Drug Company Disguised Advertising As Science 172
ananyo writes "A former pharmaceutical company employee has blown the whistle on drug promotion disguised as science. Drug companies occasionally conduct post-marketing studies to collect data on the safety and efficacy of drugs in the real world, after they've been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'However,' writes the anonymous author in an editorial in the British Medical Journal (subscription required), 'some of the [post-marketing] studies I worked on were not designed to determine the overall risk:benefit balance of the drug in the general population. They were designed to support and disseminate a marketing message.' According to the whistleblower, the results of these studies were often dubious. 'We occasionally resorted to "playing" with the data that had originally failed to show the expected result,' he says. 'This was done by altering the statistical method until any statistical significance was found.' He adds that the company sometimes omitted negative results and played down harmful side effects. Nature says it was unable to work out who the writer was but they likely worked on diabetes and the studies criticized were from the Denmark-based pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk."
zzzz (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if big Pharma was actually honest that would merit a story.
SOP.
Re:zzzz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
huh? I wasn't paying attention.
Re:zzzz (Score:4, Funny)
tl;dr
Re: (Score:2)
Tl;dr
Re: (Score:2)
To do nothing for the gomers was to do something, and the more conscientiously I did nothing the better they got.
â Samuel Shem
Re: (Score:2)
and? Frr people who continually show up in ER with vaguen non deterministic symptoms' its good advice. But what's it have to do with the conversation?
Not to mention the book is incredibly dated.
Re:zzzz (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of the time it is.
You have been brainwashed by anti medical science FUD.
Not when it comes to Big Pharma. They are impressively consistent. About the only thing they've done of late is to get more subtle.
Even with all of the rules and regulations foisted on them to be more ethical, they will skirt the law and ethics are hard as they can. 'Unrestricted' educational grants to seminars who have speakers who get money from the very same company who inevitably have a positive spin for the drug or device the company is marketing. Yes, the spins are getting more nuanced - in the past they were just openly blatant about it, now they will discuss some positive data, a dribble of controversy and then come up with a positive recommendation.
And don't even get me started on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.......
Re:zzzz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:zzzz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:zzzz (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, there are parts of "Big Pharma" that are 'good guys'. People who believe in the mission of making good pharmaceutical products to help people. And there certainly is a bit of hyperbole here (surprise!) on Slashdot. Not everything is an evil conspiracy and the drug companies are not holding back 'cures' in order to milk the system. Remember not to ascribe to malice what is best explained by incompetence - human biology, as I suspect you know from your nic - is hard. Very hard.
But, Big Pharma has an
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Big Pharma used to be much worse (though it was more like little Pharma back then) - peddling snake oil and such. Then it got much better and really peaked at the very end of the 90s.
The problem was that they ran into a wall where newer products were just not better enough to continue with the cost increases, and that created difficulty maintaining the kinds of profits the MBAs wanted, so the games started.
Oh sure, there have been problems throughout that time, but the scientists used to have a lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:zzzz (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that a lot of drugs that work TOO WELL do not in fact make money. Take a look at vaccines for example. You need one shot every ten years for most standard vaccines. They have extremely high success chance. And they're not making any meaningful money, because they are simply not needed that often.
On the other hand, psychotropic drugs that are designed to combat depression? Shitty success rate in comparison, but profit leaders.
Re: (Score:3)
Viagra is an accident. They were trying to make heart pills. In fact, I'd say easily quite a few of these "drugs that work" are actually drugs that didn't work, but just so happened to do something else as a useful side effect. And as it happens, a lot of the drugs that work are actually the result of university or other publicly funded medical research organisations.
Re:zzzz (Score:4, Interesting)
Direct to consumer advertising isn't all bad. Especially since some doctors are wooed so easily. At least for the critical-thinking consumer, it's been a plus. There's an awareness that there's never been before. Knowing that there is a possible chemical fix to a problem, knowing the side-effects even if they are stated very quickly, and knowing the competition. A doctor who's been compromised by unethical marketing is not going to tell you all the risks, side effects, or even generic alternatives. Having foreknowledge of common pharmaceuticals has helped me greatly in doing my own basic research before I take medicine for anything.
Big Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree on this. It has been my experience that they really don't give two shits about actually curing anything - a great many (if not most) of the drugs that are made simply treat they symptoms and not the root cause. Just why is this? PROFIT! Actually curing anything leads to lower profits in the future. They must keep the investors happy you know.
The best way to good health is to eat good foods in reasonable portions, exercise, and keep the weight off. Limiting exposure to harmful chemicals
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from antibiotics and anti viral medications (which scare the shit out of me, honestly), all drugs treat only symptoms. You ether keep taking them until you get better due to some other natural process, or you keep taking them for the rest of your life, unless you want your symptoms to return. And what's worse, they pretty much all have harmful side-effects. I cringe when I see older people taking handfuls of drugs three times a day. How could all that possibly be necessary? Wouldn't it be better just
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
>How could all that possibly be necessary?
They're old. Stuff starts going wrong.
>Wouldn't it be better just to suffer through whatever symptoms they have?
No. Suffering through the symptoms of diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation pretty much sucks and also leads to earlier death than otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming someone had all three of those conditions, it would explain only three medications. The problem, of course, is that even in older patients, conditions like those are experienced by less than 10% of individuals. So there is definitely something seriously wrong, regardless of your ability to cite a few conditions you may want to treat. Furthermore, in the case of type 2 diabetes and hypertension, there are preventative lifestyle choices that are far more effective than any drug, if the warning signs
Re: (Score:2)
And stay away from any and all bacteria and viruses... whoops, you just got an allergy. Oh, and stay inside, too, because that bus causes cancer. [nytimes.com]
Sorry, but you must be very young and gullible. "The best way to good health is to eat good foods in reasonable portions, exercise, and keep the weight off" is absolute bullshit. Yes, those things are all good for you (having good genes is even better) but they won't stop you from catching cold or the flu or e-coli [go.com].
You WILL get sick. You WILL die. Living a healthy
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry Buckwheat. Go Fish!
I know that I should not feed the Troll, but sometimes I feel the need. You sir, are a Troll.
I certainly do not advocate the 'disinfect everything' lifestyle. To do so would be a foolish thing indeed. And I don't really give a fuck if the bus causes cancer.
It is generally accepted that adopting healthy eating habits can improve your health. Eating shit will most certainly make your life miserable later - but often sooner. To argue that would make you a moron.
Personally, I have
Re:Big Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because it's the status quo doesn't make it right.
Apathy is what allows this crap to continue.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Just look at the latest generation of psoriasis drugs. Their lists of severe side effects is a mile long, and to me seem just as bad or possibly even worse than the disease they treat. Do you want your whole immune system knocked out to treat mild to moderate psoriasis. I enjoy not having to constantly worry about pneumonia TB and systemic fungal infections.
Re: (Score:3)
Or like Ambien - a sleep aid - can lead to sleep-driving.
Re: (Score:2)
You should check out some of the latest biologic-based treatments for psoriasis that are "in the pipeline:" http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm0512-638 [doi.org]
Biologics typically have the benefit of being very specific against their target with few - if any - side effects. The downside is usually the cost/method of treatment, but thats another story...
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is: I don't care about psoriasis at all. I'm not affected by it, and I don't know of anyone I know personally who has it. I was just offering a counter example to a troll I should have just let starve
Re:Big Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Their lists of severe side effects is a mile long, and to me seem just as bad or possibly even worse than the disease they treat.
That's a value judgement better left to the suffer of psoriasis, don't you think? Those side effects don't appear in every user, they appear in some fraction. What do you do if one of the side effects appears when you use the drug? Tell your doctor and get off it. That's exactly what happened when I was put on a blood pressure med. (Or a cholesterol one, I don't remember which.) One potential side effect was a cough, which I got. Told Doc, switched drugs, cough gone, new drug working.
One potential side effect of the blood pressure med is feeling light headed when standing suddenly. Ok, I can deal with that. I used to have low blood pressure so I know how to minimize that. Now I have reasonable pressure and less chance of stroke or blowing a kidney. I'll take the side effect over either of those problems any day.
Do you want your whole immune system knocked out to treat mild to moderate psoriasis.
I don't have psoriasis, so I can't know how bad it is or how much I would risk to get rid of the problem. Do you?
I enjoy not having to constantly worry about pneumonia TB and systemic fungal infections.
So do I. I also enjoy not having psoriasis.
Life is made up of risks. Some are worth taking. Some aren't. You choose one way. Someone else may choose another. And when they choose another, they may wind up not having the side effect that you seem so worried about. It's hard to know what someone else is going through and know if they should risk a 1% chance of a side effect to get relief from their medical problem. You are probably aware that every major surgical procedure has a potential side effect of death from anesthesia issues, don't you? Should all major surgery for everyone be stopped because you don't think the risk is worth it?
Re: (Score:2)
I was just being reactive and reductionist in response to the obvious flamebait. I should have just modded him down instead.
When you have points use em or lose em.
In order to save us a lot of time... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
The Pharmaceutical companies don't strap you into a seat and toss pills down your throat all will-nilly.
On the contrary, I think this is exactly what they did by pushing the PREP and MSEHPA acts.
Whether the politicians do it "for the greater good" or not doesn't change that it's the Pharmaceutical companies that sponsor it, because enforced medication whether needed or not means more money for them.
Everyone does this (Score:4, Insightful)
This was done by altering the statistical method until any statistical significance was found
I'm convinced that backing into a conclusion by playing with analysis is the raison d'être of most white collar work in the Western world. Using 'risk' models to rationalize market positions enables arbitrary use of capital by so-called banks. Economic and climate analysis pretty much boil down to teasing out curves that fit the preconceived policies of various statists.
Not surprising that multi-billion dollar drug companies.leverage the same tools. Monkey see monkey do.
Re:Everyone does this (Score:4, Insightful)
George Carlin said it best:
Cuz ya do know folks, Ya do know, livng in this country you know, that every time you're exposed to advertising you realize once again that America's leading industry, America's most profitable business is still the manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and marketing of BULLSHIT. High quality, Grade A, Prime cut, Pure American BULLSHIT.
And the sad part is, Most people seem indoctorinated to believe that bullshit only comes from certain places, certain sources. Advertising, politics, salesmen, not true. Bullshit is everywhere, bullshit is rampant. Parents are full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law enforcment people are full of shit, this entire country is completely full of shit, and always has been, from the Declaration of Independance, to the Constitution, to the Star Spangled Banner, it's really nothing more than one BIG steaming pile of red white and blue all Americian BULLSHIT.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is all probably true for his time. But since then, the manufacturing has been outsourced to Canada since they have more cows.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure. It's all bullshit. And, as another commenter remarked, Penn and Teller even have a show about it. But, do you know what is worse than "red white and blue all American BULLSHIT"? UN bullshit. Iranian bullshit. Russian bullshit. Peoples' Republic of China bullshit. Absolute-monarchy bullshit. Anarchist bullshit. Seriously, if you're going to be that cynical, you have to realise that the alternatives are all bullshit too.
Of course, if everything is bullshit, that really means it's just yo
Re: (Score:3)
I recall one time hearing Carlin's rant about disease. He took a really sick shot at eating disorders. It was almost as if he completely ignored mental disorders as a cause of physical problems. No, it wasn't almost, he deliberately ignored them. He was busy telling anorexics to "just eat" and bulemics to stop, and that their body dysmorphic issues were all due to their poor decision making abilities. It was their fault and they should just suck it up and stop being whatever they were.
That one rant s
Re:Everyone does this (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the only healthy response to our world right now is to laugh at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I laugh at the state of the world on a daily basis. And yes, I am one sick bastard.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am one sick bastard.
Big Pharma probably has a drug for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all so ridiculous though! Sometimes you just need to step back and take a look at it all and laugh at the absurdity. If you take it too seriously, how can you go on living?
Re:Everyone does this (Score:4, Insightful)
This was done by altering the statistical method until any statistical significance was found
I'm convinced that backing into a conclusion by playing with analysis is the raison d'être of most white collar work in the Western world.
I thought that's how we were taught to do labs back in all my science classes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame them - a lot of this is for CYA reasons. If things go tits up - you can point to a study that shows that you made the right choice.
I work in drug marketing (Score:5, Informative)
I work in drug marketing, (software dev at an ad agency) and all I can say is that my pot dealer is more ethical than a typical multinational drug company.
If it's not illegal, they will do it. If you don't want drug companies to do something, make it illegal. Libertarian nonsense won't fix this problem any more than it helps deal with other problems.
Drug companies have lawyers, and always seek to obey the law (and sometimes fail). They don't care about ethics. They care about the law, and perception. Their purpose is to maximize shareholder value, not do good for the world.
As for me... yes I sold out.. no I don't care. It's a cold world.
Let's Look at Those Two Relationships (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in drug marketing, (software dev at an ad agency) and all I can say is that my pot dealer is more ethical than a typical multinational drug company.
Well let's take a look at the relationships you propose here. Your drug dealer is a single entity, probably not making a ton of money. I mean, he's making money but he in turn pays it to the supplier and then X middle men back to whoever is growing it. It's probably not as much as a software developer. Even if he is making a lot of money, he depends on you to not rat him out to the cops. So if he starts busting your balls or raising prices and you feel like he's unfair you can just turn him over to the cops and face little or no repercussions. So he will probably be friendly, courteous and -- assuming he doesn't mix business with pleasure -- have his shit together enough to accommodate your emergency needs. He/She is the interface to your whole pot experience and has reason to make sure personally that you are a very happy camper.
... when someone wants to license a patented drug in India and Pfizer wants $200 per dosage and that means that Indian patients can't get the super expensive research compounds, people die. And when an Indian firm just makes a generic version of it, they've basically painted a target on their back for international IP laws. When something does go wrong that they are indeed liable for, you are clumped into a class action lawsuit with no voice ... you have the option to opt out of the class action lawsuit (which I think are opt in by default) but to do so would mean going toe to toe with your personal resources and lawyers against their infinite sums of both. Tell me, what incentive do they have to even give a shit about you? And you, Anonymous Coward, you are doubly F'd in the A because you work for one, so that's just more leverage they hold over your head.
Let's look at a multinational drug company. They have infinite resources, they have infinite lawyers, they will sue you on a whim, they will sue you if voice concern. They are faceless, they never meet you, they actually abuse a broken system to interface with you (HMOs and prescriptions). They operate "within the law" (like you said if it isn't illegal they'll do it) so you have no leverage on them if your relationship goes sour. In fact, if your relationship goes sour your goose is pretty much cooked. Oh, and if you manage to threaten their infinite capital, they have ways of generating more of it. When they fight amongst themselves, people die. That's how powerful they are
And I'm supposed to be surprised that your pot dealer is more ethical and humane than big pharma? He'd have to develop some pretty complicated drugs and then go on a rampage of carnage and bloodshed and looting to come close.
As for me... yes I sold out.. no I don't care. It's a cold world.
Listen, from various points of view, everyone has sold out. You live in a capitalistic society and in your employment respect you cannot hold yourself to higher standards than that unless you're okay with living on the street. And nobody should blame you for putting good food in your mouth and living in the best place you can afford. Capitalism's the name of the game and if you don't play it right, you get screwed over. So just suck it up and embrace it, I have. Might make us hypocrites but it doesn't invalidate our logic.
Re:Let's Look at Those Two Relationships (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't play the game unless you're rich enough to begin with to buy politicians off.
Because the moment you step on the field you are a target and the elite have the referees on their own payroll.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you have to compromise, and do things you believe are wrong. But to be worthy of any honest self-respect, you've still got to draw the line somewhere, make whatever kind of stand you're able to. In the long run people doing that is what keeps us from absolute barbarism. If you sold out for a bigger house or an earlier retirement when you didn't have to, then you're one of the people that made this shithole a shithole when it could have been a bit better. In that case its a cop-out to blame 'so
Re: (Score:3)
I really appreciate your comment, but I cringe at the "maximize shareholder value" meme.
The top 1% of the country owns WAY more than 50% of the stocks. The biggest shareholders are the CEO/executive class themselves. When you say "maximize shareholder value" it implies that they are doing it for "everyone" (or the 401k, normal investor, index fund investor) and I think the it's misleading. At the end of the day they are doing it for themselves and its just another selfish motive.
We also treat the "shareh
Proof (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care about laws they can get away with breaking, and I think it's blatant false advertizing to manipulate after market studies.
Treat the symptoms, not the patient. (Score:2)
It seems to me that you're only interested in treating the symptoms of the problem, which really isn't that surprising since you work in the pharmaceutical industry.
Get some perspective, Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
So, some international drug companies are lying about science just to make a profit while callously risking millions of people's heath as a consequence? What's that to me?
Do you really expect me get upset about this when Apple's new MacBook Pro is expensive and impossible to repair? It's APPLE, for cryin' out loud.
I think /. needs to get some perspective!
Re: (Score:2)
And some fairy cake!
Even Better! (Score:2)
It's APPLE, for cryin' out loud
Apples keep doctors and their evil medicine away!
Ponder about Apple, and your medical problems will solve themselves! /s
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens in for-profit research. And for that matter, if you need results to get the next grant, then you're effectively doing for-profit research. The whole practice of science, private and public is essentially profit driven. Until we start rewarding scientists for negative results as well as we do positive results, we're going to see a lot of faulty positive data published. This is why most major published results in cancer science can't be replicated, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
no.
This is what happen at ad companies... with ANY product.
"The whole practice of science, private and public is essentially profit driven."
only for an extremely liberal definition of 'profit'.
"Until we start rewarding scientists for negative results as well as we do positive results,"
science does something even better. It rewards people for finding provable fault in others work.
"we're going to see a lot of faulty positive data published"
of course. IT's to be expected. It would surprise you if you bothered
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be obtuse. If this were expected, Nature wouldn't have published the story. There are serious architectural problems with the way we do science. We'd do well to discuss them frankly.
Not the first time they're in the heat (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All true, and I wish we could rid drug companies of these parasites running the show...
However, I know somebody who has benefitted tremendously from Victoza. I think it is also an example of why we shouldn't be so afraid of "me-too" drugs - in this case Victoza is only somewhat better than Byetta, but somebody I know could not tolerate Byetta yet did great on Victoza.
While expensive, for the first time my friend was able to get their A1Cs down to around 7 from above 10, and considering they've already spen
Lies, damned lies, and statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of the field of statistics is to keep changing your models until you find one that shows the result you want. Why else do you think there are more than a dozen different normalization tests?
Re: (Score:2)
Why else do you think there are more than a dozen different normalization tests?
Multiple choice tests?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shock. (Score:2)
'We occasionally resorted to "playing" with the data that had originally failed to show the expected result,' he says.
So, what you're saying is you're from the marketing division?
Ask your doctor (Score:3)
Ask your doctor if Hypoxia(TM) is right for you!!
Re: (Score:2)
Hypoxia(TM) may cause...certain forms of cancer
But known only to the State of California.
Re: (Score:2)
So it turns you into a carnie?
Common in mass media -- not just Big Pharma (Score:4, Interesting)
Every week, we'd get news stories based on "studies": coffee is good for you, bananas are good for you, aspirin is good for, etc.
The coffee study was invariably done by retailers or growers of coffee, the same for bananas, aspirin, etc. The problem about medicine and pharmacology (or science in general, for that matter) is that you almost never get a zero-one phenomenon, and correlation does not necessarily equal causation. These ambiguities present a very large 'gray area' for the people doing these studies, unfortunately.
Add to that the fact the groups comissioning the research are going to censor out anything negative about their products, and you get an extremely unreliable information product. Trust me when I say that the husk of what remains of modern traditional journalism has neither the time, the resources, nor the inclination.
The only solution I see to this problem is for users to keep the same jaded cynicism that they should probably have for any media product, or to advocate better government regulation to separate real research from junk science.
Drug Dealers (Score:3)
just FYI, diabetes is cured now (Score:3)
unable to work out who the writer was but they likely worked on diabetes
I realize that insulin is a huge cash cow for Big Pharma in the US, but hopefully they are not so brazen as to actively lobby the FDA to attempt to prevent the cure [canada.com] (discovered 6 years ago) from reaching the millions suffering from this disease. Suspiciously, I haven't seen any major US news outlets reporting on this interesting and insanely good news for those that suffer from the disease.
Re: (Score:3)
Any number of scientists have claimed miracle cures in the past. The work will need to be replicated to establish credibility.
Additionally, mice are a poor model organism for studying obesity. Their fat metabolism is quite different from humans. They have given false hopes before to a "cure" for obesity via leptin.
Re: (Score:2)
Any number of scientists have claimed miracle cures in the past. The work will need to be replicated to establish credibility.
Additionally, mice are a poor model organism for studying obesity. Their fat metabolism is quite different from humans. They have given false hopes before to a "cure" for obesity via leptin.
Point well made. A scientifically replicatable cure for diabetes, and any sort of claimed breakthrough in medicine, is completely unnewsworthy, and the major news outlets in the US are correct to ignore it. Speaking for mice used in medical experiments everywhere, "let my people go."
Re: (Score:2)
It was the effort to develop a form of insulin that could be prepared on an industrial scale and used to treat diabetes that led to the development of modern, research-oriented commercial drug discovery. The company that first developed a cure for diabetes would become very rich indeed, and it would likely shed few tears as to the plight of other companies--even if it were true that treatment of diabetes is the financial mainstay Big Pharm. Which of course it isn't.
It is unfortunate that some irresponsible
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. This so-called 'cure' is at best a treatment.
http://jim.nord.univ-mrs.fr/IMG/pdf/TRPV1_revue-2.pdf [univ-mrs.fr]
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. This so-called 'cure' is at best a treatment.
http://jim.nord.univ-mrs.fr/IMG/pdf/TRPV1_revue-2.pdf [univ-mrs.fr]
If true, however, it is a paradigm shift in the understanding of the illness. No one before was able to prove that diabetes is neurological in origin, and , afaik, no one even suspected.
some good reading for you if you're into this (Score:2)
http://www.rushkoff.com/coercion/ [rushkoff.com]
Trust Us, We're Experts, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html [prwatch.org]
Haha (Score:2)
I was at a big medical society meeting, where they gave free silver-platter dinners to people who attended "scientific" talks by drug companies about their product. (Of course, everyone knew it was just propaganda BS; they were just there for the free meal.) The speaker gave glowing reviews to sibutramine, which the FDA had just withdrawn from the market that day. I pointed this out during the Q&A session, and the speaker was not aware of this and made quite a fool of herself.
Oh the irony (Score:2)
In one of the new stories up the front page a bit, there's a posted comment by someone who claims hearing aids are so very expensive because of all those damn pesky and unreasonable regulations his company has to follow.
$DEITY forbid the drug industry in the US ever gets deregulated. It's bad enough already with all the ads on television and radio for new pills everyone should "ask your doctor" about.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we causing global warming? Maybe.
What do we do about it if we are? First, we must determine if we are, then we must deteimne how we are; only then can we determine what to do.
What do we do about it if we're not? First, we must determine that we are not, then we must determine what is; only then can we determine what to do.
Doing *anything* about global warming until we have difinitive answers is irresponsible and dangerous. I don't know which side is right, but I do know that even after we make that dete
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, doing nothing about global warming until we have definitive answers is even more irresponsible and dangerous. In the real world, there are real hazards, critical decisions often have to be made on incomplete information.
"Isn't that a cliff ahead? Shouldn't we brake?"
"No, maybe there's a gentle decline on the other side of that ridge. What if we skid or something? Let's wait until we can see
Re: (Score:2)
The situation is different. Slamming on your breaks, you are correct, might make you skid; however, there is definitely no way it could ever bring you toward the cliff faster. Unfortunately, implementing the wrong "fix" for global warming *can* accelerate it. Obviously, you slow down to a stop when you're approaching what might be a cliff and won't be able to turn in time; less obvious is what you do when doing the wrong thing can cause what you're trying to prevent and you don't have conclusive evidence of
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, there is conclusive evidence that CO2 is substantially responsible for the warming, and therefore that reducing CO2 will ameliorate it. Almost all of the uncertainty is with respect to the severity of the consequences of failing to do so. We know it will be bad, but there is considerable uncertainty as to just how bad it will be. There is no reasonable possibility that reducing CO2 emissions will make the warming worse.
We know (a) that CO2 in the atmosphere has the capacity to warm the clim
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reasonable possibility that reducing CO2 emissions will make the warming worse.
Right. Because there's no chance that we'll replace it with something worse [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about reducing CO2 emissions, not replacing them, and certainly not with cadmium, so this is just silly. None of the alternatives to massive fossil fuel burning result in massive greenhouse gas emissions
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming produced by CO2 isn't magical; it didn't come as a surprise--the potential was recognized a century ago. So relax, there is no chance that any of the strategies for reducing CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming
Re: (Score:2)
You're implying (quite strongly, I might add) that CO2 is the only (and only possible) cause for global warming, even when faced with the fact that CO2 is, in fact, not the only contributing factor to climate change. That's grounds for me to dismiss any and all of your arguments on this issue, which I have done and will continue to do until you acknowledge this one important fact.
When we replace our industrial processes with ones that do not generate CO2, what will the byproducts of those processes be and w
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is the only factor influencing climate that has changed appreciably,, so it really is the only reasonable candidate for the cause of climat change.
Oh, we could cause global warming by releasing massive quantities of methane, but none of the measures for CO2 release reduction will do that (although there is a real worry that continued warming will cause massive release of trapped methane, which would make everything much, much worse, but that currently is not thought too likely).
So we can safely dismiss
Re: (Score:2)
The worst that happens is that we learn that our deforestation was reducing the incidence of wildfires which may well have otherwise had a larger carbon footprint than we currently do, and that by slowing that process, we accelerate global warming.
I'm not owning that as my theory, here, but I am placing it on the table as one of many "we're actually not causing it" possibilities.
If we're not causing it and, rather, are actually slowing it down, scaling back the activities that are slowing it *will* accelera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except Climate scientists have evidence, predictions, and data.
Please take you trolling elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say something snarky about the fact that its about finding a signal for another 50,000 dollar grant they don't give out for finding that the problem isn't man and just a natural cycle...
Then I got thinking, you know I bet our current Canadian Prime Minister would give out those grants, by the boatload of 50K grants for science proving this...
So if a whole bunch of Canadian based academic (aka non-industry) scientists getting Canadian grant money write up some papers saying that Climate Change
Re: (Score:2)
No, the long-term warming trend is so strong that it is statistically significant even using rather primitive statistics. You have to do tricks to make it non-significant. One common dodge is to pick a short period of time, since no matter how strong a trend is, it is always, always possible to find a time period short enough to make it fail a significance testing (for example the claim that there has been . It is even easier if you cherry-pick outliers as start or end points. That's why we so often hear cl
Re: (Score:3)
Although it's nice to have this backing it up. I'm a med student and 10% of our course is dedicated to analysis of clinical trials, and the statistical tricks drug reps use to dupe you into prescribing their new drugs.
Protip: Learn your statistics well (and your English gooder). If you have a passably advanced knowledge you can 1) understand the lies and damned lies 2) have lots of fun twisting the drug rep at conferences and meetings. Always fine quality entertainment after a night up on call.....
Re: (Score:2)
Because if I did, my doctor would run the tests and tell me, you've got whatchamacolis and hyperwheesis, I'm dialing up for you drugs X, Y, and Z. Don't worry, your plan should cover almost all of it.
At which point the question becomes "Why is this man still your doctor?"