Global Warming is the Fast Food of Science

Medical science research lives by a far higher standard than climatology will ever be held. And yet, even in medicine, “most current published research findings are false.” (see—e.g., John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” in PLOS Medicine)

Let’s get serious: the UN is a political not a scientific body. The Eurocommies of AGW awarded their Nobel to Al Gore, the IPCC and Barack Hussein Obama II for their propaganda skill not for their scientific research capabilities. Obviously, the Left does have a great sense of humor. Outside of the west, however, climatology is compared to the ancient science of astrology.

Climate science is hysterically false and add a government grown too big to fail and a crises-driven mainstream media and that’s how to destroy a society. That is not some distant hypothesis: we saw it happen.

It’s proven the research of Michael Mann
(aka, the hockey stick)
is false.

The problem is we have a confluence of influence. The little guy is getting schrooled by government-funded academia. What does it say about us? American society is so far down the rabbit hole there’s little chance of ever finding the way back to sanity. Just look at what has been passed off as science and the graduates of the dropout factories don’t have a clue.

The first clue should be that the findings of the climatists can never be replicated. And, all of the discoveries of government scientists always conveniently serve their interests —i.e., consolidation of more power and more taxes to pay for more votes. Government scientists falsely claim a consensus of opinion and the mainstream media never calls them on it. Rather the media will give over its front pages to a single study and sensationalize the findings and then when the research is soon debunked and after we learn the findings were of questionable significance from the get-go, the mainstream media is never there to follow-up on the consequences of the misrepresentation they participated in and gave wings to — and, there is never a mention of the the damage that was done to truth, to the credibility of science and the undermining of critical thinking or the use of the research by government to further undermine society and the culture for political purposes.

The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because… [the positive predictive value] of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results. “Negative” results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a “positive” association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly alternating extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations. Empirical evidence suggests that this sequence of extreme opposites is very common in molecular genetics. (See, John Ioannidis, Id. at p. 0698)

So, are we doomed? Western academia gives climatists an “A” for accurately measuring the prevailing bias of global warming alarmism. Unfortunately, as the economy is torn apart by carpetbagging bureaucrats, the science of global warming gets an “F” and the productive are run down in the streets and ambushed on the way to work by fiscal and monetary looters.

Writing in the Atlantic about the above paper on what are demonstrably false findings in most research Dr. Ioannidis has, according to David Freedman, “laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process — in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish — to suppress opposing views. ‘You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,’ says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.”

When you compare the assumptions used by Dr. Ioannidis to what we see in climate science, the reliability of global warming research can be expected to be far worse and so it is. The bias of Western AGW researchers isn’t a tendency it’s a given so climate researchers will come up with wrong findings all of the time not just most of the time. And, among all possible motivations climatists are actually being paid out of the limitless purse of the government and academia’s promise of lifetime tenure to make evidence and models dance to any tune they wish to play and accordingly, the climatists will always succeed in “proving wrong theories right,” whatever it takes.

Have we the voters simply abandoned common sense and like drunks and addicts must all hit bottom before we can rise up again? Well… we there! I’d like to say it ain’t so but I’ve got to be honest: this may not be the society that gets it right.

Sorry, kid. You got the gift,
but it looks like you’re waiting for something…
Your next life maybe, who knows?
That’s the way these things go.

(Oracle of the Matrix)

We had a good run. But, life is a relay, civilizations come and go and unfortunately our team is stacked with a generation of coddled losers. It’s not like the founders didn’t warn us and we’ve been proving at the polls for years that we just don’t listen —e.g., as in the words of Emerson, “Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not. The same particle does not rise from the valley to the ridge. Its unity is only phenomenal. The persons who make up a nation to-day, next year die, and their experience with them.” We’ve got way too many voters who only want to be lied to and that way of thinking may score you a Nobel but it won’t bring home the bacon.