A Story of CO2 Data Manipulation — Watts Up With That?

By Dr. Tim Ball, from his website. The consistent pattern of the IPCC reveals demonization and misrepresentations of CO2. Here are some basic facts about CO2 that illustrate the discrepancy between what the IPCC claim and what science knows. Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere; it is…

via A Story of CO2 Data Manipulation — Watts Up With That?

Bad Science, Politics and Magical Thinking

from website Compoundchem.com archive, April, 2014

How Bad Science and Emotional Appeals Spread Disinformation.

In today’s world, there is more false and misleading “information” than there is good science that is based on facts and not emotions and mythical or wishful beliefs. Much of what you see is either false or overblown. How can you know what to believe? It’s easy for me to say “Do your own research,” but that is often asking too much of most people who do not have analytical minds which have a habit of using critical thinking, much less have training in interpretation of scientific testing and results.  Today’s sensational and social media agenda are often driven by emotions, ideologies, politics, commercial aims or just plain stinking thinking.  The image above can help you understand factors that are important to discern fact from fiction, speculation and mythology.

Anecdotal stories do not constitute facts. Correlation does not mean causation. The flawed reasoning goes something like this: John ate a lot of apples. John got heart disease or cancer. Therefore, apples (or some chemical on them) caused John to develop heart disease or cancer. More examples of people who ate apples and got heart disease or cancer do not constitute proof that they cause disease.  Correlation does not mean causation. Maybe it is just two unrelated facts that are paired for sensational effect or to intentionally mislead you.

In humans, there are a lot of lifestyle and workplace differences between people, so one factor (apple) cannot be said to be a cause of anything without taking into consideration what else could contribute or cause the effect. Other factors such as obesity, alcohol, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, sleep habits, age, heredity, other risky behavior, etc. have to be ruled out in closely controlled studies. Small numbers of examples that seem to support the premise do not constitute “clinical trials” or proof.  To be statistically significant, very large numbers must be included along with control groups that do not use the suspected substance, preferably in a double blind study.  (double blind means neither the subject or the person giving the substance know which are real and which are placebo so their attitude cannot affect the result.)  I’m sorry, but Reader’s Digest and Facebook “statistics” are often flawed and any conclusions must be questioned and examined closely, even if it seems to come from a reliable source or even your grandmother.

It is wise to consider the source. There are powerful advocacy groups pushing agendas having nothing to do with real science or caring for your safety, which they claim.  These include anti-vaxx, organic anti-modern agriculture, anti-pesticide, anti-fossil fuel, in general anti-human progress groups that influence national and international agencies to act out of a preponderance of caution. The precautionary principle, used in the European Union, stops all progress in its tracks. If a substance with no presently known safety issues may possibly, conceivably cause some unforeseen harm in the future it cannot be used. It is also unscientific because it demands proving a negative.

Word to the wise: Be cautious and suspicious of any health claim you read or hear about.  There is often an agenda driven ideology or money-making scheme behind it.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.                             —H. L. Menchen

 

 

 

 

Monday Mirthiness – Greta’s two degrees — Watts Up With That?

Josh comes through with another cartoon. In case you missed it, over the weekend, Willis Eschenbach published “Planet-Sized Experiments – we’ve already done the 2°C test” One of the truths in that article was directed at this past weekend’s “climate strikes”, inspired by 16 year old Greta Thunberg. Willis makes a lot of sense with…

via Monday Mirthiness – Greta’s two degrees — Watts Up With That?

How sensitive is the climate to greenhouse gases? — Watts Up With That?

Nicholas Lewis gave a keynote lecture with the Title “How sensitive is the climate to greenhouse gases?” – Is it really necessary to reach zero emissions in 2050? At our “Ontgroeningsdag” event on 7 March 2019 in Amsterdam. Video follows.

via How sensitive is the climate to greenhouse gases? — Watts Up With That?

First they came for the coal industry, now for oil and gas: West Australian EPA decides state must meet “Paris” alone — The Wentworth Report

First they came for the coal industry, now for oil and gas: West Australian EPA decides state must meet “Paris” alone, by Joanne Nova. Suddenly, with five minutes warning, Western Australia may be going it alone to meet Paris on behalf of Australia. Not because an elected government decided that, but because of five people […]

via First they came for the coal industry, now for oil and gas: West Australian EPA decides state must meet “Paris” alone — The Wentworth Report

New Calabrese: A comprehensive assessment of the LNT’s historical and scientific foundations — JunkScience.com

If you’ve missed Calabrese’s work so far… catch up on the LNT controversy with his latest paper: “The LNT single-hit dose-response model for cancer risk assessment was conceived, formulated, and applied in a manner which is now known to have been scientifically invalid.”

via New Calabrese: A comprehensive assessment of the LNT’s historical and scientific foundations — JunkScience.com