The Corruption of Science Magazines

Donald Kennedy and the Corruption of Science Magazine
By James Lewis
Science magazine has been stewing so long in the global warming bouillabaisse that its very brains are beginning to smoke. That may be because its august editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy (until last year) was a dedicated warm-monger. Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the political lobby for Big Science in Washington, D.C. The editor-in-chief of Science is like the Queen of England: It's the closest thing to God in the church hierarchy. Everybody kisses your butt, and all you have to do is wave your hand to the cheering peasantry from your golden coach.

Try a Google search for "Donald Kennedy AND global warming" and you get almost six million hits. Search for "global warming" in Science magazine itself, and you get 2,792 citations -- almost as many as you get for "increased science funding."

Here are some Science magazine headlines in the last several years, a period when we know that atmospheric temperatures were flat or declining. As MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen just wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre." The unfortunate tendency of the atmosphere to stop warming is, of course, why Phil Jones and the CRUdocrats were trying to "fix" the data in their infamous e-mail exchanges.

During this time, Science magazine published thousands of references to global warming, including headlines like:

CLIMATE CHANGE: Taming the Angry Beast

Ken Caldeira

Science, 17 October 2008 322: 376-377 (in Books) ...What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat--and How... (human) activities have triggered the possibility of catastrophic climate change, how we have come to recognize the threat.


CLIMATE CHANGE: IPCC Report Lays Out Options for Taming Greenhouse Gases

John Bohannon

Science, 11 May 2007 316: 812-814


CLIMATE CHANGE: Global Warming Is Changing the World

Richard A. Kerr

Science, 13 April 2007 316: 188-190


How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?

Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, William D. Collins, Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, Lawrence E. Buja, Warren G. Strand, and Haiyan Teng

Science, 18 March 2005 307: 1769-1772


Global Warming and the Next Ice Age

Andrew J. Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel

Science, 16 April 2004 304: 400-402


Et cetera, ad nauseam. It's not a pretty sight.

Things only get worse when we look at the Eurekalert site, which is also run by the AAAS. Eurekalert presents an endless flow of press releases from universities that make billions from federal grants. This is where our pop media get their scientific news.

Here are some search results:

Global Warming: 2,500 hits

Climate Change: 5,140 hits

CO2 Global Warming: 2,498 hits

Anthropogenic: 338 hits

Catastrophic: 1,213 hits

Apparently, a lot of PR guys and gals were mining this little vein of gold. Remember Goebbels' slogan that "a Big Lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"? This is the Big Lie Repetition Machine. All your average journalist has to do is go to Eurekalert, search for "catastrophic" or "global warming," and copy the latest headline. Since the media are firing human "journalists" these days, they might as well get a computer program to do it.

It was Donald Kennedy who initiated the Science magazine State of the Planet issues to drive home the Global Warming meme. In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science, he wrote, "The consequences of the past century's temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events ..."

The only trouble: It wasn't true.

As skeptic Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote in a letter to Science that somehow passed the censors:

Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in "droughts or wet spells," or in"tornados, hail, and other severe weather"... A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation. (Science, June 9, 2005, Letters)


But Mr. Kennedy's mind was made up, and mere facts could not change it. In his editorial on The Breakthrough of the Year for 2005, Kennedy wrote:

An especially significant runner-up (to the Breakthrough of the Year for 2005) was climate change. 650,000-year-old ice cores from Antarctica give a continuous record of correlations between atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane and the temperature changes imposed by glacial cycles. New information put to rest the idea, popular with those skeptical about global warming, that satellite measurements, in contrast to ground measurements, showed cooling. One by one, holes in the global warming case are being filled. Government actions should follow; of that, I'll say more in the first Science issue of the new year. (http://www.sciencemag.org/ Science, Vol. 310, 23 December 2005)


So guess who was instrumental in getting Donald Kennedy appointed to that plum job at Science magazine? Yes, it was our old friend Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb of 1968 -- the one that sputtered frighteningly for decades but never went off. It was Paul Ehrlich who wrote the major puff piece for Donald Kennedy, introducing him as editor-in-chief of Science mag, the most powerful job in American science. (See http://www.sciencemag.org.)


Are you beginning to suspect a setup? Uh-huh...

I know a liberal who fell for The Population Bomb three decades ago and still believes it today. Liberals never have to change their minds, especially about facts. Certainly Ehrlich never changed his mind, and when his predictions about planetary doom failed, he didn't come to the obvious conclusion that I must have been wrong. He just added more epicycles to his pleasingly complicated picture of the climate. That little sentence -- "I must be wrong" -- is the most important one in the entire vocabulary of honest scientists, of whom there are still a few lonely souls wandering over the blasted heath of Big Academia.

It seems that Ehrlich and Kennedy are good buds. Neither of them are scientists -- but they do play them on TV, in the media and at Stanford.

Donald Kennedy was Commissioner of the FDA for Jimmy Carter in the seventies, and he hasn't stepped into a lab since that time as far as I can tell from his publications -- none are based on empirical evidence. All he writes are editorials. Instead, Professor Kennedy returned to being head of Biology at Stanford University.

If you look up Kennedy's bio on Wikipedia, you'll see it's been airbrushed in Stalinist fashion -- it's only a few short paragraphs, with a big notice that Wikipedia does not allow disputed material to appear about living persons. That suggests that somebody wanted to cite some critical facts, but Professor Kennedy objected. I wonder why.

One likely reason is the infamous Stanford University Overhead Scandal. "Overhead" is what universities charge the government over and above the cost of supporting research: In the evil corporate world, it's called "profit margin." Of course, universities would never think about making profits, which is why their tuitions and overhead charges to the Feds have been going up and up and up. Barred from making profits, all they do is raise their salaries and pensions and pad their expense accounts. They're in bed with a monopoly -- the federal science bureaucracy -- so they charge monopoly prices.

Well, Donald Kennedy as President of Stanford was caught dipping a little too deeply into the honey pot -- some business about seven-thousand-dollar bed sheets for the presidential residence and overbilling the Office of Naval Research two hundred million dollars. Small stuff. But the U.S. Congress took notice and called Donald Kennedy on the carpet. Mr. Kennedy defended every penny of his charges and resigned. That's when his good friends like Mr. Ehrlich got him his job at Science mag.

Everything about Science now smells fishy. The scientific blog world should be searching through journal websites -- Nature, Scientific American, The Lancet, National Geographic, the lot -- to see how deeply they are quagmired in the honey pot of global warming. They all have websites with search engines. Public exposure may help them to clean out that pervasive stink of rotten fish.

The decay goes far beyond the CRUddites in Britain; it's all over the world among the machine politicians of science. All of them knew what was going on with the biggest science scam in history because it should be obvious to a child of six. Undergraduates in calculus classes learn that nonlinear dynamical systems are impossible to analyze. Introductory physics classes learn there is no solution to the three-body problem, and the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than just three asteroids cycling around each other in space. Metereologist Edward Lorenz rose to fame in science by dramatizing the nature of chaotical systems -- physical systems that cannot be predicted from their initial conditions. The weather is one of the best examples, but earth sciences and biology are full of them. So no sane scientist or mathematician could have believed the global warming scam. If any of them say they believe it today, he is either lying or incompetent.

Global warming is like political correctness: everybody knows it's a lie, but nobody is allowed to say it in public.

This is a sad time for decent science.

But on the other hand, it's springtime for fraudocrats.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/donald_kennedy_and_the_corrupt.html




Join the Discussion
58 Comments | Post Comment

Posted by: DaveOregon
Dec 07, 12:36 AM
Don't forget that American Scientific has jumped just as bad on this Global Warming scam...it's why I have cancelled my subscription. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to find reputable scientific publications and periodicals.

Posted by: G. Wesley Clark, MD
Dec 07, 01:39 AM
Sadly, all the popular journals of science -- Science Magazine, Scientific American, National Geographic -- as well as some of the general medical journals such as Lancet, Journal of the AMA, and New England Journal of Medicine have been infiltrated by activists for the collectivist/statist persuasion, often with an associated attitude of Ehrlichian human-hatred. Similarly, most of the environmental groups have been captured by eco-freaks.
I resigned my membership in the AMA years ago, when I saw where its politics were going, and now I send my yearly AMA dues payment to the National Rifle Association instead.

Posted by: Dr. Dave
Dec 07, 01:56 AM
Gee whiz, Mr. Lewis...don't Sugar coat it. Tell us what you REALLY think.

I've read so many books about AGW that they seem to blur. I believe it was Patrick Michaels in Meltdown who described the editors of several erstwhile respected scientific publications as flatly stating that they would publish NO articles that did not support the AGW theory. Well...that is NOT scientific. That is religion!

I am not trained in climatology but I took botany, zoology, comparative vertibrate morphology, chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, calculus and DifEqs in my undergraduate college years. Aside from this I know the stench of skunk without having to be sprayed myself (although I once had a dog who never figured this out). The AAAS has too many "A"s and not enough "S"s. Their posture on this issue is completely political, not scientific.

In honest scientific debate paradigms shift all the time. When I was in college we were taught that beta-blockers were absolutely contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. Today they are a mainstream treatment. We were taught that antidepressants are ineffective for "reactional depression". We now know that they are indeed efficacious. Drs. Marshall and Warren shook up the entire field of gastroenterology by proving that most GI ulcer disease was due to in infection with H. pylori. This not only upset the conventional wisdom but seriously wounded multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company interests. But still...the "truth" came out.

If pharmaceutical researchers behaved like many elite "climate researchers" their dead bodies would be dragged through the streets. Hell, these guys get pilloried for not predicting untoward effects that don't manifest for many years in the future. Further, their research is far more transparent, is subjected to far more rigorous peer review and MUST be reproducible to pass muster. We don't see this in "climate science". Now I admit, in medical research we don't have to produce "reconstructions" of data, we don't have to interpolate to invent data that don't exist and we're not allowed to use "fudge factors" to get the results we want. So maybe it's not fair to compare empiric ... (350 word limit)

Posted by: When Pigs Fly
Dec 07, 02:17 AM
Dr. Dave,

"The AAAS has too many "A"s and not enough "S"s." LMFAO!

BTW - AGW is "real" in a "perception is reality" sort of way... at least for the Druidic High Priests and Necromancers of Anthropogenic Global Warming it is real because their heads are buried so far up their collective AAAS's! "Dang, it's HOT in here. Must be global warming! And what is that noxious smell? Is this the smell of greenhouse gas? Hey, who turned off the lights!" Surely, this must be the etymology of "butt kissing" and "smelling one's self."

After the release of the damning CRU intel (and the info was "released" before being "swiped"... the BBC had the information legally for some time but refused to publish it) I can only imagine that Benjamin Disraeli had these AGW cultists in mind when he coined the phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Posted by: When Pigs Fly
Dec 07, 02:35 AM
Mr. Lewis,

bouillabaisse is a good word for the day - "a soup or stew containing several kinds of fish and often shellfish, usually combined with olive oil, tomatoes, and saffron."

I'd like to add a sibling word of the day...

salmagundi - "a mixed dish consisting usually of cubed poultry or fish, chopped meat, anchovies, eggs, onions, oil, etc., often served as a salad."

Salmagundi sounds a little more loaded and volatile. Bouillabaisse is good for a "it stinketh" implication.

I hope Science mag has already purchased carbon credits for its collective brain burning. Seriously, though, what a travesty of all that is righteous for a movement to abscond with and corrupt the word "science" which is defined as "knowledge." What a shame that knowledge is so often divorced from wisdom. However, there is a good possibility that these corporatized hoaxsters will pull this off because a larger part of Americans are ignorant, most willfully so. A learned helplessness.

** If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be ** Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Dr. Dave
Dec 07, 02:57 AM
Dr. Clark,

I completely agree with you about JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet. I still subscribe to and read NEJM only because they still continue to publish apolitical original research and good review articles (although not as good as Annals of Internal Medicine). But the NEJM is rife with liberal, activist bias. JAMA is ridiculous! Journals like Nature, Science and Scientific American used to be excellent sources of new information. They are no longer. They might as well be Time or Newsweek...or even People magazine.

I've regularly read NEJM for over 20 years. I've watched it morph into a socialist sounding board. At first the changes were subtle. Over the last 10 years they have become more blatant. If you filter out the editorial content it's still a good source for information on original research and I usually enjoy their review articles. Still, your point is well made.

In the medical literature you have to dig deeper into the specialist literature to find truly unbiased studies and articles. The cardiologists, endocrinologists, gastroenterologists and OB/Gyns have done a good job of keeping their professional literature "pure". The clinical pharmacists have done a wonderful job with their literature. I have to admit, I don't read the primary literature of climatologists (or physicists) but I've read a lot ABOUT it.

It appears that most of these publications are utterly polluted by political ideology. How can science advance without dissent? Take the field of astrophysics as an example. The common man (myself included) has no idea what they're debating...but they vigorously debate in their literature. Eventually somebody comes out on top but the "science" is never "settled". In the climate literature we see a pattern where only one side of the argument ever sees the light of day. This is not healthy.

Oh...I support the NRA every time I buy ammo or reloading supplies.

Posted by: Jon W
Dec 07, 03:14 AM
If money is the root of all evil, and the government is the root of all grant of money, then...
In the eyes of the Left, only the government, not the public, should handle all large sums of money.
And only they are enlightened enough to know how to best spend it.

"No one spends somebody else's money, as carefully as he spends his own.
Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own." Milton Friedman

This is how government money makes minor, and in some cases, major criminals of all who receive it.
One doesn't value, what one hasn't earned. My grandmothers words. Smart lady.
She was complaining about the waning standards at Scientific American back in the early 80's.
She would look at me, still clutching the Scientific American and say, "This guy is an idiot,
and has no understanding of the basic cosmology of the universe." "Why did they publish this drivel?"
I'm thinking to myself, "My grandmother is chastising a respected scientific journal?"
I would later learn, that my grandmother was one of the first women ever accepted to Yale. Class of 1921.
She actually knew what she was talking about after all. That was 1982. The fraud hasn't changed.
The only thing different now, is the level of that fraud.
It's a world wide fraud that has its own magazines, journals, and publishing companies,
to convince the unsuspecting taxpayer to be the unwitting accomplice to their fraud.
Talk about twisted? It's socially perverse. This wall of junk science, was funded...by us.
To Donald Kennedy: Despair. Your only purpose in life may be to serve as warning to others.
To Jones, Briffa, Mann, and Hansen: Call your lawyers, cause you're gonna need 'em.
Anybody seen that wooden rail? Now where did we put the tar and feathers?

Posted by: When Pigs Fly
Dec 07, 06:01 AM
Kennedy... do we have to keep bringing that name up in polite company?

Posted by: gussy
Dec 07, 06:33 AM
OK - we At's get it - AGW is a hoax and a huge fraud (really huge, probably the biggest fraud ever). Now, what do we do? I'm hoping against hope that someone in Copenhagen has the ability to put the hammer down and tell it like it is but I'm not holding my breath. How do we get this out to the rest of the real world? There may indeed be warming of our climate (but probably not) and if that it is the case, it certainly isn't due to what we puny humans can do. I think a lot of this AGW climate change is a bunch of megalomania.

Posted by: Timc
Dec 07, 06:40 AM
Great read and excellent commenter s as well, thanks to all.

Posted by: Bubba's BBQ
Dec 07, 07:03 AM
Sadly Science has been always populated with corrupt and small minded people with ulterior motives. We can go back to so called scientists who insisted that the earth was flat and castigated anyone who said otherwise. WHen Magellan debunked that myth, these same people shifted gears and proclaimed that yes, the earth is round but it is the center of everything and everything else revolved around it. And then castigated anyone who disagreed. They even went to make up data to support their claims. Flash forward several hundred years, we have these same types of individuals who are now proclaiming humans are changing the climate, making up data and castigating anyone who disagrees. The common thread of all of this and that none of these claims were ever supported by the use of the scientific method of research. It has been, and always will be my contention that any findings that are not derived from strictly following the scientific method need be looked at with skepticism and doubt.

for those of you who aren't familiar with the scientific method, it is simply a process of experimentation that is designed to provide consistant and TRANSPARENT results. it goes like this:

First you ask a question: How long does it take to boil a gallon of water at 1C?
Then you construct a hypothesis: If I does , then should happen. In other words, if I use a 1,000 BTU burner, it should take so much time, if I use a candle, then it should take so much longer.

Then you experiment. You do this by changing only ONE variable at a time. And you repeat many time. You don't add salt in the water while you are testing on a 1,000 BTU burner. You would test it and time it several time to make sure you didn't have an unknown variable get introduced into the mix. Once you have done this, you could try it with a candle and repeat with the same type and size candle. You don't change candles willy nilly in the middle of your testing. Only ONE ... (350 word limit)

Posted by: paul vincent zecchino
Dec 07, 07:05 AM
G Wesley Clark, M.D. and Dr. Dave -

Last time I glanced at Scientific American and National Geographic, I experienced mild confusion, disorientation, uncertainty.

The covers said 'Scientific American' and 'National Geographic' but they read like The Daily Worker, or perhaps that 'progressive' poopsheet, circulation twenty-two (including 'Pop' Schlep, the apartment super) that Axelrod's family scammed for.

Formerly informative articles had been replaced by jaundiced Politically Correct toxic bile, rendering them unreadable trotskyite poopsheets fit only for inducing nausea and violent physical reactions.

I do not enjoy the feeling known as nausea. Nor do I wish to behave in violent physical manner. Thus, I put down these leninized publications immediately and forever, and suggest others do likewise for the sake of their health and peaceful reputations.

Lenin said that everything must be politicized. Nice to see Scientific American and National Geographic fulfilled his toxic diktat.

Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manabilirubin Key, Florida
07 December, 2009

Posted by: abigailadams57
Dec 07, 07:50 AM
I cancelled National Geographic years ago; husband reinstated; cancelled; reinstated. I quit reading it. The last issue was "What Darwin Didn't Know." I guess if they publish another issue on "Earth" warming, it will be "What Scientists Knew and Didn't Tell us?" Nahhhh! I don't much care for non-scientists running science whether it be publications, academia, or public/private research labs. Follow the money and you'll discover the "green results."

Posted by: SMS
Dec 07, 08:09 AM
In his Editorial on The Breakthrough of the Year for 2005, Kennedy wrote:


One by one, holes in the global warming case are being filled.

______________________

Yeah, filled with bogus data.

One question that should be put to Kennedy:

"Sir, have you no shame?"

Posted by: artman1746
Dec 07, 08:30 AM
I don't consider my self a scientist and I don't play one on TV but I do have a degree in Biology and Chemistry and was a fisheries biologist for fifteen years (25 years ago). I know science has progressed a lot since the 1980's but at least in the 60's we did learn the Scientific Method (even in high school). We learned that our research was supposed to be put out there to be challenged and that our methods clearly defined accounting for all variables that could impact the conclusions. We understood that high variability in sampling made conclusions difficult. We also accepted that unless other scientists could follow our procedures and get the same results, our conclusions were doubtful.

Enter computer "modeling" where a "scientist" could design the code to get pretty much what he wanted. Now, obviously, the Scientific Method is obsolete and our new brand of "science" is loved by the Global Warmers who made their pact with government and the media.

It is clear that when government enters in, heresy follows. Our Founders understood. We now do not.

Government entered the mortgage business; look what we have in our financial meltdown!

Government wanted to "help" the black poor; it destroyed the black culture and family!

Government entered into science; look what we have in Climategate!

Government wanted to lower out-of-wedlock births through sex education; out-of-wedlock birth rate tripled!

Government entered into medicine; look what we have with fraud and waste in Medicare and Medcaid!

Government entered education; our public schools are a colossal failure!

Government entered retirement programs; social security is bankrupt

Government slid outside the boundaries of the Constitution; we got damaging political correctness, racial chaos and damaging national debt!

Government is entering Health Care; they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result!

Posted by: danh7
Dec 07, 08:57 AM
Ego, Power, Greed...all alive and well in AGW science!

Posted by: Saltherring
Dec 07, 09:16 AM
Artman1746,

Your example of government failures are indeed a scientific analysis...continued experimentation and continued failure.

abigailadams57 says,

"Follow the money and you'll discover the 'green results.'"

Yes ma'am, right into AL Gore's pocket. Gore, a man who was worth approximately $2M in 2001 is now worth nearly $1B, much of it looted from American taxpayers' pockets.

Posted by: Uriel
Dec 07, 09:37 AM
Mr. Kennedy said something in the quote you use that I think is revealing about climate "science". That is, that "One by one, holes in the global warming case are being filled."

How many times do they get to say that there ARE NO HOLES in the theory -- that the THEORY IS FACT -- only to later come up with more "data" that FILLS IN THE HOLES that they said weren't there?

After saying umpteen-thousand times that "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED"; why do they keep doing more so-called "science"?

If a thing is claimed to be PROVEN based on "data" presented in, say, 2001; why does more "data" keep being collected and presented?

It's a constant with Climate "Scientists" and with true believers in AGW; they present evidence, claim that it proves this or that, and then, when you show that it DOESN'T prove what they say, they come up with a new piece of "information" and say "well, yeah, BUT, THIS proves it."

They continually say that the "data" already presented PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that their claims are true; and yet they continue to try to get more "data" to prove it.

This is why I never refer to the IPCC's FOURTH Assessment Report. The claims that "the science is settled" and all that business about "consensus" began long before the Fourth Assessment Report was released in 2006. We cannot allow these FRAUDS to continue MOVING THE TARGET. It is, by itself, proof that they've never proven anything, AND THEY KNOW IT. Just another way to know that the so-called "science" of Global Warming isn't really science at all.

They MUST be held to the information extant when they FIRST MADE THEIR CLAIMS.

Posted by: Hedgehog
Dec 07, 09:43 AM
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states: The Congress shall have the Power .....To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writing and Discoveries;
In other words to secure patents and copyrights. It doesn't say To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by spending billions of dollars a year on junk research to support a political agenda and NEA Propaganda. This monster must be put back in its cage.

Posted by: Gazinya
Dec 07, 09:47 AM
I wondered often how so many people who have dedicated themselves to the discipline of science could be so political. After following the usual suspects, money, rankings, personnal engrandizment I came up with this idea. Since we have increased our knowledge of ourselves, how we are made and how the Universe is operating, science has proven that everything is designed. This 'creation' has been created for us. Science has, behind closed doors of course, concluded that 'evolution' is truly false and if there is no evolution then there is a God. I just can't think of anything more unpalpable for the acedimic mind than the realization that Issac Newton was right and the 'enlightened' were wrong.

Posted by: Theo Goodwin
Dec 07, 10:13 AM
James Lewis writes:

"I know a liberal who fell for Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb three decades ago and still believes it today. Liberals never have to change their minds, especially about facts. Certainly Ehrlich never changed his mind, and when his predictions about Planetary Doom failed, he didn't come to the obvious conclusion that I must have been wrong."

The "Population Bomb" hypothesis was designed to be non-falsifiable in that Ehrlich refused to target specific groups. Today, we cannot target specific groups because of Political Correctness. However, as soon as one targets specific groups, Ehrlich's hypotheses are shown to be false. As we all know, and have known at least since publication of "The Birth Dearth" in the mid Eighties, birth rates in the developed world have been below replacement level for about forty years. Over the last ten years, those rates have become catastrophic. The birth rates for fertile women in North America and Western Europe range from 1 to 1.5 a year when adjustments are made for recent immigration. In a sane world, such birthrates would be treated as the major symptom of some unknown disease that is far more deadly than AIDS. In our politically correct world, such birthrates are celebrated. Why they are celebrated is unclear, for immigrants replace those who were not born.

Given that Ehrlich's science was notoriously bad, something akin to "phlogiston" science, he should have been drummed out of the scientific community. The fact that he was not simply shows that scientists no longer follow scientific method or any other high standard of scientific practice. If the CRU scientists are taken as the model, then scientists have become vulgar Marxists.

Posted by: bubbagyro
Dec 07, 10:16 AM
I wrote this comment already in response to Marc Shephard's article "The evidence of climate fraud" on Nov. 21:

[[This is my favorite email from Mann: [BTW, you could not make this stuff up - of course it is legitimate, as CRU, one of the perpetrators itself, admits]

< question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.>>

It shows that:
1) criticisms are NOT routinely posted in "legitimate" "peer-reviewed" journals.
2) SO we must trust these science crooks, no one else. One lies and the other swears to it. "Don't pay attention to the men behind the curtain"
3) Without Rush, Beck, "Druge[sic]" and his "ilk" we would not be able to arrive at any truth.
4) Without the PEER-REVIEWED Blogosphere, where would we be?

I am a scientist, well published and "patented" after 40+ years in practice in life sciences. This year, after 20 or more years subscribing to Nature and Science, I canceled my subscriptions to both after I realized that peer-reviewed meant collusion and subterfuge. It was painful since old habits die hard.

I suggest we change the name for the publication process in state-approved science journals like Nature, Science, or Scientific American, to "perp-reviewed" or "crony-reviewed" or "feeding at the government trough-reviewed (FAGT-reviewed)" articles and restrict the word peer-reviewed ... (350 word limit)

Posted by: Theo Goodwin
Dec 07, 10:19 AM
Gussy writes:

"OK - we At's get it - AGW is a hoax and a huge fraud (really huge, probably the biggest fraud ever). Now, what do we do?"

Anyone who supports higher taxes of any kind is voted out of office. Elected officials must be held responsible for decisions by their appointees. If Browner declares Carbon harmful, then we must treat the effects of that decision as a higher tax. We need "Tea Parties" on steroids. This is only a first step.

Posted by: wbhickok
Dec 07, 10:20 AM
Mr. Lewis,
And others, thanks for the wealth of information.

I'm sure some one, some magazine, some entity is compiling all that is going on with names and faces who are corrupting science and pretty much everything else. these Marxist will end up in jail till their destiny in hell comes near.

I'm sure it won't be long before these bastards will be paraded in courts with handcuffs to explain themselves and sent to jail to rot for life.

As for those other corrupt scientist, editors and politicians, pundits who lies and cheated to cover all of this, their day will come too. it won't be long now.
And those from other lands who are bleeding America in the name of some pulp science, soon you and your United Nations buddies won't be able to set foot in these United States of America, because if you do, you will join these American marxist in jail to rot for life.

Keep at it Mr. Lewis, we are keeping tab. Keep exposing these bastards and their un-American activities one by one.

Posted by: Galen Hoover
Dec 07, 10:22 AM
Here in the Lehigh Valley of PA, the Allentown Morning Call newspaper published an article on Clamategate on Page one.The title was Climategate Debate. Yep. Debate. Ok, I suppose there is a debate. Like just how big the fraud is.

Then in a separate section of the newspaper called Scope Out they publish an article titled How Is Green Going?. The section of the paper is produced by "the advertising section of the Morning Call. Hmm. Interesting.

The Green article showcases a few locals who are installing solar panels on their homes. The article details how these individuals are getting tax credits for installing said panels. One individual admitted that he will NEVER get his investment back, but his grandchildren will reap the savings. Yah. I guess his grand kids are going to live in his house after he dies. Sheese.

Pennsylvania set aside $100,000,000 (yeah, eight zeros folks) to provide "rebates" of up to $22,500 for the solar panel installations. One homeowner spent $31,000 on the installation and expects about $20,000 back in rebates and tax credits.

So, there ya go folks. We get to pay for these idiot's solar arrays. Ain't government grand? Annnnd, the charade continues in the MSM.

Dr. Dave. Great post comparing medical research to climate research. Most excellent points, Sir.

Great posts on this thread. Applause.

Meanwhile, I type all this about 8 feet from my coal stove burning that wonder of all wonders: Pennsylvania anthracite, a local resource that puts bread on the table for many Pennsylvanians. It costs 1/5th of the cost of using fuel oil to heat my house. Also, I am descended from "coal crackers". Mmmmmm, toasty.

Posted by: Voter X
Dec 07, 10:43 AM
Well, I can't trust the government. I can't trust the media. I can't trust Wall street and now I can't trust the scientific community. Thank God there is still professional wrestling.

Posted by: Anonymous User
Dec 07, 10:58 AM
G. Wesley Clark, MD said:

"Sadly, all the popular journals of science -- Science Magazine, Scientific American, National Geographic -- as well as some of the general medical journals such as Lancet, Journal of the AMA, and New England Journal of Medicine have been infiltrated by activists for the collectivist/statist persuasion, often with an associated attitude of Ehrlichian human-hatred."

THANK YOU!!!

For years I thought I was going loopy. The magazines I had grown up with and had several issues of laying about for reading and re-reading became fewer and fewer as I noted this AGW infiltration. Even my beloved National Geographic fell victim to "save the orphans" sing-songy melodrama. And all the glaciers were melting, etc., etc., etc. The last NG I picked up was in 1994.

Scientific American was the next to go....and way back in the dust was some ancient 1970's copy of OMNI.

Scientist. What is a "scientist" now? Is it some poor schlep who is merely at the mercy of the self-proclaimed do-gooders in the government for the hope of some tiny little dribble of funding to come their way? Who prostrate themselves before congress to administer the latest global warming lies? And who's biggest spokesperson is a former "C" student who is not a scientist himself but a politician with the added value of possessing an OSCAR for a craptacular slide show about "global warming" and a NO-BELL piss prize for same?

I mean....what the hell is going on? We have the inmates running the asylum and printing rubbish.

Posted by: seven
Dec 07, 11:03 AM
Looks like Climat Change needs to be called climate data change.

Posted by: sherlock
Dec 07, 11:06 AM
Voter X: "Thank God there is still professional wrestling."

What more can be said after that? Finito.

Posted by: H Hazell
Dec 07, 12:06 PM
"CRUddites"?

As I recall that appears on the menu of one of my favorite restaurants as "...small, toasted and resting on a bed of greens."

Apt description of the lot.

Posted by: Lee-White Tanks AZ
Dec 07, 12:41 PM
Mr Lewis: An excellent and timely article. People need to see this AGW for what it is. A part of a continuum of leftist attempts to destroy the foundations of this country. One major pillar is Science. Americans have for good reason had a 200 year 'love affair' with our scientists and their academic homes and private laboratories throughout our government and business. It is really difficult to learn that like our politicians, our sports figures, our Hollywood idols, our Clergy, and a key portion of our news media many have feet made of clay. A huge clean up is needed. It is no surprise that WDC is also known as Washington, District of Corruption. The House Cleaning needs to start here and the voters are tool to obtain and put in place the "Broom"

It's not at all a surprise that Kennedy and Science Magazine have been so completely corrupted by this SCAM. I believe that a significant part of the reason for this has been the effectiveness of media bias and propaganda and the role they have played in downgrading and denigrating reasonable skepticism.

Their success can be measured in real terms. How many article's in the conservative world actually take the very unpolitically correct stance that this Climate Change is a Hoax and has always been a hoax. Today The Heritage, Morning Bell has a very good column, The Copenhagen Climate Comedy. Even though the article has a light 'tongue in cheek' touch they still will not go so far as to say that this thing is a FRAUD. That it has criminal overtones.

I’m disappointed, even the very capable people of Heritage cannot bring themselves to state the obvious, Climate Change is a monumental SCAM, has been and always will be.

It just seems that the very people who form very large and very skeptical group regarding this AGW fiasco tend to treat it as though somewhere in the AGW mantra there must be a smidgen of truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is largely the work of one man, the former Vice President of the United States Albert Gore. When attending Harvard Gore took a course in Climate Science. It ... (350 word limit)

Posted by: bubbagyro
Dec 07, 12:45 PM
I received a notice from Nature today asking to renew my membership, that I had canceled recently. They wanted to "welcome me back" with a 30% discount! Fat chance. I guess they are rethinking their subscription base, or loss of it. I will be better off using my money to buy another cord of wood.

Posted by: Bruce Hanson
Dec 07, 12:48 PM
Dr Dave,
I enjoyed reading your comments very much. As I recall when the volcano Mount Saint Helens erupted the sky was slightly darker for about two days. My understanding was that the amount of ash spewed in the sky equaled about one years worth of the worlds air pollution. The global warming argument, which is based on the world’s air pollution doesn’t seem realistic when compared to how the skies clear after a volcano goes off. What’s your take? Anybody? Shouldn’t we be talking about the sun? It doesn’t run at a constant temp, why should we expect the earth to?

Posted by: Lee-White Tanks AZ
Dec 07, 01:10 PM
Voter X: A really good comment and very true, but:

Your comment; "Scientist. What is a "scientist" now? Is it some poor schlep who is merely at the mercy of the self-proclaimed do-gooders in the government for the hope of some tiny little dribble of funding to come their way? Who prostrate themselves before congress to administer the latest global warming lies? And who's biggest spokesperson is a former "C" student who is not a scientist himself but a politician with the added value of possessing an OSCAR for a craptacular slide show about "global warming" and a NO-BELL piss prize for same?"

It doesn't entirely get at a key root to the problem. These 'scientists' almost universally got their degrees from major Universities and Colleges. Where is the very SEAT of Political Correctness? It is in the very same 'fascist like' run institutions of learning(?).
It is Political Correctness (aka PC) and this almost "religious" fervor to protect its' adherents and 'priests' that has brought us to what you note above. Do "LEMMINGS" by chance come to mind?

Political Correctness is well recognized in the halls of scientific academia. Science, Education nd Journalism have been the target of the Global Collectivist movement for nearly 100 years. They have been successful to a large degree because our vaunted University Ivory Towers are rife with narcissism, ego centrism, and an autocratic hierarchy that would make Mussolini blush. This is and has been particularly true of our almost worshiped IVY League and East Coast learning centers. It is why they were specifically targeted early on as the most likely and easiest institutions to bring into the PC line.

PC is Thought Control
LEE

Posted by: jmresler
Dec 07, 01:11 PM
Wikipedia defines the 'Dark Ages' as 'a term referring to the perceived period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning.' Rather than refer to this as the onset of 'Global Warming' why not refer to it as the second onset of the 'Dark Ages'?

Posted by: Uriel
Dec 07, 01:42 PM
Bruce Hanson,
You've hit on one of the major determinants of Earth's climate that is constantly, consistently, and completely ignored. Not only by the Warmist "Scienticians", but by many skeptics as well. No, not the Sun ... there's lot's of folks talking about the obvious and overwhelming influence of solar radiation.

I mean volcanism and, to some extent, plate-tectonics as well. The lengthy warm periods in Earth's history (like the Medieval Warm Period) coincide with lower volcanic activity, and the reverse is true of cold periods like the Little Ice Age. The "Scienticians" in charge of deciding what affects climate and what doesn't never talk about volcanoes. They won't even acknowledge the simple fact, reported here at AT a short while ago, that until recently THE ONLY SOURCE for measurment of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was located ON AN ACTIVE VOLCANO, and some 30 miles from THE LONGEST CONTINUOUSLY ERUPTING VOLCANO on the planet. You gotta love this stuff.

Anyway, I think you're right to compare "pollution" effects (unhappily including CO2) to volcanic effects. Both are eventually absorbed into an inherently self-correcting climate system. Whatever effects there are are, geologically speaking, VERY short term. Because the climate system is self-correcting - to an extent, in order to affect it in the longer term requires either lengthy increases or decreases in volcanism, or lengthy changes in solar radiation. In other words, it needs to be something "outside" the self-correcting CLOSED SYSTEM of the climate. And CO2 just won't cut it. It's got to be something with a more dramatic effect, like massive amounts of soot/ash/dust or Sulfur Dioxides (which cool the planet).

Also, I brought up plate tectonics because its impact -- specifically on already dubious sea-level measurements -- is another thing never taken into account by the climate "scienticians". Island nations in the SouthWest Pacific, which are constantly touted as proof of massive sea-level rises, are surrounded by numerous faults where the Earth's crust is being pulled back into the mantle. And, until satellite measurement, sea-level increases were extrapolated from a few millimeter size measurements taken in the Low Countries of Europe. ... (350 word limit)

Posted by: Lizzie
Dec 07, 01:43 PM
Reading these comments, there appears to be a huge market opportunity for a science magazine that is "fair and balanced." Being a capitalist pig, I tend to think that competition is the best corrective.

Posted by: G. Wesley Clark, MD
Dec 07, 02:03 PM
Dr. Dave,

Thanks for corroborating my impression.

And if you like to shoot, be sure to be an NRA MEMBER -- the next time you go to buy ammo, you may have to register, just like the law says, that the great defender of liberty Arnold Schwarzenegger signed last month in California.

Posted by: GnuCarSmell
Dec 07, 02:30 PM
Once a liberal latches on to a bad idea, he'll never let go of it, no matter what new information emerges, no matter what the empirical evidence shows. Even after it has been revealed that manipulation, dissembling and in-your-face fraud was going on within the global warming community, the left shows no sign of adjusting their beliefs about the science. Talk about bitter clingers. In that sense, I agree with Michael Savage that "liberalism is a mental disease".

The CRU emails give all climate scientists a rare chance to show real courage and intellectual honesty by breaking from their cult and admitting there is a serious problem with the underlying science. I predict we'll see neither courage nor honesty among the Al Gores and the Donald Kennedy's of the world. Those traits are not in their DNA.

Posted by: Lee-White Tanks AZ
Dec 07, 02:56 PM
Ueil:

Your pickup on the importance of volcanic activity and its' affect on the atmosphere is right on.

The fact that it is largely ignored is because it became a significant 'Inconvenient Truth' in its' own right as we added our name (The US) to the Montreal Accords. You will remember that this was the instrument that made us change out our more efficient Chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) based refrigerants for far less efficient and ridiculously more expensive refrigerants. In this process we made one Chemical Company (Dow) $Billions.

The Problem: The need to get rid of our then present CFCs was that these "fluorine" gases destroyed the OZONE Layer. This in turn would result in vastly increase ultra violet radiation at lower levels and that in turn would turn melanoma (skin cancer) into and epidemic. So CFCs had to go. Refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and as a cleaning solvent in the electronics industry were the primary uses. Now it must be known that Chlorine was the bad guy, but there was no way that we were going to get rid of Chlorine in our economy. So we settled on Chlorofluorocarbons, who would know that it was a chlorine compound?

The Inconvenient Truth: One good sized volcano will spew more Chlorine in one immense belch than all the refrigerants, propellants and solvents in all the history of our planet. Its kind of like the AGW thing. Nature has a way of showing just how ineffective and silly we can be. In the case of AGW it was necessary to lie, cheat and steal to get the public to buy that one. In the case of OZONE Depletion it was necessary to lie, cheat and steal to get this absurdity bought by a skeptical American public.

So the bottom line, volcanic activity is a MAJOR, MAJOR factor in the make up and changes in our atmospheric temperatures and content. But it isn't taxable, can't be blamed on amn and nobody gets rich getting rid of them. I really want to see the first scientist that figures that he can put a "diaper" on a volcano and tries to do so.

Posted by: Finnbar Allen
Dec 07, 03:05 PM
After ~35 yrs, I recently dropped out of the AAAS for their blatant global warming bias that reeks of cronyism.

Posted by: durga
Dec 07, 03:31 PM
I was a member of one of the health professions and a number of decades ago I watched it sell its soul to commercial interests. The huge shift can be measured before and after the direct market introduction of UpJohn's Tagamet. This was the first blockbuster drug that learned to go directly to the consumer, instead of through the allegedly higher scrutiny of the prescribing gate keeper - the doctor who had the "science" and the training to make a reasoned judgment about drug products.

The first sign the entire field was getting corrupted came in the form of masses of unsoliticited professional "journals" with fake footnoted "studies" touting some product rather than being the pure research science I used to get in the more pricey paid subscription professional journals. There was actually one footnote for a study that cited the "product information label" as proof of its efficacy. An plenty more cited "unpublished in house studies." This is pure rot.

It used to be you did not make any practice changes until you had several independent and corroborating research studies to back up new choices. Now it is total wild west with product sales rep knocking down doors daily and demanding contact.

Go to a professional health care convention today and all you see is mass marketing getting passed off as professional continuing education. I stopped going years ago. But the ultimate insult is these health profession licenses demand so many hours of continuing education for license renewal and you are forced to attend this total "crap".

This is but one example of how badly "science" got off its track. We are also now paying dearly for this unforgivable detour.

Posted by: durga
Dec 07, 03:49 PM
Remember all the "science" of Y2K, folks?

Remember the mass fear and behavior changes due to the "scientific" predictions of total global failure after Y2K? Time for a bit of retrospective. I have friends that still have stocked rations.

I knew all was well when I went to an Italian ATM on Jan 1, 2000 and it worked. Dang I said, if the Italians got it right it must be right in the rest of the world too. Crisis over.

The "Dark Ages" were a result of predictions the world would end at the year 1000. The Bible said so. The Kingdom ushered in by Jesus was to last only 1000 years. It did not end. People's psyches were perplexed. Praying did not prevent the second scourage of the Black Plague. And Western Europe gradually awakened to the far more secular renaissance.

Today we are still far more superstitious and tribal than we are scientific. There is no Age of Reason going on right now. Nor should we forget in the last Age of Reason, millions of women were burned as witches. We need to "scientifically" appreciate the role superstition and tribalism still plays in our contemporary lives.

Posted by: Dr. Dave
Dec 07, 04:22 PM
Durga,

Tagamet (cimetidine) was the first H2-receptor antagonist approved for use. It was approved for use in this country in the late 70s and was developed and marketed by SKF (not Upjohn). Tagamet revolutionized the treatment of gastric ulcer disease. SKF had hit such a home run with Tagamet that they didn't even sample it for the first couple of years. There was nothing pharmacologically similar similar to Tagamet until about 1983 when Zantac (ranitidine) was released. Tagamet remains one of the most studied drugs ever developed (safety, efficacy, drug interactions, etc.). Eventually Lilly released Pepcid (famotidine) and there were 3 players in the H2-RA market. At the time these drugs sold for about $1 (or more) per dose. This didn't change until Prilosec (omeprazole), the first proton pump inhibitor was released. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription only drugs didn't start until about a decade later. I remain vehemently opposed to DTC advertising, but that's another discussion.

I take exception to your assertion that pharmaceutical research is corrupt. It is probably some of the cleanest, most pure research available. Pharmaceuticals are subjected to extremely rigorous study. This research must be reproducible because it MUST be independently reproduced in order to be accepted. This research is open and transparent. It bears no resemblance to "climate research".

Posted by: Buddy
Dec 07, 04:30 PM
I used to subscribe, but during the late 1980's and into those dark Clinton years, it began to go agenda, so I dropped it, as well as Scientific American. Its too bad, I have old issues of both, that are great stuff, and the current material is not worth the weight in gold or the paper its printed on. All cr*p science, agenda, and little rational or peer reviewed material. Either that, or reviewed by peers who are part of the game.

What a shame, and what garbage.

Posted by: Randall Hoven
Dec 07, 04:36 PM
I want you to imagine that no-kidding communists infiltrated the critical "information" fields in the US starting in about 1920: newspapers, magazines, entertainment and pop culture, higher education, lower education, organized science, some unions and a major political party. They didn't "take over", just infiltrated and subtly nudged at opportune moments. Decades later, the cumulative effects of those nudges amounted to effective take-overs. Still not so much that they could say so out loud, but effecting the critical policy decisions nonetheless. Decisions that weakened entrepeneural vitality, national defense, patriotism, family and faith.

Now, take that imaginated world, and tell me how it is different from what we have.

Posted by: Luap
Dec 07, 04:54 PM
Science is dead! Everything liberals touch turns to #&%*( !

Posted by: Old_Blue_64
Dec 07, 06:26 PM
In a most different context, Churchill foretold the stakes that derive from totalitarian motives and the corruption of science. He said: "But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

Science, and scientific method, are among the cornerstones of Western Civilization. If science fails, then our civilization is corrupted, perhaps beyond repair. If the high priests of a perverted science are allowed to destroy real science, then we have returned to the church's persecution of Galileo.

What few seem to understand is that nearly all the instincts and motivations of "liberals" today are totalitarian. They stifle dissent in every form, demonize all those who warn of the dangers their statist policies pose, steal elections wherever possible, and rely on an equally corrupted judiciary to legislate social changes unacceptable to elected representatives.

Ronald Reagan was right, "Government is not the solution; it's the problem."

Posted by: gussy
Dec 07, 07:37 PM
Excuse me, but isn't what we breathe out CO2 and what plants, trees, shrubs, etc breathe in? If CO2 is dangerous, are we supposed to stop breathing? Why don't we just plant more trees, shrubs and plants to make up the difference. Am I being facetious or obtuse? I don't know what I'm being but I know that this whole CO2 thing is a farce and I'm not a scientist.

Posted by: producehawk
Dec 07, 07:42 PM
Makes you wonder just how much of the "evidence" of neo-darwinism has been cooked up.
The facade of true science being operative in global warming, neo-darwinism etc was long ago exposed.
The MSM just will not jump on it. Maybe if Republicans started to back these falsehoods, the media would
in a knee jerk fashion expose the truth.





http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/494226.html

 

... or ...

Tweet

All of my messges on this board     All of my messges anywhere

 

Advertisement
Energy Awareness Course
Use CureZone kode to get a free session!

More