2008 - Age of Awakening / 2016 - Age of disclosures / 2021 - Age of Making Choices & Separation / Next Stage - Age of Reconnection and Transition! /
2024 - Two millenia-old Rational Collectivist societal cycle gives way to the Self-Empowered Individualism. /
2025 Golden Age begins
Global narratives and "theories of everything" are always false! Only Personal Narrative is true!
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts

Monday, June 18, 2018

Recovered raw data of old study undermines 40y of dietary dogma

.

SciAm article: Records Found in Dusty Basement Undermine Decades of Dietary Advice
Raw data from a 40-year-old study raises new questions about fats
By Sharon Begley, STAT on April 19, 2017


Quote:

Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).

Although the study is more than just another entry in the long-running nutrition wars—it is more rigorous than the vast majority of research on the topic—Ramsden makes no claims that it settles the question. Instead, he said, his discovery and analysis of long-lost data underline how the failure to publish the results of clinical trials can undermine truth.
...
The coleader of the project was Dr. Ancel Keys, author of the Seven Countries Study, Time cover subject, and the most prominent advocate of replacing saturated fat with vegetable fat. “The idea that there might be something adverse about lowering cholesterol [via vegetable oils] was really antithetical to the dogma of the day,” Bob Frantz said.

His father, he said, “was always committed to discovering the truth. He would be pleased this is finally coming out.”


From The Telegraph "Modern dunce's cap"



I beg to differ. I doubt if Dr. Ivan Frantz would be proud of publishing the truth, because he could have but he didn't! I think he was afraid of the truth! Like many academics, intellectuals and most people I knew worked with.   Not only Dr. I. Frantz kept the study's most important data unpublished but also actively obfuscated it by publishing a misleading partial summaries and whitewashed watered-down inconclusive "conclusions".

Half-truth = full lie!


Because of Dr. Ivan Frantz' and other fake scientists' failure to publish the truth, What followed was 40-more years of suffering by millions of people from preventable diseases, due to bad dietary advise and corporate self-served food marketing that was based on the academically-supported half-truth, lies and distortions!

United Stated needs no external enemy - it is being destroyed by their own luminaries and the establishment through half-truth, lies and deception.

Bob Frantz, Dr. Franz's son, who rediscovered the hidden records and got them published, can't really feel proud of his father, but he definitely deserves to be proud of himself and be praised for bringing the truth! He is also lucky to have survived his father's bad diet at home, as a child.

Reference:
Appendix: Supplementary material [posted as supplied by author
Part 1: MCE supporting materials and historical context
Tribute to Dr. Ivan Frantz in leading the Minnesota Coronary Experiment team
Reared on Margarine and to the Tune of Spinning Ultracentrifuges:
A Son’s Recollections of Ivan D. Frantz, Jr. During the Early Days of Lipid Research
Robert P. Frantz, M.D.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Fake climate marketing

.
Der Spiegel 15/02/2018 article titled "Climate Change Disinformation. Catastrophe Business"

Desinformation zum Klimawandel; Das Geschäft mit der Katastrophe. Axel Bojanowski

English translations of the article quotes and comments are reposted after this blog:

Surprise! Spiegel Online Slams Profiteering From Climate Alarmism… Munich Re Admits: “No Climate Signal”

All have been playing it loose with the data on weather events and exaggerating (at times grossly) and with the aim of deriving profit, Spiegel reports.

German Railway: climate change as a cover for poor management

Bojanowski begins by describing how today the German Railway (Deutsche Bundesbahn) – once heralded for its outstanding punctuality and overall efficiency – has discovered how to use climate change to deflect blame away from its recent poor management, which over the years has often led to lousy service.

Over the years, the Bundesbahn has made the maintenance of its tracks a victim to cost cutting. Trees and vegetation along the tracks no longer get sufficiently cut back, and so it is common for routes to get blocked during stormy weather. What better excuse than climate change could the Deutsche Bahn have to explain all the disruptions?

Data in fact show no increasing trend in extreme weather

All the cancellations, service shutdowns and delays are of course due to ever increasing storm intensity and frequency, the Deutsche Bahn management likes to claim, and they get the full backing of the media, policymakers and alarmist climate scientists. Yet Bojanowski calls out these claims by the Bundesbahn for what they are: lame excuses based on hyped up science.

The Spiegel journalist writes that a number of scientists have shown that there has in fact been no increase in storm intensity and frequency in Europe, commenting:
That’s amazing, as many scientists anticipate fewer storms in Central Europe as a consequence of climate change.”


Munich Re bilking the public with climate hype?

Another industry caught hyping up extreme weather activity is the reinsurance industry, which insures regular insurance companies against major claims events. The reason for the added hype: justification for hefty premium increases, Bojanowski suggests.

Munich Re admits no real climate signal

One company Bojanowski cites is the world’s largest reinsurer, Munich Re, which annually publishes a report on “natural catastrophes”, in which the company likes to blame climate change, cite alarmist experts and claim there is today a “new normal”. When asked by Spiegel to comment concerning data showing that it isn’t really so, a climate expert from Munch Re was forced to admit:

The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported.”

...

Environmental companies spreading climate hype
Recently there was a panel of climate experts at the IFAT industrial trade fair for wastewater technology, which saw 3000 environmental companies participating. The panel held a “future dialog” dubbed: “Weather extremes – are we defenseless?” Bojanowski reports that the panel spoke of which weather extremes have been on the increase, but how they kept silent about this still being very much in dispute among climate scientists.
...
Unmentioned by the panel, Bojanowski writes, was the fact that the UN “could not detect any relationship between floods and storms and global warming“.
and the last but not least comment from the blog itself:

Shameless exploitation/hypocrisy

Unfortunately Spiegel — in its otherwise praiseworthy article — failed to mention two other parties who have a major stake in climate hype: the media (like Spiegel itself), who have profited immensely from spectacular climate claims, and politicians, who unabashedly exploit climate catastrophism to try to gain more control over society.



Data graphs from the article.




Thursday, December 7, 2017

Sea level change - new trend in data falsification

.

"Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen?"
by Albert Parker, Clifford D. Ollier
Technical Note, 06 November 2017


Conclusions
... The sea levels have, therefore, been stable in Aden, as at Karachi and Mumbai, over all the 20th century.

Wiki Indian Ocean


My comments

After analyzing Aden, Mumbai and Karachi data, and comparing them with the "adjusted" sea level results published on the "Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level" (PSMSL) web site, the authors conclude that the "adjustments" performed by PSMSL institution are not scientifically justified and produce a false picture of the rising sea level which cannot be supported by the evidence.

PSMSL is a British, probably publicly or government-funded organisation engaged in oceanographic data falsification, pardon - data "analysis", quote:
"Established in 1933, the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) has been responsible for the collection, publication, analysis and interpretation of sea level data from the global network of tide gauges. It is based in Liverpool at the National Oceanography Centre (NOC), which is a component of the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)."

Breitbar, not known for mincing their words published a succinct article on that paper:


Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

It can be summed up as follows:

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

Good job guys! :)

Heretic

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Investigative panel to examine scientific data falsification by global warming scientists!

.


Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures


From Christopher Booker's article


See also:

Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited a panel of experts to investigate and report on these controversies.

Update 28-Oct-2015:

It appears that the government's climate scientists want to hide some data. I wonder why?

The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

Quote:
At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.

Update 11-Nov-2015:

Cold Sun Rising article

Quotes:

New studies flip climate-change notions upside down

The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have near-perfect accuracy.
...
In the 2009 "climategate scandal", e-mails and documents from IPCC-affiliated scientists were leaked that indicated they had manipulated data and reports to jibe with the AGW[Anthropogenic Global Warming] theory. References were made to "hiding the decline" through the use of "tricks". Then in 2012 Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and self-described whistle-blower, caught the NOAA changing temperature data from the 1930s to make the decade appear colder than it had been. Another whistle-blower, blogger Tony Heller, although clearly aligned with conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, has amassed impressive data. He claims that, since 1997, the world has actually been getting colder and Goddard and the NOAA are committing "climate fraud". The NOAA has declined to respond.
...
Solar cycle 24 - two cycles prior the cycle that's expected to bottom out into a Maunder Minimum - was weak. In 2013-14 it reached its maximum far below average. Meanwhile extreme cold-weather anomalies have occurred around the world. Last year "polar vortices" slammed into the central US and Siberia as a third hovered over the Atlantic. All 50 US states, including Hawaii, had temperatures below freezing for the first time in recorded history. Snowfall records were broken in cities in the US, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and elsewhere. Southern American states and central Mexico, where snow is rare, got heavy snow, as did the Middle East.

This past summer the cold didn't let up, with more temperature records across the US and rare summer snows seen in Canada, the US and China. Birds have migrated early in the last two years. Antarctic sea ice set a new record in 2013 and it was broken again in 2014.

Not even Thailand was immune. In 2014 Bangkok hit its coldest low in 30 years, while 63 lives were lost in the North.
...
Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few. ...

Another interesting link:

Antarctic Ice is Growing, Even Hit a 'Record,' But Evening News Shows Hype Melting Arctic Instead

Update 28/11/2015:

More previous winter snow patches left in Scottish mountains than in the previous 21 years.

Six times more since 2014 than the average.

Update 12/12/2015:

How I was vaporised by the BBC's Green Gestapo after daring to mock the Met Office and global warming


I was accused of having shown disrespect to climate change. Mr Lilley had cracked a joke: ‘They [the Met Office] come before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change . . . and tell us they need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future.’




Thursday, January 1, 2015

Are some diets "mass murder"?

.
Recently published paper in BMJ, of the title above:

BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7654 (Published 15 December 2014)


Wiki 




Quotes:

Jean Mayer, one of the "greats" of nutrition science, said in 1965, in the colourful language that has characterised arguments over diet, that prescribing a diet restricted in carbohydrates to the public was "the equivalent of mass murder."1 Having ploughed my way through five books on diet and some of the key studies to write this article, I’m left with the impression that the same accusation of "mass murder" could be directed at many players in the great diet game. In short, bold policies have been based on fragile science, and the long term results may be terrible.

...

An analysis of the data from the Seven Countries Study in 1999 showed a higher correlation of deaths from heart disease with sugar products and pastries than with animal products.13 John Yudkin from London had since the late 1950s proposed that sugar might be more important than fat in causing heart disease,4 but Keys dismissed his hypothesis as a “mountain of nonsense” and a “discredited tune.” Many scientists were sceptical about the saturated fat hypothesis, but as the conviction that the hypothesis was true gripped the leading scientific bodies, policy makers, and the media in the US these critics were steadily silenced, not least through difficulty getting funding to challenge the hypothesis and test other hypotheses.

...

It might be expected that the powerful US meat and dairy lobbies would oppose these guidelines, and they did, but they couldn’t counter the big food manufacturers such as General Foods, Quaker Oats, Heinz, the National Biscuit Company, and the Corn Products Refining Corporation, which were both more powerful and more subtle. In 1941 they set up the Nutrition Foundation, which formed links with scientists and funded conferences and research before there was public funding for nutrition research.

...

Recognising that the fat hypothesis was falling apart, some scientists, particularly Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology at Harvard (whom I’ve also met), began to promote the Mediterranean diet, which comes in many forms but is essentially lots of fruit, vegetables, bread and grains (including pasta and couscous), little meat and milk, and plenty of olive oil. Such a diet is much easier to eat than a low fat diet, and a combination of vested interests, including the International Olive Oil Council and a public relations company Oldways, which promoted the diet, has—together with the natural seductiveness of the Mediterranean region—made the diet popular. But the science behind it is weak, as a Cochrane review found,20 and some of the evidence comes from R B Singh, whose research is suspect.21


Last but not least and somewhat related to the above topic,  some science fun stuff. Enjoy!

The Demise of Science? Hundreds of Computer Generated Studies Have Been Published in Respected Scientific Journals.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Global Warming - Fight of the Faceless Fomentors

.
Mysterious Steven Goddard's anonymous heretical blog is documenting what appear to be cases of scientific fraud and data-tampering associated with the recent global warming "research" by NASA-GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies).  Look at the graphs in:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/spectacular-data-tampering-from-giss-in-iceland/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/30-of-giss-warming-is-due-to-data-tampering-since-2005/?relatedposts_exclude=105745

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/all-giss-us-warming-is-due-to-data-tampering/

A presence of opposing views or even debunking is essential to the scientific method.  Steven Goddard has attracted his or her fair share of the latter:

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

The following anonymous blog (Hey NASA is that you? On the other hand, Steve - if  you made that blog to "debunk" yourself - congratulations!  8-:D   )
-  seems to be devoted mostly to debating and character-assassination of "Steven Goddard"

http://reallysciency.blogspot.ca/

http://nationbuilders.thenation.com/profiles/blogs/debunking-a-climate-denier

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/


Update (23/06/2014):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Quote:
"Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology."
Update (30/06/2014):

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
...
"These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on 'fabricated' data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century," Booker adds.
When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been "several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record."

Update (6-July-2014):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago.
Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius,
which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century. ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html



Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year.

  • Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
  • UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year. It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979. In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen. The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing. The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’



-----------------------------------------------
Update (20-July-2014):

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace on "Global Warming":

Myths Busted at Climate Change Conference


During the breakfast session on Day 2, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore chronicled the radicalization of once-noble environmentalist groups. Standing before photographs of himself leading environmental protests and provocative actions against whalers and other corporate entitites, Moore explained how Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups are now harming human health and welfare by demanding so many resources be dedicated to the fictitious global warming crisis. True environmental progress would be made fighting for land conservation and other real environmental concerns rather than trumped-up global warming claims, Moore explained.

Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, explained during the Day 2 luncheon how government research grants are promoting the false notion of an alarmist consensus. Large government research grants are handed out almost uniformly to scientists who will promote the idea of global warming crisis, which ensures more budgetary dollars for government agencies addressing the topic and subsequently more research grants for the participating scientists, he noted.


More:

Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade


PATRICK MOORE ON THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING:

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (My emphasis) "Extremely likely" is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as a "95-100% probability".

But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been "invented" as a construct within the IPCC report to express "expert judgment", as determined by the IPCC contributors.

When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century" which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year "pause" until 1970.

This was followed by an increase of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to "human influence".