The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
55semireef
Moved On
Apes decended from us. Now thats a joke. I would like to see you argue that one. haha...have fun!
I am up all for it.
Justin -
You continue to miss the point. You confuse correlation with causality. Causality (AKA proof of effect) is sufficiently shown by the scientific process when a study shows statistical significance when comparing treatment and control groups. Generally a p value equal or < 0.05. While there is a 5% chance in this setting that we rejected the null hypothesis when we shouldn't have, it is generally considered good enough. Without a control group all bets are off. Therefore, it is poor form to discuss your THEORY as DOGMA...this is what I call junk science and I reject it.
Just slightly off topic from Reefs, Ya think?
55semireef
Moved On
Hey I love this thread. Its like a big thread with all mini threads in it. I like all the different debates going on.
55semireef
Moved On
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7896876#post7896876 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Ever hear of coral bleaching events due to excessively warm sea water temperatures?
Its happenening right now. Major issue. Correct me if I am wrong but I think its going on in the Carribean.
justinzimm
New member
walagrade, so what you are saying in your last post is if science can prove within a 5% certainty that CO2 is correlated to global warming then it's considered good enough to be proven? Then that will this "proof" be enough for you and others to change their minds?
I don't know how we could statistically quantify the data provided to support CO2 causing Global Warming but I would like to think we are close to proving it within 5% of a doubt. At least in the viewpoint of allot of NOAA scientists and myself.
I don't know how we could statistically quantify the data provided to support CO2 causing Global Warming but I would like to think we are close to proving it within 5% of a doubt. At least in the viewpoint of allot of NOAA scientists and myself.
Reef_bones
New member
Why you guys even worry about environmental issues is beyond me, Its just a matter of time before Nukes start flying and it won't matter... THE WHOLE WORLD HATES US...
I prefer this dooms day scenario, at least in this one it was someone else's fault....
I prefer this dooms day scenario, at least in this one it was someone else's fault....
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Well, wlagarde, my girlfriend is in her 3rd year of med school, and you got her riled up with your comments. So, this is her comment to you:
wlagarde-
I would like to address your example of double-blinded clinical trials as a real science and that, by your argument, other forms of science are “junk science.†The purpose of double-blinded clinical trials is to answer the question “is a form of treatment effective for a given population?†in a yes or no fashion. They are not, however, a perfect science and give no information as to the physiology of a particular drug or treatment. How many of your patients were on Vioxx? How many of your patients were on hormone replacement therapy? Both of these drugs were proven to be effective through clinical trials, were widely used by the medical community, and were subsequently found to have dangerous side effects. How did this happen? It happened because the clinical trials told us nothing about HOW these drugs worked. Even the most elegant of clinical trials cannot PROVE that ‘a’ CAUSES ‘b’ or tell us HOW the two are connected. They simply tell us IF the two are connected or not. Clinical trials should not be blindly followed as the final word in medical science.
Furthermore, only a portion of medical knowledge comes from clinical trials. A substantial portion of our knowledge comes from case studies that do not have defined controls. Is your own knowledge, that which you rely upon everyday, junk science? As to your objection of not having a control to test global warming theory, the use of models is sufficient. Medical sciences also use models to learn about human biology and the etiology of disease. Would you throw out research on Alzheimer’s and diabetes because the subjects were mice? Would you rather we experiment on humans for greater control?
As a physician, you are an expert in the field of medicine, but you are not an expert in all fields of science. I suggest that you educate yourself as to the methods used to control for error in fields of ecology and climatology, because these methods do exist. As for calling them “junk science,†the greater scientific community, and the majority of people with more experience in general science than you, disagree. Oh yes, I forgot, physicians are the most objective of all scientists by your estimation and everyone else in the scientific community is biased. Tell me then, when was the last time you received a free lunch, pen, pad of paper, or samples from a drug rep?
Our chosen profession is based on both objectivity and compassion. Based on your disregard for other sciences, you seem to be lacking in objectivity. Based on your condescending tone towards others in this forum, you seem to be lacking in compassion. It is these kinds of actions that perpetuate the stereotype of the arrogant physician.
The truth is clinical trials are not perfect science, and you too rely on information that is “junk science†by your definition. You cannot, therefore, use this analysis to discredit that which is painfully clear.
wlagarde-
I would like to address your example of double-blinded clinical trials as a real science and that, by your argument, other forms of science are “junk science.†The purpose of double-blinded clinical trials is to answer the question “is a form of treatment effective for a given population?†in a yes or no fashion. They are not, however, a perfect science and give no information as to the physiology of a particular drug or treatment. How many of your patients were on Vioxx? How many of your patients were on hormone replacement therapy? Both of these drugs were proven to be effective through clinical trials, were widely used by the medical community, and were subsequently found to have dangerous side effects. How did this happen? It happened because the clinical trials told us nothing about HOW these drugs worked. Even the most elegant of clinical trials cannot PROVE that ‘a’ CAUSES ‘b’ or tell us HOW the two are connected. They simply tell us IF the two are connected or not. Clinical trials should not be blindly followed as the final word in medical science.
Furthermore, only a portion of medical knowledge comes from clinical trials. A substantial portion of our knowledge comes from case studies that do not have defined controls. Is your own knowledge, that which you rely upon everyday, junk science? As to your objection of not having a control to test global warming theory, the use of models is sufficient. Medical sciences also use models to learn about human biology and the etiology of disease. Would you throw out research on Alzheimer’s and diabetes because the subjects were mice? Would you rather we experiment on humans for greater control?
As a physician, you are an expert in the field of medicine, but you are not an expert in all fields of science. I suggest that you educate yourself as to the methods used to control for error in fields of ecology and climatology, because these methods do exist. As for calling them “junk science,†the greater scientific community, and the majority of people with more experience in general science than you, disagree. Oh yes, I forgot, physicians are the most objective of all scientists by your estimation and everyone else in the scientific community is biased. Tell me then, when was the last time you received a free lunch, pen, pad of paper, or samples from a drug rep?
Our chosen profession is based on both objectivity and compassion. Based on your disregard for other sciences, you seem to be lacking in objectivity. Based on your condescending tone towards others in this forum, you seem to be lacking in compassion. It is these kinds of actions that perpetuate the stereotype of the arrogant physician.
The truth is clinical trials are not perfect science, and you too rely on information that is “junk science†by your definition. You cannot, therefore, use this analysis to discredit that which is painfully clear.
I'd love to let wlagarde speak for himself and I can't wait to hear his reponse, but I can't help it, I gotta...
Students think their so smart even though the sum total of their knowledge is that which was filtered through to them by their instructors. If only students would listen more and talk less. Forming an opinion while in school should be a crime. Anyway thats ad hominem, let just respond to some specifics.
Any science that does not use scientific method is junk science. Its not my opinion, that's just the way it is. If you want to argue the point then fine, but your on the wrong side of 5000 years of development.
Vioxx is an interesting point. It is a very, very, effective pain releaver. In some cases it was the only choice. It was a godsend to arthritis suffer's. In very very rare cases it caused heart problems. Many people if asked would take the risk to get rid of the intense pain they felt. But be that as it may, the fact that drugs get through the trial process and are later found to have adverse side effects had nothing to do with the science behind them. The science is good. The methods are sound. If anything, in a global warming debate, it shows how biting off too big of a problem can skew results. In clinical trials the problem is that humans have very long life spans and number 6 billion. To follow them for years is impractical and to calculate statistical probabilities down to the nth degree in a population of 6 billion is impossible with random sampling. Kind of like trying to predict a global temperature variation of .6 degrees C with the scale and complexity of planets climate. And of course if there's a better option than clinical trials, I'd love to hear it.
Anyway Hippie, I don't know what you did to get your girl so worked up. I guess to critisize junk science is insensitive. Oh and if she wants to play, explain the rules to her
What are those controls? You have to name them and source your answer.
Mike
PS. BTW the oceans temps are cooler than last year. Has the scientist's stumped. What's up with that?
Students think their so smart even though the sum total of their knowledge is that which was filtered through to them by their instructors. If only students would listen more and talk less. Forming an opinion while in school should be a crime. Anyway thats ad hominem, let just respond to some specifics.
Any science that does not use scientific method is junk science. Its not my opinion, that's just the way it is. If you want to argue the point then fine, but your on the wrong side of 5000 years of development.
Vioxx is an interesting point. It is a very, very, effective pain releaver. In some cases it was the only choice. It was a godsend to arthritis suffer's. In very very rare cases it caused heart problems. Many people if asked would take the risk to get rid of the intense pain they felt. But be that as it may, the fact that drugs get through the trial process and are later found to have adverse side effects had nothing to do with the science behind them. The science is good. The methods are sound. If anything, in a global warming debate, it shows how biting off too big of a problem can skew results. In clinical trials the problem is that humans have very long life spans and number 6 billion. To follow them for years is impractical and to calculate statistical probabilities down to the nth degree in a population of 6 billion is impossible with random sampling. Kind of like trying to predict a global temperature variation of .6 degrees C with the scale and complexity of planets climate. And of course if there's a better option than clinical trials, I'd love to hear it.
Anyway Hippie, I don't know what you did to get your girl so worked up. I guess to critisize junk science is insensitive. Oh and if she wants to play, explain the rules to her
What are those controls? You have to name them and source your answer.
Mike
PS. BTW the oceans temps are cooler than last year. Has the scientist's stumped. What's up with that?
I beleive Mike sums up the Vixx issue very well and I will second his response and make one addition to complement it. the fact that Vioxx had an unforseen side effect is no surprise. Many drugs make it to market. In the process (clinical trial) efficacy is always proven. However, low incidence side-effects (very low incidence that is) are generally not uncovered because the numbers although relatively large are not great enough to be uncovered. Thankfully (as opposed to what most beleive), post-marketing surveilance and phase four clnical trials in time generally pick up these problems if they exist...unfortunately it often takes while for "the curves to diverge" and the problem discovered. Hippie acts so smug about the Vioxx issue and implies that the drug was a failure...I see another side. If you "run the numbers" the reduction in deaths from GI bleeds (because people are on Vioxx) is greater than the additional deaths from heart attack. So in reality, the drug is a success. If the drug company had not made a financial decision and voluntaraly withdrawn the drug from market (because I'm sure they felt it wasn't worth dealing with frivilous law suits, liability, etc), it would still be a good drug. Luckily we still have Celebrex (another COX 2 inhibitor) which also increases heart attack risk...but is obviously still on the market. Why?...because the patient sees an overall benefit using the drug in spite of it's side effect.
Lastly, I will respond to Hippe's incedible comment above: Actually, as someone who has been in the field of scientific research for about 18 years and one who is a basic science researcher as well as a physician, I have nothing more than a healthy respect for good quality scientific research. Unfortunately, all too often poorly conducted and biased work ends up in the literature. I have been involved in toxicology, the drug dicsovery process, and now basic science research in brain growth, development, and injury as well as clinical research. Over the years it has become clear to me that it is critical that research be conducted in an appropriate fashion with appropriate controls and when limitations in study design are present, the results reported acknowledging those limitations and being consevative with the conclusions drawn. Unfortunately many represent research in baised light and lead the impre3ssionable masses to conclusions that can not be conclusively drawn. This is propaganda, it lacks balance, and it is irresponsible.
Also, Hippie, your girl-friend has made an assumption that because my responses in this forum have been stongly worded that I do not care and have no compasion for my patients. I imagine if she had the opportunity to talk to my patients she would be surprised to find the exact opposite.
I just have one thing to say about this discussion. I received a BS degree in marine biology in 1980 from Western Washington State University, not that that's any great achievement. The reason I bring it up is because at that time the theory was that we were about to enter a global ice age for the same reasons they are now giving for global warming. There was an article published in Time magazine purporting the coming ice age.
I'm skeptical.
I'm skeptical.
studies schmudies... the earth is a living thing.. nothing we do can change how it wants to work. we can study the impact of pollutants till we die.. but the earth has been dying since it was created.
just like us.
live your life.
you stress too much. chill man.
and no i'm not a tree hugger.
tony.
just like us.
live your life.
you stress too much. chill man.
and no i'm not a tree hugger.
tony.
- Status
Similar threads
