copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2020-02-09): The IPCC assessments also forecast the atmospheric GHG concentrations and global temperatures in 50 and 100 years if humanity continues on its current trajectory of burning fossil fuels, reducing forest cover (which means less carbon stored in plants and in the soil), and other activities. The latest estimates suggest that by 2100, global average surface temperatures will increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius (3 and 12 degrees Fahrenheit). And once this increase approaches 2 degrees Celsius, we may pass tipping points after which global warming may accelerate.10 For example, melting permafrost in the Arctic could release more methane, which, as a potent GHG, would raise arctic temperatures faster, thus melting permafrost faster and releasing even more methane in a self-propelling cycle. As the science progresses, the IPCC reports have become more confident in predicting a rising rate of extreme events like hurricanes. With powerful computer models that simulate hurricane development under different ocean temperatures and other factors, scientists now simulate the mechanisms which drove Katrina’s quick acceleration to a Category 5 hurricane. Thus, scientists can now confirm that many extreme weather events have been made worse by rising GHG emissions.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2022-01-12): "Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less)… In the long run, it probably makes no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no return is passed, the world will become self-transforming." Here are the key lines: "The consensus among scientists and policymakers" is that above 2 degrees Celsius or a little more, the climate "spins completely out of control". This is just wrong, and Franzen provides no evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. Yes, positive feedback loops like widespread, fire-driven deforestation or massive methane releases could collectively drive the planetary temperature upwards in an ever less controllable spiral. These are possibilities, risks we need to reduce. Indeed, the risks get higher the more global warming pollution we emit, yet another critical reason to aggressively reduce it now. But I know of no scientific source—let alone a "consensus"—maintaining that such a "self-transforming" runaway greenhouse scenario is inevitable or that it will be triggered at close to 2 degrees Celsius. Without this assertion, Franzen’s "too late" argument falls apart. Four degrees will be far worse than three, which will be far worse than two. So we have to fight like hell today for two or better.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2020-09-01): Scientists and policymakers have long agreed that global warming beyond 2° C above the pre-industrial average would pose large and escalating risks to human life as we know it on Earth, and governments have used that number as an organizing principle. [...] In the 1970s, William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale, suggested in several papers that if global warming were to exceed 2° C on average, it would push global conditions past any point that any human civilization had experienced.1,2 At the time, Nordhaus's idea was a simple suggestion of what rise in temperature could cause extreme conditions, based on the historical record of past average temperatures, but it gained new importance a decade later. [...] "At two degrees we see dramatic alterations to the ability of the Earth's system to maintain the conditions that allow for human life and indeed other species’ life," says Maria Ivanova, a professor of global governance at University of Massachusetts Boston.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2021-05-05): VERDICT 2°C is not known to be a "point of no return", as Jonathan Franzen claims [...] SOURCE: William Happer, CNN
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2021-05-05): Letter to the UN was not signed by 500 scientists or experts on climate science [...] VERDICT 2°C is not known to be a "point of no return", as Jonathan Franzen claims [...] I am talking about the slaughter, death, and starvation of 6 billion people this century—that's what the science predicts.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2012-04-04): Warming greater than the global average has already been experienced in many regions and seasons, with higher average warming over land than over the ocean (high confidence). Most land regions are experiencing greater warming than the global average, while most ocean regions are warming at a slower rate. Depending on the temperature dataset considered, 20–40% of the global human population live in regions that, by the decade 2006–2015, had already experienced warming of more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial in at least one season (medium confidence). {1.2.1, 1.2.2} Past emissions alone are unlikely to raise global-mean temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (medium confidence), but past emissions do commit to other changes, such as further sea level rise (high confidence). If all anthropogenic emissions (including aerosol-related) were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence), and likely less than 0.5°C on a century time scale (medium confidence), due to the opposing effects of different climate processes and drivers. A warming greater than 1.5°C is therefore not geophysically unavoidable: whether it will occur depends on future rates of emission reductions. {1.2.3, 1.2.4}
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2019-12-14): We have been hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc. In a recent op-ed, Greta Thunberg stated: "Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it." From the Extinction Rebellion: "It is understood that we are facing an unprecedented global emergency. We are in a life or death situation of our own making." It is more difficult to tune out similar statements from responsible individuals representing the United Nations. In his opening remarks for the UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid (COP25), UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that "the point of no-return is no longer over the horizon." Hoesung Lee, the Chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said "if we stay on our current path, [we] threaten our existence on this planet." [...] Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model projection that predicts future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. However these alarming scenarios of the 21st century climate change require that, like the White Queen in Alice and Wonderland, we believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2021-08-25): In his September New Yorker article, Franzen shared his belief that a climate apocalypse is unavoidable and so it is "important to fight smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning". Among his critics were scientists, who particularly objected to his statement that "consensus among scientists and policymakers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius". [...] "That remark about things spiralling out of control past the two degree point was in the context of saying we should have as substantial and immediate reductions in carbon emissions as we possibly can – not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it will at least, if nothing else, somewhat slow the pace of change and give us time to prepare and adapt and become more resilient. Obviously, a world of two degrees is better than a world of seven degrees," he said.
Claim: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (Jonathan Franzen, 2019-09-17)
Evidence (2022-04-04): About a billion years from now, all surface water will have disappeared and the mean global temperature will reach 70 °C (158 °F). [...] Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. [...] Currently, surface temperatures are rising by about 0.2 °C per decade.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2023-12-22): The main benefit of COVID-19 vaccines is in reducing the risk of severe disease. They are also safe and the evidence indicates that they aren’t associated with increased all-cause mortality. Furthermore, they limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although their effectiveness in this regard varies depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant and the amount of time elapsed since vaccination.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2022-02-23): The Covid-19 pandemic—and its social and economic fallout—has thrust social and health-related inequalities into the spotlight. The pandemic, and our response to it, has induced new inequalities both within and between nations. However, now that highly efficacious vaccines are available, one might reasonably presume that we have in our hands the tools to address pandemic-associated inequalities. Nevertheless, two prominent social science theories, fundamental cause theory and diffusion of innovation theory suggest otherwise. Together, these theories predict that better resourced individuals and countries will jockey to harness the greatest vaccine benefit for themselves, leaving large populations of disadvantaged people unprotected. While many other life-saving prevention measures have been distributed unequally in ways these theories would predict, the COVID-19 vaccines represent a different kind of case. As the disease is so highly infectious and because mutations lead to new variants so rapidly, any inequality-generating process that leaves disadvantaged individuals and countries behind acts to put everyone—rich and poor—at risk. It is time that we ensure the equitable distribution of this life-saving benefit. As the fundamental cause and diffusion of innovation theories help illuminate processes that regularly produce inequities, we turn to them to reason about the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2023-01-26): Importantly, many vaccines can still reduce the spread of a disease even if they don’t stop infection, contrary to Baker’s other claim that vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, "don’t prevent transmission." [...] Until more is known, it’s important that people who receive a COVID-19 vaccine don’t assume they can’t pass the virus on to others — and continue to wear masks and physically distance — but it’s also premature for Baker to declare the vaccines to be useless in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. [...] McDonald, Jessica. "Q&A on COVID-19 Vaccines." FactCheck.org. 18 Dec 2020, updated 7 Jan 2021.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2024-03-09): The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States’ COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, errors, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most—the elderly and high-risk—alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least—young, healthy Americans—is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come. [...] Beyond this, the rise of immune evasive viral variants meant that no amount of vaccination would halt viral spread. The goals of vaccine campaigns, particularly additional doses, had to shift to focus solely on further reductions in severe disease—beyond what was achieved by the first 2 doses—and not merely to reduce symptomatic infection. Ironically, this was the original point by Topol and colleagues in 2020. This is true for a simple reason, that, if one lives long enough, with repeated exposure, infection and re-infection are inevitable, likely many times over a long life. Instead, avoiding bad outcomes is the only justification for repeated dosing of mRNA vaccination.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2020-09-01): Vaccine experts are warning the federal government against rushing out a coronavirus vaccine before testing has shown it’s both safe and effective. Decades of history show why they’re right. [...] Their concern that the FDA may be moving too quickly heightened when FDA Commissioner Dr. Steven Hahn told the Financial Times that his agency could consider an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a Covid-19 vaccine before late stage clinical trials are complete if the data show strong enough evidence it would protect people. [...] "This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard this administration say," Markel said. "All it takes is one bad side effect to basically botch a vaccine program that we desperately need against this virus. It’s a prescription for disaster."
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2024-02-29): COVID-19 vaccines — like all vaccines and other medical products — come with side effects, including serious side effects in rare cases. The vaccines were rolled out to protect people from a novel virus that has killed millions of people globally and would likely have killed millions more without the arrival of the vaccines. There is a broad consensus from experts and governmental health agencies that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks. Researchers have scrutinized the COVID-19 vaccines’ safety and continue to do so. A study published Feb. 12 in the journal Vaccine reported on an international group of more than 99 million people who received COVID-19 vaccines, primarily finding links to known rare side effects. The study largely focused on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, which have been widely given in the U.S., as well as the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was never authorized in the U.S. [...] "How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?" FactCheck.org. Updated 17 May 2022.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2021-01-18): Covid vaccine: WHO warns of 'catastrophic moral failure' The world faces a "catastrophic moral failure" because of unequal Covid vaccine policies, the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned. [...] Last month, the People's Vaccine Alliance coalition of campaigning bodies said that rich countries were hoarding doses of Covid vaccines and people living in poor countries were set to miss out.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2022-08-31): As the virus that causes COVID-19 has evolved, the vaccines have become less effective in preventing symptomatic infection while remaining highly effective in preventing severe disease and death. This shift has been misrepresented by anti-vaccine influencers who falsely claim that it means the vaccines don’t work and have been ineffective all along. [...] But anti-vaccine campaigners and those who have cast doubt on the severity of COVID-19 have twisted those remarks to suggest that the health care establishment had given faulty advice about the value of the vaccines from the beginning. [...] Although the vaccines remained effective against severe illness and death from COVID-19, they were somewhat less effective at preventing infection from delta.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2022-02-24): Despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccines are a safe and effective means to prevent severe cases of a disease that has killed nearly one million people in the U.S., there has been a proliferation of false and misleading claims trying to undermine the public’s confidence in their safety and uptake. [...] Throughout 2021 and into the present, DiResta’s team at the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) has been working hard to detect and disrupt mis- and disinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines in real-time as part of her work leading the Virality Project, a multi-year effort between SIO and five other research groups. Their collaboration has culminated in a new report, Memes, Magnets and Microchips: Narrative dynamics around COVID-19 vaccines, that offers specific recommendations for how public health officials, social media platforms and other academic institutions can counter and curb the spread of false or misleading information that has a potential negative impact on individual or public health. [...] Tackling real-time disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2021-09-19): COVID-19 vaccines work, even if they aren’t 100% effective [...] This is as true for the flu vaccine as it is for COVID-19 vaccines. [...] All COVID-19 vaccines approved by the World Health Organization for emergency use are required to have an efficacy rate of 50% or greater.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2024-09-14): Toro-Ascuy, D. et al. Factors influencing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in a country with a high vaccination rate. Vaccines10, 681 (2022). [...] Lindholt, M. F., Jørgensen, F., Bor, A. & Petersen, M. B. Public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines: cross-national evidence on levels and individual-level predictors using observational data. BMJ Open11, e048172 (2021). [...] Petersen, M. B., Bor, A., Jørgensen, F. & Lindholt, M. F. Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA118, e2024597118 (2021).
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2022-06-29): In recent weeks, though, mixed messaging about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines — whether they work, whether they protect against the new coronavirus variants, whether we can ever stop masking and social distancing — has many experts concerned that even more people will opt out. [...] There is already evidence to support this, she says. First, when the vaccines were studied in macaque monkeys (during preclinical testing), they did eliminate asymptomatic infection — researchers swabbed the vaccinated macaques’ noses and found little or no virus. Second, the types of antibodies that are stimulated by most systemic vaccines (IgG and IgA) do tend to block viral infection in the nose (and no viral load in the nose most likely translates to no transmission). Finally, when monoclonal antibodies are given to COVID-19 patients, those antibodies reduce the viral load throughout the respiratory tract, including the nose. [...] For the last few months, concern has been growing that a number of SARS-CoV-2 variants — mutated versions of the virus that seem to be contributing to greater numbers of hospitalizations and deaths in some parts of the world — could render the vaccines impotent.
Claim: COVID-19 vaccines are “an unqualified disaster”; they didn’t “[halt] viral spread” and they caused “high morbidity and mortality rates” (James Thorp, 2023-12-22)
Evidence (2021-07-01): Most candidate COVID-19 vaccines are designed to elicit immune responses, ideally mediated by neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), against the trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The S protein is a class I fusion protein that facilitates binding of the virus to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on the host cell surface, which triggers fusion between the virus and cell membrane110,148,149. Prior to contact with the host cell, the S protein is in a metastable pre-fusion conformation and the trimer undergoes substantial rearrangement at the time of virus–cell fusion150,151. Some COVID-19 vaccines include mutations that stabilize the S protein in this pre-fusion form, on the basis that this is the expected conformation prior to epithelial cell attachment, and thus immune responses directed against the pre-fusion S protein are more likely to be protective and reduce transmission. However, vaccines without this stabilization (for example, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) have proven efficacy and so the importance of this for COVID-19 vaccines is uncertain. The S protein consists of an amino-terminal S1 subunit and a carboxy-terminal S2 subunit.