Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My point in the post is that almost any research is agenda driven. For some reason we think as a society that university based research is good and unbiased and corporate based research is bad and biased because they are trying to make a buck. My point is that both are equally trying to make a buck and finding themselves guilty of wrongdoing threatens their funding streams. Just like a for profit corporation, they are not going to admit to anything unless the risk is greater for them not to.

So do you reject the results of all research, or only if it involves global warming? All research costs money. What's so special about this one field? If there's nothing special about it, what other widely-held scientific consensuses do you reject? If it's just this one, isn't that because of your own agenda-driven bias?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Climate Change Will Wipe-Out Rare Iberian lynx within 50 Years, Researchers Say



Climate change could wipe out the last remaining individuals of Iberian lynx- the world's rarest cat species- in the next half century, according to a study.

********************

So, perhaps it's NOT scientists that make people skeptical of Climate Change and it's effects, it's the political team's and which side the media always takes that is causing the skepticism. Researchers did not say "Climate Change Will Wipe-Out...". Journalists, aka, the profession of fact-finding and reporting...err...fabricating crisis, say it wil.

Slightly off-topic but I was thinking about biodiversity generally and how it's such a common point in these debates made by the global warming deniers that, "hey, we should take care of the planet, but the global warming angle is bullshit." But I don't know if they really mean that. Are there any environmental activists who reject global warming? Something tells me that those who reject global warming also generally reject or aren't particularly concerned about human's impact on biodiversity, water, and other environmental issues that are maybe less controversial. Because the rejection of global warming theory is really a political issue rather than a scientific one. That's why it's specifically picked out for scorn from the huge variety of research which is undertaken worldwide. THIS one issue is controversial only because it became something for liberals and conservatives to take sides on and fight over. One those battle lines are drawn, its absolutely impossible to have any kind of public consensus on anything. We can spend all day debating the merits of different research methods and who funded what, but it doesn't matter at all, no matter the mechanics of the research or the funding, that division will be there.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by molson

So do you reject the results of all research, or only if it involves global warming? All research costs money. What's so special about this one field? If there's nothing special about it, what other widely-held scientific consensuses do you reject? If it's just this one, isn't that because of your own agenda-driven bias?

This is the highest profile area where the so called consensus and science just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Most research is not requiring us to change our whole world-view or ask us to do away with our modern conveniences, like the AGW/ACC crowd wants us to. There are other areas where I reject the research if it doesn't hold up, the autism/vaccine research is an example.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

This is the highest profile area where the so called consensus and science just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Most research is not requiring us to change our whole world-view or ask us to do away with our modern conveniences, like the AGW/ACC crowd wants us to. There are other areas where I reject the research if it doesn't hold up, the autism/vaccine research is an example.

And, by "autism/vaccine research", you mean literally one paper that has been long since debunked?

SI

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Climate Change Will Wipe-Out Rare Iberian lynx within 50 Years, Researchers Say



Climate change could wipe out the last remaining individuals of Iberian lynx- the world's rarest cat species- in the next half century, according to a study.

********************

So, perhaps it's NOT scientists that make people skeptical of Climate Change and it's effects, it's the political team's and which side the media always takes that is causing the skepticism. Researchers did not say "Climate Change Will Wipe-Out...". Journalists, aka, the profession of fact-finding and reporting...err...fabricating crisis, say it wil.

This just in; Climate change killed the dinosaurs, the stromatolytes (spelling), etc, etc, etc,etc

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There are other areas where I reject the research if it doesn't hold up, the autism/vaccine research is an example.

There was no broad scientific consensus that vaccines cause autism. I'm sure we can pick out individual studies that were quickly debunked (that's kind of the point of publishing this stuff, to give others the chance to respond), but the global warming deal is very different. That broad a scientific consensus is only controversial if one side of the political spectrum doesn't like the end result. When that happens, people can go on and on about how all research is agenda-driven, but then at the same time, they unequivocally support other research whose political conclusions they agree with, and hold those studies up as the absolute truth, even if they were funded by the The Heartland Institute.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by finketr

This just in; Climate change killed the dinosaurs, the stromatolytes (spelling), etc, etc, etc,etc

This just in, the future is different than the past!

[JPhillips]

This idea that there's no middle between doing nothing and destroying all technology is maddening. There's a lot we can do that will have very little impact on the way we live.

[Warhammer]

As someone who had kids during the autism/vaccines issue, it was a widely held belief that the studies were true.

You asked for an example, I provided one, and now that isn't good enough. If you want to ask specific studies, I'll be more than happy to answer,.

Regarding technologies, I never said all. However, I think we are being naive if we aren't going to have to give up some of what we take for granted for us to reduce CO2 by the amount they say we need to. Plus, I am sick of the target being CO2. There are far other worse greenhouse gases that are worse pollutants that are easier to clean up. Let's start there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

As someone who had kids during the autism/vaccines issue, it was a widely held belief that the studies were true.

You asked for an example, I provided one, and now that isn't good enough. If you want to ask specific studies, I'll be more than happy to answer,.

It was literally one paper in one medical journal that was later retracted by the same medical journal. If that's your go-to example of a broad scientific consensus, than yes, I feel secure in my belief that your rejection of the global warming consensus is strictly political and result-based. If a different study has a result you prefer, you'll support it, no matter who funded it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Plus, I am sick of the target being CO2. There are far other worse greenhouse gases that are worse pollutants that are easier to clean up. Let's start there.

If the planet isn't warming and/or human activity isn't causing it, then why "start" anywhere? Isn't any research that other greenhouse gasses are bad also agenda-based, and therefore, bullshit?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

It was literally one paper in one medical journal that was later retracted by the same medical journal. If that's your go-to example of a broad scientific consensus, than yes, I feel secure in my belief that your rejection of the global warming consensus is strictly political and result-based. If a different study has a result you prefer, you'll support it, no matter who funded it.

Jenny McCarthy has a lot of pull with Warhammer.

[miked]

Yes, in fact the consensus was that the autism/vaccine link was next to nothing. Nearly every major research institute came out with studies that debunked it, including the CDC. As a scientist, there is no field that is clear cut either way, and as was said, the idea that any field agrees on something is never the case. Regardless of whether or not "global warming" exists or doesn't exists isn't really the question, it's rather clear that things we do affect our environment. It's also clear that by affecting our environment, it will change some things not to our benefit. Rather than focus on whether the planet is actually warming or cooling, it would be cool if both sides worked harder on identifying the things that actually impact our environment (one of them clearly is CO2 which is why they focus on it).

As a former resident of NJ, I think we can safely say that big companies do not have the environment in their minds when dealing with regulations, but I'm certain there are compromises to be made.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by molson

It was literally one paper in one medical journal that was later retracted by the same medical journal. If that's your go-to example of a broad scientific consensus, than yes, I feel secure in my belief that your rejection of the global warming consensus is strictly political and result-based. If a different study has a result you prefer, you'll support it, no matter who funded it.

So, you don't like my answer so you disregard anything or reason I might have, that's fine. But, ask me about other research, the autism was one that came to mind. 7 or 8 years ago, it was a hot topic in my group of friends, plus there was more than one debunked study. There were other studies that were based off of the original. One was funded by PETA, another by Greenpeace, and I forget who funded the third. But when 60 Minutes and other media outlets run stories about these things, it's pretty widespread.

This was when Jenny McCarthy got a tool caffe time on the talk show circuit due to this.

Regarding technology, I'm not saying that we are going to get rid of computers, etc., but the increased energy costs due to complying with the various proposals to cut CO2 by the levels they talk about will have a disastrous effect on the economy. Energy prices will go up, and we will need to pay more dollars out of pocket to maintain he lifestyle we have.

Again, ask me about some other studies/research and I'll give you an answer.

Also, let me ask this, if man was shown to have increased the temperature of the planet, what amount is acceptable?

[Qwikshot]

There are two issues here (I'll save the global warming piece for later)

Full disclosure: I work for a Pharm company that makes vaccines, so if that colors the argument I rather have that upfront.

First is the autism/vaccine issue. I'm going to make this clear, vaccines do not cause autism. The JAMA (highly reputable) states so:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=197365

and furthermore states kids who receive vaccines are healthier

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/jam...y-room-visits/

Now, understand, that with any drug/vaccine there can be reactions, but the risks do not outweigh the health impact from not being vaccinated.

Why there's no dispelling the vaccines-cause-autism myth. - Slate Magazine

Why there's no dispelling the vaccines-cause-autism myth. - Slate Magazine

link to the CDC view on vaccines

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._vaccines.html

link to a study in Denmark provided by Science magazine regarding Thimerosal removal and rate of autism per year.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...se_autism.html

My son is vaccinated, my daughter is vaccinated, to not do so is irresponsible, but I will abide that it's every parents decision to opt in or opt out but understand that it just doesn't impact you, and your child, it impacts others as well....

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ing_cough.html

While I understand Jenny Mc's anger because of her son's autism she is wrong about vaccines and promoting an antivaxx agenda will do harm to a lot of children.

I get that you can find articles anywhere and ultimately on a message board there is no winning an argument, but this is good data that I believe in.

[Coffee Warlord]

While I don't believe vaccines cause autism, I *do* question the massively increased number of vaccines they're wanting to push on very young children.

Though really, after discussing it with my son's pediatrician, we worked out spreading out the vaccines over a longer period of time. I find it hard to believe shooting a baby with 3-4 vaccines in one sitting is *good* (and yes, at his 2 year visit, we had a different doctor, and she was suggesting 4 different vaccine shots that day. No.)

Though I still find a chicken pox vaccine bizarre.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Though I still find a chicken pox vaccine bizarre.

From CNN:

Deaths from chickenpox (the varicella virus) have dropped 97 percent in adolescents and children since the use of the vaccine began in 1995, new analysis shows.

Hospitalizations and missed school are also way down.

[Coffee Warlord]

It's chicken pox! You find the kid who has it, you send your kids to the chicken pox party, and you're done!

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's chicken pox! You find the kid who has it, you send your kids to the chicken pox party, and you're done!

Or, if you have siblings, one gets it, all six of you get it.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

While I don't believe vaccines cause autism, I *do* question the massively increased number of vaccines they're wanting to push on very young children.

Though really, after discussing it with my son's pediatrician, we worked out spreading out the vaccines over a longer period of time. I find it hard to believe shooting a baby with 3-4 vaccines in one sitting is *good* (and yes, at his 2 year visit, we had a different doctor, and she was suggesting 4 different vaccine shots that day. No.)

Though I still find a chicken pox vaccine bizarre.

Only 4? My child had 6 in one visit.. that was very traumatic for me.


and probably for him, too

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by finketr

Only 4? My child had 6 in one visit.. that was very traumatic for me.


and probably for him, too

Yeah, I don't get it. I'm not a doctor, and I have no scientific basis for it, but I still can't fathom why injecting 6 different dead / weakened virus strains into a child at once is all that great of an idea.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Yeah, I don't get it. I'm not a doctor, and I have no scientific basis for it, but I still can't fathom why injecting 6 different dead / weakened virus strains into a child at once is all that great of an idea.

I don't know about 6 different shots, but my company makes a combo injectable. One of our vaccines is taken orally.

Again, you can state that chicken pox is no big deal, but some children (adults get shingles) react differently, it's the risk you run if you decide to face it outside of a vaccination.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Yeah, I don't get it. I'm not a doctor, and I have no scientific basis for it, but I still can't fathom why injecting 6 different dead / weakened virus strains into a child at once is all that great of an idea.

Dola,

I can only assume what the cost analysis and timing is for 6 different doctor visits for vaccinations. I'm assuming they are doing it all at once to get it over with.

Remember it's not just the shot but the body dealing with it, so if you do it at once it might suck but then it's over, but if you do it in six different trips, it's a doctor visit, a shot, and then dealing with a possible fever as the body readies it's defense.

[JPhillips]

Getting people to actually come to the doctor six times would be extremely difficult. Getting it done in as few visits as possible is the best way to provide herd immunity.

As for chickenpox, most miss school, causing the parents to miss work, some go to the hospital, which costs everyone, and a few die. I'll happily take a vaccine for that to stop.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Getting people to actually come to the doctor six times would be extremely difficult. Getting it done in as few visits as possible is the best way to provide herd immunity.

As for chickenpox, most miss school, causing the parents to miss work, some go to the hospital, which costs everyone, and a few die. I'll happily take a vaccine for that to stop.

+1

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Getting people to actually come to the doctor six times would be extremely difficult. Getting it done in as few visits as possible is the best way to provide herd immunity.

which is an important point. The reason for the vaccine schedule is a public health reason - they can't be sure they'll see those kids in teh doctor's office again.

Which means that if yo'ure a parent who is on top of your kids' health and go to the doctor regularly there's no reason you need to stick to that schedule. creating a schedule with your pediatrician is the right response, imo. The problem that gets overlooked in the autism nonsense is that vaccine policy is, understandably, directed towards kids who don't se doctors much. The approach should be different for other kids.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's chicken pox! You find the kid who has it, you send your kids to the chicken pox party, and you're done!

And everyone at the party will have a 20 percent chance to get shingles as they get older. Yay.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

There are two issues here (I'll save the global warming piece for later)

Full disclosure: I work for a Pharm company that makes vaccines, so if that colors the argument I rather have that upfront.

First is the autism/vaccine issue. I'm going to make this clear, vaccines do not cause autism. The JAMA (highly reputable) states so:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=197365

and furthermore states kids who receive vaccines are healthier

JAMA Study: Kids With Fewer Vaccines Have Fewer Doctor and Emergency Room Visits | Health Impact News

Now, understand, that with any drug/vaccine there can be reactions, but the risks do not outweigh the health impact from not being vaccinated.

Why there's no dispelling the vaccines-cause-autism myth. - Slate Magazine

Why there's no dispelling the vaccines-cause-autism myth. - Slate Magazine

link to the CDC view on vaccines

Addressing concerned parents about vaccines

link to a study in Denmark provided by Science magazine regarding Thimerosal removal and rate of autism per year.

Vaccines do not cause autism!

My son is vaccinated, my daughter is vaccinated, to not do so is irresponsible, but I will abide that it's every parents decision to opt in or opt out but understand that it just doesn't impact you, and your child, it impacts others as well....

Pertussis: Video PSA about the dangers of whooping cough.

While I understand Jenny Mc's anger because of her son's autism she is wrong about vaccines and promoting an antivaxx agenda will do harm to a lot of children.

I get that you can find articles anywhere and ultimately on a message board there is no winning an argument, but this is good data that I believe in.

Ownage.

Of course, those who don't want to believe will say the "science is tainted because someone funded it" and that "there's a religion around vaccinations".

[Autumn]

To bring it somewhat on topic, to me the biggest problem with the autism/mercury thing was not any actual science - it was what it revealed about how the companies worked. While the alarm turned out to be unfounded, there were memos of meetings revealed in which the vaccine makers made conscious decisions to ignore research or possible concerns in order to keep up sales and profits.

This is similar I suppose to how some of the people in thread feel about what the climate research community has done to bury dissenting work. While I came away from the vaccine thing not thinking that mercury caused autism, I also came away knowing that a lot of those big companies were not working in my child's interests. They were willing to bury possible problems if it threatened their bottom line.

Now it's been years and years since I read about this, and so I can't argue the particulars about the mercury thing. But whether I'm right or wrong, I think that's an issue here. When you erode the trust of the public, they stop listening to you no matter how right you are. Integrity is incredibly important in science, whether you're climate researchers or vaccine makers.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Autumn

To bring it somewhat on topic, to me the biggest problem with the autism/mercury thing was not any actual science - it was what it revealed about how the companies worked. While the alarm turned out to be unfounded, there were memos of meetings revealed in which the vaccine makers made conscious decisions to ignore research or possible concerns in order to keep up sales and profits.

This is similar I suppose to how some of the people in thread feel about what the climate research community has done to bury dissenting work. While I came away from the vaccine thing not thinking that mercury caused autism, I also came away knowing that a lot of those big companies were not working in my child's interests. They were willing to bury possible problems if it threatened their bottom line.

Now it's been years and years since I read about this, and so I can't argue the particulars about the mercury thing. But whether I'm right or wrong, I think that's an issue here. When you erode the trust of the public, they stop listening to you no matter how right you are. Integrity is incredibly important in science, whether you're climate researchers or vaccine makers.

And it's a great tool in FUD situations. Not everyone will be a perfect actor so if you can find a few bad apples in a sea of people, then you can paint all people with that same broad brush.

SI

[Autumn]

Yes, it's true, once one person has &#@ed up, then everyone else is going to have to work three times as hard to convince people of the science.

[molson]

I think the autism thing was fueled by hysterical emotion on the part of people who aren't generally otherwise interested in or versed in science - the "news" got out there and of course parents are going to latch onto it. We could probably start all kinds of crazy rumors about what's good and not good for your kids that would really resonate with well-meaning parents who are just going to naturally absorb that info and take it to heart. They're not consciously choosing a single fraudulent paper over an overwhelming scientific consensus due to political affiliation and personal bias over what they wish the consensus was, it's just bad info that gets stuck in their brain because they love their kids.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, it's true, once one person has &#@ed up, then everyone else is going to have to work three times as hard to convince people of the science.

And even that doesn't necessarily matter as we see people bringing up some out of context East Anglia emails like it's some sort of watergate-moment. Hell, we're still in the thread for that nonsense, debating it.

SI

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

I think the autism thing was fueled by hysterical emotion on the part of people who aren't generally otherwise interested in or versed in science - the "news" got out there and of course parents are going to latch onto it. We could probably start all kinds of crazy rumors about what's good and not good for your kids that would really resonate with well-meaning parents who are just going to naturally absorb that info and take it to heart. They're not consciously choosing a single fraudulent paper over an overwhelming scientific consensus due to political affiliation and personal bias over what they wish the consensus was, it's just bad info that gets stuck in their brain because they love their kids.

Not in my experience. I lived in the heart of granolaville at that time and most parents I knew read extensively about the issue, including research and scientific papers. I'm sure there were plenty others who just heard the story and swallowed it whole, but I think the sort of liberal parent that drove that reaction is generally very interested in science, but are generally skeptical of mainstream medicine and big companies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Not in my experience. I lived in the heart of granolaville at that time and most parents I knew read extensively about the issue, including research and scientific papers. I'm sure there were plenty others who just heard the story and swallowed it whole, but I think the sort of liberal parent that drove that reaction is generally very interested in science, but are generally skeptical of mainstream medicine and big companies.

It was still just one fraudulent paper that took off for whatever reason. To get back back to my previous point, have the evil corporations and politicians and universities ever managed to create a fake broader actual accepted scientific consensus on the scale of global warming? One possibility that comes to mind is the tobacco companies a few decades ago, though I don't think even that involved getting the entire academic community in on the scam. The comparison of the immediately debunked singular paper from the Lancet and the global warming consensus is just preposterous to me.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I don't know about 6 different shots, but my company makes a combo injectable. One of our vaccines is taken orally.

Again, you can state that chicken pox is no big deal, but some children (adults get shingles) react differently, it's the risk you run if you decide to face it outside of a vaccination.

My daughter just had your stuff!

[cartman]

“Hockey stick graph” climate researcher’s defamation suit to go forward | Ars Technica

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

“Hockey stick graph” climate researcher’s defamation suit to go forward | Ars Technica

And just so I understand this right, Mann's research (and I guess by implication, those scientists who agree with him), is agenda-driven and thus bullshit, but the attacks on him, including the comparisons to the Sandusky scandal, are purely scientific.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And even that doesn't necessarily matter as we see people bringing up some out of context East Anglia emails like it's some sort of watergate-moment. Hell, we're still in the thread for that nonsense, debating it.

SI

Did you read the emails? There was so much in there that context is rather impossible to miss.

I know the Mann defense was to say pieces were taken out of context. Perhaps some bloggers did that, but the two main themes were repeated: control of journals and tricks used to show hockey-stick effects.

This isn't some tin-foil ranting. It was a carefully-planned attempt by a group of people central to the study of long-term temperature change (people who still are doing this) to control debate.

Watergate was something entirely different. Government spying is a lot more sophisticated today, and seemingly a lot less controversial.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

And just so I understand this right, Mann's research (and I guess by implication, those scientists who agree with him), is agenda-driven and thus bullshit, but the attacks on him, including the comparisons to the Sandusky scandal, are purely scientific.

Apples and oranges, again. Mann sued because he doesn't like being called a fraud. He says being "investigated" by his friends and found not guilty is a shield against accusations that he deliberately created wonky algorithms to show the hockey stick effect. I'd be surprised if his suit wins, though the courts do weird things every now and then. In this case, he's the church claiming heresy is a crime.

The comparisons to the Sandusky case are not accusations Mann molests children. It's that an "investigation" was also made at Penn State into allegations against Sandusky, and similarly failed to prevent bad behavior. Which was an interesting comparison, but certainly not a scientific one. Universities are not good places to conduct balanced investigations - they have too much at stake to look too closely.

[molson]

Whether or not the attacks violate any laws, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute clearly have their own political bias and agenda. I'm not sure why that doesn't count to the skeptics (at least when they trumpet those attacks as sound and hold up as truth the conclusions of like-minded and funded research). If you're going to reject a scientific consensus as broad as this one, I think you need more than extreme conservative bloggers on your side, or else your claims of bias and agendas just sound ridiculous.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Did you read the emails? There was so much in there that context is rather impossible to miss.

I know the Mann defense was to say pieces were taken out of context. Perhaps some bloggers did that, but the two main themes were repeated: control of journals and tricks used to show hockey-stick effects.

This isn't some tin-foil ranting. It was a carefully-planned attempt by a group of people central to the study of long-term temperature change (people who still are doing this) to control debate.

Watergate was something entirely different. Government spying is a lot more sophisticated today, and seemingly a lot less controversial.

And I've always thought that it reads a lot more like a politics spat at work ("I don't like that the journal published a paper that says mine is wrong so we're taking our ball and going home") by a guy who sounds like an asshole in Mann. But if you're looking for a reason to destroy credibility, you can introduce enough uncertainty with it.

SI

[Warhammer]

Just so nothing is misconstrued, any one who thinks vaccination is riskier than not getting one needs to do some research on the major childhood diseases and the reduction in the death rate and infection rate in countries that require vaccination.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Just so nothing is misconstrued, any one who thinks vaccination is riskier than not getting one needs to do some research on the major childhood diseases and the reduction in the death rate and infection rate in countries that require vaccination.

I'm not following your question. Are you saying not giving them vaccinations would result in no change?

This is what happens when you don't vaccinate, and this isn't even an injectable

Polio Eradication Suffers A Setback As Somali Outbreak Worsens : Shots - Health News : NPR

This is the CDC's viewpoint on if the world stopped giving vaccinations for multiple types of childhood diseases (measles, mumps, etc)

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations

A highlight should we stop measles vaccines

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly 900,000 measles-related deaths occurred among persons in developing countries in 1999. In populations that are not immune to measles, measles spreads rapidly. If vaccinations were stopped, each year about 2.7 million measles deaths worldwide could be expected.

Here's regarding chicken pox

Prior to the licensing of the chickenpox vaccine in 1995, almost all persons in the United States had suffered from chickenpox by adulthood. Each year, the virus caused an estimated 4 million cases of chickenpox, 11,000 hospitalizations, and 100-150 deaths.

JAMA and the World Health Orgs plan for vaccinations in 3rd world countries

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=203091

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003

WHO plan for developing countries (they want more vaccines to prevent deaths, page 7 and 8 explain the goals)

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_fil.../A66_19-en.pdf

Here's a reasonable site/blog that can answer some questions:

Science-Based Medicine

If you are talking about that vaccines uncensored site, there were no references, it seemed that some of them may have been taken out of context but here's something in regards to developing countries...

From the CEO of the Univ of Maryland Medical Center

Vaccines in the developing world

Vaccine use in the developing world will have the greatest opportunity to prevent infection, reduce morbidity and mortality dramatically and ultimately have a major positive economic impact for these peoples and countries. It is a medical megatrend to be hoped for.

[Autumn]

I think you're misunderstanding him, Qwikshot. He was saying what youre saying.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think you're misunderstanding him, Qwikshot. He was saying what youre saying.

Yeah I thought I might be, I didn't want to jump down anyone's throat...I just know there are antivaccination viewpoints that vaccines didn't do much for developing countries and that's definately not true...still I wanted to provide some data.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sixty trillion dollars!!!!!!

Global Price Tag for Arctic Thawing: $60 Trillion - Yahoo! Weather

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sixty trillion dollars!!!!!!

Global Price Tag for Arctic Thawing: $60 Trillion - Yahoo! Weather

but think of all the extra water that could be used in the sahara, the atacama, and middle eastern deserts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by finketr

but think of all the extra water that could be used in the sahara, the atacama, and middle eastern deserts.

Sixty trillion dollars!!!!!!!

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sixty trillion dollars!!!!!!!

I'm not sure if you don't believe or you do...uncontrolled methane launched into the atmosphere will have dire dire effects on life as we know it.

Same goes with the oceans, if they continue to warm up and acidify giant deposits of methane will be released and once that starts you can't really stop it.