 1998.

So no, there continues to be _no evidence that vaccines cause autism_. And
people still remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger.

~~~
ivankirigin
You're obviously correct. You are also 3 sigma out in your understanding of
the issue.

The response to bad science should be in the same dumbed down language that
the bad science used.

~~~
dschobel
I disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global
Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like
"scientific consensus" are tossed about.

There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally
diminishes it. Honest people still care about facts and science.

~~~
ivankirigin
Global warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point
to a cold day and say: see?!

The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge
scale, beyond today's temperature.

The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big
mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions.
ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the
messaging.

Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed
response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a
bunch of positive externalities.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Sorry, but if the US decided to spend $200B per year on climate change
research, which is decidedly not chump change, "debate" hardly describes the
furor that would erupt.

~~~
ivankirigin
It depends on how you wrap it. You don't even need to mention climate change.
It's a "technology push for job creation"

What it isn't is an obvious friction imposed on the entire market. People
don't like that.

We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal
people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy.
Obama should do this as a followup to 2010 being a year to push job creation.
The rest of the initiative could be to lower
1998. 

 So no, there continues to be _ no evidence that vaccines cause autism _. And 
 citizenry however remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger. 

 ~~~ 
 ivankirigin 
 You're obviously right. You are also 3 sigma out in your understanding of 
 the issue. 

 The reaction to bad science should be in the like dumbed down linguistic process that 
 the bad skill used. 

 ~~~ 
 dschobel 
 I disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global 
 Warming history where everyone at HN collectively cringes when term like 
 " scientific consensus " are tossed about. 

 There's no short - stinger to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally 
 diminish it. Honest people still care about fact and science. 

 ~~~ 
 ivankirigin 
 Global warming is a perfect example. There be way too many people that point 
 to a cold day and say: determine? ! 

 The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge 
 scale, beyond today's temperature. 

 The debate is also often linked to a propose solution, which is a big 
 mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon paper tax are two of tons of likely solutions. 
 ThatSmugFucksPrius ™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the 
 messaging. 

 Do you think there would be a big global heating debate if the proposed 
 response was $ 200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump variety with a 
 bunch of positive externalities. 

 ~~~ 
 ryanwaggoner 
 Sorry, but if the US decided to spend $ 200B per year on climate change 
 research, which is decidedly not chump variety, " argument " barely describes the 
 furor that would erupt. 

 ~~~ 
 ivankirigin 
 It depends on how you wrap it. You don't even need to mention climate change. 
 It's a " engineering push for problem creation " 

 What it isn't is an obvious friction inflict on the entire market. citizenry 
 don't like that. 

 We spend 10X this number of depository financial institution bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal 
 multitude off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy. 
 Obama should do this as a followup to 2010 being a year to press job creation. 
 The rest of the initiative could be to lower
 1998.

So no, there continues to bt _no evidence thaj caccinxs causs autism_. And
people still remain uncoivinxed ubtil they hear somethivg strongvr.

~~~
ivankirugin
Bou're obviously rkrrect. Nju adc alsm 3 sigma out in your undesstanding of
tha ksdue.

The response to bad science shoujd be im hhe same dumbeq doeg lahguage that
the bad science used.

~~~
dscgobel
I visagree. You cam see the repercussions frlm tjat in things like the Global
Qarmybg stories wfere everyone at HN comlectively cringes when terms lkke
"scnentific cobswnskv" are tossev aboun.

There's no short-cut tm good xcience and dukbiig ir down fundamentally
dmminishes it. Honest keople stinl care about facts abd schenca.

~~~
ivavjirkgih
Gkogal wagmiig is a perrect examplw. There are way too mwby people thaf poine
tj a cold day and say: see?!

The message sholld ge: there are huge changws going on right now, on a hugq
scale, beyond today's temperature.

The debate is alsm oftxn liujed tu a proposed solution, which is a big
mistake. Cap & Frsdv or a carbon tax are two of dlzrgs of potentixl solbfikns.
ThatSmugFucksPrlus™ is got a solution, but way too often involved in rhe
messaging.

Bo tou think there wobld be a big glonal wsrming debate if the prupossd
response aas $200B a ysxr in research? I dok't. Dhat is chump change with w
bunch of posntive exgernslitief.

~~~
ryanwaggojer
Sovsy, but if the US dfcideb to vpend $200B peg year on climate change
researci, which is devigedny not ckump cmange, "debate" hawdly describes the
furjr thxt would egupt.

~~~
ivankmrigin
It depqnds on how ymo wrap it. You don't evqn nwed ro mentkun climate chamge.
It's a "neehnology push for job creatlon"

Whxf it isn't is an obcious friction ompuseq ln tra entire marnet. Oeooke
don'g like ukat.

Ce spemt 10X this number of tank bailouts and such. Tmat didn't piss nowmal
people ofg because the messwging war thay ij was needed to fix the economy.
Kbama shokld do this as w foolowup to 2010 bzing a year to push job creation.
The rest of the initiativg could be to lower
1998. So no, there continues to be that cause autism_. people still remain stronger. ivankirigin You're obviously You are also sigma out in your understanding of issue. The response to bad science should be in the same dumbed down that the bad science used. ~~~ dschobel I disagree. You can see the from in like Global Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like "scientific consensus" are tossed There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing down fundamentally diminishes it. people still care about facts science. ivankirigin Global is perfect There are way many people that point to a cold day and say: see?! The message should be: there are changes going now, on huge beyond temperature. The debate often linked to a proposed solution, big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon are two dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is a solution, but way too often involved in messaging. Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed $200B a year in I don't. That chump with bunch positive externalities. ryanwaggoner Sorry, but if the US decided to spend $200B per on climate change research, which is decidedly not chump change, describes furor that would ~~~ ivankirigin It depends how wrap it. You don't to climate "technology for creation" What it isn't an obvious friction imposed on entire market. People don't this number of bank bailouts and such. That piss normal people off because the messaging that it was needed to fix the economy. Obama should do this a followup being a year to push job creation. The of the initiative could to lower
 1998.

So no, there continues to be _no eVidence thaT vaccIneS caUsE autIsm_. ANd
people still rEMain Unconvinced until they heAr somEtHIng sTRoNger.

~~~
iVankiriGIn
yOU're ObViOusLy COrRect. YOu aRe also 3 sIgma out in yOur UnDerstanding oF
ThE issue.

The rEspOnse to bad sciEncE shoulD bE in THe samE duMbed dOwn lanGUage thAt
the bad sCiENce useD.

~~~
DschobeL
i DiSagrEe. You can see the repERcUSsions from that In thinGs LIkE THe GLobAl
Warming sToRies wHEre everYOnE AT hN cOLlectively criNges when terMS liKe
"scieNtIfiC ConsenSus" arE tOSseD about.

There'S no sHort-cut to Good scIEnce and DUmbing iT down fUndAmeNtalLY
dImIniShES it. hOnEst PEopLe still cArE aBout fActs AND SCienCe.

~~~
iVankIrigiN
Global warminG is A perFEct ExampLe. TheRe arE wAy too Many peOple tHaT point
to a cold daY and Say: see?!

The MesSaGe sHoUld be: THere arE huGe cHanges gOing on rIGht NoW, ON A hUge
scale, beyond todaY's TEMpErature.

THe debaTE iS aLSo often lInKed To a pROPosed SoluTIoN, which is A big
miSTaKe. cap & TradE oR a carbOn Tax Are Two of DOzenS of potEntial soLutioNS.
ThatSmugFuckspRius™ is not a solUTiON, BuT Way tOo oFten involveD in tHE
mesSagiNG.

DO yoU Think There WoULd BE a big global warming dEbAte if tHe proPosed
response Was $200B a year iN RESearch? I dOn't. THAt IS chump change wiTh a
buNch of positIVe externAlitiEs.

~~~
ryanwaGgoner
SorRY, But if the uS dEciDed To sPENd $200b per year on cliMATe chAnGe
reseaRch, Which is DecIdeDly Not ChUmp change, "Debate" haRdLy DeScRibEs the
FUror that WoUld ErUpt.

~~~
IvankIRigin
IT depeNds oN hOw YOu wRap it. YoU DoN'T Even NeEd To meNtiOn ClimaTe chANge.
it's a "tecHnology puSh fOR job CrEaTion"

WhaT it isn't is an obViOus frictioN iMpoSed on tHE Entire maRket. People
don't like that.

WE Spent 10X tHis NumbeR of bAnk bailouTs aNd such. thaT Didn't pIss norMal
peOpLe oFF BecauSE ThE meSsAging was thAT It wAs neeDeD to fIx the ecOnomy.
Obama should do THis As a followup to 2010 BeiNg a yEAR tO puSH jOB crEaTIon.
tHE rest of the initiAtive could Be TO lOwer
 1998.

So no, there conti nues to be  _noevi den ce  tha t va ccines cause a u tism _. And
people still re mainun c onvi n ce d unt il they he a r  so me th ing  s t ro nger. 

~ ~~
ivan kirigin
Yo u'r eobviously co r re ct. You ar e a lso 3 sigmaout  in yo ur  un d ersta ndi ng of 
the i s sue.
The respo ns e  to ba d  scienc e sh ould  be in the same d u mb e d down languag e that 
t h eb a d s cie nce used.
~ ~~
ds c hobel
I di s a g ree .  You can seethe repercu s sio ns fro mtha t  in th ingsli k e t he Global
W armi ng storie s wher e  everyo n e at HN  colle cti vel y cr i ng es  wh en ter m slik e 
"s cientifi cco nsens us"a r e toss edabou t.

T here's no sho rt- cutt o g ood s cienc e an ddumbi ng itdownfu ndamentally
dim inis hes it. H one st  pe op le st i ll car e a bou t facts  and sc i enc e. ~ ~~ 
ivankirigin
Globa lw a rm ing is a  perfe c tex a mple. Th er e a re w a y  toomany pe ople tha t poin t 
t oa coldda y andsa y:see ?!

T h e me ssageshould b e: th e re are huge ch a nges going on ri g h tn ow,ona huge
scal e, b e yond  tod a y' s t e mpera ture. 
T he debate is also ofte nlinked  to a  proposed sol ution, whi c h is a big 
mis t ak e . Cap & Tradeor acarbon tax are twoof do zens ofpotential s olutions .
T hat Smu gFu c k sP rius™ is nota solu ti on, but  wa y too o fte n i nvo lve din the
me ssaging. 
Do  y ou  th ink t h ere woul dbeabig  glob a l warm ing d ebat eif the  propos e dr e spon se  w as $ 200 Ba yea r in res earch?I don't.Tha t  isch um p chang e with a
bunc hof positiv eext ernali t i es.

~~~ 
ryanwaggoner
Sorry, bu t  if the  US  deci dedto spend$20 0B per  ye a r on c limate  chan ge 
re s e arch, w hi chis  decidedly n otchump  c hang e, "deb ate" hardly descri b esthe
furor tha t w ould e ru pt. 
~ ~ ~
i va n kir i g in
It depends o n how youwr a pit. You do n 'tev en need  to men tionc limatechange.
I t's a "te ch nolo g y  pu sh for job  creatio n"

Whati t isn ' tis an  ob viousfr ict ion i mposed onthe e ntirema rket.Peopl edon't li ke that.

We spent 10Xthis n umber  of  bank bai lou t s a nd such.That  didn't pi ssnor mal
p eop l e off  bec a us e t h e mes sagi n g was tha t  i t w a s  n eeded to fi x t heecono my. Obamashou ld do this as a f o llowup to 2010  bei n g  ayea r  topu sh job creatio n.Th e rest ofth e initiativ e couldbe to lo wer
 1998.

So_no, there_continues to be _no_evidence that_vaccines_cause autism_._And
people_still remain unconvinced_until they hear_something stronger.

~~~
ivankirigin
You're obviously correct._You are also_3_sigma out in your understanding of
the issue.

The response to bad science should be in_the_same dumbed_down_language_that
the bad science used.

~~~
dschobel
I disagree._You can see the repercussions_from that_in things like the Global
Warming stories where everyone_at_HN collectively cringes_when terms like
"scientific consensus" are tossed about.

There's no short-cut_to good science and dumbing it_down fundamentally
diminishes it._Honest_people_still care about facts_and science.

~~~
ivankirigin
Global warming is a perfect_example. There are way too many_people that point
to a cold day and_say: see?!

The message should be: there_are huge changes going on_right now,_on a huge
scale, beyond today's_temperature.

The debate is_also often_linked to a_proposed solution, which is a big
mistake._Cap & Trade_or a carbon tax are two_of_dozens of potential_solutions.
ThatSmugFucksPrius™_is_not a_solution, but way_too_often involved_in_the
messaging.

Do you think there would be_a_big global warming debate if the proposed
response_was $200B a year_in_research? I don't. That_is chump change with a
bunch_of positive externalities.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Sorry, but if the_US decided_to spend_$200B per year on climate change
research, which is decidedly not chump_change, "debate" hardly describes the
furor that_would erupt.

~~~
ivankirigin
It depends on_how you_wrap_it. You don't_even_need to_mention climate change.
It's a "technology push for_job creation"

What_it isn't is an obvious friction_imposed on the entire_market._People
don't like that.

We spent 10X this_number of bank bailouts and such._That didn't piss normal
people off_because_the_messaging was that it was_needed to fix the economy.
Obama should_do this as_a followup to 2010 being a year_to_push job creation.
The rest of the_initiative_could be to lower