On the Application of Homeopathy in the Treatment of Serious Diseases Including Cancer (4)

Guest Blogger

Global warming's story begins with a diabolical bastard named Karl Marx.

Born in Germany in 1818, Marx lived sixty-five years during which time his twisted mind conceived an atrocious plot to infect the world with his godless philosophy of "organized collectivism" — a.k.a. communism, or, for the more politically correct, socialism.

Since his death in 1883, the global carnage wrought in his name by committed devotees is unfathomable. Commencing with the Russian Revolution in 1917 to the present, Marx's blood-red ideology has been responsible for the documented deaths of over 110 million individuals around the world. Hundreds of millions more have been forced to live in oppressed societies, void of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Finally, after decades of stealthy determination, the quixotic conjectures of Marx have seeped into the framework of the United States, with the most effectual being the supposed environmental crisis known as global warming or climate change.

p ix

Hitler's rise to power was unparalleled, and surrounding countries soon were concerned about the dangers of Nazi expansion. After a highly publicized meeting between Hitler and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of England, Chamberlain heralded to the world, "I believe it is peace in our time." Soon after the prime minister's words were gobbled up and then regurgitated by the press, Hitler unleashed a ferocious campaign of terror upon the European continent and beyond.

Niemoeller later famously lamented that he didn't do enough to stop Hitler's reign of evil: "Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

If good people, like Niemoeller, wished they had vehemently spoken out as the most horrific lie in the history of the world was being carried out before their eyes, do we have any excuse for not confronting those promoting this shameful scam of man-caused global warming?

No, we don't. Our country is in the throes of change, evil change designed to dismantle us and force us into a global political and economic system with unprecedented speed and on widespread levels not seen in this country since the days of America's Revolution. Perhaps we're past due for another. Personally, I refuse to remain silent about the literal betrayal and destruction of our still great nation, albeit a nation crippled by its own government.

pp217-218

Sussman, B. (2010). Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam. Washington DC: WND Books.

On the Application of Homeopathy in the Treatment of Serious Diseases Including Cancer (3)

Andrew Bolt Reveals Stupidity Again. Millions Unsurprised.

EoR recently noted how Andrew Bolt loves to cherry pick and quote mine to support his contention that global warming was created by a sinister cadre of only a handful of scientists.

EoR noted how a single, out of context sentence, had gone viral on the denialosphere and how, in actuality, it didn't support the deniers' plaintive wailings at all.

Now the author of that in-press review has now issued a 'correction and clarification':

Three things should be clear from this. First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. Second, they have a potential to mislead if they give the impression that every statement in IPCC reports is ‘signed off’ by every IPCC author and reviewer. Patently they are not, and cannot. Third, it is the chapter lead authors – say 10 to 20 experts - on detection and attribution who craft the sentence about detection and attribution, which is then scrutinised and vetted by reviewers and government officials. Similarly, statements about what may happen to the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the ocean are crafted by those expert in ocean science, statements about future sea-level rise by sea-level experts, and so on.

The point of this bit of our article was to draw attention to the need for a more nuanced understanding of what an IPCC ‘consensus’ is – as I say: “Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC! Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC’s projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else – as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) – is unhelpful; it doesn’t reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge.

Mike Hulme, Norwich
15 June 2010

It would be curmudgeonly of EoR to note that all climate deniers appear to agree with every single faked 'fact' promoted by people like Andrew Bolt. So he won't. And why are they ignoring the real threat to humanity?

On the Application of Homeopathy in the Treatment of Serious Diseases Including Cancer (2)

God Kills Son Again. Hilarity Ensues.

As the Washington Post reports, it appears God is trying to slay his son again:

A bolt struck a 62-foot-tall statue of Jesus Christ on Monday outside a church in Monroe, Ohio, and the statue erupted in flames. All that remains is a charred steel skeleton, its spindly arms stretched toward heaven, a gesture that once earned it the nickname "Touchdown Jesus."

But perhaps God was simply avoiding a terrible tragedy?

Darlene Bishop, co-pastor of Solid Rock Church, says she's simply relieved that the lightning hit Jesus and not the home for at-risk women next door.

Which rather begs the question as to why He bothered sending the bolt out of the blue at all.

The article sadly resorts to the unproven, faith-based explanation promoted by the Church of Science that tall objects are likely to get hit by lightning. Clearly this is not a reasonable explanation. If it really were true, how can it be that no statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has ever been hit by lightning?

Actually, EoR suspects that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was actually aiming at Russia. In stark contrast to the unproven 'theory' of evolution, there is abundant evidence of His Noodly Goodness in the wonderful miracle that is creation. How else to explain the worldwide existence of pasta?

The Circus Comes to Town (Again)

Well, after the scientifically challenged Monckton whirlwind tour of exaggeration and disinformation, it's time for the second rank performers to strut their stuff. Anthony Watts ("A former television meteorologist"), David Archibald ("An Australian scientist operating in the fields of climate science and cancer research") and David Stockwell ("Former U.S. scientist") will be coming to a (cooling) town near you.

EoR wonders why they're charging for their tour, when it's apparently dissimulating climate scientists who are only in it for the grant money. Surely Big Oil and Big Mining have a few dollars lying around to help them out?

Andrew Watts appears to have made it his life's cause to photograph meteorological recording stations, thereby disproving the whole of the lie that is climate science. The NOAA have published a response to these claims. To which Mr Watts bleats:

They borrowed (and I use that term loosely) some of my early data that I had published up to the website to help my volunteers locate stations. We had 43% of the network surveyed at that point, and I had never published any other data beyond that, and I advised them when they started doing this work that that data that they used had not been quality controlled yet, it was there just for the purposes of locating stations, and the data contained in it hadn't been quality checked, and it was far from complete. It had biases in it related to the spatial representation in the US, those holes that I tried to fill in, for example, in the middle of the country, in rural areas in the middle of Texas and Oklahoma and Idaho, away from cities. That data didn't have those things. And so what they ended up with was a set of data that was mostly urban, mostly around cities, not quality controlled and not complete, and they used that data because they were so keen on discrediting our work that they rushed to get that out.

And I made complaints with the journal saying that the use of my data to publish a paper that I hadn't even finished yet was wrong and it violated professional standards, and they went ahead anyway and did it. So I think that their methodology speaks to the credibility of the results.

In other words, the claims made were based on incomplete, unverified 'data'? His 'paper' isn't finished or peer-reviewed yet, but he's touring the country to promote his findings? And EoR won't even point out the irony of the dummy-spitting of "They stole my data!" when the climate denialists berated the Climate Research Unit for refusing to release data under FOI. EoR trusts that the Watts circus will have a sufficiently large black pot with them.

One popular skeptic argument has been to cast doubt on the surface temperature record. Skeptics claim thermometers are unreliable because surroundings can influence the reading. They reinforce this by showing photo after photo of weather stations positioned near warming influences like air conditioners, barbeques and carparks. [How climate skeptics mislead]

Archibald, who is so widely experienced he appears to be an expert in the closely linked fields of climate science and cancer research, is not above fiddling the inputs in order to get the result he wants. Which seems to be a favourite exercise among the deniers.

If anyone is interested in his groundbreaking powerpoint presentation or his Nobel quality booklet they are available from the Inquiry into the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy website (and anyone who needs the 'help' of Christopher Monckton, as he notes in his acknowledgements, is really in desperate straits). Strangely, one of his slides is based on "A Rural US Data Set". Yes, those same weather stations that his performance partner, Anthony Watts, claims are providing corrupt data. Oh, irony, where is thy sting...

In his booklet he states (Solar Cycle 24, p. 45):

2009 is the eleventh anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature in 1998. The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then. My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009.

Science is, of course, tested by making predictions based on observations, and testing those predictions. How does Archibald fare?

First five months of 2010 [are] second warmest on record

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

Nonetheless, never let it be said that a failed hypothesis will prevent him touring the country with his failed hypothesis. Unless the intended purpose of the tour is so Archibald can explain that he got it wrong.

Of course, much of his data is no longer current. Nor, apparently, are his current affairs since here is Archibald at the beginning of this month rambling on about Climategate while blissfully (or ignorantly?) completely ignoring the reviews that have been conducted into that little denier fiasco.

Though EoR certainly admires anyone who starts his argument by referencing his own book in the very first sentence as evidence of his claims:

If the data and forecasts in this book are correct, then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in Australia are all wrong.

Ah yes, but there's that 'If'...

EoR is also amazed at the paranoid world he seems to be living in:

The Chief Scientist’s statement is idiotic and patently false, more worthy of a Chief Shaman. There is no physical evidence anywhere on the planet that “disastrous global warming” will start by 2014, or any time at all. The position of Chief Scientist should be the last line of defence of the Australian public from the depredations of any rent-seekers and carpetbaggers. Instead she has joined the chorus that wants to condemn the Australian nation to penury. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have failed the Australian public dismally. That is putting it mildly. In truth, they have conspired against the Australian nation.

It should be noted that EoR fully supports the contention that the Chief Scientist should not be swayed by 'rent-seekers and carpetbaggers'.

David Stockwell is a little more obscure (most Google hits for his name relate to the upcoming tour - of which he's only supporting the Queensland leg) though he seems to specialise in statistical modelling. Could it be using those disproved computer modelling methods that we all know are completely unreliable and only prove what you want them to show? If Archibald brings the Pot, EoR hopes Stockwell will bring the Kettle. It would seem he should not be confused with a Heartbeat character of the same name:

David Stockwell appears sporadically in the early seasons of Heartbeat; it's not until later that he becomes a regular cast member. "Not quite the full quid", David is a useful off-sider for Claude Greengrass.

EoR is, however, interested in his claim that

In general, precipitation increases on the weekends, and temperature and sunlight hours decrease.

Stockwell links to a paper on this topic from which EoR reprints the Abstract. Note that the paper is about Meteorology, not Climate. Certain points have been emphasised by EoR to indicate that what the paper is saying is not actually what Stockwell is claiming (another common denier tactic is to claim support from published papers, but then fail to represent the findings of those papers accurately).

There have been many reports on the subject of weekly periodicity in meteorological variables; they are an indication of anthropogenic influence on (short term) climate.

For Europe, it was found that, for a period from 1946 to 2006, the beginning of the week is warmer than the end of the week. Divided across Europe, this pattern is not as uniform though; the end of the week is the coldest period of the week across Europe, but the warmest period of the week varies; an indication of a regional pattern.

Over time, there is a shift of the general weekly pattern of the warmest period at the beginning of the week to the end of the week (and vice versa for the coldest period of the week). For the different areas in Europe there is also a shift visible, but not as clear as the general shift. The reasons for this shift remain unclear.

Over time the influence of maximum temperature on the weekly pattern seems to have decreased, while the influence of minimum temperature has increased.

In sunshine and precipitation it is harder to distinguish a weekly pattern, due to the different mechanism influencing these variables.

These results indicate that weekly periodicity is present in Europe, and is most likely to be influenced by anthropogenic emissions. A change in these emission patterns seems to also have influence on weekly meteorology.

More research is necessary to get a clear idea of the connection between aerosols and meteorology.

People might be better off attending this public forum instead.

On the Application of Homeopathy in the Treatment of Serious Diseases Including Cancer

Climate Change - The Science

EoR has previously commented at length regarding the WA Skeptics and Dr John Happs and their denialist attitude to climate change, including Dr Happs' letter to Australia's Chief Scientist.

Well, EoR is always happy to correct the record, and it appears that the letter has, indeed, influenced Professor Penny Sackett, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (at least in part). Well, at least in urging them to address the issue of how to promote the message that global warming is happening.

The science itself is quite basic and quite straightforward, and that's why within scientific circles you often hear people say that there's no debate within the science about the enhanced greenhouse effect and the reality of it.

Psychic Names Murderer

EoR's return to blogging featured psychic Chris Roubis and the solving of the disappearance of Hayley Dodd.

Mr Roubis had identified the culprit as a man, 40+, who was both Aboriginal and White, who lived in a duplex or flat, and "Hayley Dodd is buried under an oak tree near a creek".

Regardless of the fact that there appear to be no duplexes, flats or oak trees in the area (and very few people who are Aboriginal and white), this didn't deter Mr Roubis's followers, chief amongst them 'Sir Laughs-A-Lot'.

After a brief explosion of angst caused by a skeptical blog post commenting on these findings and the overall success rate of psychics in solving crimes, the search continued for a while, and the thread has now been hidden behind a password (EoR's getting an 'A' or 'M' word - I hope they change it before he manages to login...).

On June 2rd 'Kimberley' joins the discussion. Kimberley is an 'empathic reader' who apparently 'reads faces.' She presents her own psychic revelations:

Followed/watched by man on foot. Aboriginal in 40's at the time

That she identified an Aboriginal as well (though not a 'white' one) is remarkable. Clearly independent verification of the criminal. Though his age doesn't seem to agree. Was he in his forties at the time, or is he 40+ now? Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, just vague and unhelpful.

She also does a Google Maps search, as Sir Laughs-A-Lot had previously done, and 'sees' a face in it which indicates where she believes Hayley is buried. EoR hastens to add that he is not making any of this up.

Sir Laughs-A-Lot, meanwhile, appears to have abandoned Mr Roubis's revelations, and is now taking 'a very good psychic' (Chanty) to the area to solve the mystery and who

confirmed the widely held belief by both police investigators and other private operators that Hayley was abducted near the areas shown on the Badjingarra - Moora road, in posts here using google earth pics.

It is, of course, only psychic powers that would enable someone to confirm a widely held belief.

Then, the really scary part:

The name of ONE of the 2 perpetrators is KNOWN by me, and the family, and was provided by a psychic. That doesn't mean we can provide it to police YET, because quite simply we have ZERO proof, that will stand up in a court of law. To do so would be highly irresponsible as yet, because the person has the presumed right of innocence until PROVEN guilty, and putting someone under police suspicion because of a psychic response, is NOT how our judicial system works.

Yes, someone's name has been given by a 'psychic' as a murderer. EoR isn't surprised the thread is hidden. Defamation comes to mind as a very real possibility.

EoR also notes, in passing, that the single perpetrator of the other psychics' visions is now two people. Make enough guesses, eventually something will match. Sort of. Maybe. Oh look! There's a creek over there!

Regardless of her ability to give a full name for the culprit, Chanty can only locate the body within a 20 mile radius (psychics apparently still operate under the Imperial measurement system). Sir Laughs-A-Lot notes:

However - is it necessarily fair on the psychic Chanty to have media cameras in her face while trying to do something that takes a peaceful and quiet environment to do well?

Might not better progress be made by having the psychic in the search area -with No disturbances from searchers and media, while she just does her thing - hopefully further narrowing the search area parameters such that foot searching becomes achievable / viable within a relatively small physical search area?

That's the outcome I would like and that is not possible with a full on 20 person search contingent and media with their cameras, reporters, sound technicians and helicopters all gathered around the psychic waiting for her to "perform for them on cue like some trained circus monkey. In my opinion that's just not fair on the psychic.

I would honestly like to be left to my own devices with one or two helpers (Chanty included) to conduct discreet searches of the identified area without all the hoopla of the press.

EoR wonders how long it will take two people to search a 20 mile radius area at weekends only.

The rest of the thread, up until it was hidden, discusses arrangements for organising a search, as well as various obstacles, including:

I'd like to take the psychic along with us - & being a woman she won't be "comfortable alone with 2 men" thus I was thinking to take my wife along also, who she knows already...

But she's psychic! She'd know there's no problem! Or else she would, and she'd know not to go with them!

So, someone has been marked as a killer with no evidence other than the word of a 'very good' psychic, the area has been narrowed to 1,257 square miles(!), and we're no further along than before.

There the thread rests, and it's perhaps best for everyone that it has been removed from public view.

How (climate change) deniers work

All deniers have a small set of tools to maintain their worldview in the face of the incongruity of that worldview with reality.

Cherry picking data is a favourite. Here's Andrew Bolt proving the IPCC are a failure because a reputable sounding Professor of Climate Change has shown how little support there is for climate change, and how the IPCC are driving some evil agenda without any evidence at all. Look, there's even a link to the paper! And this is the damning proof:

Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

The paper itself is an, at times, rather dense somewhat postmodernist investigation of the IPCC. It has a number of legitimate criticisms in terms of the structures of knowledge and power within the organisation, knowledge hierarchies, the geographies of expertise and so on. It does not at any time claim that climate change is faked or wrong. Here is the full paragraph Mr Bolt selects only half of:

Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates.

So the quote relates to a specific aspect of 'knowledge hierarchies' in the IPCC. The conclusion that things might be worse than we expect is not palatable to Mr Bolt or the dozens of rightwing sites on the internet that repeat this particular quote out of context.

And here is the full conclusion of the review (EoR's emphasis):

During its 20-year history, the IPCC has been examined critically from a number of different standpoints: dissecting its 1980s origins; revealing its norms, practices and modes of self-governance; debating the role of consensus in its assessments; policing characterizations of uncertainty; and tracing the relationship of its institutional function and knowledge claims to emerging ideas of global environmental governance. But other questions about the status of climate change knowledge synthesized by the IPCC remain less widely investigated, questions which emerge from the agendas raised by the new geographers of science (e.g.
Powell, 2007; Finnegan, 2008). As Sheila Jasanoff has shown in many of her writings (e.g. Jasanoff, 2004a,b; 2010), knowledge that is claimed by its producers to have universal authority is received and interpreted very differently in different political and cultural settings. Revealing the local and situated characteristics of climate change knowledge thus becomes central for understanding both the acceptance and resistance that is shown towards the knowledge claims of the IPCC. It is a task for physical and human geographers to take seriously, and to do together.

There's probably a whole paper in how a single quote from this review is being used to bolster the deniers' claims.

Another denier tactic: lie. Repeat the lie. Even if disproved, repetition will eventually make it true. So Bolt also goes on to point out the evil clique of lying scientists whose sordid activities were exposed by Climategate. Even though it's been disproved again and again. If fact, it was always so flimsy that the deniers seemed to even psychically know what the outcome of the reviews would be before they were finalised (and more on the author of that article soon). A whitewash! Of course. Which leads to another denier tactic: the conspiracy is never disproved, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Evidence? Review? Proof? All too troubling for the deniers. The rant is far easier (EoR's favourite denier troll was someone who replied to yet another Bolt rant against the ABC's science report Robyn Williams by demanding she be sacked immediately for her mendaciousness).

EoR does, however, find agreement with Bolt on one point:

The man is utterly shameless.

It's just which man we disagree on.

Bible Right. Science Collapses.

On today's Radio National Breakfast James Carleton interviewed Dr Don Batten, of Creation Ministries International. Dr Don Batten, as the interviewer notes, is a PhD in Horticulture Research.

Dr Batten gives some amazing arguments why Darwin is wrong and the Bible is literally true.

"As a scientist I find that there's abundant evidence of the fact that God created things."

Evolution (and Intelligent Design) don't "add up".

"There has to be a cause outside of matter which is eternal."

This is, as Dr Batten assures us, clearly not a matter of faith but of science. Dr Batten then goes on to argue that because Jesus believed in creation we should as well. There! No faith required at all!

And anyway, there are tree trunks running through coal seams!

The only historical 'eye witness' record we have of history is the Bible, which is God's Word.

His defense of a global flood is a brilliant piece of distorted and fallacious reasoning. There are stories of a flood in many cultures. There are animals around today. Therefore there must have been some way they survived the flood (come on down, Noah!).

The reason geological science has come to a faulty conclusion is because they "don't have the right glasses on". There are two types of glasses, he tell us, the 'secular glasses' and... He gets sidetracked and doesn't actually mention what the other type are. He rejects the interviewer's suggestion that they're 'Biblical glasses." EoR suspects that they're actually rather like these:

Sylvia Browne Explains Physics

From Phenomenon: Everything you need to know about the paranormal by Sylvia Browne with (in far smaller print on the cover and inside) Lindsay Harrison:

Kinetic Energy

You’re in your kitchen, making a meal for your family, when suddenly the cupboard doors begin flying open and slamming shut again on their own. Appliances roar to life as the refrigerator bangs open and the food inside hurtles across the room. You escape into the living room, where the TV comes blasting on all by itself and wildly changes channels. While lights blink insanely on and off, you reach for the phone to call for help. At that same moment it leaps off the end table and falls to the floor, static hissing from the receiver. A mean-spirited ghost trying to chase you out of your house? Maybe. But it’s more likely that you’ve just witnessed a dramatic display of kinetic energy, caused not by some external force but by you or a member of your family who’s either blessed or cursed, depending on how you look at it, with kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the unintentional, spontaneous manipulation of inanimate objects through no obvious physical means, causing its possessor to become kind of a hapless walking force field. There are several theories about what creates kinetic energy. And, of course, there are just as many skeptics who will swear it doesn’t exist at all, which I’d be happy to consider if I hadn’t witnessed it with my own eyes a few thousand times. Some believe that kinetic energy can simply appear in a person from out of nowhere and then vanish just as inexplicably. Others believe, as I do, that it’s a power some people are born with and others aren’t, a power that ebbs and flows in irregular cycles through the course of a lifetime. Kinetic energy is often at its strongest when the body is going through dramatic hormonal changes—during prepubescence or puberty, for example, or in pregnant or menopausal women. But it can manifest itself in young children, too, who have no idea of the chaos they might leave in their wake by simply walking through a room. My granddaughter, for example, when she was only three or four years old, could crash computer hard drives and entire phone systems and cause paper to fly out of giant Xerox machines simply by coming to visit me at my office. Her kinetic energy seems to have calmed considerably in the last few years, but I’m already bracing myself for her becoming a teenager, which is when my son Paul’s kinetic energy hit its peak. In his case, just when he hit puberty, he would inadvertently cause all his shoes to zoom around his bedroom like missiles every night as he fell asleep. Today, twenty-five years later, Paul’s incidents of kinetic energy are virtually nonexistent. All of which I bring up to illustrate why I’m not convinced that kinetic energy is an inherited phenomenon. Paul and my granddaughter, who is Paul’s niece, are the only two members of my family in at least three generations who were born with kinetic energy, and the many other cases I’ve studied support my belief that it’s about as random a gift as it can possibly be. I almost wish it weren’t. If it were more traceable and reliable, it might be more widely understood and not mistaken so often for hauntings, preposterous satanic possessions (emphasis on “preposterous”) or, maybe most insulting of all, overactive imaginations and/or publicity stunts. So if you or someone you know seems to make all hell break loose among inanimate objects by doing nothing more than simply being there, remember, it’s no one’s fault, it’s not a physical or mental illness, it has nothing to do with evil, it doesn’t require an exorcism, and it’s not some perverse punishment from God (as if God has a perverse streak to begin with). It’s only a temporary, passing spasm of innate, purely unintentional kinetic energy.

Oh, if EoR could only write as humourously as Sylvia Browne... Though he hates to think what the household insurance premium must be like.

A Biased View

Alternative therapies often rely on the "It works for me" declaration. This, usually proclaimed by the user rather than the vendor, claims that an alternative therapy was used, improvement in the condition was perceived and, ergo, the therapy was the causal factor in the improvement.

EoR's readers will recognise the fallacy in this view, and just how difficult it can be to separate perception from reality. We desire to see an improvement, so we ignore any other issues. We habitually look for patterns, so we see them, often when they aren't there.

Yet separating perception from the real is much more difficult than simply being aware of any errors it might induce.

Here is a hypothetical: You want to travel from City A to City B. City B is located south of City B  A. Which direction is longer: travelling from City A to City B, or travelling from City B to City A?

They're the same! you cry. You're right, but the brain apparently doesn't think so.

Volunteers also estimated that it would take considerably longer to drive between the same pairs of U.S. cities if traveling from south to north, as opposed to north to south, says psychologist and study director Tad Brunyé of Tufts University in Medford, Mass. For journeys that averaged 798 miles, time estimates for north-going jaunts averaged one hour and 39 minutes more than south-going trips, he and his colleagues report in an upcoming Memory & Cognition.

Of course, if you're using an alternative therapy then that's always the shortest distance between a treatment and a miracle. At least, according to the unbiased anecdotal reports.

Edit: Corrected faulty geography.

Homeopathy Advertising Campaign

This is one of the entries in a recent b3ta board challenge to design posters for doctors' waiting rooms (NSFW). EoR hopes to also see these displayed in homeopaths' consulting rooms (whether they treat for cancer or not).

The Worst Scandal in Science's History (5)

The final part of EoR's exercise in shooting fish in a barrel

EoR is only halfway through Dr Happs' exaggerated claims, but the rest of his article basically come down to exposing the vast worldwide conspiracy of faked climate change science, essentially based on what has become known as Climategate, and using such emotive language as 'scandal', 'clique', 'conspiracy' and 'criminal'.

Climategate has been investigated by three independent reviews. No wrongdoing has been found (other than criticism of how FOI requests were handled).

Brian Angliss has written a very good summary of just how out of context the Climategate quotes are. This is cherry picking raised to an incredible level, indicating how desperate the deniers are to get any tiny scrap of evidence that might just possibly be twisted to their spurious arguments, and just how empty that argument really is.

A few other points of interest (or despair, given how weak the article is)...

The IPCC is ignoring data sets that do not fit their predetermined views (do you see yet how the deniers claim that scientists exhibit the very faults they seem incapable of perceiving in themselves?), but instead rely on those from the Climate Research Unit alone - the very place those evil lying criminal scientists who wrote the Climategate emails work! How can they be trusted?

Well, perhaps because climate science is based on a plethora of data souces, including Argo which Dr Happs notes as being disregarded.

Dr Happs produces a graph sourced from joannenova.com.au. EoR won't demean anyone by raising issues of how to judge whether a reference source is valid and reliable. There is a difference between using accurate data, and data that you found on a blog that fits your predetermined conclusion.

Dr Happs quotes Monckton as a reliable source to judge the Climategate scientists as not only wrong, but criminal. Remember earlier in his article when he claimed the IPCC shouldn't be listened to because many of the staff weren't scientists? Monckton is increasingly a joke, even to the climate deniers. An eccentric UK aristocrat, a well known serial liar, and in no sense a scientist. Yet Dr Happs, who seems to understand science so well, and the necessity to really verify facts (otherwise, how did he learn that the entirety of climate science was a conspiracy?) describes him as:

Mathematician Christopher Monckton, former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher

Monckton is not a mathematician. He was never a 'science' advisor to Margaret Thatcher. If Dr Happs can't get these simple facts right, how much of his argument can be trusted?

Dr Happs' only other points of any substance, other than name calling and unsubstantiated accusations, are that the 'hockey stick' graph is a fabrication, as proven by McIntyre and McKitrick in Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Climate science is so mendacious that even staunch warmist George Monbiot has been converted, Dr Happs informs us:

British journalist George Monbiot, environmental and political activist and one of the fiercest media propagandists for man-made global warming, has now reversed his position in light of the damning evidence.

McIntyre and McKitrick are wrong. Very wrong.

The 'hockey stick' graph is not a fabrication.

George Monbiot indeed published an article that was severely critical of the Climate Research Unit in the light of the Climategate emails. This was prior to the three reviews. It does not represent his ongoing position on climate change. More cherry picking of data by Dr Happs. Indeed, Monbiot's latest article is on Monckton, one of Dr Happs' authorities. The byline (probably written by a subeditor) seems eerily relevant:

Monckton repeatedly exposes the shallow fallacy of climate denial, dragging down those stupid enough to believe him.

Dr Happs notes at the bottom of his article that Australia's Chief Scientist has not responded to him, even after three months. Since she supports the science of climate change this is hardly surprising. EoR presumes she, also, must therefore be part of the worldwide criminal conspiracy if Dr Happs is to be believed. EoR also notes that, even months after the Climate Research Unit were cleared of any wrongdoing, Dr Happs' calumnies remain uncorrected.

---

Conspiracy Links

New Scientist on climage change
Scientific American on global warming
CSIRO on understanding climate change
National Snow and Ice Data Center - Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Previous Entries on The Complete and Horrible Truth About The Worst Scandal in Science's History
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (4)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (3)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History (2)
The Worst Scandal in Science's History

The Worst Scandal in Science's History (4)

EoR continues his examination of Dr Happs' rather long and rather tedious repetition of various denier myths...

Dr Happs notes two people who acted as reviewers for the IPCC reports, but who were apparently "ignored" by the IPCC.

Richard S Courtney could not be said to be exactly independent, as shown by Sourcewatch. His qualifications (if any) are very unclear. He apparently has also never published any research on climate change. This may explain why his views were given little, if any, weight by the IPCC. It appears Dr Happs believes all views should be considered equal, or even that contrarian views should automatically be favoured solely on the basis that they are contrarian.

Dr Willem de Lange describes himself as a climate realist (on a blog called Climate Realists).

So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.

Dr Happs' evidence is not directly addressable, since it appears to relate to a personal conversation with Professor de Lange. The few points de Lange brings up in his article are comprehensively dealt with at Hot Topic.

The "Sun did it" excuse is also a favourite of Monckton, and is equally wrong.

Dr Happs then falls back on the "there is no consensus" argument which he had initially raised:

(Statistician Dr John McLean) makes the comment "How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the IPCC support the claims about a significant human influence on climate? It's utterly wrong". In fact "Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate. The figure of 4000 is a myth". Indeed, against these few authors and reviewers are the tens of thousands of informed contrary views mentioned earlier. In other words, contrary to what Kevin Rudd implies, the consensus of informed scientists is against the IPCC.

Does anyone else notice the gentle irony that the immediately previous point was that 3000 scientists were ignoring Professor de Lange? This appears to be the case of the appearing and disappearing scientists! Look! They're there when you want them! Look! They've disappeared when you want to ignore them! EoR is deeply impressed.

The staffing of the IPCC may be less than 4000, but that's ignoring the point that they're assessing the work of thousands of scientists. More cherry picking of evidence by Dr Happs to reach a predefined conclusion, it seems.

In the last point EoR wants to consider today, Dr Happs again quotes Dr John McLean, accusing the IPCC of making a "U-turn" for changing early statements that the causes of global warming were indeterminate, to later statements that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". This is hardly a U-turn, but just normal scientific refining of data. EoR would hate to be driving with Dr McLean as a navigator. Taking a fork in the road would be descibed as a "U-turn"!

Uncertainty is part of science. Deniers, on the other hand, are apparently immovably convinced of the absolute certainty of their (recycled) arguments.

Scientists like to say that all knowledge is provisional, tentative and subject to revision. This is true, but non-scientists tend to overread this and believe it means all knowledge is ultimately just opinion and is unreliable.

The Worst Scandal in Science's History (3)

Continuing EoR's look at Dr John Happs' expose of the terrible abuse that is 'climate science'.

Dr Happs having demolished the consensus on climate change proceeds to show that the IPCC cannot be trusted.

In fact the IPCC is a single-interest organisation that was established twenty years ago. Right from the start it assumed a widespread human influence on climate. Its charter was To assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Such a charter makes it unlikely that the other factors influencing climate change would be taken seriously. In short, the IPCC's agenda appears to be political rather than scientific.

Being a 'single-interest organisation' is irrelevant.

Since the charter Dr Happs quotes is to "assess" the evidence, as opposed to "claim" or "state", it seems that the charter hardly supports his contention that it automatically assumed a human cause. This is an extremely weak premise with no evidence provided to support it. Even if it were true, all scientist make some assumption about what they are testing before experimenting or examining the evidence. Dr Happs seems to think this is nefarious and proof of some ulterior motive.

Claiming the IPCC has a political rather than a scientific agenda is a false dichotomy. EoR would have expected Dr Happs to know what that is.

Dr Happs continues:

Dr John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, says "It is well known that many, if not most, of [the IPCC's] members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist". (...) Interestingly, politicians and the media have never noticed that the IPCC's president Rajendra Pachauri has no qualifications in the geosciences, yet is able to speak with "certainty" about climate science.

That would be the same way that EoR can speak with certainty about a subject such as evolution. EoR is not an evolutionary scientist, but relies on the work of trusted experts who are.

Dr Happs appears to be a geoscientist. It seems he is not qualified to talk on matters of politics, atmospherics, oceanography, economics, satellite observations and so on. Yet he has chosen to do so.

This, of course, is a familiar tactic of deniers of all colours. The tactics of climate change deniers mirror so closely those of evolution deniers it is uncanny (and, incidentally, there seems to be a clear overlap between the two groups). Accuse the stronger (scientific) side of all sorts of foul play and poor behaviour, while engaging in those same tactics yourself.

The IPCC is not a research organisation. It assesses and relies on the peer-reviewed work of legitimate scientists.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

It has clear guidelines on producing its reports.

Dr Happs also quotes Professor Paul Reiter in relation to the IPCC Second Assessment Report: "The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors". Professor Reiter did indeed make this statement, and is critical of the report, but Dr Happs fails to put it in its full context to show that Professor Reiter was criticising the predictions of how climate change might affect malaria. He is not critical of climate change per se. It should also be noted that Dr Happs is quoting a 2005 statement.

The Australian Skeptics' position on climate change is perhaps more pertinent:

Australian Skeptics is an organisation dedicated to the promotion of science and reason. We are not associated with the climate change scepticism movement, and especially not with political groups that use that term to indicate their position.

It has always been the Australian Skeptics’ position that people should make up their minds based on the evidence. This position becomes even more important when what should be a completely scientific issue is used by politically-motivated groups to further their causes, often in the face of contradictory evidence.

People who are not experts in fields related to climate science should seek the best available evidence, as judged by those who are experts in relevant fields. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not everyone is entitled to be taken seriously. On the very important and very complex questions of climate change and its causes, only the carefully formed opinions of relevantly qualified experts should be taken seriously.

As in all fields of science, expertise emerges out of experience and through the peer-review process, not through media appearances or political connections.

PhD Candidate Exposes Vaccine Horror

Judy Wilyman had a letter published in Saturday's West Australian, disputing the benefits of vaccination.

In the interests of community health I request that you publish the following scientific information.

She goes on to claim that the childhood vaccination schedule is "not based on science". Vaccines contain toxins. Vaccines are not monitored by doctors. Vaccines are a "known cause of allergies, anaphylaxis and autoimmune diseases". "There is no proof for the theory of herd immunity". "Infectious diseases declined by 1950 in Australia due to improvements in sanitation, hygiene and nutrition."

EoR's readers will recognise the denier's toolkit. Mislead, cherry pick, and utilise FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

Ms Wilyman signs herself "PhD Researcher, Murdoch University". It would seem she wishes to claim the imprimatur of her university enrolment to support her claims. Ms Wilman (PhD Researcher) is also, of course, the cohost of Meryl Dorey's recent Perth Antivaccination Rally at the State Library.

A net search shows many articles by her, though her main focus seems to be on the terrible conspiracy that is Gardasil. This four page article is a good example. It is, again, by "Judy Wilyman, PhD candidate Murdoch University". A brief comment at the end notes that her research is supported by Associate Professor Peter Dingle (Murdoch University) and Professor Brian Martin (University of Wollongong - he discontinued her supervision after she moved to Perth) so EoR assumes that this discussion therefore reflects the views of Murdoch University. At least, that's the impression he gets from her constant reiteration of it.

Some of the main points of this interesting argument are:

1. Gardasil is promoted as a cervical cancer vaccine when it is actually a HPV vaccine.
2. The vaccine only prevents two strains of HPV which are present in 70% of cervical cancer cases (these strains are not the cause of cancer on their own). There are actually 15 or more different strains.
3. The vaccine reduces pre-cancerous lesions. It is assumed that these lesions automatically lead to cancer.
4. The vaccine has not been tested for long enough, and longterm effects are unknown.

The article includes 8 references. Half of these are:

as cited in Investigate before you Vaccinate: making an informed decision about vaccination in New Zealand, 2006, published by Immunisation Awareness Society, New Zealand.

EoR wonders why Ms Wilyman (PhD candidate, Murdoch University) has chosen to select this as her main source for her argument, rather than accessing the original sources. He also wonders how unbiased and independent it might be, and whether it would be considered a suitably scholarly reference.

More can be found at Critique of Dr. Diane Harper’s Comments on Gardasil where Judy Wilyman (Phd Candidate, Murdoch University) expresses her horror that:

It is also reported that 32 deaths have occurred plus many serious adverse reactions. There is a statement by Dr. Slade later in the article from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), saying that a third of the possible deaths were left out of the statistic.

A PhD Candidate (Murdoch University) publishing articles on what is possibly the internet's deepest cesspool of craziness and misinformation? Ms Wilyman seems to be falling for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here. EoR blames Postmodernism.

A quick check shows that there is little to Ms Wilyman's (PhD Candidate) claims, other than straw person arguments.

There are two HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, available to protect against the types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers.

So Gardasil is not being promoted as a cervical cancer vaccine. Perhaps some lazy journalists might describe it as such, but then Ms Wilyman (PhD Candidate) should surely be writing papers about the lax standards shown by journalists?

There are three systems monitoring the side effects of Gardasil.

As of January 31, 2010, there were 15,829 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 92% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 8% were reports of events considered serious. (...) VAERS defines serious adverse events as adverse events that involve hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, and death. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine. All serious reports (8%) for Gardasil have been carefully analyzed by medical experts. Experts have not found a common medical pattern to the reports of serious adverse events reported for Gardasil that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine. (...) As of January 31, 2010, there have been 49 U.S. reports of death among females who have received Gardasil. Twenty eight of these reports have been confirmed and 21 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. Confirmed reports are those that scientists have followed up on and have verified the claim. In the 28 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.

Arthur Caplan (Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania - not just a 'candidate') argues:

It is possible to see a huge conspiracy behind the appearance of Gardasil. Evil Merck, battered with the huge costs of withdrawing Vioxx, conspires to get a dangerous vaccine into all young girls around the world. They do not care what their parents say, knowing that the girls will become promiscuous while the big pharmaceutical company and its political stooges in the governors’ offices and state legislatures get on the corporate gravy train by mandating the vaccine and laugh all the way to the bank. If this ridiculous scenario is allowed to dominate public discourse, hundreds of thousands of women will continue to die.

Surely, Merck wants to make money from Gardasil. The company made a huge push to get the vaccine covered by insurance plans and public programs, which, in our health care system, requires that vaccines be mandated. Many legislators took gifts from Merck to help promote attention to cervical cancer. This might not be the best way to push a safe and effective new vaccine, but, as is often true in our flawed American health system, battles over coverage for new treatments boil down to money, lobbying, and politics.

With a vaccine as incredibly safe and effective as Gardasil, and others that may soon follow for herpes simplex, melanomas, HIV, and malaria, this country cannot afford to let fear-mongering and crackpot suggestions of backdoor conspiracies be the basis for public health policy. Cervical cancer kills too many women in America and around the world to let that happen.

Apparently not in Ms Wilyman's (PhD Candidate) world. The fact that it "only" addresses 70% of cases (plus lower levels for other strains of HPV) is not sufficient reason to vaccinate. If you develop cervical cancer, well that's presumably just your bad luck and you can be pretty sure you'll probably be able to be cured with treatment if you get it intime and it won't be too much hassle or cost. You might be infertile as well.

Measles Alert

The WA Health Department has issued an alert concerning a woman treated at Royal Perth Hospital who was found to have measles.

Surely this is an over-reaction to a completely harmless, minor illness? Meryl Dorey would be unconcerned, EoR imagines, and she certainly knows her sciencey stuff.

When the measles eradication program was introduced, Meryl's Anti Vaccination Network clearly foresaw the terrible consequences of all those evil vaccinations:

Event	AVN Prediction	Actual Observed
Rash/Fever	270,000	8
Parotitis	16,700	4
Arthritis	46,260	1
Febrile Seizure	648	1
Thrombocytopaenia	60	0
Aseptic meningitis	15	0
Death	3	0