“Saturated fat does not cause heart disease”—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. This is the lead line from “The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease” from the the May 16th edition of the Wall Street Journal. The article then goes on to discuss the faulty research that generated this ‘link’ between saturated fats and heart disease. And, the unhealthy unintended consequences of ill-health and obesity over the last 50 years. Unintended consequences pushed by a bandwagon of food and agriculture business interests, medical organizations and, of course, the government.
The latest of which led to Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity drive and her latest school lunch requirements. Requirement so execrable, that most of these tax-payer funded lunches are landing in the garbage cans of our nations school lunchrooms. So execrable, that school districts are completely bailing out of the school lunch program and passing on the federal funds that go with it. But what is foregone in terms of federal funding is vastly overwhelmed by the buckets of federal dollars that, over the last 50 years, have gone into ‘fighting’ this crisis. And, even more billions, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid dollars fighting such problems as diabetes and obesity that may be the very consequences of substitution of saturated fats for unsaturated vegetable fats.
Pseudoscience, faulty science, science by consensus. And, the wreckage of unintended consequences. How could all this happen? It can and it has been happening repeatedly for at least the last 100 years.A century ago, Eugenics was all the rage. Somehow we were going to save the human race from itself by breeding superior humans and curtailing the breeding of ‘unfit’ humans. No one could really define what such were–I guess it was what pornography was to Justice Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it.” That subjectivity translated into support by the likes of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, funding by the like of the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, and the public support of a who raft of prominent artist and the like of the early 20th century. In had practical consequences such as forced sterilizations–in the good ole’ USA. And, all of that happened before Hitler stepped up to the plate.
In the end, did it really do anything in improve the human race. Between Stalin, Mao and Hitler, some 100 hundred million lives were snuffed out. 100 hundred million ‘undesirables’ eliminated from the gene pool. Pretty rigorous testing of the hypothesis. For that, we have, at least in Germany and Russia, demographic disasters with birth rates so low that their respective populations are imploding. For whatever they have in ‘superior’ breeding stock, they may very well be not around in a generation or two.
Then, we go on to man-made global warming. Again in disarray. In disarray because they’ve been caught massaging the data to fit the narrative of their foundation and governmental patrons. We have the Climate-gate of 2009 with the ‘hide the decline’ emails hacked from East Anglia. We further have the news that East Anglia University, one of the three major repositories of temperature data isn’t. Apparently, the raw data was discard for ‘enhanced’ data.
Then, we have Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick’ debunked. But, not before it centered in the UN’s IPCC’s climate report.
Finally, we have skeptical and opposing views, by otherwise bona fide scientists being purposely kept out of allegedly ‘peer reviewed’ scientific journals. Moreover, other scientist have been hounded out of their institutions for expressing their objections and skepticism.
But, despite this billions of tax dollars continued to be wasted to prop up this pseudoscience. Solyndra, bankrupt at the cost of half a billion dollars. With Solyndra, scores of other bankruptcies in battery production and electric car production. Then, thanks to the CAFE standards, we bear the cost of increasingly expensive cars and trucks. Expensive to design, build, buy and maintain. Cars that are more dangerous because they are lighter to meet these standards. Lighter cars will have less structural rigidity.
Incandescent light bulbs replaced by governmental fiat with compact fluorescent bulbs ladened with mercury. It will be decades before we finish paying for these regulations. Regulations that are increasingly appearing to be crony capitalism and rent seeking.
This all leads to the common denominator that is governmental participation. There are plenty of idiotic ideas out there; ideas that if left alone will die their very deserved death. Until the 800 pound gorilla of governmental money and fiat enters the picture to supercharge a bad idea into bad public policy. Bad policy based on half cooked ideas. Half cooked ideas that happen to serve someone’s agenda.
The other common denominator is the fact that too many scientists are willing to sell scientific integrity on the altar of lucre.
So, lets make the internet really work for us. Since most research is at the behest of a governmental grant, public money places that research into the public domain. It time to create the software and the requirements to place all the research data, especially the raw data, on the internet to be accessible to anyone. We’ve essentially already done that with medical data (the NSA knows) with the push for electronic medical records.
And, its necessary, since science has taken a big credibility hit. Climategate has more than shown that scientists are most human, subject to the pressures of money, group acceptance and celebrity. Fine, if that’s the case, then at least make the data behind ‘scientific’ assertions available to allow even some rube in the middle of fly-over country like Wyoming the opportunity to verify the truth. Further, destruction of research data should be regarded as destroying government property and prosecuted as such.
Finally, someone in the world of science, in the fraternity of those that call themselves ‘scientists,’ need to realize that sacrificing scientific integrity at the feet of governmental funding has cost science it’s badly needed credibility. You don’t need a degree to know that scientific method requires experimental results to fit reality. The Copernican theory of the earth orbiting the sun was based on hard data and a majority vote. Fundamentally, I believe huge swaths of the public will no longer take ‘science’ at face value; the white coat is no longer trademark of integrity.
Last winter flies in the face of warming alarmism. So, pardon the skepticism. Computer models will only do what your underlying assumptions will tell it to do; so get your noses out from behind you computer screens and shovel the snow like I did repeatedly last winter.
And, would McDonald’s please bring back french fries fried in beef tallow.
I think grape was the flavor served by Jim Jones.
The analogy is apt bacasue any veneer of science on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGM) has been stripped away by the fraud scandal over massaged data and cooked books at East Anglia’s CRU. It was further heightened by the fact that the raw data of a compilation of 150 years of climate data was discarded with only the ‘enhanced’ data, derived from this raw data, now remaining.
So, as the jets of the worlds leaders, prime ministers, presidents, strongmen and potentates darken the skies over Copenhagen next week, we find we have a meeting that will discuss all sorts of new extra-national governmental bodies mandating economy and job killing mandates. The convenient excuse of global warming, now ‘climate change’ since the earth has been cooling for the last ten years, is now gone. Gone because any basis in scientific research, by the admission of some of the ‘scientists’ at CRU, have been cooked. Gone because the raw data to support this bogus research has long since been placed in the dumpster behind the CRU.
By the way, notice, despite the fact that ‘climate change’ is a tacit acknowledgment that the earth has been cooling, not warming, the proposed solution remains unchanged; the regulation of carbon dioxide. A good liar needs a good memory.
And, another aside. I read that when then vice-President Al Gore flew to Kyoto in Air Force One, he burned up some 69,000 gallons of gas. Moreover, every time Air Force One flies the President or vice-President, another two or three Air Force cargo planes accompany Air Force One to carry extra security gear and personnel, the presidential limo, other security vehicles and, of course, the TelePrompter. Carbon footprint anyone?
So, we come to a utterly pointless meeting, to discuss an alleged environmental problem, that has no basis in fact. Those facts are now moldering in some anonymous landfill. So, we now have to believe made up facts based on our trust of ‘scientists’ who destroyed data and fabricated research. Take it on faith. We go from the realm of science to religion. Faith to drink the UN Cool-Aid and spend trillions of dollars for a problem that doesn’t exist.
First, you don’t throw out raw data. And, the excuse that there wasn’t room when moving the CRU from one building to another simply doesn’t hold water. Universities have vast libraries to archive millions of books and other matter. For heaven’s sake, my alma mater, Northwestern University, had room to hold a comic book library. Seriously, if the space problem was so bad, you could have rented a space in some local U-Store-It facility near the campus. Yet, somehow, 150 years worth of climate data, acquired at the cost of billions of dollars–tax dollars I might add–was just thrown out. Real scientists do not throw out raw data. Period.
Something else is going on. I think the real Cool-Aid is the fact that this whole crisis was ginned up to create an excuse to create a regime of further taxation and governmental control. Carbon dioxide is the perfect vehicle for the ultimate VAT tax. Tax and regulate our breath.
Moreover, the fix was in even a decade or more ago. This massaging and destruction of data was done by climate experts who knew the weaknesses of their assertions. These people knew and had to be prepared to explain away periodic warming and cooling periods for the last two millennia; the Roman and Medieval warming. The cooling that started in 400 A.D. (and coincided with the fall of Rome and the ushering in of the dark ages) and the Little Ice Age that just ended in the 1850’s. They had to anticipate the fact that these warmings and coolings would not have the convenient explanations of the industrial revolution and the internal combustion engine. In order to nail down carbon dioxide as the culprit, these ‘researchers’ had to conjure up data that downplayed or ignored two millennia of warming and cooling. And, simultaneously play up this latest warming as particularly exceptional. The ‘hockey stick’ graph is the most egregious example of this systematic fraud.
The whole field of climate research is suspect. None of its researchers any longer deserve a presumption of innocence or the benefit of the doubt. Every piece of research needs to be carefully re-inspected. The stuff out of East Anglia’s CRU is categorically useless. Without the raw data and the clear dishonesty of its key researchers these is no way you can go through the archives of ‘enhanced’ data and back track to the raw data. How can you? How can you know how each data point was massaged? Did one data point have some value added to it? Another, some value subtracted? Perhaps yet another data point was divided by the square root of the sum of Raquel Welch’s vital measurements from her 1967 movie One Million Years B.C.
And, since similar climate data sets at NASA and NOAA are under the care of the same cabal of climate groupies, this data and research is suspect as well. Hopefully, the raw data is preserved and not being cared for by your local Browning-Ferris guys. If this data has been destroyed, I hope some enterprising DA will be asking our ‘scientists,’ under oath, before grand juries, pointed questions as to how it came to pass that government property was systematically destroyed.
Powerline brings up a good point that the most damning e-mail from the hacked East Anglia climate files was written in 1999. But, this no where near exonerates the pack of rogues of who have been pushing the anthropogenic global warming (AGM) fraud.
The authors of these e-mail, as the putative experts in the field of global climate changes would have had the most detailed knowledge of the weaknesses of their AGM arguments. They, for example would have known about the Roman warming (about 300 BC to 400 AD) and the Medieval warming (about 900 AD to 1300 AD) periods. They would have also know about the bad effects of the global cooling following those warming periods. Little events, like, the fall of Rome and the ushering in the dark ages; literally and figuratively. Or, with the onset of the little ice age, in 1300, the black plague.
Could it be, that maybe the books were being cooked, even back in 1999, because these researchers needed to make this latest bout of global warming look really bad? Did they need a little extra to explain away the fact that the internal combustion engine wasn’t around for the Roman or Medieval warmings?
We know from the asides and the chatter that these ‘scientists’ were engaged in a political agenda. They’re entitled to their opinions, political and otherwise. But, the tenor of these e-mails demonstrate that these guys didn’t check their personal opinions at the door when they punched the clock going to work at East Anglia.
And, if they did have an agenda, what was it? Were they out to ride the hobby horse of AGM with the goal of pinning the blame on carbon dioxide? Was the goal of making carbon dioxide the ‘fall guy’ the creation of rationalizations to further agendas of global governance in the name of cutting green house gas emissions? Or, to create a case for the regulatory monstrosity that is the cap and trade bill voted out of the House earlier this year? Or, an excuse to create a economy and job killing tax regime that is integral to this House bill?
Did these researchers know that there were serious shortcomings to their AGM theories that would eventually see the light of day? Did they, even in 1999, have to manufacture data to create air tight case that there is global warming, show that it was worse than any other such on record and then create the inference that carbon dioxide is the culprit to segue into the the above agendas?
Okay. This makes me a right-wing conspiracy nut-job. But, the raw data that these ‘researchers’ and ‘scientists’ are sitting on are courtesy public money and government grants. Likewise, these guys are getting paid to write these e-mails via grants that come from public monies. My money. My tax dollars.
But, there’s a simple solution to this problem. It involves taking a page from the campaign promises of our el maximo leader, Obama. Transparency. I simply propose that the raw climate data, in large part paid with my taxes, be completely and with reservation, placed in the public domain. No hacking necessary. Put all the raw data on the internet. All of it.