Nutritional and Climate ‘Science’

Trust the media on ‘climate science?’   The following reads like parody from the Onion, but it’s no joke:

CBS This Morning featured a futurist who promotes paranormal phenomena like ‘telepathytelekinesis and mind reading’ as climate expert during its February 13 broadcast. CBS only identified physicist Michio Kaku (mkaku@aol.com) as a New York City College professor, with no mention of his special abilities. See: CBS Blames Global Warming for Harsh Winter Weather: Prof. Michio Kaku: ‘Excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air….So that’s the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions

Kaku’s website (http://mkaku.org/home/) promotes his book: “THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.” And his quest to promote: “Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots.”

CBS promotes him, but even climate scientists are embarrassed about his pronouncements.

Climate scientist Judith Curry noted recently that there are some pretty interesting parallels between climate science and nutrition science. Those similarities do not speak well of either discipline.  To make her point she includes excerpts from a NYTimes article by Gary Taubes, author of books like Good Calories, Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It, and Diet Delusion.

I mean, think about it. The same government that supported margarine over butter for decades in the face of much evidence to the contrary, is supporting very invasive, burdensome responses to theories about climate change that have yet to be proven conclusively. Their solutions to food science often killed more people than they helped (margarine is just that bad for you, and butter from grassfed cows is just that good for you). Why would we trust this same government to be any more discerning or wise about what’s good for us when it comes to energy and climate?  Looking at what they have done with nutrition science, why trust them with a billion dollars for climate science?  (or bird killing)

Here’s Judith’s conclusion:

Nutrition science and climate science share some common challenges: complex system(s) and many confounding factors. Severe tests for nutrition science can in principle be done, but they are very expensive and take decades. Severe tests for climate science require better observational evidence, particularly in the past.

When there’s no evidence to falsify what is merely a supposition,we are left with ”magical theories that explains absolutely everything – including diametrically contradictory phenomena, lack of logic and absence of evidence.”

I agree with Mayo/Katzav that when evidence is inadequate for a severe test, it is important to identify aspects of the hypothesis that remain to be tested, and to provide an assessment of alternative hypotheses.

In climate science, the limitations of available evidence and weak reasoning behind the high confidence levels of the IPCC conclusions reflect acceptance of lower standards of evidence on what is believed to be true.

emphasis added

This entry was posted in global warming, government, polictics, Politics, science. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

7 Comments

  1. Posted February 18, 2014 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Absolutely! I’ve given up on nutritional “science” as reported in the mainstream media. What’s good for me and what’s bad for me changes like women’s fashions. Climate “science” is even worse. They (the promoters) have taken a conclusion and twisted the facts to fit their hypothesis. All in the pursuit of control and money. It’s criminal! Thanks for sharing.

  2. Jennifer
    Posted February 18, 2014 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Thanks for posting. Shared with my 15 year old son as part of current events. He’s been grumping for weeks as more and more snow has fallen in our region, but we’re sure its not paranormal or the result of massive heat. :)

  3. KatieM
    Posted February 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Out of curiosity, do your concerns about the validity of climate change stem from the science, from the regulations that come out of the science, or is it a little of both?

    • Headmistress, zookeeper
      Posted February 19, 2014 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      That’s a complicated question. Probably all of the above. Each of these things is a piece of the puzzle, and you put them together and things look more and more like scientific fraud with a political agenda.

      I think most of what the media reports as factual about Global Warming remains in the realm of the unproven. I also think the climate-gate emails were a pretty big indication that the scientists behind the global warming theories promoted by politicians and the press (and Michael Mann and his ilk) were not engaged in genuine science.

      I do believe in climate change, but I am not sure that we mean the same thing by climate change. Do you mean man-made global warming caused by excessive carbon and other human pollutants in the atmosphere that will result in essentially cooking the earth, heating it up to a dangerous level that will result in famine and death all around the globe, the way Gore, Mann and his crowd were claiming for about the last 20 years?

      I think the science there is obviously unproven and claims are inflated. The models are clearly wrong, as the last 17 years of *cooling* have demonstrated. Nobody predicted that.

      However, even if the theories that the earth is definitely warming to a dangerous level because man has been doing bad things were true, the question of what to do about it is a different issue. Quite a few scientists who do believe in the Global Warming theories *don’t* believe in the politically tyrannical approaches to ‘fixing’ it. I think that the science there, such as it is (and it’s nowhere near the ‘consensus’ we were lied to about), has largely been hijacked by those with a political agenda, and that political agenda is even less scientific. It’s all about power. The fact that those who already hated the free market and loved Big Government also hijacked the theory of global warming is a pretty whopping great clue, however, that the whole theory is more political than scientific.

      Do you mean that climate does, in fact, change, and we go through natural cycles of warming and cooling? I believe in that climate change. I think it’s mostly driven by the sun.

      I also am old enough to remember when it was all about Global Cooling. I watched the global warming scientists turn themselves inside out and engage in a campaign of active dishonesty and revisionist history to sweep that under the rug and pretend it never happened. I see no reason why I would believe anything else they have to say, regardless of their number of peer reviewed papers. Their peers were part of the same cover up. We cannot *trust* their ‘science.’

      • KatieM
        Posted February 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        To answer your first question, I was interested in understanding where you were coming from on the topic of man-made climate change.

        What also interested me was why (to use some politically-laden terms) climate-change skepticism and conservative Christianity were so often linked. I thought I might be missing some sort of direct theological connection between the topics, but it sounds like the issue is more the role of government and regulation.

        • Headmistress, zookeeper
          Posted February 19, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

          Libertarians are also just as likely as conservative Christians to be skeptical about climate-change as presented by Al Gore, Mike Mann, et al. But I know atheists and agnostics, lots of them, who are even more skeptical than I am about climate science as it is- and some of them are scientists. The best of the blogs challenging the status quo are not particularly conservative or Christian (Watt’s Up With That; Steve McIntyre; Judith Curry; Goddard; Bishop Hill; in fact, I think the majority of them are done by bloggers who are neither conservative nor Christian).

          You might just as well wonder why Leftists and Progressives are so often linked to the positions on climate change espoused by Gore and Mann, and equally enthusiastic about their proposed authoritarian solutions (especially those which even those on the left have to admit will not make much difference). I think it’s because they tend to be far more trusting of Big Government solutions and less likely to ask hard questions and investigate, and they own the media so they are able to drown out dissenting voices. Exhibit.

          • KatieM
            Posted February 20, 2014 at 12:06 am | Permalink

            Yes, I certainly wouldn’t describe all of the skeptics I know as conservative (or any type of) Christian, but I did wonder if there was a connection. I ask in part because the conversation you have about the topic is probably going to be different if it’s coming from a place of religious vs. political belief.

            I think people in general are disinclined to do the research and ask the hard questions about their own beliefs, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. I certainly catch myself doing it, or at least buying into it, sometimes.

            I would suggest that one other reason for enthusiasm about less-effective solutions (beyond a more robust trust in big government) is that they tend to be “easier” from a political perspective. It’s a bold (and very secure) politician who can advocate for a free-market solution to, well, pretty much any problem that I can think of.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>