Why Climate Science’s Condition Is Terminal …”Science” Has Suffered The Very Same Fatal Disease Before

If you’re looking for an outstanding, powerful analogue that shows the likely future fate of climate science, Ian Leslie (of the Guardian, no less!) has it here. Hat-tip: Mikky

credit union hot sites

The high carb, low-fat science is crumbling with ever accelerating speed and in spectacular fashion. And because climate science was established in the very same way, it too will crumble just as spectacularly.

Ancel Keys = Michael Mann
7-Country Chart = Hockey Stick Chart
Fat = CO2
John Yudkin = Richard Lindzen
US Dietary Guidelines = IPCC
Nina Teicholz = Vincent Gray

Also high carb science is chock full with smears, appeals to consensus, arrogance, vicious attacks, data cherry-picking, politicization, peer-review corruption, fraud, obstinance, naïve simplicity, one-sided funding etc. which we’ve all have come to know so well in climate science.

Outstanding essay on how junk science survived 50 years

Just substitute the above in Ian Leslie’s outstanding “The Sugar Conspiracy” and you will see exactly what will happen to CO2 climate science. It’s going to take another one, maybe two decades. It’s a long read, but worth every word and minute.

And as you will see CO2 climate science is an exact carbon copy of the dietary fat scandal and will certainly suffer the same fate.

Some excerpts:

Leslie on The latest US Dietary Guidelines:

The 2015 edition of the US Dietary Guidelines (they are revised every five years) makes no reference to any of this new research, because the scientists who advised the committee – the most eminent and well-connected nutritionists in the country – neglected to include a discussion of it in their report. It is a gaping omission, inexplicable in scientific terms, but entirely explicable in terms of the politics of nutrition science. If you are seeking to protect your authority, why draw attention to evidence that seems to contradict the assertions on which that authority is founded? Allow a thread like that to be pulled, and a great unravelling might begin.”

On how science progresses:

In a 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The researchers identified more than 12,000 “elite” scientists from different fields. […] Searching obituaries, the team found 452 who had died before retirement. They then looked to see what happened to the fields from which these celebrated scientists had unexpectedly departed, by analysing publishing patterns.

What they found confirmed the truth of Planck’s maxim. Junior researchers who had worked closely with the elite scientists, authoring papers with them, published less. At the same time, there was a marked increase in papers by newcomers to the field, who were less likely to cite the work of the deceased eminence. The articles by these newcomers were substantive and influential, attracting a high number of citations. They moved the whole field along.”

On the Internet as an information source:

One of the scientists who called for the retraction of Nina Teicholz’s BMJ article, who requested that our conversation be off the record, complained that the rise of social media has created a “problem of authority” for nutrition science. “Any voice, however mad, can gain ground,” he told me. […]

But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.”

And rest assured, climate science will show the same.

 

22 responses to “Why Climate Science’s Condition Is Terminal …”Science” Has Suffered The Very Same Fatal Disease Before”

  1. Ron C.

    The gory details on the demise of climate science from Richard Lindzen.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/climate-science-was-broken/

  2. dernnisthemenace

    This has also led directly to the unproven cholesterol CVD hypothesis(myth) and the subsequent over-medication of the general population with the attendant unforeseeable consequences; here also measurable counter evidence is piling up on a daily basis.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    Good post. Thanks.
    ——————–

    The world needs a new phrase for this: “an exact carbon copy of”
    {carbon paper is 1806 technology}
    Young readers may know of but never seen such.

    1. Colorado Wellington

      Ah, the computer-literate young and forever young.

      Copy and paste? Drag and drop? Pull a Biden?

  4. John

    Lets hope that it does not take 50 years for people to wake up from the climate lies.
    At least we now have the Internet so that information spreads so much quicker.

  5. Betapug

    The “carbon” copy analogies are telling and fascinating, even including the involvement of “Big Oil”, (Big VEGETABLE Oil,that is!) noted in Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon’s detailed history which goes all the way back to Mark Twain. http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america/

    Reactive opposition from within the medical science community to Enig seems to have limited her audience in a way that “outsider” Gary Taubes, whose Physics and Engineering degrees fostered an early interest in Bad Science, leading to the 2002 NY Times Magazine article “What if its all been a big fat lie?” which attracted my attention… after a heart attack.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all

  6. Colorado Wellington

    Pierre,

    This is another great post.

    I started paying attention to the medical establishment’s nutritional guidelines a little over 2 decades ago. I began to educate myself and within a few years I became convinced that the science was deficient and the whole high-carb/low-fat thing was a politically anchored scam at the nexus of private interests and big government. Like you, I’ve also had great results in disregarding the conventional knowledge and changing my own diet.

    Because of my geology background, I’d been somewhat skeptical of the early CO2 global warming claims. I’ve already been very suspicious of the German Greens’ politics I’d experienced first-hand in the 80s. After the fall of the Soviet Bloc I was waiting which ersatz-vehicle to power the Left will adopt next and I was not surprised when I saw the global warming cause being promoted by them. I knew they never give up. I would have loved it if Fukuyama were right but I never believed in ”The End of History”. When the totalitarians failed to defeat the Western Civilization in the industrialization race, they decided to force it into de-industrialization.

    It was also around mid-90s I started seeing the similarities between the global warming and high-carb/low-fat campaigns. I saw the same methods and the same goals. I noticed how both movements overlapped, e.g. in their push against meat consumption. In both cases the defined end goal was the collectivist control of our lives.

    So in connection with my long-standing belief that we must fight the leftist fraud of defining National Socialism as the “extreme right” opposite of leftist Communism, these themes started coalescing for me into one. I saw the same forces lining up on the same side and I noticed the same individuals in “progressive” Boulder pushing the same solutions. It became clear how it was all interconnected (“it was no accident”, to borrow a favorite Marxist phrase).

    I’ve been a reader of your blog long enough to not be quite sure when I first saw it but initially I thought of it as a single issue global warming-themed effort. I was gratified when I noticed some years back that you and your readers pay attention to this totalitarian connection (“we have ways to make you eat sustainably” as I think Dirk put it). I don’t expect we could ever rest but I feel very much at home at the place you have created here and among the people you have attracted. And it doesn’t hurt to be able to tell a disagreeable collectivist to sod off when he gets too obnoxious.

    Thank you for the work you do day in and day out. I think I know how much it takes and I appreciate it very much. I hope you will never give up. It’s a long, hard slog but we can win.

    1. Loodt Pretorius

      CW, since Pierre started covering the nutrition issues to his posts this website is becoming more and more relevant and essential to visit. I join you in thanking him.

  7. Harry Dale Huffman

    “Climate Science Is Doomed”, from 3 years ago.

    And it’s “More Than a Conspiracy, More Than Climate Science”. ALL of the earth and life sciences are doomed, as now conceived. Milankovitch theory. Ice Ages. Plate Tectonics. The entire Undirected Evolution paradigm. All already disproven, all wrong-headed in their fundamental assumptions.

    1. David Johnson

      I think not!

  8. Mindert Eiting

    Interesting article, Pierre. To add a few notes, the problem is the most severe in applied sciences. If our engineers, responsible for buildings, bridges, and railroads, but also surgeons, would embrace a bizarre theory, it would be over in a year. The problem has to do with long-term effects, like in diets, some medicines (softenon), passive smoking, climate. Perhaps punishment is here the alternative for falsification, but those responsible will be retired or dead when that happens.

  9. Gentletramp

    Thanks Pierre,

    again a very welcome and valuable article, though I would say:

    Ancel Keys = James Hansen

    and not Michael Mann who didn’t start this collective hysteria (best to compare with the witch hunt hysteria at the beginning of the LIA), but only used it for its personal career advancement as so many younger “scientic” free riders of our time…

    And that widespread “free rider” syndrom is also the reason why it will take at least 30 years longer to overcome this mega hype: There are so many “scientists” who have built their whole career on it, and so many politians and journalists who have connected their reputation with CAWG, and so many greedy “green” investors and NGOs who gained really much money with e.g. bird- and bat-killing wind mills, carbon-emission-trades, or gigantic donations (GREENPEACE!) from the scared and quilty feeling populace, and – last but not least – so many poor countries which expect billions of cash as “compensation” from the “guilty” industrial nations, so that all these people simply cannot admit their error without to damage themselves very badly, even if they would realize the madness of this gigantic global scare mongering hysteria…

  10. Don B

    Leslie’s article is wonderful.

    Like John, above, I am hopeful that the rapid flow of information through the internet will hasten the demise of alarmism.

    On the other hand, climate activists in government are using the legal system, not just shaming, to try to silence heretics. It is a sad time.

  11. Buddy

    Absolutely wonderful article. And right on point. After all….what we eat for our diet is directly related to global warming (somehow:).

    People need to stand up and fight against those scientists who are CONTINUING to post diabolical things like…..FACTS and STATISTICS. SHAME on them!

    I mean….look at this “clap trap” scam of temperature records in nations like Russia and Canada that border the Arctic and continue to show 2 – 3 times the number of record high temperatures as opposed to new record low temperatures. It is absolutely incredible to me that we allow scientists to keep on posting those statistics!

    http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratio-of-new-record-high-temps-to-new_36.html

    CLEARLY Russia and Canada must be lying about the record high temperatures drifting higher and higher over the decades. And the US as well. I mean…..how can the US have almost twice the number of new record high temperatures compared to new record low temperatures….when the earth is clearly cooling as Joe Bastardi claims?

    I think there should be a law that forbids scientists to record this nonsense. It makes me sooooo mad:)

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Do you mean the First Law of Thermodynamics?

    2. DirkH

      “I mean….look at this “clap trap” scam of temperature records in nations like Russia and Canada that border the Arctic and continue to show 2 – 3 times the number of record high temperatures as opposed to new record low temperatures. It is absolutely incredible to me that we allow scientists to keep on posting those statistics!”

      Buddy, why are there new record low temperatures at all up there if the globe is warming and if according to Global Warming theory the poles warm at least twice as fast as the rest of the world?
      I think you have disproven Global Warming theory involuntarily. Next time, refine your rethoric.

  12. henkie

    Dear Pierre,
    a very good posting and an amazingly likeliness between nutrional and climate science. As you show, both disciplines are infested with the superiorness of their peers, obliterating all dissenting views. Shame on them.

  13. dennisambler

    There have been people banging on this door for many years, for example Dr Uffe Ravenskov, reviewed here in this post by John Brignell in 2000:

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cholesterol_myths.htm

    I have a copy of his book, purchased at that time, he could never get funding for a subsequent re-print.

    Several things stood out for me, Risk factors are simply that, they are not causation, cholesterol has never been a risk factor for women and is only a risk factor for men up to the age of 47. Older people need more cholesterol and populations on high fat diets had lower incidence of heart disease.

    Keys cherry picked his data, as did Callander with atmospheric CO2.

    Brignell says:
    “Ravnskov takes nine myths, which are:

    High fat foods cause heart disease.
    High cholesterol causes heart disease.
    High-fat foods raise blood cholesterol.
    Cholesterol blocks arteries.
    Animal studies prove the heart-diet idea.
    Lowering your cholesterol will lengthen your life.
    Polyunsaturated oils are good for you.
    The cholesterol campaign is based on good science.
    All scientists support the diet-heart idea.

    He then looks at all the evidence, not just the papers favoured by the establishment, and disposes of the myths one by one. It is a scientific tour de force, for which he will, no doubt, be dismissed as a crank. It says much of the state of the modern world when those who adhere to the scientific method are cranks, while those who flout it win Nobel prizes.”

  14. H. D. Hoese

    Its not just these, check out, among other examples

    http://www.dolphininspiredsonar.com/DeadZoneScience/WronglyReadingGraphs.htm

    There is still lots of good science though, been defending it for decades.

  15. Colorado Wellington

    Pierre,

    Commenter dmmcmah at Tony Heller’s blog brought to my attention this WaPo article about a massive 1960s-70s study on low-saturated-fat-high-vegetable-oil diet:

    This study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published.

    Money quote:

    “Yet the fuller accounting of the Minnesota data indicates that the advice is, at best, unsupported by the massive trial. In fact, it appears to show just the opposite: Patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually suffered more heart-related deaths than those who did not.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published