copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-27): In August 2021, to discourage people from using ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19, the FDA tweeted "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Serious y’all. Stop It." and posted a similar message on Instagram. The tweet got nearly 106,000 likes. [...] "FDA has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19." [...] Bowden, for example, began recommending ivermectin to treat Covid in early 2020 and, according to the suit, was "derided by Houston Methodist Hospital and forced to resign her privileges there as a result." Marik was forced to resign his positions at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital for promoting the use of ivermectin after the FDA’s actions, according to the lawsuit.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-06-21): That could wind up costing you a lot more. Legally, space debris that falls to earth remains the property of the original owner. [...] Exactly. If they try to create a precedent that it's not their fault, it won't go well. [...] 2. Send somebody fairly important to render a personal apology.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-09-22): The researchers hope this some day could reduce the demand for chemicals derived from fossil fuels. Thanks to Slashdot reader echo123 for sharing the article.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-09-07): Two details about the astronauts now waiting for their February return flight from the International Space Station.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2020-01-07): FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems [...] June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information. [...] To decrease the risk of these heart problems that can be life-threatening, we are warning the public that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, either alone or combined with azithromycin, when used for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trial settings or for treating certain hospitalized patients under the EUA. FDA will continue to investigate risks associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19, and we will communicate publicly when we have more information.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2024-03-24): After losing its battle against ivermectin, the FDA has agreed to take down its social media posts urging people to avoid the usage of ivermectin for COVID. After losing its battle against ivermectin, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to remove webpages and its social media posts urging people to avoid the usage of drug for COVID-19 treatment. [...] As of Sunday, the FDA's website still does not suggest ivermectin for COVID-19, stating that excessive doses are detrimental and that pharmacy has to fill a prescription before handing over the medicine.
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2022-03-19): "Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn't reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic," reports the Wall Street Journal: Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn't shown any benefit in treating the disease.... The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn't fare better than those who received a placebo. "There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful," said Edward Mills, one of the study's lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada's McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. "That finding is consistent with long-standing FDA claims that ivermectin showed no benefits in clinical testing and could be dangerous in large doses,"
Claim: Court rules FDA broke the law with advisory warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19; FDA lost lawsuit, proving ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (Roger O'Handley, Pierre Kory, Jim Hoft, 2024-03-22)
Evidence (2020-04-12): 'No Clear Evidence' Hydroxychloroquine Works Against COVID-19 (washingtonpost.com) 548 "There is no clear evidence that the drugs work against the coronavirus," he writes, "despite their use by hospitals and doctors in the United States and other countries since the outbreak began." Their antiviral properties have been proved in test tubes, but rigorous clinical trials to test their effectiveness in humans have not been completed. Limited studies on coronavirus patients have been published by researchers in France and China, but their extremely small size and other problems prevented them from being statistically significant. The French study included a combination of hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin that showed benefit in six patients... Another study in 11 patients in France showed no evidence the regimen works. A Chinese study also showed no benefit over the standard course of treatment. Mainstream scientists caution against using the drugs without more evidence they are effective... The dangerous side effects of the drugs are much better known. Most seriously, the drugs can trigger arrhythmia, which can lead to a fatal heart attack in patients with cardiovascular disease or who are taking certain drugs, including anti-depression medications. Doctors recommend screening with an electrocardiogram to prevent the drug from being given to the 1 percent of patients at the greatest risk of a cardiac event. The drugs also can cause vision loss called retinopathy with long-term use, and chloroquine has been associated with psychosis...
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-11-03): Climate scientists use models to simulate and study different aspects of Earth's climate system, and to project the rate of global warming caused by human activities. These models do, in fact, simulate the rate of global warming well, and models run in the past accurately projected the rate of warming we are currently experiencing—that includes model projections from 1988.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-12-04): "The real message is that the warming we have experienced is pretty much exactly what climate models predicted it would be as much as 30 years ago," he said. "This really gives us more confidence that today’s models are getting things largely right as well." [...] Hausfather and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies evaluated the models based on how well they predicted the actual global mean temperature — Earth’s average temperature — based on the levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for a rise of nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in global mean temperatures since 1880, two-thirds of that since 1975. [...] One of the iconic climate models, and one that first brought the issue of climate change to broad public attention, was published by James Hansen of NASA in 1988. However, his predictions for temperatures after 1988 were 50% higher than the actual global mean temperatures in those years.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-03-19): Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed. [...] For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened. [...] Much of the world’s climate is driven by intricate, long-distance links — known as teleconnections — fuelled by sea and atmospheric currents. If their behaviour is in flux or markedly diverging from previous observations, we need to know about such changes in real time. We need answers for why 2023 turned out to be the warmest year in possibly the past 100,000 years. And we need them quickly.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2022-04-04): According to the IPCC, our planet’s actual climate sensitivity is unlikely to be as large as these models suggest, which raises the question of why we would use them if their climate sensitivities are likely unrealistic. Climate sensitivity describes how much global temperatures will rise in response to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The best estimate is 3°C of warming for a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels, with a likely range of 2.5 to 4°C, but ongoing research aims to narrow this range. [...] Models with a middle-of-the-road climate sensitivity near 3°C often better reproduce the temperature variations of this historical period than those with a large climate sensitivity.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2023-01-30): If emissions remain high over the next few decades, the AI predicts a one-in-two chance that Earth will become 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) hotter on average compared to pre-industrial times by the middle of this century, and a more than four-in-five chance of reaching that threshold by 2060. According to the analysis, which Diffenbaugh co-authored with Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes, the AI predicts the world would likely reach 2 C even in a scenario in which emissions decline in the coming decades. "Our AI model is quite convinced that there has already been enough warming that 2 C is likely to be exceeded if reaching net-zero emissions takes another half century," said Diffenbaugh, who is the Kara J Foundation Professor and Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. [...] To test for accuracy, the researchers challenged the model to predict the current level of global warming, 1.1 C, based on temperature anomaly data for each year from 1980 to 2021. The AI correctly predicted that the current level of warming would be reached in 2022, with a most likely range of 2017 to 2027. The model also correctly predicted the pace of decline in the number of years until 1.1 C that has occurred over the recent decades.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-10-08): But scientists often use a different measure, known as "equilibrium climate sensitivity". This is defined as the global mean warming caused by a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere. [...] But the predicted range of rising temperature has remained stubbornly wide, somewhere between 2°C and 5.5°C of warming, as assessed in several generations of reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is despite concerted efforts to narrow it down. [...] As highly reflective ice melts on land or sea, the underlying surface is exposed and less sunlight reflected back into space. This increases the amount of warming for a given amount of greenhouse gases. It’s what scientists refer to as a positive feedback loop.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2021-08-08): A recent article in the eminent US magazine Science questioned how the IPCC will deal with some climate models which "run hot". Some models, it said, have projected global warming rates "that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast". [...] Climate models comprise millions of lines of computer code representing the physics and chemistry of the processes that make up our climate system. The models run on powerful supercomputers and have simulated and predicted global warming with remarkable accuracy. [...] For a few years now, scientists have known some new-generation climate models probably overestimate global warming, and others underestimate it.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2020-02-10): The map overlay on the interactive above shows the amount of warming to expect in each grid cell based on future Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios developed by climate scientists. These four scenarios represent different possible future emission trajectories. They range from the low-warming RCP2.6 scenario, which keeps global warming from the pre-industrial era to below 2C, up to a high-warming RCP8.5 scenario that would likely see global temperatures rise to above 4C. [...] Future climate model projections also include significant uncertainties, chief among them the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2. The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report estimates climate sensitivity at between 2.1C and 4.7C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C. The multi-model average projections shown in the sidebar only reflect this 3.1C value; users interested in the results of individual models with higher or lower sensitivity will have to use a tool such as KNMI Climate Explorer to view those results.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2012-03-25): Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest - Published Global temperatures could rise by 1.4-3.0C (2.5-5.4F) above levels for late last century by 2050, a computer simulation has suggested. [...] People planning for the impacts of climate change need to consider the possibility of warming of up to 3C by 2050, even on a mid-range emission scenario, the researchers say.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-12-10): As the technology progressed and demand for more policy-relevant climate information grew, climate modelers shifted away from these hypothetical "instantaneous doubling" scenarios and developed plausible scenarios for the amount of future emissions in a given year. They then used their models to estimate the corresponding future global warming. [...] Our survey began with a literature review of every peer-reviewed reference we could find. For each reference, we either tracked down the original model data, reproduced the data from text, formulas, and tables, or, as a last resort, we used digitized the data the figures. Then, we compared the projected warming rates from the models against several estimates of historical warming from a dense global network of temperature measurements with excellent coverage over the past fifty years. We also recorded the rate at which greenhouse gas concentrations (and other human-emitted climate agents) changed in both the model projections and reality. [...] When conducting our comparison, given this information, it became clear to us that simply comparing the warming rates between simulations and reality could be misleading, if the simulated emissions scenario and historical emissions were dramatically different. To account for differences in emissions between the simulations and reality, we calculated the warming rates with respect to anthropogenic radiative forcing, the rate at which human emissions trap energy at Earth’s surface, instead of calculating them with respect to time. Using this novel metric of the warming rate, we found that the model projections were even more consistent with reality (14 out of 17 models captured this).
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2020-02-03): Early climate models successfully predicted global warming Climate models published between 1970 and 2007 provided accurate forecasts of subsequently observed global surface warming. This finding shows the value of using global observations to vet climate models as the planet warms. [...] Climate models are equations that describe climatically relevant processes and are solved on supercomputers. In addition to being invaluable tools for testing scientific hypotheses, these models have long provided societally important forecasts. The first climate models to numerically describe an evolving and interacting atmosphere, ocean and land surface on a grid covering the entire Earth date back to the 1970s (for example, refs 1–3). Since then, the planet’s surface has warmed, in large part because of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, Hausfather et al.4 retrospectively assessed the forecasting skill of climate models published between 1970 and 2007. Their results show that the physics in these early models was accurate in predicting subsequently observed global surface warming.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-09-10): However, more recent analyses, dating back decades, have found that many of even the earliest models were remarkably accurate in their predictions of global temperature increases. Now, as computing power increases and more and more refinements are added to modeling inputs, modelers are more confident in defending their work. As a result, says Dana Nuccitelli, author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics, "there’s definitely been a shift away from outright climate science denial; because the predictions have turned out to be so accurate, it’s getting harder and harder to deny the science at this point." [...] "We’ve understood for decades the basic science that if you introduce a certain amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we would get a certain amount of warming," he says. "These predictions in the 1970s were remarkably accurate, but they were also using quite simplified climate models, in part because of our level of understanding of climate systems but also because of computation limitations at the time. It’s certainly true that climate models have come a long way."
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2020-01-09): The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections. "The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming," said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. "This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts." [...] To successfully match new observational data, climate model projections have to encapsulate the physics of the climate and also make accurate predictions about future carbon dioxide emission levels and other factors that affect climate, such as solar variability, volcanoes, other human-produced and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. This study’s accounting for differences between the projected and actual emissions and other factors allowed a more focused evaluation of the models’ representation of Earth’s climate system.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-02-20): Most of these models are long since obsolete, replaced by far more advanced generations. And yet, most of them were spot on in their projections of how much the Earth would warm in the years after they were published in response to greenhouse gas emissions. Fourteen out of 17 models were found to be accurate. The new study highlights a critically important, but sometimes overlooked, point about the way climate models work. The amount of warming they predict is a direct consequence of the greenhouse gas emissions they assume for the future. And accurately predicting carbon emissions is notoriously difficult—it depends on many human factors, including population growth, economic shifts and changes in the energy landscape. [...] One example is a famous climate model developed by NASA researcher James Hansen, whose congressional testimony on climate change in the 1980s helped catapult the issue into the public spotlight. Hansen’s 1988 model ultimately predicted about 50% more warming for the coming decades than actually occurred, giving fodder to skeptics’ arguments that scientists were exaggerating the issue of global warming.