New report casts doubts on validity of NOAA, NASA global temperature data

Indicating a possibility that the publications and data used to justify the recent Climate Change initiatives such as Paris Accord may have been falsified!

"On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding"
Abridged Research Report,
Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017

ABSTRACT
The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.
...
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

An article published yesterday in zerohedge.com summarizes the results as follows, quote:

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk: ...

Study: chemotherapy may spread cancer and trigger more aggressive tumours

.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/05/chemotherapy-may-spread-cancer-trigger-aggressive-tumours-warn/

Researchers in the US studied the impact of drugs on patients with breast cancer and found medication increases the chance of cancer cells migrating to other parts of the body, where they are almost always lethal.

Many are given chemotherapy before surgery, but the new research suggests that, although it shrinks tumours in the short term, it could trigger the spread of cancer cells around the body.

It is thought the toxic medication switches on a repair mechanism in the body which ultimately allows tumours to grow back stronger. It also increases the number of ‘doorways’ on blood vessels which allow cancer to spread throughout the body.

Dr George Karagiannis, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, New York, found the number of doorways was increased in 20 patients receiving two common chemotherapy drugs.

Study: highest glycemic diet - lung cancer twice as likely

.
Article:

Warning: Some High Carb Foods Can Give You Lung Cancer

Quote:

The investigators looked specifically at the intake of foods with a high glycemic index, such as the white bread and potatoes cited by Jain.

Overall, people who registered in the top fifth in terms of a high-glycemic diet had a 49 percent greater risk of developing lung cancer versus those in the bottom fifth, Wu’s team reported.

And when the researchers focused solely on people who never smoked, the link was even more compelling. Those who had the highest glycemic diet were more than twice as likely to get lung cancer as those who had the lowest glycemic index scores.

The study:

"Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, and Lung Cancer Risk in Non-Hispanic Whites",
Stephanie C. Melkonian, Carrie R. Daniel, Yuanqing Ye, Jeanne A. Pierzynski, Jack A. Roth and Xifeng Wu

Silicon Valley's elite are flocking to an extreme high-fat diet in hopes of living longer

.
They flipped! Finally it happened!!! Since its on television then it has to be true (hey Mr. Citizen now you can believe it!)

Silicon Valley's elite are flocking to an extreme high-fat diet in hopes of living longer


Me first, then my wife and our four girls begun following the high animal fat, moderate protein low carb diet, based on dr. Jan Kwasniewski's "Optimal Diet", in July 1999, and stayed on it ever since. Initially I started it a fact finding mission after one of our friends enthusiastically recommended it, saying that it cured his liver cirrhosis in 6 months!

Actually it did!

I couldn't believe it since it violated every common medical "wisdom" raining down on us from every media outlet, as well as all doctors we spoke to. I like that aspect... After two weeks I felt better, stronger, more energy, clearer thinking, no tiredness - better than I ever did since my 20-ties! In addition a number of ailments went away, for example dry eye condition, afternoon tiredness, persistent (but not acute) intestinal inflammation etc.

Then my wife and our children begun eating this style, then my mother who lived with us. She begun a month after me, begrudgingly after we ran out of bread since my wife stopped buying it. How my mom recovered her chronic health problems on the high fat diet and what exactly happened - that's another story! We continuet that eating style ever since. It works for us. Back in 1999 everybody thought I was crazy, they were seriously expecting me to drop dead withing months (which, to their surprise, did not happen!)  When I begun my day job in 2009 half of my work colleagues were on some kind of "healthy" low fat salads and fruit for lunch or skim milk cereal diet, many were vegetarians (although there are fewer now) who wouldn't talk to me when I revealed my "orientation". Some still don't !    😊

Heretic

Saturated fat does not clog the arteries

.
Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions FREE
Aseem Malhotra1⇑, Rita F Redberg2,3, Pascal Meier4,5

Quote:

Coronary artery disease pathogenesis and treatment urgently requires a paradigm shift. Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong. A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.3

Study contradicts official guidelines promoting low salt intake

.
Another mainstream medical theory bites the dust! Just like with the cholesterol-and-fat bull..t in the past - it will be interesting to find out what has gone wrong and who did it!   :)

Higher sodium intake associated with lower blood pressure.

PUBLIC RELEASE: 25-APR-2017
Low-sodium diet might not lower blood pressure
Findings from large, 16-year study contradict sodium limits in Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Quotes:

Chicago (April 25, 2017) - A new study that followed more than 2,600 men and women for 16 years found that consuming less sodium wasn't associated with lower blood pressure. The new findings call into question the sodium limits recommended by the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Lynn L. Moore, DSc, associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, will present the new research at the American Society for Nutrition Scientific Sessions and annual meeting during the Experimental Biology 2017 meeting, to be held April 22-26 in Chicago.

"We saw no evidence that a diet lower in sodium had any long-term beneficial effects on blood pressure," said Moore. "Our findings add to growing evidence that current recommendations for sodium intake may be misguided."

Is vegetarianism an eating disorder?

.

From Wiki 

After reading this article, especially the reference papers, my conclusion is 'yes'!

ttp://www.brendadavisrd.com/eating-disorders-in-vegans-and-other-vegetarians-setting-the-record-straight/

Quote:

Many experts believe that vegan diets (and other types of vegetarian diets) can increase the risk of eating disorders. Some treatment centers consider the reintroduction of meat a necessary part of recovery. These beliefs are based on data released between 1997 and 2009 that reported significantly higher rates of disturbed-eating attitudes and behaviors, restrained eating, and disordered eating among vegetarians compared to nonvegetarians.1-5
Currently, approximately 50 percent of adolescents and young women with anorexia nervosa eat some form of vegetarian diet; whereas only 6 to 34 percent of their nonanorexic peers in the general population eat a vegetarian diet.6

References

1. Lindeman M et al. Vegetarianism and eating-disordered thinking. Eating Disorders. 2000; 8(2):157–165. 85.

2. Bas M et al. Vegetarianism and eating disorders: Association between eating attitudes and other psychological factors among Turkish adolescents. Appetite. 2005; 44(3):309–315.

As a conclusion, the present study indicated abnormal eating attitudes, low self-esteem, high social physique anxiety, and high trait anxiety in Turkish vegetarian adolescents. The vegetarian adolescents may be more likely to display disordered eating attitudes and behaviors than nonvegetarians.

3. Klopp SA et al. Self-reported vegetarianism may be a marker for college women at risk for disordered eating. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003; 103(6):745–747.

A significantly higher (P less than 0.0001) proportion of the vegetarians (37%) compared with nonvegetarians (8%) had EAT scores greater than 30 (indicating eating disorder risk). There was no difference in supplement use or meal skipping between the two groups. In conclusion, self-reported vegetarian college women may be more likely to display disordered eating attitudes and behaviors than nonvegetarians.

  4. Neumark-Sztainer D et al. Adolescent vegetarians. A behavioral profile of a schoolbased population in Minnesota.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 1997 Aug;151(8):833-8.

Vegetarians were almost twice as likely to report frequent dieting (P less than  .001), 4 times as likely to report intentional vomiting (P less than .001), and 8 times as likely to report laxative use (P less than .001) than nonvegetarians. Overall, associations with other health-compromising and health-promoting behaviors were not apparent. 

5.  Robinson-O’Brien R et al. Adolescent and young adult vegetarianism: better dietary intake and weight outcomes but increased risk of disordered eating behaviors. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(4):648–55.

This study shows that in a group of 17 year old, binge eating with loss of control occurs among 21.2% (current vegetarians), 16.0%(former vegetarians) and 4.4%(never-vegetarians).

6. Bardone-Cone AM et al. The inter-relationships between vegetarianism and eating disorders among females. J Acad Nutr Diet. 201;112(8):1247–52.

Compared to controls, individuals with an eating disorder history were significantly more likely to ever have been vegetarian (52% vs. 12%), to be currently vegetarian (24% vs. 6%), and to be primarily motivated by weight-related reasons (42% vs. 0%). The three recovery status groups (fully recovered, partially recovered, active eating disorder) did not differ significantly in percentiles endorsing a history of vegetarianism or weight-related reasons as primary, but they differed significantly in current vegetarianism (33% of active cases, 13% of partially recovered, 5% of fully recovered). Most perceived that their vegetarianism was related to their eating disorder (68%) and emerged after its onset.

High fat diet appears to regenerate diabetic pancreas

.
Is this possibly a cure for diabetes type 1 ?    According to this BBC article and the quoted study, it may be so!

Interestingly, dr. Jan Kwasniewski , creator of the "Optimal Diet" has always claimed that such diet can virtually cure about 9 out of 10 of diabetes type 1, based on his personal patient's records from his own medical practice during 1970-ties and 1980-ties. The reason, according to him, is that in most cases, there are at least residual 10% of the pancreatic beta cells still intact allowing the patient to survive on the high fat diet, on about 6 insulin units per day, which is about 10% of the normal (on a high carb diet) insulin production. Such low insulin requirements is only attainable on a diet that is very low in carbohydrates, low in protein and therefore - high in fat. Dr. Kwasniewski always recommended to eat mostly animal fat and saturated fats, with a minimal to none contents of polyunsaturated vegetable oils. This is interesting because that was back in the days when the  negative impact of polyunsaturated oils upon health was not as widely known as it is now. I always admired his medical insights ever since I learned about and adopted his diet in 1999. Since I don't normally trust opinions and always try to "touch the wound", so to speak, I always made efforts to verify and test all his claims. Every time when I thought he may have been wrong about some details such as vegetable fats issue or his preference on saturated fats, or insistence that cholesterol is a good thing and egg yolks are the best food (back in the 1970-ties!) - sooner or later he turned out to have been correct!

Heretic

Quantum processing in brain via phosphorus nucleons' spin

There is a revolution in physics going on, regarding research on the nature of consciousness, neural transmission and signal processing in the brain.  This seems like a very  important paper:

IS QUANTUM PROCESSING OPERATIVE IN THE BRAIN?
by Matthew Fisher

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/quantum-processing-operative-brain


Quote:

THE HYPOTHESIS

Fisher's theory of quantum entanglement in the brain starts with the chemical compound pyrophosphate.

Known to be essential for cellular function, pyrophosphate is made of two bonded phosphates, each made up of phosphorus (which has a nuclear spin of ½) and oxygen (which has a spin of zero).

When pyrophosphate is broken down by enzymes, the bonded pair of phosphate ions separates.

Pairs of spin-½ particles can combine in one of four ways. Three combinations lead to a total spin of one, and these are called triplet states. The fourth leads to a spin of zero, or a "singlet state," which is a special state of entanglement often referred to as the currency of quantum computing.

The enzyme catalysis of pyrophosphate occurs more often, and possibly only, if the bonded phosphate ions are in a singlet state. These entangled ions could then be "taken up" by nanometre-diameter-sized Posner molecules. Made up of six phosphate ions bound to nine calcium ions, Posner molecules have been identified in simulated body fluid and are thought to be present in the body.

The other ingredients in Posner molecules – calcium and oxygen – do not have a nuclear spin, and the small molecules are very spherical, thus are expected to tumble rapidly in water. This means the quantum entanglement of the phosphate ions is expected to be highly protected from its environment, and could remain coherent for a day or much longer.

With Posner molecules serving as a "qubit memory," the end result could lead to non-local quantum correlations – what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" – in neurotransmitter release and postsynaptic firing across multiple neurons. This is what Fisher calls quantum cognition.

See also


Neural qubits: Quantum cognition based on synaptic nuclear spins
August 27, 2015 by John Hewitt report

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-neural-qubits-quantum-cognition-based.html


______________________________________________________

Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness?
A new approach to a once far fetched theory is making it plausible that the brain functions like a quantum computer.

by JENNIFER OUELLETTE NOV 7, 2016

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-brain/506768/

From Atlantic, Nov-2016

_____________________________________________________


Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain

Matthew P. A. Fisher
(Submitted on 19 Aug 2015 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2015 (this version, v2))

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05929

Abstract:

The possibility that quantum processing with nuclear spins might be operative in the brain is proposed and then explored. Phosphorus is identified as the unique biological element with a nuclear spin that can serve as a qubit for such putative quantum processing - a neural qubit - while the phosphate ion is the only possible qubit-transporter. We identify the "Posner molecule", Ca9(PO4)6, as the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very long times and thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory. A central requirement for quantum-processing is quantum entanglement. It is argued that the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophosphate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits. Posner molecules, formed by binding such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement. A mechanism for transporting Posner molecules into presynaptic neurons during a "kiss and run" exocytosis, which releases neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft, is proposed. Quantum measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability of post-synaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing. Implications, both in vitro and in vivo, are briefly mentioned.

___________________

Was the Climate Action Plan a population reduction in disguise?

.
The new US president is said to have removed all references to global warming/curbing carbon emission initiative, from the government website!

Had the world governments succeeded depleting carbon dioxide, it would speed up the coming of the new ice age. It may still happen. Ice age is the greatest threat to humanity and the biosphere, since a cold climate means not only more ice but it means also a dry climate!

Double whammy - first the Earth would loose most of the agricultural viable land in the Northern temperate climates, then it would cause desertification of the tropical areas causing a further damage to agriculture. Result: dramatic reduction of the human and animal population due to starvation! I would like to make Carbon Curbers and my other progressive friends think if that may have been perhaps the original hidden intention?

Stan (Heretic)

---------------------

Refs:

1. Humanity be proud!

 "Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2"

October 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London.

2. Honestly...

Global Warming data fiddle:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

3. After the dust settles

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/08/420000-years-of-data-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/

There is a consistent ice-core evidence suggesting that each time before an ice age ended, there was a large spike of atmospheric dust. This may suggest that the dust spike may have been in fact the main trigger of glacial meltdown. Where does the dust came from?  Not sure - volcanic perhaps or was the dust blown off the arid deserts of the continental interiors?  I would probably be more inclined towards the latter since the ice age climate is known to have been much drier thus turning the vast areas of land into deserts.  This would also present an automatic feedback mechanism were upon at some point the cooling off of the Earth, the cold climate creates so much continental deserts that the amount of dust blown over the glaciers causes their melt-down.  In this picture a paradoxical carbon-dioxide time lag with respect to the temperature data can be explained by the CO2 (and methane!) out-gassing from the warming oceans, this being the result of the climate warming rather than the cause.

Picture from the above-linked article with my comments:

Update (6-Feb-2017):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Potatoes and cereals are heart disease risk while dairy, fat and meat are good for you

.
- says the new study: "FOOD CONSUMPTION AND THE ACTUAL STATISTICS OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF 42 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES" .

Results: ...The most significant dietary correlate of low CVD risk was high total fat and animal protein consumption. Additional statistical analyses further highlighted citrus fruits, high-fat dairy (cheese) and tree nuts. ... The major correlate of high CVD risk was the proportion of energy from carbohydrates and alcohol, or from potato and cereal carbohydrates.

Conclusion: Our results do not support the association between CVDs and saturated fat, which is still contained in official dietary guidelines. Instead, they agree with data accumulated from recent studies that link CVD risk with the high glycaemic index/load of carbohydrate-based diets. In the absence of any scientific evidence connecting saturated fat with CVDs, these findings show that current dietary recommendations regarding CVDs should be seriously reconsidered.

(CVD stands for "Cardio Vascular Disease")

by Cecilia Bleszynski (C) 2017

The first graph published in the paper:

is the most interesting in conjunction with the rest of the results, showing that the high consumption of animal fat and protein correlates very well with high blood cholesterol level and at the same time (see for example Fig.4 and 7) the high cholesterol and high consumption of animal fat and protein correlate consistently and strongly with the low cardiovascular and other diseases' risk! That is yet another nail to the coffin of the cholesterol-heart hypothesis and an indication that the blood cholesterol correlation with cardiovascular disease (+ or -) is secondary and spurious while the primary risk factor appears to be related to the carbohydrate contents of the diet! Note that some of the graphs refer to women some for men but the actual correlation factors are similar for men and momen (see Table 1) with the exception of correlations involving BMI and smoking which are opposite for women and men (that is another interesting subject).

Most of the results point consistently and strongly, see for example Fig.10 towards the carbohydrates contents of the diet as being the strongest positive correlator with the cardiovascular disease risk, where as the animal and most plant fats correlate most negatively (that is being protective) against cardiovascular disease, see Table 1, with the notable exception of sunflower oil which correlates strongly and positively with the CVD.

It is also interestingly to notice a strong linear correlation graph with very low data scatter, between the prevalence of raised blood glucose and consumption of carbohydrates plus alcohol ('CA' variable), on Fig.9:

Although diabetes risk was not directly measured in the study, Fig.9 appears to indicate that diabetes risk may be steeply correlated to the total consumption of carbohydrates plus alcohol, and strongly inversely correlated with the consumption of animal fat and protein (see Table 1). For example an increase of the dietary carbohydrate+alcohol contents from 42% to 68% seems to increase the prevalence of high blood glucose (and thus probably diabetes risk as well) by a factor of 3!

The overall results of this study are also remarkably consistent with the original China Study data as published on the Oxford University web site and  discussed on this blog (see my previous posts).

The study is also discussed in the following journalistic article:

"Potatoes and cereals are health risk, while dairy is good for you, says new study".

Lack of benefits from blood glucose-lowering diabetes treatment, doctors confused

.
This is the key conclusion from the recently published study.

Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence

Abstract

...We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines.
...
We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%–100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%–83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%–36%) did.

Conclusions — Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications.

And journalistic commentary, from the CBC:

New study questions Type 2 diabetes treatment
No evidence glucose-lowering drugs help ward off long-term complications, researchers say

It's a curious case of missing evidence. When a diabetes specialist searched the medical literature looking for proof to support the use of glucose-lowering drugs for Type 2 diabetes, he couldn't find it.

...
His conclusions challenge the conventional wisdom of many medical specialists, and contradict most clinical practice guidelines.

...
"Over 90 per cent of experts were saying that controlling blood sugars tightly was associated with a reduction in your risk of going blind or of needing dialysis or having to undergo an amputation," Montori said. "But when we looked at the evidence for that, we could not see any signal that would suggest that is true despite the question being asked at least since the 1970s."
...
The finding reveals a divergence in professional opinion based on the same set of facts, and it exposes a dilemma in the science of Type 2 diabetes — that doctors don't completely understand the relationship between blood sugar and the disease.

My comments:

1) The lack of benefits from glucose lowering therapies may be explained by the primary cause of the damage being the total carbohydrate overload (Glycemic Load) rather than the blood glucose level.

2) The results are consistent with the research published by R.W.Stout (Lancet, 1969) demonstrating arteriosclerotic plaque production stimulated by glucose and insulin. Reduction of carbohydrate consumption therefore reduces both glycemic load and insulin secretion, reducing the overall risk, especially cardiovascular. Some glucose level controlling drugs only push glucose from one location (blood) into another (tissues) without generally affecting insulin secretion and therefore unchanging the risk, while some other drugs that do increase insulin would also increase the risk.

3) Confusion among medical professionals stems from their attachment to the Western food and lifestyle, unable to consider a possibility that the high carbohydrate nutrition may by itself be the main trigger (if not the cause) of diabetes. In my personal opinion, best remedy would be to allow more free play and competition in the medical field, enabling doctors trained in other countries that may not be subject to the above described mind blocks, to practice legally world-wide, as it is already being widely accepted in other professions such as engineering, scientific research and art.

Stan (Heretic)

Fat and cholesterol-heart disease theory - worldwide hoax perpetrated by American Sugar Association!

.

This is now official, documents found and published! If one thinks about the implications, scale and the length of time, it would probably not be surprizing if this were followed by some some serious Crime Against Humanity type investigation against the officials that were involved, and named!

NY Times: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

...

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar. Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

JAMA paper: Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents

Abstract

Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in theNew England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

...
RESULTS

SRF’s Interest in Promoting a Low-Fat Diet to Prevent CHD

Sugar Research Foundation president Henry Hass’s 1954 speech, “What’s New in Sugar Research,”12 to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet: “Leading nutritionists are pointing out the chemical connection between [American’s] high-fat diet and the formation of cholesterol which partly plugs our arteries and capillaries, restricts the flow of blood, and causes high blood pressure and heart trouble… if you put [the middle-aged man] on a low-fat diet, it takes just five days for the blood cholesterol to get down to where it should be… If the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health.”12

The industry would subsequently spend $600 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”12

...

The SRF’s vice president and director of research, John Hickson, started closely monitoring the field.15
In December 1964, Hickson reported to an SRF subcommittee15 that new CHD research was a cause for concern: “From a number of laboratories of greater or lesser repute, there are flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates, eg,—Yudkin.”15 Since 1957, British physiologist John Yudkin16 had challenged population studies singling out saturated fat as the primary dietary cause of CHD and suggested that other factors, including sucrose, were at least equally important.17,18

Hickson proposed that the SRF “could embark on a major program” to counter Yudkin and other “negative attitudes toward sugar.”15 He recommended an opinion poll “to learn what public concepts we should reinforce and what ones we need to combat through our research and information and legislative programs” and a symposium to “bring detractors before a board of their peers where their fallacies could be unveiled.”15 Finally, he recommended that SRF fund CHD research: “There seems to be a question as to whether the [atherogenic] effects are due to the carbohydrate or to other nutrient imbalance. We should carefully review the reports, probably with a committee of nutrition specialists; see what weak points there are in the experimentation, and replicate the studies with appropriate corrections. Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.”15

In 1965, the SRF asked Fredrick Stare, chair of the Harvard University School of Public Health Nutrition Department19 to join its SAB as an ad hoc member.20 Stare was an expert in dietary causes of CHD and had been consulted by the NAS,1 National Heart Institute,21 and AHA,22 as well as by food companies and trade groups.19 Stare’s industry-favorable positions and financial ties would not be widely questioned until the 1970s.23

....

SRF Funds Project 226: A Literature Review on Sugars, Fats, and CHD
On July 13, 1965, 2 days after the Tribune article, the SRF’s executive committee approved Project 226,31 a literature review on “Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Metabolism” by Hegsted and Robert McGandy, overseen by Stare.10 The SRF initially offered $500 ($3800 in 2016 dollars) to Hegsted and $1000 ($7500 in 2016 dollars) to McGandy, “half to be paid when you start work on the project, and the remainder when you inform me that the article has been accepted for publication.”31 Eventually, the SRF would pay them $650032 ($48 900 in 2016 dollars) for “a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose and, in particular, fructose.”31

Diets higher in protein are associated with lower adiposity and do not impair kidney function

.
Another myth bites the dust. It appears protein-kidney scare was a BS all along...

The recently published paper:

Diets higher in animal and plant protein are associated with lower adiposity and do not impair kidney function in US adults

Conclusions: Diets higher in plant and animal protein, independent of other dietary factors, are associated with cardiometabolic benefits, particularly improved central adiposity, with no apparent impairment of kidney function.

DHA forming BE quantum condensate in the living organisms

.
[OFF-TOPIC]
It is a good time for some nutty speculative science stuff, for a change. 8-:) This post was inspired by the following paper:

"A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution";
by Michael A. Crawford, Kebreab Ghebremeskel, C. Leigh Broadhurst, Walter F. Schmidt, Martin Guest;
Published in: Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids 88 (2013) 5–13,

The paper above is postulating that the DHA (docosehexaenoic acid) has a special role in the living organism since the beginning of Life on Earth, and must have certain unique properties so that it has never been supplanted by any other molecule.

I came to a very similar conclusions regarding DHA except that I think the primary drive behind the evolutionary use of DHA was not only the neural conduction or photosensitivity/vision as stipulated in the paper, but rather much more fundamental property of the DHA-composed cellullar membranes. That is the ability to establish quantum coherency involving very large number of ions or pseudoparticles (polarons etc) trapped on the membrane, forming the so-called Bose-Einsten Condensate (BEC). For example, a polarized DHA membrane with with H+ on one side and and e- on the opposite side, may form (H+)--(e-) integral spin pseudo atoms stretched across the membrane, which may and probably do form Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). I think BEC explains neatly the fact that biochemical reactions involving several electron-volt of chemical potential can be driven by only a tiny ~180mV cellullar membrane potential.

It seems that the reason neural propagation appears to be extremely fast, probably instantanous, is because the quantum change of the BEC state takes place instantaneously regardless of the spacial extent of the underlying structure. Similar physics is probably taking place in the mitochondrial membranes except the purpose there would be chemical synthesis rather than signal propagation and quantum logic.

Even more speculative.

The primary evolutionary drive behind DHA could have been an ability of Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) of accelerating decay of naturally occurring radioactive Potassium-40 isotope, to Calcium 40 by creating BEC of both elements on the DHA membrane. By exposing of the BEC composed of Calcium 40 that is (one of) the end-product of Potassium 40 decay, to the original Potassium 40 nuclei in the initial quantum state, it would increase the probability of the K40-->Ca40 transistion. This is statistical property of bosons making them more likely to transition into a particular state if there are already bosons residing in that state. This effect is behind the well-known effect (to physicists) of "stimulated emission of radiation" in lasers, as opposed to "spontaneous emission".

If that is true then this effect could have greatly facilitated production of energy through stimulated radioactivity on the early Earth, in the primordial environment deep underground or at the bottom of the ocean, that were devoid of light and lacking other readily available sources of energy. This would probably be taking place in the first one billion years of the Earth evolution when the abundance of Potassium-40 was much higher than it is now.

There are other interesting and equally speculative possibilities to explore, involving BCE phenomena on the membranes and thin layers,
see for example this proposal.

Stan Bleszynski, August 2016.

Update 31-Aug-2016

Interesting link, an article on quantum processes in biology.

A long-time vegan guru changes from fatophobic to favoring saturated fat!

.

Plant Oils Are Not a Healthy Alternative to Saturated Fat
By T. Colin Campbell, PhD July 21, 2016

My take on Dr. TCC's change of opinion about saturated fat:  I think his claims of expertise and consistency in terms of understanding the effects of various fats are not true, and it can be very easily checked by looking at his academic papers, popular publications and articles. He has always been the low fat exclusively plant-based diet promoter discouraging his followers against consuming any kinds of fats, especially dairy and animal fat. I would not be surprised if we shall soon witness a similar complete re-evaluation of his anti-animal protein beliefs as well, by himself or his colleagues.

In the last 15 years I have been warning many professional low fat vegan diet promoters on various forums, to bail out of their belief system earlier while they still could, rather than later. Not only to prevent hurting their  followers but also to minimize the damage to their own professional careers. The best time of jumping the sinking ship of low fat vegetarianism was a few years ago before it begun getting discredited rather than now when it is sinking like a boat anchor.

It is too late for Dr. TCC and others. He appeared to have sacrificed the truth about fats for short term career benefits in the past several decades of his work and now all that is coming back to bite him. However, all the pseudo-scientific anti-fat vegan garbage that various gurus have been spewing out in the mass media, on-line websites and in printed popular literature over the years is out there for all to re-read and ponder... - It cannot be undone!

(Thanks for the link, JC)

Quote (from somebody):
It's is not what is taken into one's mouth that can can be most harmful, it is what comes out!

Wiki Butter

High cholesterol does not cause heart disease new research finds...statins waste of time

.

From US FDA

High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'


Quote:

13 JUNE 2016 • 1:01AM
Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has claimed.
A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally been considered “bad” cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease.
Published in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.
Lowering cholesterol with medications is a total waste of time
Professor Sherif Sultan, University of Ireland
The authors have called for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, a hardening and narrowing of the arteries, because “the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated”.

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review


Quote:

Abstract
Objective It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.
Setting, participants and outcome measures We sought PubMed for cohort studies, where LDL-C had been investigated as a risk factor for all-cause and/or CV mortality in individuals ≥60 years from the general population.
Results We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68 094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing 92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no association was found.
Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.

New Battle of Fat in the British media

.
British National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaboration have just issued a damning report accusing public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, blaming them for contributing to the obesity epidemics and calling for a complete overhaul of the present low fat dietary reccomendations.

Mainstream health "authorities" have fired their salvo accusing the authors of the report of irresponsibility.

(Illustration by Cecilia Bleszynski)

The report is described here, titled "'Eating fat does not make you fat,' says UK health report".

Quotes:

Focus on low fat diets fails to address obesity, return to whole foods like meat, dairy needed.
Urging people to follow low fat diets and to lower their cholesterol is having "disastrous health consequences", a health charity has warned.
In a damning report that accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry, the National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaboration call for a “major overhaul” of current dietary guidelines.
They say the focus on low fat diets is failing to address Britain’s obesity crisis, while snacking between meals is making people fat.
Instead, they call for a return to "whole foods" such as meat, fish and dairy, as well as high fat healthy foods including avocados, arguing that "eating fat does not make you fat".
The report — which has caused a huge backlash amongst the scientific community - also argues that saturated fat does not cause heart disease while full fat diary — including milk, yoghurt and cheese — can actually protect the heart.

Processed foods labelled "low fat", "lite", "low cholesterol" or "proven to lower cholesterol" should be avoided at all costs
and people with Type 2 diabetes should eat a fat-rich diet rather than one based on carbohydrates.
The report also said sugar should be avoided, people should stop counting calories and the idea that exercise can help you “outrun a bad diet” is a myth.

...
The authors of the report also argue that the science of food has also been “corrupted by commercial influences”.
Just as big tobacco companies bought the “loyalty of scientists” when a link was made between smoking and lung cancer, the influence of the food industry represents a “significant threat to public health”, they argued.
They said the recent Eatwell Guide from Public Health England (PHE) was produced with a large number of people from the food and drink industry.

Professor David Haslam, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said: “As a clinician, treating patients all day every day, I quickly realised that guidelines from on high, suggesting high carbohydrate, low fat diets were the universal panacea, were deeply flawed.
“Current efforts have failed — the proof being that obesity levels are higher than they have ever been, and show no chance of reducing despite the best efforts of Government and scientists.”
Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist and founding member of the Public Health Collaboration, a group of medics, said dietary guidelines promoting low fat foods “is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history resulting in devastating consequences for public health.
“Sadly this unhelpful advice continues to be perpetuated. The current Eatwell guide from Public Health England is in my view more like a metabolic timebomb than a dietary pattern conducive for good health.

Professor Iain Broom, from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, said: “The continuation of a food policy recommending high carbohydrate, low fat, low calorie intakes as ‘healthy eating’ is fatally flawed.
“Our populations for almost 40 years, have been subjected to an uncontrolled global experiment that has gone drastically wrong.”

A counterattack has been launched through the BBC by Public Health England "Advice to eat more fat 'irresponsible'":


Quotes:

Advice to eat more fat is irresponsible and potentially deadly, Public Health England's chief nutritionist has said.
Dr Alison Tedstone was responding to a report by the National Obesity Forum, which suggests eating fat could help cut obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The charity said promoting low-fat food had had "disastrous health consequences" and should be reversed.
Other experts have also criticised the report saying it cherry-picked and misquoted evidence.

But the report has been criticised for not going though scientific peer review.
Dr Tedstone responded to the publication by saying: "In the face of all the evidence, calling for people to eat more fat, cut out carbs and ignore calories is irresponsible."
She said thousands of scientific studies were considered as part of the official guidance adopted throughout the UK, whereas the National Obesity Forum quoted just 43 studies, some of which were comment pieces.

She praised the call to lower refined carbohydrates, but said the overall message to cut carbs ignored the issue of quality as "we do need wholegrain carbs and fibre in out diet".

Prof Tom Sanders from King's College London said: "It is not helpful to slag off the sensible dietary advice.
"The harsh criticism of current dietary guidelines meted out in this report is not justified as few people adhere to these guidelines anyway.

I need to help the readers who may have difficulty uderstanding or comprehending Prof Sanders statement. Let me translate it to a language that the working class people may understand.

According to Prof Sanders its OK to tell the public questionable theories bullshit because people don't listen anyway so there is no harm done.

On the side note, for people who did happen to listen, perhaps accidentally, who may have by a chance taken his dietary theories seriously, and got fat - please contact King's College London.

--------------
Update 1/07/2016 - a follow-up study published:

US and UK dietary advice on fats “should not have been introduced” Part 2

Evidence from prospective cohort studies did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review Zoë Harcombe1, Julien S Baker1, Bruce Davies2

Eating too little salt may increase your risk of a heart attack or stroke claims new research

.
Daily Mail On-Line article:

Eating too LITTLE salt may INCREASE your risk of a heart attack or stroke, claims controversial new research

Wiki Salt

Nutritional heresy strikes back, some quotes:

The research was carried out by investigators at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences.
They analyzed more than 130,000 people across 49 countries, focusing on whether the relationship between sodium (salt) intake and death, heart disease and stroke differs in people with high blood pressure compared to those with normal blood pressure.
Their findings showed that regardless of whether people have high blood pressure, low-salt intake is linked to a greater incidence of heart attacks, stroke, and deaths compared to average intake.
...

Dr Mente said that this suggests that the majority of individuals in Canada and most countries are consuming the right amount of salt.
He added that targeted salt reduction in those who are most susceptible because of hypertension and high salt consumption may be preferable to a population-wide approach to reducing sodium intake in most countries except those where the average sodium intake is very high, such as parts of central Asia or China.

He added that what is now generally recommended as a healthy daily ceiling for sodium consumption appears to be set too low, regardless of a person's blood pressure level.
'Low sodium intake reduces blood pressure modestly, compared to average intake, but low sodium intake also has other effects, including adverse elevations of certain hormones which may outweigh any benefits,' Dr Mente said.

'The key question is not whether blood pressure is lower with very low salt intake, instead it is whether it improves health.'

Dr Martin O'Donnell, a co-author on the study and an associate clinical professor at McMaster University and National University of Ireland Galway, said: 'This study adds to our understanding of the relationship between salt intake and health, and questions the appropriateness of current guidelines that recommend low sodium intake in the entire population.'

The study was funded from more than 50 sources, including the PHRI, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

-----

Reference:

A.Mente et al., The Lancet, 20/05/2016, "Associations of urinary sodium excretion with cardiovascular events in individuals with and without hypertension: a pooled analysis of data from four studies"


Please note that the medical authorities have again been caught issuing inaccurate, perhaps harmful nutritional guidelines for half a century based on what appears to be the "treating the numbers" paradigm and experts' opinions rather than based on science. Is nobody responsible for the misconduct?

Environmental predictions of the 1970-ties

.
Interestingly, some environmentalists and climate researchers of the 1960-ties and 70-ties seemed to have believed that the Earth climate faces imminent catastrophic cooling rather than "global warming", and they were backing it up with research and studies. There is an interesting reference article on the Wiki Earth Day. Quote:

Predictions from Earth Day 1970

During the 1970 Earth Day, given assumptions of continued exponential annual population growth of 2% or more[12] and unchanged or increasing climate impact per person, the following predictions were made:[13]

• Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
• Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
• Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, "... by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
• Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.
• Life Magazine wrote, "... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half."
• Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
• Watt also stated, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil."

More on the professional environmental "prophecy of doom" business and the achievements of some of its greatest academic spin-masters, read this article:
Earth Day, Then and Now / The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why. (by Ronald Bailey, May.1,2000)

Quotes:

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." Very Apocalypse Now.

Three decades later, of course, the world hasn't come to an end; if anything, the planet's ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they've held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.
...
Of course, the biggest environmental crisis facing humanity nowadays is supposed to be global warming. Not surprisingly, worries about the future climate were a common theme among alarmists on the first Earth Day. However, they couldn't agree on what direction the earth's temperature was going to take.

"The greenhouse theorists contend the world is threatened with a rise in average temperature, which if it reached 4 or 5 degrees, could melt the polar ice caps, raise sea level by as much as 300 feet and cause a worldwide flood," explained Newsweek in its special January 26, 1970, report on "The Ravaged Environment." In the service of balance, however, the magazine also noted that many other scientists saw temperatures dropping: "This theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born."

Kenneth Watt was less equivocal in his Swarthmore speech about Earth's temperature. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Watt was wrong. Global temperatures didn't fall, and fears of a new ice age dissolved like frost on an early-autumn morning. Since 1988, when government climatologist James Hansen testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resource committee that he had detected global warming, climate doomsters have switched almost entirely to worrying about global warming. The theory is straightforward--burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and re-radiates it, heating up the atmosphere.

It's generally agreed that the earth's average temperature has indeed gone up by 1 degree Fahrenheit or so in the past century. The question now is, How much man-made warming can we expect in the 21st century? Computer climate models originally predicted that atmospheric temperatures might increase between 3 to 5 degrees centigrade by 2100. However, as the models have been refined, their estimates of how much warming might occur have been declining--the range is now down to 1.5 degrees centigrade to 3.5 by 2100. A recent report from the National Research Council noted that "the surface apparently warmed by 0.25 C to 0.4 C since 1979." Remarkably, the NRC panel also estimates the change in the temperature of the atmosphere as being between 0 C to 0.2 C during the same period. In other words, the atmosphere may not have warmed at all since 1979. This is an odd conclusion because the climate computer models have never predicted that the surface would warm first or faster than the atmosphere--in fact, they predict the opposite. Consequently, this gap between surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures calls the predictive accuracy of the models into serious question.
...
Indeed, a far greater threat for the next century comes from environmental activists. To counteract global warming, they essentially want to plan the energy future of the entire world for the next 100 years. They are enacting the plan through the U.N. Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. The absurdity (and arrogance) of that type of planning becomes clear when one imagines the same exercise taking place in 1900. The best scientific panel available in 1900 would simply not have been able to plan for millions of automobiles and trucks, ubiquitous electric lighting in millions of houses and office buildings, fuel for thousands of jet planes, and millions of refrigerators, air-conditioners, and the like. Virtually none of the devices on this nearly endless list had even been invented by 1900. Given the increasing rate of technological innovation, we undoubtedly have even less chance of foreseeing the future than people in 1900.
...

Why So Wrong?

How did the doomsters get so many predictions so wrong on the first Earth Day? Their mistake can be handily summed up in Paul Ehrlich and John Holdern's infamous I=PAT equation. Impact (always negative) equals Population x Affluence x Technology, they declared. More people were always worse, by definition. Affluence meant that rich people were consuming more of the earth's resources, a concept that was regularly illustrated by claiming that the birth of each additional baby in America was worse for the environment than 25, 50, or even 60 babies born on the Indian subcontinent. And technology was bad because it meant that humans were pouring more poisons into the biosphere, drawing down more nonrenewable resources and destroying more of the remaining wilderness.

We now know that Ehrlich and his fellow travelers got it backwards. If population were necessarily bad, then Brazil, with less than three-quarters the population density of the U.S., should be the wealthier society. As far as affluence goes, it is clearly the case that the richer the country, the cleaner the water, the clearer the air, and the more protected the forests. Additionally, richer countries also boast less hunger, longer lifespans, lower fertility rates, and more land set aside for nature. Relatively poor people can't afford to care overmuch for the state of the natural world.

With regards to technology, Ehrlich and other activists often claim that economists simply don't understand the simple facts of ecology. But it's the doomsters who need to update their economics - things have changed since the appearance of Thomas Malthus' 200-year-old An Essay on the Principle of Population, the basic text that continues to underwrite much apocalyptic rhetoric. Malthus hypothesized that while population increases geometrically, food and other resources increased arithmetically, leading to a world in which food was always in short supply. Nowadays, we understand that wealth is not created simply by combining land and labor. Rather, technological innovations greatly raise positive outputs in all sorts of ways while minimizing pollution and other negative outputs.

As side note, below is Bailey's other fascinating interview, enjoy!