Time for some expert analysis
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 The suggestion that leading scientists may have manipulated data "to strengthen the case for man-made global warming" may come as a shock to some people, but not to readers of this blog.
After all, anyone who has followed the "debate" about passive smoking will recognise instantly these comments by Lord Lawson, the former Tory chancellor:
"On the face of it, it looks like the raw data was being manipulated to prove what they wanted to prove."
According to the Daily Telegraph:
Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years ...
The paper reports that:
"Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers".
Lord Lawson, it adds, wants the apparent deception to be fully investigated.
"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.
Full story HERE.
We'll have to see whether this story leads anywhere, but it's high time - as I have often said - that the declarations of scientific and medical "experts" were treated with a great deal more scepticism by politicians and the mainstream media and, where appropriate, investigated by those who are genuinely independent.
Whether such people exist, and whether they would be willing to speak out, is another matter. I am reminded of an excellent essay by the late Lord Harris of High Cross (chairman of Forest from 1987-2006) which we published in 2005.
Privately I have encountered Very Important Persons in the medical world who, in response to my earnest enquiry about ‘passive smoking’, have dropped their voices and looked around furtively before assuring me there was ‘nothing in it’, except for a possibly adverse effect on serious asthmatics.
On the subject of scientific "experts" Harris wrote:
But what are we to make of those 'experts' who, with few brave exceptions, have led the bloodcurdling chorus of death from ETS and keep any scientific doubts to themselves?
The best that can be said is that, like the members of SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Health), they are driven on by such a single-minded obsession with cancer that they have allowed themselves to be persuaded that any means of stigmatising and punishing smokers may be justified in the ‘good cause’ of reducing such a self-evidently risky and ‘anti-social’ activity.
This is the fatal fallacy that the end justifies the means, including exaggeration, spinning, deception and - when that does not work - the outright persecution of dissenters.
Smoking Out The Truth can be downloaded HERE. It also appears as the foreword to the 2005 Forest report Prejudic & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking which is available HERE.
Reader Comments (12)
I am also writing something similar with much input from Chris Snowdon the author of "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist A History of Anti Smoking.
I have read the SCOTH Committee report from cover to cover and it has more holes in it than gruyere cheese. On pages 14-20 are the citations for the scientific papers. Number 20 is Enstrom/Kabat and 13 is the WHO which found SHS in children to be protective with an RR of 0.78. I have read 20 papers and have 51 to go.
The 2006 Neuberger study came up with these conclusions. In this case they found SHS statistically significantly PROTECTIVE.
“A significant inverse association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54).”
Also are you aware in 1993 the American Congress held an enquiry into SHS and came up with the following conclusions.
They further stated that:
The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking;
It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS;
If there are any lung cancer deaths from ETS exposure, they are likely to be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels... primarily among those nonsmokers subjected to significant spousal ETS.
Even when overall risk is considered, it is a very small risk and is not statistically significant at a conventional 95% level.
I will leave you with this quote.
“Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" so said Alvan Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology in 1999 on passive smoking.
We need open debates on TV on climate change, SHS and the swine flu.
I hope thet climate change is one of the items raise on BBC Question Time on Thursday, with an expert scientist from both sides.
Devils Kitchen is running with the CRU story and it becomes ever more joyous! From what I can gather the techies (and, hopefully, scientists of a sceptical bent) are now onto the data files themselves which seem to be totally damning!!!
If it truly proves so, then the ensuing climate of scepticism (sorry) must surely be ready for an expose of the tobacco control lobby whose methods the climate-change lobby has just lifted wholesale. Simon, you're moment has come!!
Oh happy day....
It is worthwhile reading the responses from UEA and Dr Jones at WUWT --> Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
For more technical discaussions try the CA Mirror at climate audit mirror
Of course there are parallels with TC. The responses are worth noting as are the comments.
----
Ladies and Gentlemen -
Panic over !
The BBC's very own 'environment analyst' ROGER HARRABIN (no less) HIMSELF says:
"The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in SOME areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.
One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%."
Cor, that's a pretty high 'confidence' rating, an' no mistake, Guv'nor. I always knew (deep down) that that Monckton, and that Lindzen, and those 31,000 so-called 'scientists' and all the rest of them 'septics' was talking cobblers.
Leonardo da Cappricio even made a film about it. And HE is a Hollywood star !
I takes it all back, what I said before, and I'm changing me bulbs soon as I can get to Tesco's.
Gawd bless ya, Rog, an' all the BBC, and that George Monbiot an' all the boys and girls at the IP whatsit for settin' us straight at last.
Blindin' !
And another thing.....................
I would suggest to everyone reading this article to go to the links provided by WEST2 - they provide lots of interesting info.
Would that similar emails could be revealed regarding 'passive smoking' or 'active smoking' for that matter)!
The BBC and the Government are actually making fools out of themselves here .
Nobody believes the BBC anymore anyway.
The US will have its hearing on the matter .
So how do the liars at the BBC and in the cabinet think the Chinese and other emerging economies are going to react to this.
It is going to cost their economy dearly.
My guess is they are going to tell the GW lobby to **** ***.
As for Passive smoking ,will a real "mole" please stand up ?
About time someone is taking these lying bastards to task over SHS with their global warming lies and deception, and three cheers for Nigel Lawson for bringing the issue up, guess he's in a better position to do so now that he's left big govt. That says a lot too.
These lying gangs of scientists are no better than the banking fraudsters who brought us all to ruin and I cant see why they can't be held to account in the same way.
Question is, is there one 'totally respected' expert out there who is not 'connected' that would speak out.
Looks to me that if these guys and their lying statistics are not stopped in their tracks now, especially in these recessionery times when jobs are put at risk, all the govt quango jobs will be transfered into climate change jobs resulting in more stealth taxes and charges that will drive us to penury and make the smoking ban taxes and charges look like pin money!
I totally agree that for many there is no faith left in government or science as, true or not, the perception is that we are being played for fools in order to line the pockets and further inflate the egos of those in government and possibly science, who presumably want to get their names in the history books; a little like publicity, I don't think they care if it is for good or bad reasons that their names will be remembered!
Candidly I wish the whole darn lot would go hang themselves as I am sick of my life being screwed up and my hard earned cash being drained away on and for their whims and fancies!
I bet there were a lot of people at ASH and CRUK deleting their emails after this!
Most people I know have now seen through the GW lie .
After this Nulab will be the only government in the world still buying into this crap.
How embarrasing to have such a bunch of fools and cheap crooks as your government.
Cats out the bag again ,thieves.
Chas
I see that Question Time last night on this issue was as open and unbiased as we have come to expect!