copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2022-04-26): Zeke Hausfather 10.05.17Zeke Hausfather 05.10.2017 | 5:00pmScientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades. [...] Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2022-11-03): In our latest research, we show that the pursuit of ever more complex models as tools to produce more accurate estimates and predictions may not work. Based on statistical theory and mathematical experiments, we ran hundreds of thousands of models with different configurations and measured how uncertain their estimations are. We discovered that more complex models tended to produce more uncertain estimates. This is because new parameters and mechanisms are added. A new parameter, say the effect of chewing gum on the spread of a disease, needs to be measured – and is therefore subject to measurement errors and uncertainty. Modellers may also use different equations to describe the same phenomenon mathematically.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2020-02-19): NOAA does not fraudulently adjust data to create the illusion of a global warming trend Scientists routinely adjust temperature data to correct errors due to weather stations being moved to different locations or instruments being changed.. Historical changes to U.S. stations have caused the number of upward and downward temperature adjustments to be unequal, but this is not representative of the entire world. Overall, adjustments to temperature data reduce the apparent amount of long-term global warming—the opposite of exaggerating it. [...] We know that NOAA’s adjustments improve things since they’re tested and updated whenever issues are found. For example, even a blogger who’s hostile to climate science results published a paper confirming that the NOAA U.S. average temperature changes are solid2. Another study by an independent "red team", partly funded by a Koch foundation, supported NOAA’s conclusions3.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2018-03-29): Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present. [...] Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades. What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2022-01-31): The simple statistical model used for this analysis by Carbon Brief differs from much more complex climate models generally used by scientists to assess the human fingerprint on warming. Climate models do not simply "fit" forcings to observed temperatures. Climate models also include variations in temperature over space and time, and can account for different efficacies of radiative forcings in different regions of the Earth. However, when analysing the impact of different forcings on global temperatures, complex climate models generally find results similar to simple statistical models. The figure below, from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, shows the influence of different factors on temperature for the period from 1950 to 2010. Observed temperatures are shown in black, while the sum of human forcings is shown in orange. [...] The simple statistical model used in this article is adapted from the Global Warming Index published by Haustein et al (2017). In turn, it is based on the Otto et al (2015) model.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2017-04-04): Climate models are used to assess the CO2-global warming hypothesis and to quantify the human-caused CO2 "fingerprint."
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2021-12-01): GCMs are critical tools that enable us to improve the understanding and prediction of atmosphere, ocean, and climate behavior. Models allow us to determine the distinct influence of different climate features by providing a way of exploring climate sensitivities with experiments that cannot be performed on the actual earth. Changes can be made to one feature in a climate model, such as warming or cooling ocean surface temperatures, to discern the impact those changes have on the climate. The uses for climate modeling also include diagnosis and prognosis. An example of a diagnostic use is detection and attribution. Detection and attribution require first demonstrating that a detected change is statistically significant, and then attributing this change to unnatural causes such as the role of anthropogenic forcing in 20th century climate change. Prognostic climate modeling predicts future climate, such as global warming trends, using current or historic data (ocean structure, radiative forcing, etc) as a basis. Timescales for projection include seasonal/interannual variability, decadal prediction, and 21st century scenarios.
Claim: Using complex statistical models, [NOAA] change[s] the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. (Anonymous, 2020-02-19)
Evidence (2010-06-03): Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. [...] Though the models are complicated, rigorous tests with real-world data hone them into powerful tools that allow scientists to explore our understanding of climate in ways not otherwise possible. By experimenting with the models—removing greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or changing the intensity of the Sun to see how each influences the climate—scientists use the models to better understand Earth’s current climate and to predict future climate. The models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2020-05-17): Face masks are safe to use and are not associated with oxygen deficiency. Although more research is needed to better establish the efficacy of face masks in reducing disease transmission and the mechanisms behind their efficacy, a growing evidence base indicates that face masks have a beneficial effect in reducing the spread of respiratory diseases like COVID-19. However, masks do not provide 100% protection and must also be combined with other transmission control measures such as physical distancing and good hand hygiene.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-04-06): People online are touting the results of a Cochrane review to incorrectly claim that it shows masks "don’t work" against the coronavirus. But the primary conclusion of the review is that it’s uncertain from randomized controlled trials whether mask interventions in the community help slow the spread of respiratory illnesses. [...] In other words, there isn’t good evidence from randomized controlled trials that encouraging mask use in the community prevents the spread of respiratory diseases, but the issue also hasn’t been studied very well. So the real answer is unknown. [...] "It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive," she continued. "Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses."
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-03-14): Masks make no difference in reducing the spread of COVID, according to an extensive new review by Cochrane – the gold standard for evaluating health interventions [...] "The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses," Soares-Weiser said, adding, "Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses." [...] As Drs. Katelyn Jetelina and Kristen Panthagani point out in an excellent article on the ability of masks to prevent the transmission of viral respiratory diseases:
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2021-04-09): A Cochrane Review shows that compared with no facemask use, wearing a facemask may make little to no difference in how many people that catches a flu‐like illness. It probably makes little to no difference in how many people that have flu confirmed by a laboratory test. Unwanted effects are rarely reported but include discomfort. Furthermore, it may seem that it makes little to no difference what type of facemask is used. This Cochrane Review searched for studies in April 2020 and does not include studies on COVID-19. The evidence presented here can thus not be considered as direct until COVID-19 studies are included in the analyses. This Cochrane Review shows that compared with no facemask use, wearing a facemask may make little to no difference in how many people that catches a flu‐like illness. It probably makes little to no difference in how many people that have flu confirmed by a laboratory test. Unwanted effects are rarely reported but include discomfort. Furthermore, it may seem that it makes little to no difference what type of facemask is used. This Cochrane Review searched for studies in April 2020 and does not include studies on COVID-19. The evidence presented here can thus not be considered as direct until COVID-19 studies are included in the analyses. [...] - the use of facemask may make little to no difference in how many people that catch an influenza-like illness (low certainty)
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-08-24): Covid-19: Lockdowns and masks helped reduce transmission, expert group finds
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2020-10-21): Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 - PMID: 33087517 - PMCID: PMC7580955 - DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 [...] Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown. Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission. We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks and determine whether they need additional equipment to protect themselves from infected patients.IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2024-05-22): A comprehensive new review published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews provides strong evidence that masks and respirators are effective in reducing the transmission of respiratory infections like COVID-19. The review, conducted by an international team of 13 researchers, analysed over 400 studies from multiple disciplines, including epidemiology, public health, engineering, and social sciences. 'Our review confirms that masks work, with a clear dose-response effect,' said lead author Professor Trisha Greenhalgh from the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford. 'The more consistently and correctly you wear a mask, the better protected you are. Respirators, when worn continuously, provide even greater protection than ordinary masks.' Masks, including cloth face coverings and disposable medical masks, help reduce the spread of respiratory droplets and aerosols. Respirators, such as N95 and FFP2 devices, are designed to filter out smaller airborne particles and fit more tightly to the face, providing a higher level of protection.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2024-06-30): When the COVID-19 pandemic took off in 2020, so too did questions over the effectiveness of wearing a face mask to prevent the spread of the virus. Now, four years later, what does the science say? [...] "Masks, even cloth masks, do something," she said. [...] Early in the pandemic, some guidance from health professionals suggested that wearing a mask might actually lead to infection: A person might encounter a contaminated mask and then touch their eyes, nose, or mouth. But research in the ensuing years has shown that fear to be misplaced.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-11-04): Some N95 masks, and even some cloth masks, have valves that make them easier to breathe through. But these masks don't filter the air the wearer breathes out. For this reason, they've been banned in some places. [...] - Chu DK, et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2020; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [...] - Science brief: Community use of masks to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html. Accessed Jan. 10, 2022.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2024-10-09): But do face masks really protect against the spread of infectious respiratory diseases, like SARS and COVID-19? And, if so, just how effective are they? [...] An expert consultation on the effectiveness of cloth masks published in early April 2020 indicated that the type of fabric used and its thickness could influence how well cloth masks work in preventing disease transmission. But the assessment also suggested that there are important trade-offs to consider. For example, thick fabrics or multiple layers of fabric are more likely to catch small aerosolized particles—the types of small particles sometimes trapped by surgical and more frequently by N95 masks—but they also are more difficult to wear, given their high degree of breathing resistance. A mask that is uncomfortable is likely to be pulled down or worn incorrectly, undermining its potential effectiveness. Of course, ultimately underlying the ability of face masks to prevent disease transmission is human behavior. Even if a mask is fundamentally effective in trapping infectious particles, it is still up to the individual to wear it properly. People must also be aware that if their cloth masks trap significant moisture, the masks need to be cleaned or disposed of to prevent viral contamination of surfaces.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-06-21): Wearing a respirator or mask is another way to reduce exposures to respiratory hazards. Respirators fit closely to your face and protect you by filtering particles out of the air you breathe. They also filter out droplets and particles that you exhale when breathing, coughing, or sneezing to prevent the spread of germs to others. Masks also filter out your exhaled breath to protect others. If a mask fits closely to your face, it also provides some protection from germs spread by others. [...] Respirators and masks may filter particles and block droplets when you exhale (breathe, talk, cough, etc.). This reduces the risk that a person with a respiratory infection will spread germs to others. If you have a respiratory infection, there’s a change you could pass your infection to others. Wearing a respirator or mask reduces the number of germs that you exhale into the environment around you. This is one way to prevent the spread of respiratory germs from person to person, like wearing a mask to prevent the spread of the germ that causes COVID-19. [...] Respirators and masks intended for particles reduce your exposure by filtering some particles out and blocking droplets when you inhale. They can help protect you from particles like smoke, air pollution, mold, and germs in the air you inhale. They do not filter out harmful gases and vapors such as carbon monoxide or gasoline. It is important to consider the level of filtration and fit when selecting a respirator or mask.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2008-04-09): Various types of masks, goggles, and face shields are worn alone or in combination to provide barrier protection. A surgical mask protects a patient against microorganisms from the wearer and protects the health care worker from large-particle droplet spatter that may be created from a splash-generating procedure. When a mask becomes wet from exhaled moist air, the resistance to airflow through the mask increases. This causes more airflow to pass around edges of the mask. The mask should be changed between patients, and if at anytime the mask becomes wet, it should be changed as soon as possible. Gowns are worn to prevent contamination of clothing and to protect the skin of health care personnel from blood and body fluid exposures. Gowns specially treated to make them impermeable to liquids, leg coverings, boots, or shoe covers provide greater protection to the skin when splashes or large quantities of potentially infective material are present or anticipated. Gowns are also worn during the care of patients infected with epidemiologically important microorganisms to reduce the opportunity for transmission of pathogens from patients or items in their environment to other patients or environments.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2014-10-20): All individuals with COVID-19 need to wear a well-fitting, high-quality mask for a total of 10 days from symptom onset or their first positive test date (if asymptomatic) when around others; this applies to both indoor and outdoor settings. This includes individuals who test positive and have no symptoms or only mild symptoms. You can remove your mask sooner if you have two sequential negative tests at least one day apart. [...] As long as you do not feel sick, you do not need to stay home for a set number of days. However, there is a chance you could still pass the infection to other people, who may get sick and are at high risk for severe disease. This is why it is important to wear a well-fitting mask around others for 10 days after testing positive. You can still spread COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, even if you have no symptoms. People with COVID-19 can be infectious 2 days before and up to 10 days after symptom onset or positive test date (if no symptoms). This has not changed, and that is why it remains important to wear a mask for 10 days after getting COVID-19.
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-09-07): Did a report really say masks don’t help prevent the spread of COVID? [...] "It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask-wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive," she said. In March, Tom Jefferson, a British epidemiologist who was the lead author of the report, told a journalist that "there is just no evidence that they [masks] make any difference".
Claim: Masks do nothing to prevent the spread of pathogens (Facebook users, 2020-05-17)
Evidence (2023-05-15): A few weeks ago, I was surprised upon glancing at The New York Times to see a front-page article claiming that new scientific evidence showed conclusively that wearing masks does nothing to prevent the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Bret Stephens. The mask mandates did nothing. Will any lessons be learned? The New York Times; 21 February 2023). Even the high-quality surgical-standard N95 masks. This opinion piece by Bret Stephens reported on what he described as "the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis" of the effects of masks, published in Cochrane Reviews, a healthcare journal. Masks, he claimed, have no effect. [...] Fortunately, there are still people trying to build actual knowledge about important matters, without deciding in advance what their conclusions will be. An excellent illustration is a review article (Mira L. Pöhlker et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.; in the press; preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01188) looking at what we know about the aerosols and droplets that are expelled by individuals suffering from a number of respiratory pathogens. It considers the complicated physics of how these particles are generated in the respiratory tract, how they behave in the air and how far they generally travel, as well as how well masks do in blocking their passage. [...] Conclusion? Masks do have an effect. They do work, imperfectly, to stop pathogens spreading. Intuitively, I’m not in the least surprised, but it’s nice to see some detailed evidence.