copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2008-02-26): A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling? [...] The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling. Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2022-05-25): 18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year [...] 9. In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…." [...] MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded today with media hype and claims like this from the Earth Day website:
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2024-01-16): These conversations showed me that climate sceptics are not always angry, or selfish. They’re also not always necessarily wrong, if you listen to the ones with thoughtful reflections or suggestions about the science, even if they sometimes word them rather strongly. [...] I do still have anonymous climate sceptics, often from overseas, replying to something I’ve said on Twitter with some variation on the idea that climate change is completely natural. Yes, sometimes they are angry, and they are definitely wrong. Occasionally I also hear people argue the opposite – that every change we see in our climate and weather is our fault. [...] So climate change is both human and natural. And human influences on climate are both warming and cooling. But our best estimate for that balance right now is that all the warming since 1951 has been caused by humans.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2023-12-19): In this post on Facebook from 9 December 2023, it is claimed that global warming is a paranoia that climatologists created after their predictions of extreme global cooling leading to a new ice-age did not materialize. The caption of the Facebook Reel lists various statements labeled as "facts", including the inaccurate claims that "Science is wrong on Global Warming" because "Science was wrong on Global Cooling". This post has been shared hundreds of times and reached thousands of viewers who may not know that global cooling was not a mainstream climate theory in the 1970’s. As we explained above, there were more scientists at that time projecting and modeling future global warming. In addition, the claim that "Science is wrong on Global Warming" is inaccurate because the reality of global warming has been unequivocal for years, verified by overwhelming observational evidence resulting in the scientific consensus. Hypotheses that were investigated in the past by scientists, like the one on global cooling, do not invalidate today’s proven scientific concepts that accurately represent observed reality, like current global warming.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2024-09-10): "You know, when I hear these poor fools talking about global warming, they don’t call it that anymore, they call it climate change because, you know, some parts of the planet are cooling and warming. It didn’t work," he told Ryan, referring to the term. "So they finally got it right … they just call it climate change. They used to call it global warming." [...] The suggestion is clear: If scientists were wrong about the climate before, then they could be wrong about it now. But it’s a myth that there was a scientific consensus about "global cooling" before. And even if some scientists did once think that cooling might be coming, it would not change the current reality — based on a significant body of evidence — that global warming is happening. [...] University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann told us Trump "simply mangled the shop-worn, untruthful climate denier talking point" that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970s. "[T]hey weren’t," he said.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2023-04-17): For the set of likely future scenarios we face today, the climate science literature has not identified any approaching global tipping point after which runaway climate change intensifies beyond humanity’s ability to arrest it. While tipping elements of the climate system—like Arctic permafrost thaw and loss of Amazon forest area—do influence total warming, the magnitude of this influence is substantially smaller than the societal factors that will ultimately determine the planet’s climate trajectory. [...] Looking ahead, the key message that the scientific community and climate advocates should reinforce is that humanity will always have chief agency over the climate. There is no tipping point beyond which Mother Earth wrestles control of the whole climate system away from human beings and proceeds to punish us for our sins. [...] On top of this, candidate members of the tipping elements club have shifted as scientific understanding of different Earth system components has progressed. For instance, some researchers once proposed the possibility of abrupt future decline in Arctic summertime sea ice, but this hypothesis has faded, with subsequent research reinforcing the conclusion that Arctic summer sea ice declines steadily in proportion to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, theories that projected substantial abrupt state shifts in monsoon circulation or the El Niño cycle have largely been laid to rest. Papers from a decade ago raised alarm at the possibility that huge amounts of methane could bubble out of the ocean with apocalyptic consequences. But we now understand that frozen methane buried deep in seafloor sediments responds only slowly and gradually to warming, releasing a trickle of atmosphere-warming methane over centuries and millennia.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2007-07-16): Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong? [...] Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly "prove" a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be "proven" than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases. [...] One argument commonly used to cast doubt on the idea of global warming is the supposed predictions of an impending ice age by scientists in the 1970s. One might say: First the Earth was supposed to be getting colder; now scientists say it’s getting hotter—how can we trust scientists if they’re predictions are so wishy-washy?
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2023-03-06): So not only was their original claim incorrect at the time, but had they repeated the analysis in 2014, their own updated data and method would have shown that there was no discrepancy at all. [...] But all these choices were made in the service of rhetoric, not science, to suggest that models are, and had always been, wrong, and that the UAH MSU data had always been right. A claim moreover that is totally backwards.
Claim: Scientists predicted global cooling and were wrong, so they are wrong about global warming (Facebook users, 2023-12-19)
Evidence (2023-05-18): This paradox has long been predicted by climate modelers, but only recently quantified in detail by satellite sensors. The new findings are providing a definitive confirmation on one important issue, but at the same time raising other questions. The good news for climate scientists is that the data on cooling aloft do more than confirm the accuracy of the models that identify surface warming as human-made. A new study published this month in the journal PNAS by veteran climate modeler Ben Santer of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that it increased the strength of the "signal" of the human fingerprint of climate change fivefold, by reducing the interference "noise" from background natural variability. Sander says the finding is "incontrovertible." [...] Early climate modelers predicted back in the 1960s that this combination of tropospheric warming and strong cooling higher up was the likely effect of increasing CO2 in the air. But its recent detailed confirmation by satellite measurements greatly enhances our confidence in the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, says Santer, who has been modeling climate change for 30 years.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2018-11-03): Every person has a gene that produces an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR gene), which converts folic acid into its active form folate, also called vitamin B9. This gene helps repair DNA and remove free radicals. People with some rare mutations in the gene may have an increased risk of developing skeletal and neurological problems or blood clots, due to a reduction in MTHFR enzyme activity. However, most of the common MTHFR mutations either do not affect enzyme activity or only require individuals with the mutation to supplement their diets with folic acid. No scientific evidence supports the claim that mutations in the MTHFR gene are associated with either birthmarks or a higher risk of adverse reactions to vaccines.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2019-05-23): Naturopaths have long been obsessed with a gene called MTHFR. Now vaccine skeptics are testing for it too. [...] The paper was titled "Genetic Basis for Adverse Events after Smallpox Vaccination," and it came up in 2016 when a vaccine-skeptical doctor tried to argue that it explained her patient’s development delays. The court was not persuaded, but Reif’s co-authors began hearing of yet other doctors using DNA tests to exempt patients from vaccines. Just this month, San Francisco’s city attorney subpoenaed a doctor accused of giving illegal medical exemptions from vaccination, based on "two 30-minute visits and a 23andMe DNA test." On anti-vaccine blogs and websites, activists have been sharing step-by-step instructions for ordering 23andMe tests, downloading the raw data, and using a third-party app to analyze a gene called MTHFR. Certain MTHFR mutations, they believe, predispose kids to bad reactions to vaccines, possibly even leading to autism—a fear unsupported by science. [...] Interest in MTHFR and vaccines specifically seemed to have ticked up in 2016, when California outlawed personal and religious exemptions from vaccination. Doctors could still grant medical exemptions, however, and anti-vaccine websites started sharing possible reasons for doing so. MTHFR was listed as one of several, and for evidence they linked to Crowe and Reif’s paper. (Interestingly, the paper actually identified a second gene called IRF1 as well, but the focus has always been on MTHFR, perhaps because the latter gene was already familiar to the naturopathic community.)
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2023-10-31): DNA and Genomic Structure of MTHFR [...] Description of MTHFR gene-related entries in current databases. [...] Other Polymorphisms in MTHFR
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2016-01-01): Keywords: MTHFR; genotype-phenotype correlation; homocystinuria; remethylation defects. [...] MTHFR: Addressing Genetic Counseling Dilemmas Using Evidence-Based Literature.J Genet Couns. 2016 Oct;25(5):901-11. doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-9956-7. Epub 2016 Apr 30. J Genet Couns. 2016. PMID: 27130656 Review. Determination and interpretation of MTHFR gene mutations in gynecology and internal medicine.Pol Arch Intern Med. 2019 Oct 30;129(10):728-732. doi: 10.20452/pamw.15039. Epub 2019 Oct 30. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2019. PMID: 31670725 Review. No abstract available.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2023-11-01): RISK OF THROMBOSIS AND MTHFR VARIANTS [...] SHOULD PATIENTS BE TESTED FOR MTHFR VARIANTS? Given the tenuous associations identified in the literature associating MTHFR variants with VTE, we do not advocate for the routine testing of patients for MTHFR variants. This approach is supported by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.14
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2024-05-15): Key points - People with an MTHFR gene variant can process all types of folate, including folic acid. [...] MTHFR gene: What is it? The MTHFR gene provides instructions for your body to make the MTHFR protein. This protein helps your body process folate. Your body needs folate to make DNA and modify proteins.1
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2024-09-22): MTHFR gene mutation physical signs [...] What does it mean if you have the MTHFR gene? [...] Most people with an MTHFR gene variation don’t even know they have it. It’s unlikely you would have physical symptoms.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2020-02-14): I can only find one study that looks at the relationship between vaccine side effects and MTHFR mutations. This study was looking at side effects of giving small pox vaccination in a population of ~125 patients. Those that had MTHFR mutations did show an increase in adverse events. The adverse events listed were both local (larger mark at the site) and systemic (fever, rashes and lymph node swelling). They did not report any further or long-term side effects. [...] I think it is very possible that, over time, we will discover that children may have differing responses to vaccines based on their genetics. The differences may be in side effects or effectiveness of the vaccines and will likely only affect an extremely small percentage of children. The problem is that we currently don’t have any information to inform those decisions. Further research is necessary and anyone who claims to know the secret link should have their claims evaluated with extreme caution. In addition, because differences in MTHFR genes are so common, it is hard to imagine that it will play a significant role in vaccine reactions. If they were, I would expect reactions to be much more common than they are. [...] So my experiences influence me to believe that MTHFR is an issue.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2024-06-03): The abbreviation MTHFR refers to a relatively common genetic mutation. It stands for methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, and having this mutation may lead to high levels of homocysteine in the blood and low levels of folate and other vitamins. [...] Conditions that may be associated with MTHFR include: [...] A person with two gene variants or who is homozygous for the MTHFR mutation may have an increased chance of health conditions.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2016-10-27): MTHFR status does not change the recommendation that women of childbearing age should take the standard dose of folic acid supplementation to reduce the risk of neural tube defects as per the general population guidelines [...] The MTHFR polymorphism has been associated with many different medical complications. Individuals who are "MTHFR positive" carry one or two copies of variants in the MTHFR gene. However, in general, the following genotypes are unlikely to be of clinical significance: [...] For all individuals, it is important to determine whether medical disorders have been incorrectly attributed to their positive MTHFR status. Referral to a hematologist or maternal–fetal medicine specialist may be needed. And patients should provide their MTHFR genotype status to their physician before starting chemotherapy agents that require folate (e.g., methotrexate).
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2014-11-01): MTHFR genetic testing: Controversy and clinical implications - PMID: 27052143 MTHFR genetic testing: Controversy and clinical implications [...] A Study of the MTHFR Gene Prevalence in a Rural Tennessee Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Center Population.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 10;19(6):3255. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063255. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35328943 Free PMC article.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2020-09-28): The claim: MTHFR gene has telltale signs, and those with it cannot 'detox the toxins from the vaccines' [...] "When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines," reads the post, which originally was shared in 2018 but recently resurfaced. "When you give Tylenol it decreases the glutathione levels in the body which is essential to detoxification. So imagine what happens when you give someone who already has problems detoxing a medication that inhibits detoxification ..." [...] - Reuters, Sept. 3, 2020, "Fact check: These birthmarks are not indicators of a MTHFR gene mutation and other false claims"
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2020-09-03): A Facebook post from mid-November 2018 went viral in late August 2020, receiving tens of thousands of interactions on Facebook. The post incorrectly claims that birthmarks are "indicators" of the presence of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene, involved in the production of vitamin B9, and that the gene is associated with a higher risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. Because the MTHFR gene is present in every person, the author of the post is likely referring to mutations in the gene, rather than the gene itself. While some rare MTHFR mutations are the cause of a metabolic disorder, most of the mutations in this gene are very common among the population and do not represent a health risk. As we explain below, there is no scientific evidence that mutations in the MTHFR gene are associated with the presence of birthmarks or a higher risk of adverse reactions to vaccines. [...] Also contrary to the claim, there is no scientific evidence that birthmarks, such as stork bites, sugar bugs, and sacral dimples, are indicators of mutations in the MTHFR gene. These skin marks result from the overgrowth of blood vessels or pigment cells, but the cause of such overgrowth is unknown. In general, birthmarks are harmless and fade over time without requiring treatment. However, experts recommend monitoring birthmarks that are large, located along the spine, or interfere with normal activity.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Barbara Coombs Lee, JD, FNP President Compassion and Choices Denver, Colorado [...] Daily recommended diet and exercise Wearing a helmet when bike riding Vaccines Teeth brushing and flossing Hand washing Smoking or alcohol cessation Prenatal vitamins Condom use [...] Reactions at injection sites
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2018-11-21): 16 comments - I have the mthfr gene. I was fully vaccinated and haven't found any REAL scientific studies that show I shouldn't vax my children. My daughter has a birthmark. There's a good chance my son carries the gene as well. Like PP we avoid processed food and take vitamins with folate. [...] - kLast edited 11-25-18 I’ve tested positive for MTHFR. So has my sister. Neither of us had these marks and I hardly take stork bites to be any kind of indicator. Also somewhere close to 50% of the general population has this mutation. I do absolutely nothing different because of it EXCEPT I take the natural form of folate because folic acid can cause a build up in your system and cause plaques.
Claim: Birthmarks are indicators of the MTHFR gene; “When people have MTHFR their chances of vaccine reactions increase because they cannot detox the toxins from the vaccines” (Facebook users, 2018-11-03)
Evidence (2018-06-05): - Methylation support: kids on the spectrum require some methylation support. It is more than MTHFR. [...] - He predicts that PANK genes will be as significant as MTHFR. These take pantothenic acid to pantethine and are involved in DHEA, pregnenolone, cortisol, and Acetyl-CoA. People sensitive to smoke, exhaust fumes, etc. may need pantethine. [...] - As long as you are on this planet, continue to detoxify daily.