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: 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]