Bad Science, Fraud, and Peer Review - Updated

Updated below.

Article: A Scientific Look at Bad Science

Statistics: 

• "By one estimate, from 2001 to 2010, the annual rate of retractions by academic journals increased by a factor of 11..."
• "A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 2,047 retractions of biomedical and life-sciences articles and found that just 21.3 percent stemmed from straightforward error while 67.4 percent resulted from misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4 percent) and plagiarism (9.8 percent)." 
• In 2012, a researcher then at the biotechnology company Amgen wrote in Nature that when his team tried to reproduce 53 landmark cancer studies, they could replicate just six." [Ed: that is, about 11%]
• "And according to a news report in Nature, a project aiming to reproduce the findings of 100 psychology papers has managed to replicate results for only 39 of them (the project’s findings are still under peer review)." 

A retracted paper means that it is has been published, after being peer reviewed. And 43% of the papers above were peer reviewed and later found to involve fraud.

What is peer review?

Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject area of the journal review materials they publish for quality of research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal before articles are accepted for publication. If you use materials from peer-reviewed publications they have been vetted by scholars in [the] field for quality and importance.  

Peer review is often waved as a magic wand conferring legitimacy on a controversial paper. While peer review may find some misconduct, it is mostly used for quality control.

The article points out that the need for a paper to be "important" is actually driving the misconduct. The research reported must have "positive" results, even though a lot research give "negative" results. However, negative results are important, but they are not "sexy" enough for the popular press, the scientific press and for the peer reviewers.

At its worst, peer review has been used to weed out results that are controversial and go against the "consensus" position in a field.

One reviewer of papers in neurobiology was notorious for demanding that the paper reference something about prions, and that the paper had to agree with the reviewer's position regarding prions.

Press Release: Retraction of articles from Springer journals

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports.

And how many have not been found?

Article: Transgender Regret Is Real Even If The Media Tell You Otherwise

The article is written by a person, Walt Heyer, who underwent sex-reassignment surgery, male-to-female, and now regrets it.

Fair-minded individuals would see the cumulative effect of the findings—20 percent have regret, 41 percent attempt suicide, 90 percent have a “significant form of psychopathology”, 61 percent also have other psychiatric disorders and illnesses, 50 percent had depressive symptoms, 40 percent showed symptoms of anxiety—and be troubled by the push to surgery and transition as the first course of treatment for transgenders. 

Apparently transgender lives do not matter: not to the LGBT and not to the media. 

I have given this a "bad science" tag because 1) the one reporter cherry-picked one study to prove her point and 2) the science shows that "transgender regret is real."

Article: Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’

This is a republishing of the original report, plus some new reporting.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

Article: Pocket-calculator climate model outperforms billion-dollar brains

Money quote:

Unlike the complex climate models, each of which uses as much power as a small town when it is running, the new, “green” model – which its inventor runs on a solar-powered scientific calculator – had not been repeatedly regressed (i.e., tweaked after the event) till it fitted past data. 

Lord Monckton, the inventor of the new model and lead author of the paper, said: “Every time a model is tweaked to force it to fit past data, one departs from true physics. The complex models are fudged till they fit the past – but then they cannot predict the future. They exaggerate.

The new model uses straightforward physics to model the changing climate. It both accurately predicts the past, and the future, unlike the billion dollar models.

There is a list of "refutations" from the "profiteers of doom” that the authors of the original article point out are wrong.

Additional links:
The Pause draws blood – A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months

Satellite data shows continued hiatus.

Indian Environment Minister dismisses Himalaya Global Warming concerns

Title says it all.

Article: The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol

The original research (1915) on the issue of dietary cholesterol was done in rabbits and rats. Rabbits showed an adverse effect with a high cholesterol diet; the rats did not. The obvious lesson of being cautious because we could not test, and therefore could not know, how humans reacted to a purely high cholesterol diet was missed.

Additional research, and the knowledge that atherosclerosis was caused by cholesterol deposits, implied that high dietary cholesterol was a problem. More recent research implies that diets high in saturated fats and carbohydrates are more of a problem.

The paradigm shifts.

The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. 

The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern. 

The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. 

The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter. 

The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease.  

[snip]

 Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame. 

[snip] 

“These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.” 

When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ” 

Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way. 

“Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.”

"Confidence and vitriol and moralism." People get emotionally bound up in their own opinions and beliefs. And once that happens, it is hard to shift them. It is one of the reasons that paradigm shifts, even in science, begin in the young and are completed when the holders of the old paradigm die out.

[See also the recent shifts concerning dietary salt, as well.]

These belief systems substitute for religion, and all that religion implies.

"Health Nazi's." "Food fascists." "Vegetarian separatists."

And the analogy to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is clear.

Article: European Renewable Energy performance for 2014 falls far short of claims

By 2014 European Union countries had invested approximately €1 trillion, €1000,000,000,000, in large scale Renewable Energy installations. 

This has provided a nameplate electrical generating capacity of about 216 Gigawatts, nominally about ~22% of the total European generation needs of about 1000 Gigawatts.
The actual measured output by 2014 from data supplied by the Renewables Industry has been 38 Gigawatts or 3.8% of Europe’s electricity requirement, at a capacity factor of ~18% overall.

Contrast that with coal or gas power plants that can operate at close to 100% capacity.

Accounting for capacity factors the capital cost of these Renewable Energy installations has been about €29billion / Gigawatt.  That capital cost should be compared with conventional gas-fired electricity generation costing about €1billion / Gigawatt.

Renewables cost 29X as much to install as gas-fired plants.

The wealthy elite are gaga over renewables, but they can afford to spend a lot more for energy. Back when Al Gore was pushing his "documentary" it was revealed that his primary residence used more electricity in one month that the average American used in one year.

In spite of their [ed., "there"] being virtually no costs for fuel, Renewable Energy installations can still cost up to 1.5 – 2.5 times as much to operate and maintain as conventional Gas Fired plant.

And the effect is to increase the cost of renewables even more.

Accordingly German Renewable installations perform at only ~13% overall.  They are by far the least performant in Europe because of their heavy commitment to Solar Energy at Northern latitudes.  Germany is followed by Italy with a more Southerly position but still with a heavy commitment to Solar Power.

Low solar incidence angle and short days for 6 months of the year. Berlin, Germany is 52 degrees North. Northernmost Maine is 47 degrees North. How did any rational person think that solar energy was a good choice for Germany?

In France which already has the lowest CO2 emissions levels/head [ed., per capita] of population in the developed world (substantially less (~60%) than China) because of its commitment to Nuclear electrical generation, the installation of Renewable Energy (Wind Power and Solar) in France would seem to be particularly costly and pointless.

If governments want low CO2 emissions, they should go with nuclear.

If they want to kill poor people in the winter, so with renewables.

Conclusions 

To date about € trillion, (€1000,000,000,000), has been spent on the installation of Renewable Energy technologies for electricity generation in Europe.

By Government and EU diktat, this expenditure has been extracted by extra charges imposed on utility bills throughout Europe.  Viewed as taxation this is very regressive form:  it imposes more burdens on poorer people whilst leaving wealthier people who are able to pay less affected.  It is also invisible in Government accounts as a tax income at all, as it is an industry price imposition on consumers.

These regressive “Green taxes” have already lead to significant fuel poverty throughout Europe.

As I said, if they want to kill poor people in the winter, go with renewables.

The USA has made significant CO2 emissions reductions over the past few decades by replacing Coal Fired generation with Gas Fired electricity generation with the feedstock provided by the fracking revolution.  It is estimated that using natural gas for electricity generation as opposed coal burning saves about 30% of CO2 emissions.  

So the most environmentally sound, logical, rational, scientific, economic, compassionate choices are
1) Natural gas (and fracking).
2) Nuclear.

On the other hand renewables are the best choice for the elite because they offer
1) Smug moral superiority
2) Good opportunities for cronyism and graft.

It is also questionable whether these Renewable Energy industries, when viewed “from cradle to grave”, including manufacturing, site works, installation, connection and demolition costs, does in fact reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent overall.  The CO2 saved may never exceed the CO2 emissions generated to erect the total installation.  

This is like the ethanol boondoggle in the US. Use lots of land and fossil fuels to grow and harvest corn, then lots of fossil fuels convert the corn to alcohol and purify it. Then claim that you are reducing CO2 emissions by using a "biofuel" from a renewable resource. All the while by driving up food (and fuel) costs by diverting corn (and land) from being a feedstock.

Article: The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture

Well, yes.

Points made:

• The "organic" pesticides permitted are still toxic. 
• There is a huge premium to buying organic (up to 100%)
• Researchers found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.”
• Food certified organic may contain GMOs. 
• "The organic community... opposes more frequent mandatory testing of organic products for prohibited and excluded substances."
• It is "faith based" because food is certified as organic if the farmer follows the correct process, not if there are low amounts of pesticide residues in the food. 
• It is "faith based" because farmers have an incentive to substitute cheaper non-organic food for more expensive to produce organic food. 
• "Organic agriculture is an unscientific, heavily subsidized marketing gimmick..."

And:

Speaking of trust and faith—or lack thereof–in organic foods, there was the example of holier-than-thou Whole Foods importing large amounts of its supposedly “organic” produce from China, of all places. Those imports even included Whole Foods’ house brand, “California Blend.” (Yes, you read that correctly.)

I began reading the magazine, "Organic Gardening" while in my teens (early 1970's). One aunt and uncle also grew most of their garden organically and I talked with them a lot.

I grow my own garden organically, although I will use the classic herbicides on my lawn and gravel.

For me it is a choice. I police the garden for various types of caterpillars, and I hand weed. I let mildew take the cucumbers and daisies.

However, organic farming, and selling food as "organic" I always thought was a waste of money, with a large amount of "tribal value signalling."  "Look at me! I am virtuous; I buy organic. I support Mother Earth."

Additionally, the idea that organic agriculture should be the way to go instead of "non-organic" farming is an elitist view. People who can afford to pay premium prices should not impose that on others. Poor people benefit from cheap food. Period.

It is an actual example of the story falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette. When told that the bakers of Paris did not have enough bread for the poor, she is supposed to have reply, "Let them eat cake."

Organic methods simply not as productive on a per acre basis. This, by itself, both drives up prices and decreases the food supply.

"Let them organic," is not as resonant, but no less true.

I gave this a "moral panic" tag because of the fear of pesticides.

Article: Fundamental Differences between the NOAA and UAH Global Temperature Updates

"Overcooked," "hiatus busting" NOAA update versus fine-tuned UAH update bringing it more into agreement with the satellite data.

UAH/RSS data show slight cooling over the last 20 years.

Morons and Global Warming

I like to look at the orign and uses of words, how their meanings change over time, and why they come into use and go out of use.

At the bottom of the post, I have listed a number of words that at one time had a specific, legitimate medical use which have since fallen out of favor: idiot, cretin, moron, retard, imbecile and lunatic. All are Greek or Latin derivities, transferred into English as medical terms. All of them have similar meanings to the English word "fool" which itself is derived from Latin.  All of them are "no longer in technical use; considered offensive."

So what do morons have to do with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis?

I do not wish to imply that those accept or deny the hypothesis are morons. Rather I wish to illuminate something about the shift from using CAGW to using climate change.

Over the last 5 years or so, proponents have shifted away from using CAGW, or even just global warming (GW) to using climate change. Why?

The first reason I see is that CAGW and GW have become "considered offensive." That is, the shrillness and the extremism of CAGW proponents have become offensive to ordinary people and to some scientists.

The second reason is that the more extreme predictions (the "catastrophic" part) have already failed to pan out and climate warming is in a hiatus (only relieved by manipulating a single set of data). No one likes to be reminded of their failures.

The third reason is that "cimate change" is new, and there is no negative connotations.

The fourth reason is that it is a neutral phrase, not implying warming or cooling. It is a "safe" phrase. It is also cowardly because all climate phenomena can now be ascribed to "climate change:" warming or cooling, drought or floods, ice caps melting or increasing, increased storms or decreased storms.

Additionally, anyone who disagrees with CAGW can now be called a "climate change denier." This is a straw dog logical fallacy because no one denies that climate changes. The deniers can be dismissed as "anti-science."

In conclusion, the shift from CAGW and GW to climate change is an admission of failure on the part of advocates of the CAGW hypothesis.

Word study:
The definitions are word origins are from online resources include the online Webster Dictionary.

idiot

a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More

MEDICINE archaic: a mentally handicapped person.

Psychology. (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Origin of idiot

1250-1300; Middle English < Latin idiōta < Greek idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equivalent to idiō- (lengthened variant of idio- idio-, perhaps by analogy with stratiōtēs professional soldier, derivative of stratiá army) + -tēs agent noun suffix

Moron
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Origin of MORON

irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
First Known Use: 1910

Feeble-minded.
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Mentally retarded. 

subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment

In reference to low intellectual ability, the terms retarded, retardation, and mental retardation [and retard] are now usually perceived as insulting.

Lunatic

affected with lunacy :  insane

Middle English lunatik, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French lunatic, from Late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna; from the belief that lunacy fluctuated with the phases of the moon
First Known Use: 14th century

Imbecile

Definition of IMBECILE

usually offensive :  a person affected with moderate mental retardation

The noun imbecile is used informally as an insult to mean "fool". Its origins are in the Latin word imbecille, "weak or feeble," and it was an official medical term for people with a specific (and low) I.Q. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Patients who were classified as imbeciles were said to have no more intelligence than a seven year-old child.

Origin of IMBECILE

French imbécile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
First Known Use: 1802

Cretin

n. a person suffering from cretinism. Cretinism - a congenital disease due to absence or deficiency of normal thyroid secretion, characterized by physical deformity, dwarfism, and mental retardation, and often by goiter.

Word Origin and History for cretin
n. 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow." Related: Cretinism (1801).

Science Links - 7/17/15

The theme of today's science links is frauds and lies.

Article: Why are greens so keen to destroy the world’s wildlife?

When Professor David MacKay stepp ed down as chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last year, he produced a report comparing the environmental impact of a fracking site to that of wind farms. Over 25 years, he calculated, a single “shale gas pad” covering five acres, with a drilling rig 85ft high (only needed for less than a year), would produce as much energy as 87 giant wind turbines, covering 5.6 square miles and visible up to 20 miles away. Yet, to the greenies, the first of these, capable of producing energy whenever needed, without a penny of subsidy, is anathema; while the second, producing electricity very unreliably in return for millions of pounds in subsidies, fills them with rapture

Additional antienvironment environmentalism

1) windmills destroying birds and bats
2) biomass to biomass fuels causing deforestation
3) hydroelectric power plants in the Amazon destroying rain forests.

Article: The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

A history of the take over of climate science, greens/environmentalists, the media, and bureaucrats by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming activists

The organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money.

Garth Paltridge, distinguished Australian climate scientist:

We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour.

Long and well worth the read.

Article: Nature Rebounds – the world is getting better, not worse

References a deep, and long, study by one of the founders of the IPCC. I did not read the study.

Article: Study claims 1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data

Scientists, desperate for grant money, puffs up research.

Scams: Cholesterol and Global Warming (with a note about salt)

Article: RIP: The great cholesterol scam (1955 – 2015)

Article: The 8 Stages of Scam

The first article has the original list about cholesterol, while the second on expands it to include global warming.

Note: I would add that dietary salt is following the same trajectory

I am just going to quote the entire second article, with one comment from the post:

What I have to say here reflects upon the course of this great fallacy. The cholesterol scam bears a strong relationship to the anthropogenic global warming scam. 

1) it is propagated by scientists on a non-scientific mission. 

2) it is believed because it plausibly explains an observation (increasing global temperature [for a time], increasing heart attacks from smoking in the 1950s and 60s). It taps into large anxieties about too much wealth, too much happiness, in western societies. There must be sin somewhere, and the public is ready to flog itself in the cause of a secularized idea of God, uh, I mean Good. 

3) the causal relationship is weaker than first supposed; the research is found to be sloppy, the facts have been fudged, subsequent studies do not fully support the original claims, nevertheless the orthodoxy is promulgated all the more harshly for being doubted.

4) by now, powerful economic and ideological interests have taken hold. They supply an ongoing source of funds and opinion to ensure the perpetuation of the alarm: in the case of cholesterol, the margarine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment, and in the case of AGW, the tribe of bureaucrats and leftists who seek to control markets, whose god of Marxism had failed, and who needed a new god (Gaia) to justify their rule. 

5) The skeptics who have patiently argued on the basis of facts that the science of each phenomenon was weak, are ostracized by the opinion establishments of medicine and global warming. Cranks, but the cranks are right and the orthodox priests and Levites are wrong. 

6) Eventually, after fifty or sixty years, the subject of discussion just changes. In the case of cholesterol, the evidence gets weaker and weaker, and the problems caused by too much sugar consumption (obesity, diabetes), caused in part by people not eating enough fats and meats, reaches a stage where it can no longer be ignored. 

7) the retreat of the orthodoxy is covered by a smokescreen of fresh concerns for some other catastrophe. No admissions of error or apologies for wrecked careers and following bad science are ever issued. Time flows on, bringing neither knowledge nor greater understanding of the role of folly in human affairs. 

8) stages 6 and 7 have been reached in the cholesterol cycle; they are beginning in the anthropogenic global warming scam. Fifty years from now, there will still be clanking windmills in the North Sea, but whether they will be still linked to a power grid is less likely, and whether anyone will pay attention is doubtful. The lobbies that keep them there, however, will still exist.

Posted by: chasmatic at June 28, 2015 6:46 PM

from Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir in 1952: 

Symptoms of Pathological Science:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. 

retrieved from http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

Weather is/is not Climate [updated]

Think Progress is an agressively left wing site, run by the Center for American Progress and is funded by a crowd of left-wing Americans, with some foreign donations.

[Update is below]

As such, it can be expected to advocate for catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming, now known as "climate change."

Amusingly, they have recently had "postings" (I hesitate to use the word "article" as it implies some thought, research, and integrity) on global warming and weather events. And they argue on both sides of the global warming is/is not weather issue.

"Posting" #1: Yes, It’s Cold. Global Warming Is Still Real.

The first article is from January of this year.

All that’s to say it’s cold — “dangerously cold,” in fact — in many parts of America. But (and I can’t believe I still have to say this) none of that means anything about the existence of global warming. As you may remember, global warming means that the globe — i.e., the whole planet, not just where you live — is steadily increasing in temperature, on average. The fact that it is very cold in one small part of the world for a short period of time does not disprove a long-term global trend.

That is, WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE!"

But even though weather doesn’t say anything about climate change, climate change does influence the weather. It’s been shown time and again that bizarre and unpredictable things can happen when heat accumulates in the atmosphere and ocean. Indeed, climate change affects all weather events because the world is warmer and moister than it used to be. That includes heat, drought, rainfall, storms — and yes, even cold.

Any hypothesis that claims that all possible outcomes proves the hypothesis is not science it is magic, or wishful thinking, or just plain lies to advance an agenda.

Tribal signalling: WE are the smart, cool ones who know that climate change is real. Unlike those "contrarians." We can now feel superior together.

"Posting" #2: Western Europe Shatters Temperature Records During Multi-Day Heat Wave

So, now it is summer. Europe is having a heatwave.

While it’s still too soon to connect any of the recent heat waves to climate change, scientists agree that global warming and deadly heat events are likely linked. 

“Attribution of events to climate change is still emerging as a science, but recent and numerous studies continue to speak to heat waves having strong links to warming climate,” Marshall Shepherd, University of Georgia atmospheric sciences program director, told ThinkProgress during India’s deadly heat wave. 

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change found that 75 percent of the world’s extremely hot days can be attributed to climate change.

That is, WEATHER IS CLIMATE!

In both of the postings, there is a lot of quoting of NOAA and the IPCC. Studiously ignored is the NASA satellite measurements of earth's temperature that show no signs of significant warming over the last 18 years.

Update: Center for American Progress helped craft EPA talking points, emails show

1) it is illegal for government agencies to coordinate with private groups.
2) it is against IRS regulations for CAP-type nonprofits to engage is this sort of advocacy.

The Pope's Atheist

Article: The Scientific Pantheist Who Advises Pope Francis

The "scientific pantheist" is Hans Schellnhuber. He is actually an atheist (which raises questions about either his integrity, advising a Pope or the Pope's gullibility in chosing a sworn enemy as an advisor). His beliefs are sometimes called, "scientific pantheism," however.

The article mentions the Gaia Principle, or Gaia Hypothesis. The orginal Gaia Hypothesis held that, because earth's climate has been stable (swinging from cool to warm) over billions of year, it must have feedback loops maintaining the climate, just like a living organism has feedback loops maintaining a stable internal environment.

In other words, it was an analogy.

However, over time, the Gaia Principle, or "theory," became less of a scientific analogy and more of a mystic, "Gaia, the Mother Earth is a living thing" crackpot idea.

Schellnhuber is of the latter variety.

Read the article: the earth has a "geophysiology." The earth is "cognizant."

Twenty years ago, having a crackpot like Schellnhuber advise you would immediately revoke any and all credibility.

If you read his wikipedia page, he sounds legitimate.

It is as if a prominent Presidential candidate announces that he has Immanuel Velikovsky advising him on astronomy.

Lies, D**n lies, and Global Warming

Article: NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

So a scientist has a hypothesis. He loves his hypothesis. He has spent years of his career perfecting computer models that reflect his hypothesis. He and his co-workers repeatedly get large grants to keep working on the models and his hypothesis. He has repeatedly made big splashes in the media promoting his hypothesis. He has testified before Congress (or Parliment or where ever) about his hypothesis. Politicians, reporters, and pundits have heaped praises and prizes on him because of his hypothesis.

People, however, begin to notice that for years, almost 20 year in fact, his models do not reflect the real world data that everyone has access to. People can compare what he has said with reality and the reality is disagreeing with his beloved model.

What to do?

Admit he might be wrong, and lose all of his grant money, public acclaim, and self-respect?

Of course not. He changes the actual, real-world data to reflect his hypothesis!

Orginal article [summary only]: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

The pathetic loser part of this is that the "readjustments" contradict the satellite data that show no warming over the oceans. It is obvious that it is a desperate and transparent lie to keep global warming, warming.

Article: The Unrealized Horrors of Population Explosion

The original New York Times article ripping Paul Ehrlich to shreds (with video!)

Hat tip: Paul Ehrlich: Even Worse than the New York Times Says He Is

Yet another moral panic [overpopulation is going to kill us all!].

The Great Campus Rape Hoax [Updated]

Article: The great campus rape hoax

Americans have been living through an enormously sensationalized college rape hoax, but as the evidence accumulates it's becoming clear that the entire thing was just a bunch of media hype and political opportunism.

Claimed: A female college student runs a 1 in 5 chance, or 20% of being raped during her 4 years at college. (And even the researchers who came up with that number say it should not be used as it has been.)

Reality #1: the rate of rape and sexual assault for college students is 6.1 per 1,000, or 0.6%.

Reality #2: the rate of rape and sexual assault for non-students is 7.6 per 1,000.

Reality #3: the rate of rape and sexual assault has been dropping, both on campus and off, for decades.

While the Left, with its SJW allies, are using this bogus statistic, it needs to be mentioned that America is subject to periodic moral panics: demon rum, cocaine (in the early 1900's and again in the 1970's), dope fiends (1930's and 1960's), satanism at day care centers, the Catholic Church pedophile scandals (overlooking the public school pedophile scandals), and now "rape culture."

This does not even include such panics as DDT, alar, the uninsured, GMOs (and other organic food related panics), the anti-vaxxers, and the Christian Proctor and Gamble hysteria of the 1980's.

Update: More College Rape Hype — This Time from the Washington Post

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

Article: Why Most Published Science Studies Are Wrong

A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

[snip]

Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”. 

[snip]

And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. 

[snip]

Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication.

I started this blog back in June. I have deliberately sought out research that 1) contradicted the "received" and politically correct narrative and/or 2) "research" that is obviously bogus.

The paper reports between 75-90% of research findings could not be "replicated" (the gold-standard of research). That is, 75-90% of published research is bunk.

One of my favorite targets have been research focusing on global warming. It is obvious why this has been such an easy target for someone who actually thinks about the research, rather than repeat talking points.

Anything people, government and money touches, they corrupt. And $30 billion pays for a lot of corruption. I do not mean corruption in the sense of bribes. I mean paying for biases. Research that produces the correct answers get rewarded.

Michael Mann of Penn State is considered a major player in the field of climate change, yet the "hockey stick" research was full of cherry-picked data ("...One in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data"). He has been called a fraud, though not in the technical and legal sense such as the convicted swindler, Bernie Madoff.

The Science Is Settled! Until it is disproven.

Article: Where Global Warming Went: Into the Pacific

In February of this year, climate scientist were convinced that the earth was not apparently warming because all the "missing" heat was suddenly (and mysteriously and in violation of the known laws of physics) sinking into the deep parts of the Pacific ocean.

Now, everyone knows that when air or water warms, it expands, the density lessens and it is pushed up cooler air or water sinking to take its place. But that is not the way the Pacific Ocean was supposed to be working. The stupidity of this idea has now been revealed to be stupid by a contradictory study by NASA.

Article: NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. 

Maybe the increase in temperature observed in the 20th century was not as dependent on carbon dioxide levels as the computer models predicted.

The temperature of the top half of the world's ocean -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

So that is not the solution.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. 

When does "many processes" become "desperately flailing around for an answer?"

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period, warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.

No, it isn't. It means that the oceans are equilibrating to the existing, higher level of heat energy in the atmosphere.

If I turn on the heat in a cold room with a concrete floor, the room's air will soon reach the desired higher temperature, but it is going to take longer for the concrete floor to equilibrate to the new, higher temperature. The air temperature is not rising, just transferring heat energy to the floor as the furnace maintains the new, higher temperature.

Article: Low-carbon energy future is clean, feasible

A future where electricity comes mostly from low-carbon sources is not only feasible in terms of material demand, but will significantly reduce air pollution, a study published in the 6 October Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says.

The article does not say how much the "low-carbon sources" will be subsidized, as most of these are now.

The researchers did the study because so little is known about the environmental costs of a widespread global shift to renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power, and what the effect of this shift might have on material requirements. "Would the shift to low-carbon energy systems increase or decrease other types of pollution?" the researchers asked. 

The researchers looked at concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, wind power, hydropower, and gas- and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). 

No mention of nuclear power makes the study worthless. If you are going to do a study on "low carbon sources" and do not take into account nuclear power you are wasting your own time and someone else's money.

Also there is a lot of "green" opposition to hydropower, both current uses and expansions.  If that is not taken into account, it is merely another reason why the study is worthless.

And there is growing, "green" opposition to wind and concentration solar power plants as well.

Unless green opposition is faced and eliminated, studies like this are useless. I hope the researchers got some cash and fun out it.

Low carbon technologies can demand much more use of raw materials per unit of power generation than conventional fossil fuel plants, the researchers noted. For example, photovoltaic systems need 11-40 times more copper than fossil fuel production, while wind power plants need 6-14 times more iron than fossil fuel production.

Turns out that the usage of these elements will not be a significant drain on resources.

A lot of this is "blue-skying:" unrealistic and filled with guess work.

Science Links, 8/9/14.

Let's clear the tabs and post some links.

Pot and teens, nuclear energy, brain-mimicking chips, animals are sentient(?), and a vaccine study withdrawn.

Article: Pot studies suggest regular use is bad for teen brains

A close look at the under-25 age group shows cognitive decline, poor attention and memory and decreased IQ among those who regularly smoke pot, defined as at least once a week, says Krista Lisdahl, director of the brain-imaging and neuropsychology lab at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

"The adolescent period is a sensitive period of neurodevelopment," she says.

Overall, marijuana use begins in the later teens, around age 16 or 17, peaks in the early 20s and drops off between ages 23 and 25, says Lisdahl.

"Is it a coincidence that use significantly goes down at 25 when the brain is at its full maturation? I don't think so," she says.

Colloquially, this has been know for years. "Why do think that call it 'dope'?" was often used on anti-drug posters for years.

The fact that it hits young people hardest is not a surprise either. Brains begin developing in the womb and do not complete development until adulthood.

There is a lovely piece of circular reasoning exposed in the article. Areas of Montana that voted for the legalization of pot were also the areas with the highest usage of pot. The reasoning?

"People don't perceive it as a very harmful substance, and these community norms translate to teens," she says. "From the teen study, they do reference legalization: 'If it was that bad a drug, they wouldn't be trying to legalize it.' "

Older studies on the effects of pot may be invalid because the levels of the active ingredient is much higher today that it was in past.

Article: Obama’s Energy Guru on America’s Nuclear Future

Interview with Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

Discussion of small, modular nuclear plants. Also energy use efficiency, gas, oil, coal, wind and solar. No mention of how much the latter two are directly subsidized.

Article: Brain-inspired chip fits 1m [million] 'neurons' on postage stamp

Each "neuron" is attached to 256 others (in human brains, each neuron is attached to 10,000 each).

Traditional programming will not work, so new programming will have to be done.

These chips, and ones like them, are being used for visual recognition. This is something the brain does very well, but traditional computers do poorly.

Article: Quebec to amend Civil Code to better protect animals from abuse

Once the Civil Code is amended, cats, dogs and other animals will no longer be considered as "personal property" but as living, "sentient" creatures. That is a formula that has already been adopted by several European countries.

Sentient: able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste. Aware.

No one would argue that animals are able to "fee, see, hear, smell, or taste." However, are animals actually "aware?" So what is the definition of sentient in the legislation?

While recognizing the sentient nature of an animal will not give it the same type of rights as for humans, it will increase the obligations on owners and breeders toward their charges.

Paradis noted that there is a demand for better treatment of animals and it has already been heard in Europe.

"We're seeing how things are evolving in Europe on agricultural farms — there are larger cages for pigs and more space for chickens. If you're not part of this movement, you're going to be excluded."

"We're telling people, 'you can no longer treat animals as inert, property with no emotions,'" she said. "This will force people to be aware, it will force the courts to act. There will be change, that's for sure."

This is not just about pets, this legislation will also cover livestock animals. 

Once the Civil Code has been updated, "Quebec judges will have no choice, in my opinion, to be a bit more coercive," she said.

"Coercive." A nice reminder that government is, by nature, coercive.

Article: Scientists retract narcolepsy study linked to GSK vaccine

...the journal said the researchers, led by Emmanuel Mignot, a professor of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Stanford University, had asked that the paper be retracted "because they were unable to replicate some of the results reported in the paper".

Research needs to be able to be replicated in order to be considered valid by scientists.

Yet, another study linking a vaccine with a brain disorder that was shown to be invalid.