO2 reduction at any cost" / "climate change reversal at any cost" peeps see a double benefit to diesel, a subtle cull of those dirty CO2 excreting humans.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-engine-pollution-premature-deaths-costs-nhs-billions

Maximus Alexander · 22-09-2016 06:51PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

We're in an interglacial at the minute though, thats my point? His graphic shows a long gradual warming then we enter the holocene where its fairly stable, like lowest ice age temperatures (which aren;t on that graphic would be catastrophic)
There has been a significant temperature change in the last 200 years, its most likely anthropogenic.
However my point is that the natural global cycle could be devastating for western civilization, a period like the younger dryas which doesn't register on that global scale would devastate Western Europe and that was a fast snap.

I'm not denying anthropogenic climate change is probably happening, personally I'm more worried about the approach of a Malthusian limit due to longer life expectancies and better living standards in the 3rd world but saying we should kill the poor isn't PC for some reason :-o

Ah, well in that case my apologies for having taken you up wrong.

The Malthusian limit will be self policing though if you think about it, so nothing to worry about. :pac:

Sam Kade · 22-09-2016 06:56PM

Just as a matter of interest how many on here that believe in man made climate change actually do something about it?

RDM_83 again · 22-09-2016 07:04PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Ah, well in that case my apologies for having taken you up wrong. The Malthusian limit will be self policing though if you think about it, so nothing to worry about. :pac:

I actually find this longer term thinking stuff sort of depressing and avoid it, there is no doubt though that we can't consume and burn like we have a 1800's population though.

mzungu · 22-09-2016 08:11PM

Climate change denial took off when fossil fuel lobby groups (in cahoots with Republicans) started to muddy the waters back in the nineties. This is one of the reasons why the vast majority of deniers in the US are Republican whereas the majority of Democrats accept climate change. The wedge is split down party lines, so it has little to do with science communication and more to do with people sticking to their party lines (in the US anyways).

Sam Kade · 22-09-2016 09:18PM

mzungu wrote: »

Climate change denial took off when fossil fuel lobby groups (in cahoots with Republicans) started to muddy the waters back in the nineties. This is one of the reasons why the vast majority of deniers in the US are Republican whereas the majority of Democrats accept climate change. The wedge is split down party lines, so it has little to do with science communication and more to do with people sticking to their party lines (in the US anyways).

So how are you reducing your carbon footprint?

Special Circumstances · 22-09-2016 10:38PM

That's an awful lot of tumbleweed on the carbon footprint reduction.

Sam Kade · 22-09-2016 10:49PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

That's an awful lot of tumbleweed on the carbon footprint reduction.

All the crowing about climate change, they can talk the talk but not walk the walk

Maximus Alexander · 22-09-2016 10:55PM

Don't really understand the point of the question to be honest. People can be aware that they are contributing to climate change and also do nothing about it.

RDM_83 again · 22-09-2016 11:05PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Don't really understand the point of the question to be honest. People can be aware that they are contributing to climate change and also do nothing about it.

At a guess they might be mentioning things like Al Gore on the Democrat side, lecture the world about climate change yet have a ranch that has 10x the CO2 output of the average American home (and its not like the the Gore's don't have the cash to have made it super efficient).

Vaccines and climtae change. Are scientists failing to communicate science properly.

Comments