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

The Worst Scandal in Science's History (2)

The story so far: The WA Skeptics promote climate change denialism. Their president, Dr John Happs writes to Australia's Chief Scientist, urgently brining to her attention the terrible news of the vast global conspiracy that she has unwittingly fallen for. Now read on...

Dr Happs' first contention is that there are thousands of scientists who have voted against climate change:

But I also reminded you that tens of thousands of informed scientists have strenuously criticised the IPCC's findings. So I urged you to look up their conclusions on the internet. The main ones are: The Heidelberg Appeal (4000 signatures including 62 Nobel prizewinners), The Oregon Petition (31,000 accredited scientists), The Manhattan Declaration (600 research climatologists), The Petition to the United Nations (100 geoscientists), Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister (60 climate experts), The Leipzig Declaration (100 geoscientists), The Statement from Atmospheric Scientists (50), Petition to the German Chancellor (200 German scientists), Statement from the American Physical Society (150 physical scientists), Petition to President Obama (100 leading climate researchers), UN Climate Scientists speak out on Global Warming (700, many previously involved with the IPCC). All are critical of the notion of man-made global warming, and all of them (with signatures and accreditations) are accessible via Google.

EoR hesitates to advise the Doctor that there is a lot of stuff accessible via Google. It isn't all true though.

This trial by vote is interesting since the WA Skeptics hosted Joanne Nova, who claims "Science is not a democracy and natural laws don't form because a UN committee decreed it". Apparently, denial is a democracy though, and natural laws form because an internet poll decrees it.

Such petitions are, of course, an irrelevant point. Nature doesn't care what individuals believe. It is also a form of the Galileo Gambit: It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

Even if there was some point to these polls, no serious opinion pollster would consider them rigorous or valid. It's like a current affairs show running a story on some emotional issue, and then inviting callers to phone in to vote on the issue.

The Oregon Petition ("31,000 scientists"!) is the most (in)famous of these petitions. It is deeply flawed.

Scientific American looked at (a very small) sample of the signatories, and found many no longer in agreement with the petition.

Finally, it should be noted that, were the petitions worth anything as scientific evidence, Dr Happs appears to have done no data correlation to indicate how many of the scientists are included in two or more of the surveys.

The Worst Scandal in Science's History

Yesterday, EoR looked at the public deniers of climate science. But there are other deniers about, men* who form small groups and hold meetings to promote their ideology, who provide a platform to the lest creditable 'climate experts', and who pretend to be men of logic and reality.

This secretive group is the WA Skeptics.

Their most recent meetings feature the following doyens of scepticism:

November 2009: Joanne Nova. Described as "on how bullies and status seekers destroy rational debate on climate change. 'Science is not a democracy and natural laws don't form because a UN committee decreed it.'" Joanne Nova is a microbiologist. EoR wasn't at the meeting, but he suspects the 'bullies' didn't include Christopher Monckton.

March 2010: Dr John Happs ("an education consultant, former lecturer in geosciences at universities in Australia and the USA, and author of numerous science texts and book chapters" and President of the WA Skeptics). Described, quite modestly EoR notes, as "His talk was a masterly overview of climate change and the latest developments in the growing international scandal about the IPCC and its abuse of the scientific process."

May 2010. This meeting was cancelled, but was to feature David Archibald (pictured on the site with the man who wrote a forward to his book, David Bellamy). The meeting will be rescheduled.

Dr Happs has also written a diatribe to Australia's Chief Scientist which "surveys (with many quotes) the whistle blowing that uncovered abuse of science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an abuse that promises to be the worst scandal in science's history". Professor Hackett has not replied. EoR isn't surprised.

Why is the WA Skeptics concentrating so intensively on this one subject?

Why is it only being presented from one (contrarian) view?

Why can't they get any climatoligists to discuss the issue?

Have they asked?

Or are they so confirmed that their conspiracy world view is right?

Why don't they also invite Meryl Dorey along to present her compelling evidence for the latest developments in vaccination science, the scandal of immunisation, the (obviously, second) worst scandal in science's history, and how bullies and status seekers have sought to silence her?

More damning evidence of the worst scandal in science's history can be found at the following links:

CSIRO: State of the climate

Climate change in Australia

How to talk to a climate sceptic


*As far as EoR can determine from photographs of recent meetings on their website, the group consists of a small number of elderly white males.

Scepticism's Evil Twin

There's scepticism. And then there's plain complete batshit-crazy denialism.

One requires looking at the evidence, considering it, addressing any inconsistencies or deficiencies, and then accepting the evidence, modifying it or rejecting it.

The other involves cherry picking data, quote mining, vast global conspiracies, repeated lies, and misrepresentation.

One considers what the evidence (if valid) tells us we should believe.

The other considers what evidence (valid or not) our belief tells us we should accept.

One requires that we shift our worldview to accomodate new findings.

The other requires that we shift our findings to fit our worldview.

One occurs to a large extent in the scientific community. The other largely takes place on blogs and internet forums.

After the whirlwind tour of not-a-Lord Monckton to Australia last year (who lies about being a member of the House of Lords, lies about having won a Nobel Prize, and lies about having been a 'scientific' advisor to Margaret Thatcher), financed by the mining industry, and supported by a warm up act of Australia's own purveyor of lie after lie Ian Plimer (getting something wrong once could be an honest mistake, repeating that mistake over and over is either lying or senility), we are now having to put up with one of the big hitters of Climate Change Denial, Anthony Watts. Really? The best the deniers can come up with is a weather reporter? Oh, take that consensus of climate scientists!

Sadly, he apparently can only muster up a second rate support act in David Archibald, who famously authored what has been called The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere" (and then appears to have published nothing else on the subject in the peer reviewed press).

Monckton takes scientist to brink of madness at climate change talk

Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Good news for Pacific islands becomes bad news for global warming

Not Superstition!

The following advertisments appeared scattered throughout EoR's local newspaper this week. The advertisements appear without any source or explanation.



A novena, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia is

A nine days' private or public devotion in the Catholic Church to obtain special graces. (...) Catholics know from their own experience that the novena is no pagan, superstitious custom, but one of the best means to obtain signal heavenly graces through the intercession of Our Lady and all the saints. The novena of prayer is thus a kind of prayer which includes in it, so to speak, as a pledge of being heard, confidence and perseverance, two most important qualities of efficacious prayer.

The instructions for the Novena Prayer to Saint Anthony seem long and convuluted, while Saint Theresa has a far more devil-may-care attitude:

Sometimes, just a long personal talk with St. Therese, in your own words and from your heart, is just as powerful. Therese proposes and used a very simple spirituality. While some people have proposed that certain prayers must be said at certain times and before certain hours, and connected with other prayers, this is not Therese's "little way". She took seriously Jesus' request that we not use lots of words, but rather pray to God our Father in simple, hidden and honest ways. Because a certain formula, place or time works for someone, it should not be canonized as the way to pray. Some people do a real disservice to Therese and her devoted friends by surrounding her and devotion to Therese with superstition. It is not important or even significant that a certain novena prayer be said before a certain hour or in conjunction with other prayers. This is nothing but superstition, not piety, as are chain letters, etc., which seem to be popular.

Of course, the ability to replace tubercular lungs with a shiny new fully-functioning set is not superstition. That's apparently 'supernatural' only.

What EoR finds most amusing, if these are indeed public prayers from some person of faith, is that the "make your petition here" and "mention here" references haven't been replaced with the appropriate peititon.

Since saints appear to have time to peruse community newspapers as well as curing the dying, EoR presumes they supernaturally intuit the petitioner's request. That would be a pious act. And not at all superstitious.

Lies, Damned Lies and Meryl Dorey

Howard Sattler again featured Meryl Dorey today. Yet again he asked her if she's anti-vaccination (he does this every time she's on his show, so why does he bother?). Yet again Ms Dorey claimed "No. We are not anti-vaccination". EoR wonders why Sattler constantly features Dorey as his go-to vaccination expert when she blatantly lies like that.

For those who appreciate fiction, here are some more of the lies she exuded...

There is no evidence that vaccination has helped eliminated polio. Polio cases in the last 30 years are linked to the polio vaccine. Outbreaks in India and Nigeria are all directly linked to the vaccine. The vaccine never affected the prevalency of the disease.

Some very rare people have problems with measles and chicken pox, but it happens more in developing countries because they have poor hygiene issues.

TB vaccination has never been part of the schedule in Australia. This is news to EoR who still has his TB vaccination scar. A caller who used to work for Public Health phoned up and also called Dorey on this lie. Meryl claimed she "really wasn't aware of that". Why would anyone believe her when she clearly doesn't even have a basic understanding of the facts and apparently makes stuff up as she goes along?

There are no independent studies of vaccines (they're all conducted by Big Pharma). There is no independent evidence they are safe.

Ms Dorey was shocked that children were being used as guinea pigs to test vaccines. This is clearly something anti-vaxxers would never do.

Gardasil "only" prevents 70% of cervical cancer cases. Clearly useless.

Vaccination is only one of the 'alternatives' so it's not vaccination or nothing. Chinese herbs, homeopathy and "very good" nutrition were suggested as being far better. Magic water!

Another caller asked about ex-Dr Wakefield. He never falsified information. He was found to be unethical because he took blood samples at a birthday party. His study was published in the Lancet and nobody has ever said that information was incorrect. He is a scapegoat. The information has never been shown to be incorrect.

Tetanus booster increases the risk of getting tetanus. Wound hygiene is better in preventing it.

Meryl has hired security guards and informed the police about "certain threats" she has received. Howard also read out a message (apparently on a piece of paper) from "someone" who said Ms Dorey should die.

It should be noted that none of the callers supported her (though one didn't make his position clear).


Vaccination Facts – A Response To Meryl Dorey And The AVN At Perth's State Library.

You are feeling sleepy... Very sleepy...

Here's an amusing piece of woo software EoR discovered today. Emanating from Mystic Softwares (home of 1001 bizarre programs, it seems) comes MB Sleeping Position Test (warning: nagware, will repeatedly connect to the net without permission).

Do you sleep in the Fetal Position? Obviously then you are tough, shy and arrogant.



If you happen to think that's an ugly old school interface, you haven't seen the horrible nag screens.

What if you snooze in the Soldier Position (on your back with your hands by your sides)? You are silent and reserved.



Those who prefer the Free Fall Position are probably best avoided, since they're all talkative, escapist and loud.



And what about those who, like a lot of people, turn during the night and adopt various positions? EoR can only assume you suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder.

West Australian Articles on Vaccination

Since the West Australian doesn't seem to have added their latest vaccination story to their website, here is a scan of it.



The letters column of the same issue also included some relevant correspondence.

A question for Meryl Dorey

Friday's West Australian featured an article on Sarah Chivers and her nine month old son who is "vaccine-free" since vaccines are such terrible unnecessary things, along with an article claiming child vaccination rates have "plunged".

"The consequences of being vaccinated with side effects and something going wrong are greater than the risk of him catching something and allowing his immune system to fight it naturally," she said.

As far as that goes, Ms Chivers is correct. Vaccines have been so successful that it is unlikely he will catch an infectious disease, even if she chooses not to vaccinate. Unfortunately, it's an incomplete assessment since the "side effects" of catching such a disease include death. Dana McCaffrey is one such case. Saturday's West Australian featured the sad case of Keira Skaife, a mother whose two month old child died of whooping cough.

"It breaks our hearts that people do not immunise their kids and it makes me angry because Keira caught it from someone who was not immunised," the Craigie schoolteacher said.

Rising Whooping Cough rates are also a concern in Queensland and, while they have fallen elsewhere, they are still at abnormally high levels.
Here in Perth, Meryl Dorey, who has no qualifications, is the chosen vaccination expert used by Howard Sattler. She appears alone with no one to balance her lunatic fringe views since, as she repeatedly states, she is not anti-vaccination. Oh, the irony. Can Ms Dorey name just one person she has ever told to get a vaccination? Can she name a single situation in which she would recommend vaccination?
Since Meryl Dorey is soon to appear in Perth to trumpet her unscientific views, perhaps it is time to also ask her, more pertinently, how many deaths are acceptable to her?

Climate Change Deniers

Three quarters of the way to acceptance?

Image from Flickr.

The missing girl, the psychic and the aftermath

The Missing Girl

On 29 July 1999 Hayley Dodd disappeared near Badgingarra, Western Australia. Nothing further has been heard of her since then.

The Psychic

Chris Roubis is a psychic EoR had never heard of before. He didn't appear on The One, so it's safe to say he's not Australia's best psychic. The few postings on his forum (the majority of which are by himself) indicate that he is something of a niche interest in the psychic world.

The Crime Solved (?)

On the 31st August 2009 someone calling himself Sir Laughs-A-Lot posted a request on Mr Roubis's forum calling for "anyone with psychic ability in this area, help in any way, to shed light on what happened to her". Mr Roubis's answer(s) are unclear, since he later deleted them.

When Sir Laughs-A-Lot requested further information, Mr Roubis replies "This information was also confirmed and agreed on by another 2 psychics that had the same visions as myself, which has led me to beleive it is correct information, and should be followed." Who are the fellow psychics? Why no names? The following visions were given:

Hayley Dodd is buried under an oak tree near a creek about maybe a 20 mile radius from where she was picked up from. Amongst other things, she was strangled in the end.

Hayley Dodd was a fighter and she was messed up badly to stop her screaming.

It is a very remote outback area with maybe a few farm houses in the distance. There will possibly be other young girls found buried in that area.

This person is in his 40+ with dark brown or black hair, moustache. He looks young for his age.
This person is big and aboriginal, 5.7 - 5.9". Green eyes.
He has a scar on his face.
He is a white male. either taking medication or drugs. Also is a violent drunk.
This guy has a record, been in and out of prison for rape.
This person has tattoos on his arms.
This person has done the same thing to 3 - 6 other young girls.

So, we're looking for an oak tree near a creek. We'll ignore the discussion of the area since Sir Laughs-A-Lot already provided lots of information to Mr Roubis via the forum, including a Google Earth satellite image.

The culprit is Aboriginal and 'big', though 5'7"-5'9" isn't particularly big. He is also a white male, which is a remarkable achievement for an Aboriginal man. There are other victims (3-6), all girls, though why we can't get an exact number is strange.

Mr Roubis returns the next day with more information: "This man has killed 4 in the area. 3 girls and 1 boy." So, the 3-6 girls is now 3 girls and 1 boy. The information is contradictory, but perhaps the spirits have done a little checking in the interim and provided him with more accurate information.

This man is from the area, and lives with his parents in a unit or Duplex. He does not work. He maybe on disability pension... he takes medication... possibly mental problems.

If you connect him to one murder, he will confess to all the others.
This guy is a serial killer, he wont stop killing children. He needs to be stopped!

The oak tree I mentioned earlier, could be an oak tree or some other huge tree that has a creek not too far from it.

The vitally important oak tree has become a "huge" tree "not too far" from a creek. How many "huge" trees near creeks are there in the area? In the country?

Note also that he lives in a duplex or unit, something that would be very unusual to find in a small country town, and which must surely precisely locate this psychotic serial killing menace.

Mr Roubis also indicates on a Google Maps image the location of Hayley's body.

Lengthy efforts are made to locate Hayley, and to verify Mr Roubis's information. Suffice it to say that the area has no oak tree, no units, and no duplexes. The location highlighted by Mr Roubis, strangely, also contains no trees or creeks. Does he doubt the veracity of the voices he hears?

Mr Roubis provides more spiritual insight: "Near a creek, trees and rocks." Well, that narrows it down to any part of Australia that isn't desert. It's a start.

Things go quiet until April of this year, when Sir Laughs-A-Lot returns, having noticed that the criminal is simultaneously White and Aboriginal, asking "Can you clarify for me what you meant by that - could he be of mixed aboriginal / white heritage?" Mr Roubis confirms that he is correct. So, Sir Laughs-A-Lot would appear to have psychic gifts at least the equal of Mr Roubis.

Sir Laughs-A-Lot continues his efforts with another (unspecified) psychic who is apparently working with the victim's family. This psychic is "spot on".

At this time the thread is noticed by a sceptical blogger, who posts about the way psychics seem to fester around missing persons and murders, without adding anything to the investigations other than to muddy the waters. Sir Laughs-A-Lot posts a comment to the sceptic's blog, containing mostly personal abuse and missing the point entirely (a copy of his post is at Mr Roubis's forum). In another post to Mr Roubis's forum he rants on (edited):

You sir are a dickwad - your mummy's boy issues are clouding your judgment.

(...)

Your rant has done nothing but upset the family - well done Mr caring citizen with a gob but no brains attached to it.

Keep your rants to yourself and do us all a favor.

Your not worthy of the internet - your not saving anyone from anything they were not willing participants in.

(...)

No sir your a bigot with a big mouth and not much else - who's preparedness to express his somewhat childish opinion has undoubtedly caused the family some grief.

Leave it alone is my sincere advice to you (...) - the internet is not nearly as anonymous as you might think and I'd hate to have to act to protect the family's interests in this from here on in.

Chris I've half a mind to track this (...) bigot down and give him a phat lip and post the pic here for all to see.

EoR leaves it to his readers to decide who is bigoted and ranting here, but he is certain that threats of violence via the internet are just as much a criminal offence as if they were made face to face. You, Sir Laughs-A-Lot are a bully and a coward.

Mr Roubis congratulates his fawning follower, and provides evidence that psychics really really really do solve crimes. They do they do they do! So

there. The ultimate evidence? That they made a program called "Medium"! Mr Toubis, they made a program called "Doctor Who". Do you also believe there's a 900 year old Time Lord repeatedly saving Earth from alien menaces?

The Aftermath

As a result of the specific threats of violence made by Sir Laughs-A-Lot, the sceptic blog posts relating to this matter were deleted. Mr Roubis supports these threats and has allowed the threats to be posted to his forum and to remain there (and this is why EoR hasn't linked directly to the blog).

Mr Roubis and Sir Laughs-A-Lot have no intention of debating the matter (nor do they have an obligation to do so, they can simply take their magical beliefs and live in their own world), but the actions they have engaged in show how fragile those beliefs are, and do little to convince anyone to accept them, or to listen to such arrogance and aggression.

EoR wanted to ignore this sad little story altogether. Mr Roubis clearly has other things much more important to do than provide psychic revelations, and EoR is not in the business of providing any publicity to him. The reaction from these two individuals, however, deserve to be made more widely known.

Mr Roubis also has a strange attitude to the police. On Facebook he states "Unfortunately police are just public servants. If it was a politicians child, they would of found her long ago" and, on his forum post, "This guy lives in the area, and has a record. C'mon W.A Police!!!" which seems a strange attitude from a man who is proud of the fact that corrupt AFP (Australian Federal Police) Officers aided and abetted his lawbreaking earlier in life, according to his own biography.

Also, according to his biography, he apparently has "40 or more other guides" other than the main few who all chat to him at various times. Forty or more! It'd be like a horrible party chat line. And not one of them can provide any concrete information that would actually be of help.

As crimebuff (another victim of Sir Laughs-A-Lot's unwarranted abuse) comments on the forum:

I personally wouldnt like to focus in too much on the basis of a psychics reading, unless you can find more than one psychic that concur with each other, I am aware of the tremendous problems others have had taking literally what a psychic has told them, and it seems 40 psychics all came up with different scenarios,places to look etc.

In other words, if you make enough random guesses eventually someone, somewhere might be right. But it doesn't make them psychic. Only lucky.

Guest Blogger

Today's guest blogger is George Orwell:

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

1. What am I trying to say?


2. What words will express it?


3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?


4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:

1. Could I put it more shortly?


2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

Lucinda McAlpine

Lucinda McAlpine is a British Grand Prix dressage rider. She also seems to support some fairly outre ideas.

Having kept horses in the conventional way Lucinda has gained vast experience throughout the gradual process of returning many different breeds and types of horse to a more natural state, and as a result is more than aware of the pros and cons of both systems of management. She is also continually building a list of contacts in the fields of alternative veterinary medicine, which includes chiropractors, aromatherapists, acupuncturists, distant healers, Reiki masters, sports massage therapists and teachers of awareness techniques. The field of equine science is also expressing an interest in her work and she hopes to be able to link these varied experts through study and discussion days at Bowhayes Farm.

She espouses something she calls "intuitive riding".

Lucinda uses various techniques to work with both the physical and the mental/emotional problems with an aim to finding the best that the horse can be. The work is both from the ground and also ridden, as necessary, and she works from an intuitive standpoint using her bond with that horse to dictate the course of the session.

Sort of like Natural Horsemanship^™ with added doses of newage platitudes, intuitive riding promises:

Today I want to present to you the idea that perhaps you are the person that knows best and with the help of your like-minded horse to mirror you, the solution can be found within yourself. If you can listen to your horse he/she will tell you the way to find the harmony you are searching for. No one can tell you about right or wrong - that is a question of your own perspective. We are all individuals with different likes and dislikes (Thank God, or all women would be after the same man) What matters is what makes you happy - what FEELS good.

Like woo, it doesn't succeed or fail. Whatever happens, intuitive riding is working! It's all about feelings, not achievements or goals. Call EoR an old stuffed-stick-in-the-mud, but he believes firmly in skills and abilities. Without the appropriate skills and techniques, a rider is simply an untrained passenger.

Undergoing a road to Damascus experience when she encountered a therapist who practiced "focusing" (whatever that is - EoR suspects it has nothing to do with cameras) she appears to have gone completely over to the Dark Side:

At this point four or five years ago, when she was beginning to question how things were done, that she was introduced to the alternative therapist, Trudi Hills, whose techniques include physiotherapy, cranio-sacral therapy and focusing. Lucinda explains that Trudi showed her what could be achieved by treating her horses in a more natural way. She also introduced her to work with a dog, where the horse and dog play and work loose together. 'In those days we had shoes and boots, and I always rugged them, all sorts of non-sense. So it was a bit alarming that I was taking them out in the field... to be supposedly chased about by a dog." The belief is that the dog identifies where a horse's tension lies, and makes the horse aware of them. The dog doesn't chase the horse; the dog may initiate movement, but the horse actually follows the dog most of the time.

You see: the dog knows where the tension is! It feels which is the correct way to train the horse!

Ms McAlpine has now evicted all the owners from her agistment centre who still had rugged and shod horses, and subscribes to the "encouraging the self-healing ability of the horse" fallacy (if that's true, why do they get sick? why does she need therapists?).

The woo doesn't just stop at touchy-feely newage horsemanship platitudes. She also links to and utilises the services of Roger Meacock MRCVS (a qualification that indicates he should know better):

This then leads to both horse and rider being treated by Roger Meacock MRCVS, of Natural Healing Solutions, with the Scenar. This is a hand-held electrical device, which uses frequency and electrical properties to find out where tissue is not functioning properly. "This can be skin, muscle, bone, cartilage, even organs," he explained. "The Scenar then sends signals set to mimic nerve impulses. These cause the body to release endorphins and neuropeptides into the system, and to heal itself." Lucinda sees the Scenar as an essential tool in her work.
Susannah Commings: Intuitive Horsemanship (Horse and Rider, July 2007)

So much for the body being able to heal itself. The Scenar is the more expensive version of the ENAR. Its principles and plausibility are the same. And isn't there something a trifle unethical about a veterinarian "treating" a human with this magic machine?

At Dr Meacock's website there is a quote:

Oxygen deficiency: "the single greatest cause of all disease" Dr Steven Levine, USA

Hang on. What's the Scenar doing then? It's electrical? Does it somehow generate oxygen in the body? And why can't the body's "ability to heal itself" simply generate the required oxygen? Or, could it be, just possibly, that this is a whole load of barely plausible ideas thrown together to give an air of scientific authenticity? Though Dr Meacock also claims:

There are very few conditions that the body cannot recover from given the correct energetic input.

He doesn't state which those conditions are, however. Dr Meacock provides further advice about how his non-standard methods work (sorry - help the body to heal itself!):

Pain relief is extremely effective with Scenar. By triggering the body to heal itself at the DNA level, Scenar treatment will not mask an underlying problem but forces the body to address it, reversing the pathology.

Yes! The Scenar can alter DNA!

Dr Meacock has also fallen for (or at least, he promotes) the use of magical software that does incredible homeopathic healing with energies:

e-Lybra^® 8 is a groundbreaking, fully automatic PC-based energy-balancing and complex homeopathic remedy production system. e-Lybra^® 8 checks the database of around 200,000 different energy signatures including physical and psychological disorders, allergies, poisonous substances, viral, bacterial, parasitic and other infections against the energy field of the individual to establish which signatures are required to help energetically balance that individual. e-Lybra^® 8 makes bespoke complex homeopathic type remedies, determined by the fully interactive electronic biofeedback equipment. Remedies can be produced using a hair sample as a witness or from distance radionically using personal details. Various different technologies have arisen from the original e-Lybra^® technology. These include the e-Lybra^® iPod which uses an iTrip to broadcast various formulae constructed to help balance individuals suffering from a range of commonly encountered health problems.

Homeopathy. Energies. Frequencies. Distant healing. And why doesn't Dr Meacock include the mandatory ^® for the iPod^®? Doesn't he realise that's a trademark as well?

Dr Meacock, who clearly has forgone everything he once learnt, also promotes herbs (but these are Indian ayurvedic herbs), oxygen therapy, and orgone energy. The page also mentions something really bizarre: "aerobic oxygen". EoR's always preferred that to the anaerobic variety.

---

Meanwhile, the RSPCA in the UK warn More than 200 dog attacks on livestock in UK.

Cellfield

Liz Ditz alerted EoR to Cellfield. Aimed at dyslexics, Cellfield states:

This is why Cellfield has developed a program that targets phonological awareness in a unique way, freeing working memory for better comprehension and enhanced language skills. This is why after only two weeks, decoding skills can improve by almost two years and comprehension can improve by one year, whether your child is normal or dyslexic. (See The Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities Vol 10 issue 2).

Cellfield was developed by Dimitri Caplygin, a Science and Engineering graduate of UNSW. In a worrying example of how people with little experience in a specific area suddenly "see" the solution that the experts fail to notice, he states:

A chance encounter with severe reading disorders provided that connection in an emotive way, which led to that familiar inventive 'flash'. Dimitri was moved by the widespread suffering of dyslexics and was bewildered by the positions of exclusivity taken by many scientists as to the causes of dyslexia. With the fresh eyes of an outsider, Dimitri thought their positions were largely not contradictory, but part of a continuum of causes that could be tied together through computer science.

Such an insight is not, of course, impossible, but it is also one of the cardinal signs of "theories" and therapies lacking evidence. The FAQ is more marketing-oriented, rather than providing information.

Why does Cellfield work?

Brain scanning research shows a 'bottleneck' in areas where 'cross-communications' between the auditory, visual and motor functions normally take place. Addressing this neural abnormality is critical to the development of language skills. Cellfield is the first to target these 'cross communications' by simultaneously activating visual, auditory and motor pathways. Cellfield's research based design also induces attention, expands working memory and provides novelty with reward.

EoR was a little concerned about this sentence though, on success rates:

For illustration, somebody claiming a 90% success rate targeting a subgroup that represents only 20% of the reading disorder population is only an 18% success rate.

No. It's a 90% success rate in a specified subgroup. Extrapolating that success rate unmodified to different groups is unwarranted. It may be more successful in a different population group. It might be less successful. It might have the same success rate. This is the sort of error journalists fall into ("a study shows 90% of us are in danger of..." when it's actually 90% of middle-aged executives with prior heart problems, or so on) but EoR wouldn't expect a trained Engineer and Scientist to fall for it.

The only published evidence appears to be a Peer-reviewed and published study of 262 subjects who completed Cellfield Intervention, Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities Volume 10 - Number 2, 2005 which Cellfield makes a copy available of on its site.

The study provides this description of the Cellfield Intervention:

The intervention comprises ten one-hour sessions, each consisting of ten exercises. Some of these target phonological processing, requiring the concurrent activation of visual and auditory processing. Other exercises involve decoding and encoding activities using tasks such as finding text embedded in continuous random text without spacing. Motion graphics designed to stimulate the magnocellular pathways and other visual exercises requiring eye/hand coordination are also incoroporated into each session.

The children involved in the study were 187 males and 75 females ranging in age from 7 to 17 "who undertook intervention at the Cellfield Clinic at some time during a 24-month period". There was no control group. While impressive gains were made, the Discussion at the end of the study (EoR wonders if any of the parents considering using the Cellfield Intervention will bother to read the report, or make it to the end) is cautionary:

Notwithstanding these impressive results, there are several limitations to this study that should be taken into consideration. Firstly, a convenience sample of those seeking intervention for reading difficulties was employed. Thus, the generalizability of these results is uncertain. The students who undertook the Cellfield treatment during the span of this study may be peculiar to the population of Australian students who experience difficulty learning to read. The Cellfield Intervention is a commercial venture that requires a certain monetary investment on behalf of parents and thus the participants in the present study's sample may be representative of those who have reading difficulties but who have the financial resources to ameliorate their predicament.

The study also notes that longterm benefits, if any, have not been established. Furthermore, some of the scales used to measure improvement were based on norms established in US and British populations.

On its links page, Cellfield claims support from authorities such as Professor John Stein at Oxford University and Professor Max Coltheart at the Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science. EoR could locate no reference to Cellfield at either of the relevant Professors' sites.

EoR Attends Rehab

The University of Missouri-Columbia's Region VII Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program provides an interesting history of rehabilitation.

Early healers used a "naturalistic system" based on observation of events and "what seems to make sense". Today their advice sounds like bizarre folk remedies, but these physicians were trying to do the same things modern physicians are - reduce suffering by treating symptoms with prescriptions. The illnesses they treated include both "acute disease" (broken bones, abdominal pains, etc.) and chronic conditions, which we would call disabilities ("crippled", "possessed", "feeble minded", etc.). [...] Even though some of these prescriptions seem disgusting, if you look at what the writer says, he always talks about first listening to the patient's description and observing their symptoms. Next he describes a "diagnosis" based on the description, and only after that does he decide what treatment to use. Even though he uses very strange terms and treatments, he is using the same "systematic medical approach" that doctors use today. This is the beginning of medical care for people with disabilities.

Sadly, today many alternative medicine (an aside: medicine is "the science of preventing, diagnosing, alleviating or curing disease"^*, therefore the "alternative" to medicine is not doing any of these things) still adhere to "what seems to make sense" and have made little or no progression since the first days of medical treatment (indeed, the older the therapy the greater the cachet it has).

Page three has some wonderful illustrations of medieval medical treatment that resonate strongly with the practices seen in the parlours of reiki healers and the rooms of homeopaths today:

At this point, society is still using magical thinking to understand mental problems, instead of what we would call science.

Even the anti-vaccination brigade have their precursors:

The "new inoculation" is one of the first vaccines - a small pox vaccine derived from the sores of infected cattle. Its development was a major victory for germ theory, but people were not enthusiastic about being injected with something so crazy and disgusting. Notice how parts of their bodies change into the heads of cows, representing the kinds of things people were afraid might happen to them.

EoR was also impressed by the advertisement for Hamlin's Wizard Oil. Was it really made from wizards? Or was it used to lubricate wizards?

Adaminaby

The drought in Australia has become so severe that old Adaminaby, buried under water in 1957 to create Lake Eucumbene as part of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme has started to reemerge.

Drowned 50 years ago for progress and the promise of near limitless water, the town of Old Adaminaby has re-emerged from its sunken grave as drought ravages one of Australia's biggest lakes. The country's battle with climate change and the worst drought in 100 years is stark at Old Adaminaby, where looters pick through the relics of a bygone farming town. On the floor of Lake Eucumbene lie the remains of an old truck stand on what was once a street and the foundations of nearby houses lie covered with cracked black mud.

Sadly, rather than highlighting the necessity to do something about global warming now (a subject the Coalition government seems less than keen to address) the main issue raised by this situation has been looters.

Some of EoR's more erudite readers might recognise Adaminaby as the name of a port on Old North Australia.