Wednesday, May 21, 2014

No One Expects the Science! Inquisition

Via Daily Caller, a Canadian geneticist on Bill Moyers' PBS show wants to lock up climate change dissenters.

I have a question.  How long have we known that saturated fats contribute to cardiovascular disease and heart attacks?  I think it started up big time when Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack during his presidency in the '50s.  Ike was a heavy smoker and might have been slightly stressed during a few years in the '40s - especially around the sixth of June, 1944, but it was the cheeseburger he ate before he played a round of golf (or after, I can't remember) that caused his heart attack.

Oleo was going to save the American heart.  In the 1980s, we all needed a high-carbohydrate, low-fat, low-protein diet, or we were all going to die.

It's as though these scientists never heard of a little thing called "digestion".  When I eat a piece of bacon, I'm pretty sure there are not bacon bits in my blood stream.  I once heard a Seventh Day Adventist -- and he may have been a doctor -- talking about how a man going in for a heart procedure had eaten a cheeseburger and a milkshake beforehand, and there was literally cheese in his blood.  Seventh Day Adventists are advocates for healthy eating -- as am I.  I prefer to stick with eating herbivores -- you know, vegetarians, but, like our SDA brethren, I also like to eat raw vegetables and occasionally fruit.

What we are learning now is that low-carbohydrate diets with plenty of natural fats and protein are better for the majority of us than the high-carb, grain-based diets that were being pushed for most of my lifetime.  There is nothing wrong with carbs as long as they are consumed moderately, especially if they are complex or mixed in with plenty of roughage, as we used to say.  Stay away from sugar and starchy stuff that is easily converted to sugar.  In this case, marketing and agribusiness pushed the alleged "scientific consensus" for profit for decades. 

The point is that science, "self-correcting" or not, is often wrong and wrong for very long periods of time.  Climate science is questionable science at best.  It is based largely on computer models.  These climate scientists get grant money from governments based on how important and vital their work can be made to appear.  Some of these clowns appear to understand weather about as well as the SDA guy above understood what happens in the human digestive tract.

Here's a fact.  Sometimes Earth is warmer than other times.  Sometimes it get much colder, and it passes through an ice age.  This is primarily a function of solar activity.  If the furnace in your house is running, the house tends to get warmer.  When the furnace shuts down, the house may start to cool depending on the exterior temperature.  Yes, how much insulation you have in your walls and ceilings do affect how much energy needs to be added to warm the house and how long it takes to cool down after the heat shuts off.

Carbon dioxide, which is less than 1% of atmospheric gases, has very little in the way of insulating properties compared to something like, say, clouds, which are not CO2, but H2O -- water vapor.  Heat, especially over areas with lots of water on the surface, tends to enhance evaporation, putting more clouds in the sky.  In other words, within some degree of variability, the climate tends to re-balance itself.  Human activity is part of that self-regulating system.  In what we might think of as micro-climate areas, like the Los Angeles Basin, I will grant that the human hive residing there has a profound impact on the local environment.  But the impact on the planet as a whole is negligible.

No one is questioning the fact that the Earth's climate changes, sometimes quite dramatically and even disastrously over time.  That's pretty much a given.

Genuine scientific inquiry seeks out the anomalies and welcomes challenging questions.  That's a vital part of the process. 

When so-called scientists start talking about silencing dissenting voices, who are the new inquisitors and who is Galileo?  And who is profiting from this deception?


  1. I guess you are aware of Mark Steyn's court case with Dr Michael Mann of the climate change hockey stick fame? Mark has been mercelessly taking his research and his behaviour apart for months now.

    It will be a very interesting case indeed when it gets to the court room.

  2. I am anxious to see how that turns out.

    When Pat Sajak, purveyor of dry humor as host of "Wheel of Fortune", tweeted that "global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists", he was satirizing the warmist attitude of trying to shut down debate by name calling. The best rise he got was from prominent African-American climate scientist Marshall Shepherd, who, in a blog post, pulled out all the credentialed expert, "only the very intelligent can understand" arguments plus the race card. The idiots at i09 were ecstatic in support of Shepherd.

    I wonder if either the children at i09 or Shepherd have figured out yet what the stupid old white guy was doing?