UN to Say It Overstated AIDS Cases.

1. Nov 20, 2007

chemisttree

WHOA!

Craig Timberg, Washington Post

Yeah, lets hope they haven't screwed the pooch on this one.

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

2. Nov 20, 2007

Staff: Mentor

When the facts don't match the "conclusions" eventually the truth can no longer be held back by the political yes men.

3. Nov 20, 2007

Moridin

The UN has done nothing to fix the HIV/AIDS issue. It has been up for discussion in the GA and the SC, but nothing has been done. The main argument seems to be whether to use the term 'homosexual' or not in their reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7103855.stm

Most countries do not report their cases. At all.

As a side note, isn't it time to give up on the human-aided global warming denial?

4. Nov 20, 2007

Staff: Mentor

There is no denial, you can't deny something that hasn't been proven.

5. Nov 20, 2007

Plastic Photon

This sounds like it could be a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry and related industries who bank off such disaster scenarios as world AIDs epidemic or chicken fever.

6. Nov 20, 2007

Yonoz

How much money can they make out of that poor continent? Their efforts are better spent selling cough syrup and sleeping pills in North America, and exotic extracts and soy products in Europe. :tongue2:
Incidentally, soy cultivation happens to be a major cause of Amazon deforestation.

7. Nov 20, 2007

Economist

This always happens. I am not suprised at all.

8. Nov 20, 2007

Art

They seem to have learned from past errors. Now their predictions are over a 100 year timespan so unfortunately if/when it is proven to be wrong there'll be no-one left alive to say I told you so.

If the world temperature falls in the meantime they'll either claim it as a success for their policies being enacted or do another U-turn and revert to their anthropogenic snowball Earth theory

It really is a case of heads I win tails you lose.

9. Nov 20, 2007

siddharth

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7103163.stm)

Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. Anyway, what does the IPCC report have to do with this? It's apples and oranges.

But, people can (and indeed, do) deny the current scientific consensus, that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Do you?

Last edited: Nov 20, 2007
10. Nov 21, 2007

Staff: Mentor

The "consensus" lacks scientific proof. It's really just a "politically correct" consensus. I'll point you to one of Vanesch's excellent posts as he is a scientist and explains the problem quite well.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1467020&postcount=65

11. Nov 21, 2007

chemisttree

You say tomato, I say tomahhto, you say potato, I say potahhto. You say its apples and oranges, I say it's fruit salad...

Have a happy Thanksgiving, Siddharth!

12. Nov 21, 2007

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
You are correct Siddharth. There is a concensus based on the best minds in the business. All other opinions are moot.

We will never have absolute proof. Science doesn't work that way. The confidence in AGW at least 90%.

Last edited: Nov 21, 2007
13. Nov 21, 2007

Art

Saying the confidence level expressed by the IPCC is 90% is a little like saying the RC church is 90% confident of the existence of God. It provides 'proof' for the believers of their faith but is irrelevent to those not party to the religion which is what AGW is these days - a religion. Totally faith based - never to be questioned and never to be doubted. There are even analogies for the miracles which religion uses to 'proove' their cause such as the polar bear extinction nonsense which is probably one of the least scientific pieces of rubbish ever published with the exception perhaps of some of the other GW sensationalist nonsense publications also masquerading as science.

Out of interest mankind's total contribution to greenhouse gasses is 0.28% do you really believe such a trivial figure can make much difference to GW or that reducing this figure to 0.26% will have Earth saving consequences? Even taking the 'notorious' CO2 alone man's contribution is 11 billion tonnes a year whilst nature's is 210 billion tonnes a year.

Last edited: Nov 21, 2007
14. Nov 22, 2007

mjsd

true to a certain extent, the conclusion on AGW is highly dependent on the climate model that one employs. you may trust model A, I may trust model B ....

One thing is clear however, human activities have so far done more harm than good to our enviroment.

this "new insight" (or simply admittance of past exaggeration) could potentially mean a few things:
1. less future fundings for South Africa on AIDS related drugs, programs
2. a better image for South Africa, as it is not as plagued as first thought
3. a better image for the UN, as an effective force against AIDS in Africa
among other possibilities

seriously, there is no way of telling their initial motivation behind the gross overestimations in the past, and why they'd admitted it now.

15. Nov 22, 2007

ShawnD

How so? People only buy drugs if they have the illness, not if they think they may have the illness based on UN speculation. In any event, Africa doesn't pay for drugs. Drugs are given to Africa as a PR thing to say "look how nice we are to Africans, now please pay us $1200 per month for Atripla" (Atripla is an HIV medication, retail value is$1200/month in the US).

I used to work for Gilead, the company that makes the emtricitabine portion of Atripla. We had several meetings about the huge profit margin on emtricitabine, and why employees should contribute 15% of their income towards the stock purchase plan. The vast majority of money made on that drug was in the US since the price in the US is 10x that of India, and about 20x that of Africa.

edit: and good job on derailing an AIDS thread to talk about global warming. If you bring it up enough times, somebody will eventually give a rat's ass.

Last edited: Nov 22, 2007
16. Nov 22, 2007

Art

You did actually read the OP eh??

Obviously not!

Last edited: Nov 22, 2007
17. Nov 22, 2007

ShawnD

Did you ever read that sign in the magical zoo that says "don't feed the trolls"? Same applies to forums. He started a thread under the pretext of it being about AIDS then ended it with a comment about global warming, and people chose to jump on the global warming comment. Another potentially interesting thread goes down the drain.

18. Nov 22, 2007

Skyhunter

19. Nov 22, 2007

Art

If you want a thread specific to AIDS then why not start one?

I may be wrong but I read it as the originator of this thread wanted to highlight UN mendacity which seems a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion.

20. Nov 22, 2007

Art

So the climate is changing. This isn't exactly surprising, the wonder would be if it wasn't.

Can you point to any period in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history the climate hasn't changed? In fact only 10,000 years ago Birmingham in the UK was under a mile of ice and the island of Ireland was populated by people who walked there from Britain.

The question is how does our 0.28% contribution to GHG materially affect climate?