The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXII

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXII

My post from Sunday, which was Part XXI of this series, achieved a record number of readers for any of my posts — around 100,000 and counting — and has 50 comments so far. Thanks to all who have taken the time and effort to comment. Many of the comments are thoughtful and insightful, which I greatly appreciate. Several commenters express doubt or skepticism as to some or all aspects of the post. Being a lover of all doubt and skepticism, I thought it would be worthwhile to respond to some of these questioners.

Several commenters point out that Part XXI discusses only one temperature station — Darwin, Australia — out of about two thousand that are used to produce the world’s official temperature records. For example, Shawn comments:

Ok that's one station one sample over time,, can u do the same for all the other stations around the world.

And NorEastern comments:

The problems with any single point analysis are numerous.
1: Adjustments because of sensor changes are opaque to everybody without an electrical engineering degree. We, the public, cannot evaluate adjustments because we do not have the needed expertise and the device specs.
2: There are tens of thousands of sensors distributed across the globe. . . .

My first recommendation to such questioners is that they read Parts I through XX of the series. If you do that, you will quickly find out that this is not about just one station, but hundreds, if not every single one of the 2000 or so (not “tens of thousands”) that make up the world’s official surface temperature records. . . .

Read More

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time-- Part XXI

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time-- Part XXI

Just a few days ago (February 19), I posted part XX of this series. The subject of that post was a new compilation of historical temperatures for Australia (going back to 1910), known as ACORN2, just out from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The effect of ACORN2 was to increase the reported rate of climatic warming in Australia by 0.2 deg C per century over the previous compilation known as ACORN1, which had only been issued about 6+ years ago and had itself also increased the reported rate of warming as against the previous official records by about 0.2 deg C per century. The increased rate of warming is entirely accomplished by adjusting earlier-year temperatures downward.

Could there possibly be anything honest about what is going on? My source for the February 19 post — independent Australian researcher and blogger Joanne Nova — provided a link to the the BoM’s 57-page Research Report that supposedly justified the changes. That document appeared “impenetrable” both to Nova and to me, but maybe some much cleverer person could figure out what they were doing?

Well, now we move to the next step. . . .

Read More

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XX

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XX

Since last October, this series has been sitting at the rather awkward number of 19 (or “XIX”) posts. Time to round it off at an even XX.

For those new to this topic, the Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.” Prior posts in this series have documented large and unexplained downward adjustments at hundreds of stations around the world that are used by official government organizations (in the US, primarily NOAA and NASA) to wipe out early-year high temperatures and thereby proclaim that the latest month or year is “the hottest ever!” To read all prior posts in this series, go to this link.

You might ask, with the extensive exposure of these unsupportable downward adjustments of early-year temperatures by official government organizations — accompanied by highly credible accusations of scientific fraud — haven’t the adjusters been cowed by now into a smidgeon of honesty? It sure doesn’t look that way.

The latest news comes out of Australia, via the website of Joanne Nova. Nova’s February 17 post is titled “History keeps getting colder — ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%.” . . .

Read More

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XIX

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XIX

Don’t be too surprised that you’re not reading much recently about the impending climate apocalypse and the supposed “hottest year,” “hottest month,” or “hottest day” ever. The reason is that global lower troposphere temperatures, as measured by satellites and published by UAH, are down by more than 0.7 deg C since early 2016. That’s well more than half of what was thought to be the temperature increase since the satellite record began in 1979. September 2018 turned out to be the coolest September in ten years.

But inquiring minds are still eager to get to the bottom of the temperature adjustment scandal that has created a fake warming trend in the so-called “surface temperature” record that goes back into the mid-1800s. For those unfamiliar with this field, the “surface temperature” record comes from a totally different source from the satellite record, namely a network of conventional thermometers, each located a few feet above the ground, scattered around the world. The data from the surface thermometers is collected and published by three entities, two in the U.S. (NASA and NOAA) and one in England (the Hadley Center at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia). Those three use somewhat different but substantially overlapping surface thermometers to compile their records. All three show a noticeable warming trend in the range of 1.5 deg C since the late 19th century.

But is the warming trend real, or is all or most of it an artifact of temperature adjustments made to the record over time? Many have noticed that substantial downward adjustments have been made to raw temperatures recorded at many of the stations in the surface thermometer networks during the earlier part of the record, mainly from the mid-1800s through 1950s. This issue has been the principal focus of my series The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time. This is now Part XIX of that series. . . .

Read More

The Latest In The Cholesterol Wars

Do you take a “statin” to reduce your risk of a heart attack? The number of people who do is enormous. Looking around today to find some statistics on how many people take these things, and how much they spend per year, I can’t find completely up-to-date numbers. But this study from 2017, including data through 2013, found that some 27.3% of adults over 40 in the U.S., or some 39.2 million people, were using them. A study by a British firm called Visiongain in 2017 estimated the total world market for statins at $19 billion per year, and continuing to grow, despite price reductions due to patent expirations and entry of generic competitors in the past several years. More or less every big pharma company has an entry in the anti-cholesterol game (e.g., AstraZeneca plc, Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Novartis International AG, Merck & Co., Inc., Biocon, Concord Biotech, and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.).

But do statins actually do any good? Or are they a total waste of time? Or worse, might they even have negative effects on health or life expectancy? You would think that with the number of people using these things being so large, and the amount of money being spent being so huge, there would have to be definitive evidence of both positive benefit for life expectancy and of a causal relationship between blood cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease. Wouldn’t you? . . .

Read More

The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares: Glyphosate And Climate Change

You may have seen that last week a California jury handed down a verdict finding Monsanto civilly liable for some $289 million in damages to a man who claimed that his blood cancer was caused by the weed killer glyphosate (brand name Roundup).  That's enough money to notice!  Especially since there are a few thousand more potential plaintiffs lined up to sue for allegedly getting cancer from exposure to Roundup.  And it's especially noticeable to the people at Bayer, who just finished buying Monsanto for some $66 billion a couple of months ago.

If you've been a reader here for a while, you will know that I don't think much of the "science" supporting a supposed causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and cancer.  See this November 2017 post "Can Intervention By The Rational Stop A Pseudoscientific Scare Backed By Big Money?"   

And indeed, I'm far from alone in my views as to glyphosate, this jury's verdict notwithstanding.  There appears to be some kind of near-consensus of the relevant scientific community on the side that glyphosate does not cause cancer.  But then there's climate change.  Over in that field, we find advocates of climate alarm making frequent claims of "scientific consensus" for their position of a causal relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and projected catastrophic global warming.  In that field, I would dispute that there is anything close to a "consensus," but I could not dispute the proposition that a substantial plurality of those calling themselves "climate scientists" are supporting the cause of global warming alarm.  Even so, I think their claims are nonsense.

So how can you, as a reasonably informed citizen, hope to come to a rational view as to which scary scientific claims to credit and which to dismiss? . . .

Read More