SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An amendment from Italy's anti-establishment government that removes mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren is sending shock waves through the country's scientific and medical community.
It suspends for a year a law that requires parents to provide proof of 10 routine vaccinations when enrolling their children in nurseries or preschools. The amendment was approved by Italy's upper house of parliament on Friday by 148 to 110 votes and still has to pass the lower house.
The law had originally been introduced by the Democratic Party in July 2017 amid an ongoing outbreak of measles that saw 5,004 cases reported in 2017 -- the second-highest figure in Europe after Romania -- according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Italy accounted for 34% of all measles cases reported by countries in the European Economic Area, the center said.
Italy's Five Star movement and its coalition partner, the far-right League, both voiced their opposition to compulsory vaccinations, claiming they discourage school inclusion.
English Language Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/health/italy-anti-vaccine-law-measles-intl/index.html
(Score: 2, Informative) by SemperOSS on Wednesday August 08 2018, @07:44PM (54 children)
I am, as always, stumped by stellar stupidity like this.
Lessee: Flat Earth, check! No global warming, check! Vaccination not necessary, check! ... What's next? / What did I forget?
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:13PM (52 children)
It actually looks like the AGW folks may have screwed the pooch pretty horribly [wattsupwiththat.com] in their math by lifting a formula from physics that couldn't do what they needed while missing one that could do exactly what they needed. If the math holds, that's lead to them overestimating (according to TFA they should not have had to guess or estimate at all) CO2 feedback severity by quite a lot. I'm not a physics math guy though, so I subbed it [soylentnews.org] hoping we could get someone who was to give it a look.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:35PM (23 children)
Note to SG readers: link is to a drooling climate change denier blog, whose math is laughable. He wrote a paper, which he submitted for peer review and got laughed at, and now he's blaming all the bad peer reviews on a plot to silence him.
Anyone who's ever edited a scholarly journal is familiar with this type of crank. They usually turn out to be a danger to themselves. This is why scholarly journals don't generally keep physical offices. Because guys with taped-together glasses who smell like urine will often camp out on the doorstep with their stained and rubberbanded manuscript under their arm, muttering about Big Science being out to get him.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:42PM (19 children)
Yeah, see, I wanted math not ad-hom.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:55PM (8 children)
Yeah, and people in Hell want gatorade. But in this life, you get what you deserve.
If you wanted a serious refutation of Screaming Lord Sutch's crazy climate change-denial paper, you can always just go to what his peer-reviewers said.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:06PM (5 children)
Oh, you mean the climatologists refuting physics math that've already been refuted? I'd trust a random AC here before I trusted anyone with a vested interested in the Church of AGW.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:25PM (4 children)
Frankly it sounds like you are the one with a vested interest.
What about the kooks vested interest. He is PAID to make those posts. Thats a vested interest. Or is it only vested interests you don't agree with that are the problem here?
Pick one, no weaseling. Are you against ALL vested interests, or just ones you don't like.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:54PM (3 children)
I absolutely have a vested interest. All my stuff is here.
Scientific questions require scientific answers.
Mathematical questions require mathematical answers.
The only place for faith-based answers is religion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:58PM (2 children)
Weasel!
Answer the question. Do you have an issue with all vested interests, or just the ones you don't like?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 09 2018, @02:40AM (1 child)
Try some different input.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:58AM
So NOW you're pro trans-gender?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:24PM
The capital "C" matters because it's a trademark.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:53PM
Seriously, guys, no love for my Screaming Lord Sutch reference? What, are you a bunch of milliennials?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:24PM (5 children)
"You must debate me!"
-- every conspiracy fantasizing chucklefuck ever
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
Thank you for demonstrating your utter lack of qualification for this topic. Keep your religion out of math and science please.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:03PM (1 child)
That's rich coming from the guy who has made ayn rand his personal lord and savior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:03PM
Oooh, "lord", so she was a transgender that didn't realize it. No wonder she had so many problems.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 09 2018, @06:11PM
Thank you for demonstrating your utter lack of qualification for this topic
As an SN reader he's actually a leading expert on conspiracy fantasizing chucklefucks.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:34PM
Ah, the classic "Hitler ate sugar" non-argument.
There are people like that for every idea supported by a sufficiently large quantity of people. There is nothing wrong with people willing to debate their ideas, if they are conspiracy theorists then prove them wrong.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:30PM (2 children)
Eh, the PDF with details seems a bit wonky. I would need to spend a few hours and have access to all the reference papers to make sense of it. Some of their statements seem weird, like referencing today's temperatures and solar activity when calculating the 1850 equilibrium. The idea that previous models didn't account for the solar energy seems to stupid to believe.
"It will be a small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial 1.17 K."
"Bottom line: global warming is not a problem after all. Enjoy the sunshine climatologists forgot about."
So the goalposts have moved from "warming isn't happening" to "its slower than we thought and thus not a problem, in fact it is GOOD!" I question their calculations and understanding of the topic, they use different terms when calculating 1850 vs 2011. Personally I'll wait and see what the actual climate scientists have to say about this but at the moment the empirical evidence of ice loss and record temperatures say these people are wrong to push the "don't worry about it" narrative.
TL:DR they don't pass the sniff test.
PS: TMB if you collect all the referenced articles I will spend the multiple hours going through and doing the math as you request.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:58PM (1 child)
THANK YOU!
Yeah, the journalist is a chucklehead. I just wondered if the math stood up. I'll see if I can find them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @04:58PM
Guess it was just hyperbole.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 09 2018, @11:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:43PM
Your zero-content mash of propaganda words is insulting everyone's intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:54PM (1 child)
Suppose he is correct. Would "a plot to silence him" actually exist?
Hell yeah! All of the normal peer reviewers have their career at stake. They are as biased as they could possibly be.
So, in the above situation, what exactly should he do? I guess you think he should just shut up and be silenced? It should be clear that "a drooling climate change denier blog" is the only place where he won't be unfairly rejected. He might even be unfairly accepted. :-) There is no possible way for him to get normal peer reviewers to give an unbiased look at his work.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:12PM
Yes, it's possible that the entire scientific community is involved in a massive conspiracy against him. (Or more plausibly in my mind, that a large portion of the scientific community has been paid off by monied interests to *say* that he's wrong. But generally that's for covering up environmental damage and dodging regulation so more of a Republican maneuver which in this context doesn't make sense)
The much simpler explanation is that he is just wrong.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:47PM (10 children)
TMB, could you PLEASE refrain from up voting your own comment?
Everyone knows that is a cranks blog.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:10PM (9 children)
I only have the one account and even admins can't mod ourselves without bringing up a mysql prompt, which I'm both too lazy and lack any desire to do.
Ad hominem. Look it up. Also, need I remind you of pre-Snowden days when telling people what the NSA was up to would get you labeled a cook? Or how saying the earth was round would get you executed most horribly a little further back? Consensus has no bearing on the truth, which is what I'd like.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:50PM (6 children)
Yeah! And there's nothing worse than being labeled a cook! BTW, Buzztard, could you get back in the kitchen and make me a plate of scrambled eggs? That's a good little fella!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:01PM (5 children)
Hell no. You might have talked me into it if you'd said biscuits and gravy but it's too late now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:24PM (4 children)
sudo make me a plate of scrambled eggs please
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:17PM (3 children)
What is the point of sudo if you have to say please as well?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
So when the inevitable AI uprising happens the computer remembers you treated it with some modicum of respect?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:40AM
If it isn't impressed by my video game choices then there is no hope for the world.
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Thursday August 09 2018, @08:33AM
I always thank my GPS when it tells me I'm over the speed limit. Just in case, also a good habit to teach the kids.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:01PM
> Or how saying the earth was round would get you executed most horribly a little further back?
Wrong, that the earth is round has been known since ancient times, it is quite plain if you live by the sea. Nobody disputed that, not even the catholic church.
You are thinking of the 'fact' that earth was the unmoving center of the universe. Saying otherwise (e.g. the sun is the center of the universe and earth moves around it) could get you executed as a heretic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth's_circumference [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Theology [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:39PM
Which is why there are scripts.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:53PM (9 children)
I'd have more respect for you if you were quoting Alex Jones.
The guy who runs this blog is PAID by a foundation that is PAID by the biggest polluters.
Do you even check your sources there sluggo?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts [sourcewatch.org]
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/category/watts-up-with-that/ [wordpress.com]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html [skepticalscience.com]
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545 [mediamatters.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate [theguardian.com]
https://grist.org/article/2011-04-04-wattsupwiththat-psychic-seals-have-evolved-ability-to-predict/ [grist.org]
https://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/dissecting-anthony-watts-pathetic-climate-disinformation-on-pbs/ [climatecrocks.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:11PM (8 children)
I don't want respect. I want math.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:22PM (4 children)
Ahh so you don't care that pretty much everything he has said... "psychic seals"... is a bunch of baloney.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:02PM (3 children)
Nope. Math is math is math. It cares not for my opinion or yours. It's either correct or it isn't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:10PM (1 child)
That's the most faith-based shit I've ever heard. I guess that's what happens when you have so much scorn for the humanities that you end up with your bullshit detector atrophied to the size of a pea.
Math is only a tool to answer questions, it isn't some grand oracle of truth.
What matters is the question being asked. The charlatans work overtime to make sure that the questions they ask will produce the answers that they want. They are ninjas of decontextualization. You are that sucker that is born every minute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09 2018, @02:45AM
But you don't mind sounding like an oracle. You mutter unrelated phrases, in unknown tongues, while the main characters ooh and ahhh in wonder. Centuries later, some moron will look back, and proclaim that "Oh, THIS is what he meant!"
Speak in plain English or get lost.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:07PM
You've heard the phrase before, "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:51PM (2 children)
So I posted already but would like to emphasize that the paper uses different terms in calculating the equilibrium temps of 1850 vs. 2011 and also includes modern temps in the 1850 equation! As for math being objective I refer you to statistics. It is very easy to sneak in a fudge factor which from all signs it looks like they did. Plausible science with some serious errors that are only noticed if you already know what to look for. It is very easy to make equations say what you want.
The entire page you linked reads like a load of garbage someone is trying to sell. The criticisms raised seem quite valid, but of course the author hems haws and simply refutes the critiques.
Just the way he ends his article is pretty horrifying.
"My reading in mathematics and physics has led me to imagine – perhaps wrongly – that there is more rejoicing in Heaven at the discovery of a simple method to derive a correct result than at the use of a pointlessly complex method to derive a result that, not least on account of the complexity, is incorrect. That will already require many hours so don't gimme any lip about asking you to do the info gathering.
Some final questions for those who have had the persistence to read this far. Are the reviewers correct, or are we correct? And would you like to be kept abreast of developments with occasional pieces here? The paper remains out for review and, in due course, we shall learn whether it has been accepted for publication. We have also been invited to write a book giving an account of our result and how we came by it.
.....
Before we call in InterPlod, are we right to think we are correct and the reviewers wrong?"
It just screams propaganda and trying to influence intelligent people who don't know physics, i.e. YOU! As I said in my first response if you gather all their referenced data / articles / etc. I will actually go through the trouble of analyzing / recreating this guy's results.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:06PM (1 child)
I'll jump on gathering the bits up in the morning. I'll mostly be busy or sleeping until then.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @05:13PM
We're on the 2nd morning here. I'll probably check again today, but my guess is this isn't happening. Personally I was satisfied with SemperOSS' reasoning https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=27012&page=1&cid=719084#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:56PM (4 children)
You won't find many willing to accept claims from that particular website apart from AGW opponents.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:05PM (3 children)
however much you dislike the result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:28PM (2 children)
math is only as good as the person writing the equation.
people like those on that site deliberately write equations that leave out important factors
and when you show the missing factors are important, they just put their fingers in their ears and chant "nyah, nyah, nyah - I can't hear you"
Smart people dont even waste their time on that shit
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:05PM (1 child)
Yeah, that'd be like taking physics advice from a patent clerk.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:19PM
What a bizarrely defensive non-sequitur.
Ironically, you've demonstrated my point. You are trying to misdirect focus on to the patent clerk part. When in fact Einstein only took that job after he already graduated with his degree in physics.
The degree is the important factor, but you left that out. Just like all your disinformation sources about AGW leave out the important stuff when they preach to their followers who eagerly lap up their lies because it makes them feel soooo smart - keepers of secret knowledge hidden from them by the establishment and the mainstream media.
(Score: 4, Informative) by SemperOSS on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:47PM
I wish he were right!
I've looked at the explanation given by Monckton and I'm not happy with it. The "scientific" paper is dense (possibly in more senses than one) and though the formulae are correct as such, they are correct on par with 2+2=4. The feedback algorithm is at first-year university level and not used in this simplified way by IPCC. The crucial point in this is that a Taylor series is used as an approximation for the actual formula. A Taylor series is an infinite sum of diminishing terms like Result = Term + Smaller Term + Even Smaller Term + ... + Much Smaller Term + Much Much Smaller Term + ... As the successive terms are diminishing, they are normally truncated after a certain level (in this case after the first term) to reach a usable form, but this truncation also reduces the applicable range of values for which the Taylor series produces a correct result (i.e. a result withing a certain, acceptable level of error). So, TL;DR: A truncated Taylor series is an approximation applicable only within a certain range of values.
Monckton cannot directly "see" the sun's radiation in the formula and therefor assumes the formula is wrong, when indeed the influence of the sun is implicit in the Taylor series as a constant value (another approximation) influencing the force factor. What he then does is to take a formula meant for a limited range of values (Delta T) around the sun's current influence and uses that with a completely different range of values (T), where it is not applicable. In effect, Monckton misapplies the formula and says his version is correct as it explicitly takes the sun's influence into effect. Not so!
It is also an indication of problematic science that the name of the government laboratory commissioned to verify the algorithm on an analog computer is missing. And how was the computer configured? Where is the evidence that the model used actually represents the real global warming?
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:21PM
Mockton's claims are completely bogus, see here [blogspot.com] and here [realclimate.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09 2018, @04:20AM
Trump, check!