Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Archive for the ‘scientific culture’ Category

Speaking Truth to Big Pharma Power

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/18

Some time ago I recommended the newsletter of Mad in America, a diligent and reliable commentary on the flaws of modern psychiatric medicine.

A recent issue had links to a superb series of articles by David Healy, a psychiatrist who has spoken truth to Big Pharma and to the conventional (lack of) wisdom, at considerable personal cost. Healy also founded a website with information about dru side effects, RxRisk:
Tweeting While Psychiatry Burns
Tweeting while Medicine Burns (Psychopharmacology Part 2)
Burn Baby Burn (Psychopharmacology Part 3)

Also useful in this newsletter, link to a report of a meta-analysis confirming the Minimal Effectiveness and High Risk of SSRIs

Posted in conflicts of interest, medical practices, politics and science, prescription drugs, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Money has corrupted science, including some individual scientists

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/11

Some years ago, I had blogged about “The business of for-profit ‘science’”, pointing out that “A number of trends, in society as a whole as well as in science and medicine, have led to the present dysfunctional state of affairs. It is not the result of conspiracies or overt evil-doing . . .”.

Systemic change means that just “doing what everyone does” results in bad things for the public as a whole. An obvious illustration at the moment is that politics has become so pervaded by “spin” that truth has essentially disappeared from what politicians and their spokespeople say, with consequences that everyone should fear.

But that “normal” behavior has become dysfunctional does not entail that there is not also deliberate additional mischief being done, and things that seem so out of order that they ought to be criminally prosecutable.

One aspect of present dysfunctionality in scientific activities is the proliferation of what has been aptly described as predatory publishing on-line of what seem on their face to be scientific journals but whose entire raison d’être is to make money for the publishers from the fees paid by author. The steadily updated list of apparently predatory publishers and journals inaugurated by Jeffrey Beall was no longer on-line as of some time between 12 and 18 January 2017, but the Wayback Machine makes an earlier version available .

Admittedly, every active, publishing researcher knows that peer review and editorial judgments are far from infallibly expert and impartial, but the predatory journals have no quality control at all, illustrated by the acceptance of entirely fake articles, for instance in Open Information Science published by Bentham Science (Jessica Shepherd, “Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science article”, 18 June 2009 ); the editor of another Bentham journal, Open Chemical Physics, resigned after an article she had never seen was published, a piece that alleged the presence of “nanothermite” particles in the dust from the Twin Towers terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (Thomas Hoffmann, “Chefredaktør skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11”, 28 April 2009; Denis G. Rancourt, “Editor in Chief resigned over the Harrit et al. nanothermite paper”, 11 November 2010).

Beall had listed more than 1100 publishers, some of which publish hundreds of ”journals” where “article processing charges” run from a few hundred dollars upwards to more than $1000. Any honest researcher with results of any importance seeks publication in a long-established and respected journal, so all this “publication” by the predators is sheer waste, much of it money that had been awarded to scientists as research grants. Bentham Science, perhaps iconic of the more prominent predators, lists well over 100 journals. In 2013, Science published the report of a sting operation in which fake manuscripts with obvious flaws were sent to a number of open-access journals; more than half the fake articles were accepted for publication (John Bohannon, “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals”, Science 342 [2013] 60-5).

Of course not all mainstream print journals manage always to detect even obvious deficiencies, but predatory journals leave other clues, for example, that they continually solicit people for submissions and to serve as editors and on editorial boards (e.g. D. H. Kaye, “Flaky academic journals”, 21 December 2016; Gunther Eysenbach, “Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers”).

Legitimate journals employ copyeditors, but the predators do not. Recently I benefited from e-mails that revealed yet further deceitful money grubbing. Bentham Science journals suggest that authors get (and pay for) copy-editing and language improvement services offered by Eureka Science — whose staff happens to be the same people who also run Bentham Science. The “two” companies also pretend to be separate entities in the arranging of conferences, for example the International Conference on Drug Discovery and Therapy (six since 2008).

Conferences can be real money-makers. For the 2017 International Conference on Drug Discovery and Therapy, registration fees range from about $500 for mere attendees to, for speakers ~$1000 (academic) o r~ $1600 (corporate) (the approximate “~” because fees vary a bit according to when they are paid). Invited speakers pay the same fees as non-invited, which strikes me as odd. When I’m invited to speak I’m offered expenses, even an honorarium; but then I haven’t been active in mainstream science research for quite some time. The Conference organizers do offer free travel and accommodation to a few eminent people, say Nobel Prize winners, since having those attend lends apparent legitimacy to the proceedings. These meetings can be lucrative indeed for the organizers: the 2015 International Conference on Drug Discovery and Therapy listed more than 360 registrants.

The identity of Bentham Science and Eureka Science was revealed to me by Fiona Hayden, self-described as a researcher in the field of corporate ethics with a special interest in the STM publishing industry. She discovered that
Ø      Bentham Science hides its identity and location.
Ø      It organizes conferences but tells potential audience that it is just a media partner, that the organizer is a different company.
Ø      It asks authors to pay for grammar and English editing to its own company with the different name Eureka Science.
Ø      It does not allow its employees to disclose on their social media accounts that they work for Bentham Science.
Ø      It puts people who expose them on a black list.

The version of the black list Hayden sent me had about 30 names. The criterion for inclusion seems to be anyone who might be a whistleblower about improper happenings: one person on the list whom I had known reasonably well was an activist for integrity of academic ideals; another has been one of the most prominent advocates of respectable high-quality open-access publishing.

At one of the “Eureka” conferences, several of the staff had identified themselves as Bentham employees to Hayden and her colleagues, who also identified by name and e-mail address several individuals active in “both” companies, which are registered in Karachi as Information Technology Services (ITS). Among the registrants at the 2015 Conference on Drug Discovery and Therapy, about 15 were Bentham employees listed as ITS or Eureka.

ITS, Bentham Science, & Eureka Science are one and the same, owned by retired Professor Atta-ur-Rehman who is always president or vice president of Eureka conferences (Fiona Hayden e-mail, 2 March 2017). While serving as Chairman of the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, Atta-ur-Rehman had been warned about the publishing of fake journals in Pakistan (Q. Isa Daudpota [professor at Pakistan’s Air University], “Scourge of fake journals”, 30 November 2011, ).

I had posted recently about The Scourge of Wikipedia; Wiki’s unreliability is illustrated by its Google summary for Bentham Science, which makes it appear as a perfectly respectable mainstream outfit instead of the reality:

Fiona Hayden also supplied links to some articles by a range of authors deploring predatory publishing and other sad aspects of contemporary science:

*                     *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *

Predatory publishing exists because of how the whole enterprise of science has been corrupted by outside interests and the overweening pursuit of financial profit. I deplore what Bentham/Eureka/ITS does, though the conferences are evidently found useful, given that they attract so many attendees. Meeting fresh faces from distant places can be a rewarding experience, as I found at a couple of the Conferences on the Unity of the Sciences  despite that they were organized by the Unification Church, many of whose other activities I deplore.

The degree to which “normal” mainstream science has succumbed to financial corruption may be illustrated by the Institute of Global Environment and Society, established by a professor at George Mason University. It has cashed in on the hysteria over climate change  by garnering “82 federal grants and 3 contracts from 5 agencies totaling $26,222,420 from Fiscal Year 2008 to FY 2016: (Source:” and spending most of it on salaries:

“IGES 2014 Income: $3,846,141 including $3,832,383 federal contributions; 2013 income $4,186,639 including $4,174 658 federal contributions; IGES spent $3,296,720 on salaries in 2014; $3,194,792 on salaries in 2013”. Principals of IGES moreover had the gall to urge criminal action against “global warming deniers” — Political correctness in science, 2017/03/06.

Not that long-established scientific publishers abstain from money grubbing, also profiting exorbitantly from open-access publishing designed to extract more money from authors and their patrons: Nature also publishes more than 30 open-access on-line journals as well as 42 journals with “hybrid open access” with per article fees between $1350 and $5200 for different journals. Elsevier charges fees ranging between $500 and $5,000, depending on the journal, for “open access” publishing.

It may be that predatory publishing will inevitably continue so long as science continues to be characterized by cutthroat competitiveness and judgments made by quantity of research grants and of publications.

There may be an analogy with drug trafficking or prostitution: so long as the demand exists, entrepreneurs will find profitable ways to satisfy the demand. So long as scientific careers call for long lists of publications, sleazy publishers will continue to exist.


Posted in fraud in science, funding research, peer review, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Political Correctness in Science

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/06

Supposedly, science investigates via the scientific method: testing the validity of hunches (hypotheses) against reality and allowing reality to establish beliefs, thereby discarding disproved pre-judgments, hunches, prejudices, biases. Scientific theories. are determined by facts, evidence.   Science is empirical, pragmatic; it does not accept beliefs on authority or from tradition.

Historians, philosophers, sociologists, scholars of Science & Technology Studies have long recognized that this view of science is mythical (i), but it continues to be taught in schools and in social-science texts and it is the conventional wisdom found in the media and in public discourse generally. A corollary of the misconception that scientific theories have been successfully tested against reality is the widespread belief that what science says, what the contemporary scientific consensus is, can safely be accepted as truth for all practical purposes.

So it seems incongruous, paradoxical, that large numbers of scientists should disagree violently, on any given issue, over what science really says. Yet that is the case on a seemingly increasing range of topics (ii), some of them of great public import, for instance whether HIV causes AIDS (iii) or whether human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change. On those latter matters as well as some others, the difference of opinion within the scientific community parallels political views: left-leaning (“liberal”) opinion regards it as unquestionably true that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change, whereas right-leaning (“conservative”) opinion denies that those assertions constitute “settled science” or have been proved beyond doubt. Those who harbor these “conservative” views are often labeled “denialists”; it is not to be countenanced that politically liberal individuals should be global warming skeptics (iv).

In other words, it is politically incorrect to doubt that HIV causes AIDS or that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. It requires no more than cursory observation of public discourse to recognize this pervasive phenomenon. Governments and Nobel-Prize committees illustrate that those beliefs are officially acted on as though they were established truths. One cadre of mainstream scientists even wants criminal charges laid (v) against those who question that global warming is caused primarily by human-generated carbon dioxide. So political correctness is present within the scientific community in the USA.

I’m of a sufficient age to be able to testify that half a century ago it would not have occurred to any researchers in a democratic society to urge the government to prosecute for criminal conspiracy other researchers who disagreed with them. Declaring certain scientific research programs as politically incorrect and therefore substantively without merit, and persecuting those who perpetrated such research, characterized totalitarian regimes, not free societies. Stalin’s Soviet Union declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of genetics and imprisoned exponents of it; it also declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of chemical bonding and quantum mechanics. Nazism’s Deutsche Physik banned relativity and other “Jewish” science.


Political correctness holds that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. Those beliefs also characterize left-leaning opinion. Why is political correctness a left-wing phenomenon?

In contemporary usage, political correctness means “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology” (vi) or “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated” (vii), evidently “progressive” or “liberal” or Left-ish views. But those descriptions fail to capture the degree of fanatical dogmatism that can lead practicing scientists to urge that those of differing views be criminally prosecuted; political correctness includes the wish to control what everyone believes.

Thus political correctness has been appropriately called “liberal fascism”, which also reveals why it is a phenomenon of the ultra-extreme Left. Attempted control of beliefs and corresponding behavior is openly proclaimed, unashamedly, by the extreme Right; it is called, and calls itself, fascism, Nazism, and needs no other name. But the Left, the “liberals”, claim to stand for and to support individual freedom of belief and speech; so a name is needed for the phenomenon by which proclamations of liberal ideals are coupled with attempts to enforce adherence to particular beliefs and social norms. Political correctness is the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed liberals functioning as authoritarian fascists.

That hypocrisy pervades political correctness, I was able to observe at first hand during my years in academic administration. People say things they don’t mean, and that they know everyone knows they don’t mean, and no one dares point to the absence of the Emperor’s clothes. For instance, the Pooh-Bahs assert that affirmative action means goals and not quotas, even as hiring practices and incentives demonstrate that they are quotas. For innumerable examples gathered over the years, see the newsletter I edited from 1993 until my retirement at the end of 1999 (viii).


Science had represented for a long time the virtues associated with honest study of reality. Around the 1930s and 1940s, sociologist Robert Merton could describe the norms evidently governing scientific activity as communal sharing of universally valid observations and conclusions obtained by disinterested people deploying organized skepticism. That description does not accommodate researchers urging criminal prosecution of peers who disagree with them about evidence or conclusions. It does not accommodate researchers lobbying publishers to withdraw articles accepted for publication following normal review; and those norms do not describe the now prevalent circumstances in which one viewpoint suppresses others through refusal to allow publication or participation in scientific meetings (ix).

Science, in other words, is not at all what it used to be, and it is not what the popular view of it is, that common view having been based on what scientific activity used to be. It has not yet been widely recognized, how drastically science has changed since about the middle of the 20th century (x). Among the clues indicative of those changes are the spate of books since the 1980s that describe intense self-interested competition in science (xi) and the increasing frequency of fraud, again beginning about in the 1980s, that led to establishment of the federal Office of Research Integrity. That political correctness has surfaced within the scientific community is another illustration of how radically different are the circumstances of scientific activity now compared to a century ago and by contrast to the outdated conventional wisdom about science.

Political correctness began to pervade society as a whole during the same years as science was undergoing drastic change. The roots of political correctness in society at large may be traceable to the rebellious students of the 1960s, but the hegemony of their ideals in the form of political correctness became obvious only in the 1980s, when the term “political correctness” came into common usage:

The origin of the phrase in modern times is generally credited to gallows humor among Communists in the Stalin era (xii):

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”

That political correctness is in contemporary times a Left-ish phenomenon is therefore true to its modern origin.

How seriously political correctness corrupts science should be obvious, since it more than breaks all the traditional norms. Those norms are often summarized as universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, skepticism — taking for granted as well simple honesty and absence of hypocrisy. Nowadays what was taken for granted no longer applies. It is simply dishonest to assert that something has been proven beyond doubt when strong contrary evidence exists that is taken seriously by competent researchers. One cannot, of course, look into the minds of those who assert certainty where there is none (xiii), but among possible explanations, hypocrisy may be the least culpable.

Science cannot be isolated from the rest of society, so the incursion of political correctness into science is understandable. Moreover, what used to be the supposedly isolated ivory tower of academe is nowadays the very epicenter where political correctness breeds and from where it spreads. Whatever the causes may be, however, it is important to recognize how science has changed and that it can be corrupted by the same influences as the rest of society.


i        Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press 1992;

ii       Henry H. Bauer, Dogmatism   in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012.

iii      Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007.

iv      Henry H. Bauer, “A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?”, 2012/11/25;

v       Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, 1 September 2015;
The original pdf posted in 2003 at is no longer there. The Wayback Machine says, “The letter that was inadvertently posted on this web site has been removed. It was decided more than two years ago that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) would be dissolved when the projects then undertaken by IGES would be completed. All research projects by IGES were completed in July 2015, and the IGES web site is in the process of being decommissioned”.
As of March 2017, however, a Google search for “Institute of Global Environment and Society” led to a website with that header, albeit augmented by “COLA”: accessed 4 March 2017. Right-leaning Internet sources offer insight into this seeming mystery: and, both accessed 4 March 2017.

vi (accessed 4 March 2017).

vii (accessed 4 March 2017).


ix      Ref. ii, especially chapter 3.

x       Henry H. Bauer, “Three stages of modern science”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27 (2013) 505-13;

xi      Natalie Angier, Natural Obsessions: The Search for the Oncogene, Houghton Mifflin 1987; David H. Clark, The Quest for SS433, Viking 1985; Sheldon Glashow with Ben Bova, Interactions: A Journey through the Mind of a Particle Physicist and the Matter of the World, Warner 1988; Jeff Goldberg Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery, Bantam 1988; Stephen S. Hall, Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene, Atlantic Monthly Press 1987; Robert M. Hazen, The Breakthrough: The Race for the Superconductor, Summit 1988; David L. Hull, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press 1988; Robert Kanigel, Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty, Macmillan 1986; Charles E. Levinthal,. Messengers of Paradise: Opiates and the Brain, Anchor/Doubleday 1988; Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, Simon and Schuster 1987; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein’s Office: Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study, Addison-Wesley 1987; Bruce Schechter, The Path of No Resistance: The Story of the Revolution in Superconductivity, Touchstone (Simon and Schuster) 1990; Solomon H. Snyder, Brainstorming: The Science and Politics of Opiate Research, Harvard University Press 1989; Gary Taubes, Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, Random House 1986; Robert Teitelman, Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia, and the Rise of Biotechnology, Basic Books 1989; Nicholas Wade, The Nobel Duel: Two Scientists’ 21-Year Race to Win the World’s Most Coveted Research Prize, Doubleday 1981.

xii     Jon Miltimore, “The historical origin of ‘political correctness’”, 5 December 2016,; Angelo M. Codevilla, “The rise of political correctness”, Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2016, pp. 37-43;

xiii    Henry H. Bauer , “Shamans of Scientism: Conjuring certainty where there is none”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 491-504.


Posted in legal considerations, media flaws, politics and science, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human, the scientific method, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

How Science Has Changed — notably since World War II

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/01/01

The way science is usually mentioned, including its history, seems to imply a fundamental continuity in the development of modern science from its origins around the 16th-17th centuries (Galileo, Newton) to the present time, via the understanding of heredity (Mendel, much later DNA), of evolution (Darwin, Lynn Margolis, many others), of atomic structure and chemical bonding, of relativity and quantum mechanics, and much else.

One can certainly discern a continuity in these discoveries and accumulations of facts and the development of ever-better, more encompassing explanations. But the nature of scientific activity — who does science and how they do it — is best understood not as a continuum over this period but as three clearly distinguishable stages in which the interaction of science with society as a whole is significantly different: what the social place of scientists is, how their work is supported, how the fruits of science are disseminated and how they are accepted (or not accepted) outside science itself.

To understand the role of science in today’s worlds it is essential to understand this history.

The birth of “modern” science is credited uncontroversially to “The” Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, but there is not equally general recognition that there have been three distinctly and significantly different stages of scientific activity since then.

In the first stage, a variety of people — clergy, craftsmen, aristocrats, entrepreneurs —were seeking to satisfy their curiosity about how the world works; truth-seeking was effectively in the hands of amateurs, people doing it for the sake of doing it, truth-seeking was their chief controlling interest. Missteps taken at this stage resulted chiefly from the inherent difficulty of making discoveries and from such inherent human flaws as pride and avarice.

The second stage, roughly much of the later 19th century and first half of the 20th, saw science becoming a career, a plausible way to make a living, not unlike other careers in academe or in professions like engineering: respectable and potentially satisfying but not any obvious path to great influence or wealth. Inevitably there were conflicts of interest between furthering a career and following objectively where evidence pointed, but competition and collegiality served well   enough to keep the progress of science little affected by conflicting career interests. The way to get ahead was by doing good science.

In the third and present stage, which began at about the middle of the 20th century, science faces a necessary change in ethos as its centuries-long expansion at an exponential rate has changed to a zero-sum, steady-state situation that has fostered intensely cutthroat competition. At the same time, the record of science’s remarkable previous successes has led industry and government to co-opt and exploit science and scientists. Those interactions offer the possibility for individual practitioners of science to gain considerable public influence and wealth. That possibility tempts to corruption. Outright fraud in research has become noticeably more frequent, and public pronouncements about matters of science are made not for the purpose of enlightenment on truths about the natural world but largely for self-interested bureaucratic and commercial motives. As a result. one cannot nowadays rely safely on the soundness of what authoritative institutions and individuals say about science.

For a full discussion with pertinent citations and references, see my article “Three Stages of Modern Science”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27 (2013) 505-13.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in science, funding research, politics and science, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

Psychological toll of climate-science belief

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/11

Mountainmere  just drew our attention to the devastating psychological impact of belief in human-caused climate change.

Esquire carried (7 July) a story by John Richardson, “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job: Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it” — they are afraid to talk about it because of “the relentless campaign against them” in which the poor folk are labeled “alarmist”. (The heartbreaking Richardson story was picked up in a number of places, for instance “Climate Scientists Are Dealing with Psychological Problems”  as well as the Judith Curry blog that mountainmere had cited, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out”.)
If climate “scientists” want to know what a relentless campaign really looks like, they should examine the treatment meted out to those “denialists” who draw attention to the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

Richardson’s featured climate-scientist victim, Jason Box, is a stereotypical ultra-environmentalist: an American who has worked for Greenpeace, demonstrated at the White House, claimed that sea levels would rise inevitably by 70 feet in the next few centuries, and “escaped America’s culture of climate-change denial” by moving from Ohio to Denmark. A report of methane seeping into Arctic sea-water so terrified Box that he immediately tweeted “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d”, which naturally brought a flurry of headlines.
Box looks at the worst, and among the least likely, of the various scenarios generated by the computer models used by climate “scientists” — models that have been demonstrably wrong for the last 15-18 years or so during which there has been no warming while carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise; models that fail to account for the 1940s-to-1970s period when global temperatures were actually decreasing while carbon-dioxide levels were steadily rising.
Box thinks “most scientists must be burying overt recognition of the awful truths of climate change in a protective layer of denial (not the same kind of denial coming from conservatives, of course). I’m still amazed how few climatologists have taken an advocacy message to the streets, demonstrating for some policy action.”

Richardson’s story is full of errors, notably that “warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted”. No. The models have not predicted the empirical fact that global temperatures have been stable rather than rising since about 2000; some reports even have it as a cooling rather than a slowing or halt in global average temperature:;;;;

Richardson describes the terrible stress that climate scientists are under for bringing their message of lack of hope: “targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies”.
It’s just as well that they can continue to do their depressing work with the help of large grants and that any attempts to have them fired went nowhere; and that the “intrusive discovery demands” were no more than to ask for the raw data on which Michael Mann conjured his alarmist “hockey-stick” graph of unprecedented rate of warming — a graph that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped from its Reports because it was shown to be not a valid reorientation of the data. Professional scientific journals have increasingly being demanding that all data on which articles are based need to be made publicly available; it is not clear to me why climate “science” should be exempt. The only reason to keep data secret is to avoid that others could show that published analyses are flawed.
And those poor climate scientists suffered from having their e-mails hacked, revealing that they were deliberately fudging the evidence. (Google “Climategate” for details about that.)

So, anyway, those poor activist climate “scientists” are suffering gloom, sadness, fear, anger; “Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a practicing psychiatrist and graduate of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth slide-show training, calls this ‘pretraumatic’ stress.” Some are retreating off the grid to await the catastrophe. “No one has experienced that hostility more vividly than Michael Mann”, who barley manages to keep going as a well-paid tenured full professor at Penn State.

I urge you to read Richardson’s full story, especially the later parts that describe all the suffering that climate scientists endure.

For yet more insight, go to Judith Curry’s earlier blog post, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips”  which informs, among other things, about “the relatively new field of psychology of global warming”; followed by Curry’s sensible deconstruction of climate-change hysteria.

The unfortunate pre-traumatically stressed climate-“science” activists suffer quite unnecessarily. I recommend resort to the school of psychology, “rational-emotive therapy”, associated with the name of Albert Ellis; see his A New Guide to Rational Living, or Help yourself to happiness through rational self-counseling by Macie C. Maultsby, an acolyte of Ellis.
The essence of this approach is to list in writing one’s depressing thoughts, and then the emotions they arouse. Merely writing these down tends to reveal how out of all proportion the emotions are. Then, the really important part, annotate those depressing thoughts with the actual evidence.
With climate “scientists”, this should bring immediate relief, since all their depression arises only from computer models, whereas reality demonstrates that global warming is the result of the Earth recovering from the last Ice Age and that carbon dioxide has no appreciable effect, as proven by the periods from the 1940s to the 1970s and again since 2000, when “carbon” was being emitted relentlessly but Earth warmed not at all or even cooled.


Posted in denialism, funding research, global warming, media flaws, peer review, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, scientism, scientists are human, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »

R. I. P., Ivory Tower

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/02/15

There was a time, well within living memory, when academic institutions expected their faculty to teach conscientiously and to do research with the resources provided by the institution. Freedom to follow one’s hunches was aided by tenure.

Then governments started to support research through separate agencies, and faculty could obtain support from them; whereupon academic institutions increasingly came to view their faculty as geese bringing in golden financial eggs from those government agencies. At my first job in the USA, the Research Director at my university tripled the budget I had estimated in a grant application, in order to increase what the university could rake off the top for “overhead”, “indirect costs”, and even reimbursement of part of my salary.

For a decade or so, everyone loved this arrangement, because the funding sources had enough goodies to distribute to satisfy almost everyone asking for them. But then more and more people wanted to feed at that same trough, and things became competitive and then cutthroat. For instance, if you were an engineer at my university 30 years ago and wanted tenure, you needed to bring in about $100,000 annually, and if you wanted to be a full professor your target was $300,000 annually.

I’ve described how The Science Bubble has continued to bloat and become increasingly dysfunctional in EdgeScience #17.

Faculty as milch cows for their institutions was invented in the USA, but the innovation has become viral. Here  is a description of one of the consequences in England.

As I was beginning my career in Australia more than half a century ago, academe seemed and largely was an ivory tower in which one could pursue scholarly and scientific interests sheltered from the hurly-burly rat-race of industry with its single-minded pursuit of commercial profit. So I was surprised in the mid-1950s in the USA when a newly minted chemistry PhD told me that he was planning to enter industry in order to get out of the academic rat-race. How prescient he was.

Posted in conflicts of interest, funding research, scientific culture | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Contemporary science and medicine are losing credibility

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/31

“The Demise of Science? Hundreds of computer generated studies have been published in respected scientific journals” describes more problems than just the publication of fake articles generated by computer programs.

“Independent research, where funding is unrelated to findings, has become a rarity, and the end result is a dramatic deterioration of credible science” is spot on. What used to be the place for independent purely truth-seeking “basic” research, the “ivory tower” of academe, has become a place where budding researchers must find their own research support from outside sources if they are to have a career — see e.g. Science has become another Bubble; Science rewards hucksters and spin artists, not soundly tested science; The business of for-profit “science”;  and links in those articles.

“The Demise of Science?” cites the increase in articles retracted because of falsification and other breaches of proper conduct.

Clinical trials are biased, and prescription drugs are now responsible for more deaths than anything but cancer and heart disease (David Healy, Pharmageddon, University of California Press, 2012; Peter C. Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, Radcliffe, 2013).

A large proportion of published studies in medical matters cannot be reproduced.
Inveterate defenders of the mainstream will seek to discount the facts discussed in “The Demise of Science?” by noting that it is an Internet publication on a website that favors alternative medicine; but the same critique was made years ago by Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine:

It is simply no longer possible to believe
much of the clinical research that is published,
or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians
or authoritative medical guidelines

Drug companies and doctors: a story of corruption
New York Review of Books, 15 January 2009

Posted in fraud in medicine, fraud in science, funding research, science is not truth, scientific culture | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Corrupt “science” publications and meetings

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/20

The “publish-or-perish” syndrome, together with the low cost of “publishing” on-line, has brought an endless spate of new “journals” put out by entrepreneurs ready to cash in; and quality control is not a consideration, even as some of the “publishers” pay lip-service to peer review.

A correspondent  to my HIV/AIDS blog  contributed a link to a story at Retraction Watch  that shows how the urge to make money by “publishing” is not restricted to new entrepreneurs, it is alive and well at corporate giants like Elsevier, whose prime interest in proliferating publications means that they do not even exercise ordinary care in overseeing how they accept articles: they had to retract a number of published articles that had been accepted after faked “peer review” because the article authors were allowed to choose who the “peer reviewers” would be.

Elsevier, of course, also published advertisements for drug companies under the pretense that they were journals (Corruption in medical science: Ghostwriting), and emasculated the innovative Medical Hypotheses after unfounded initiatives by HIV/AIDS vigilantes (see Chapter 3 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine).

A related phenomenon to fake and shoddy “journals” is the proliferation of “conferences” whose only purpose is self-promotion by individuals, institutions, or even perhaps countries, since China is a prominent venue for these occasions; again see Fake, deceptive, predatory Science Journals and Conferences. The invitations to pseudo-conferences are often so incompetently composed that they remind one of the emails from Nigeria that one has won a huge prize at a lottery or inherited a huge amount from a previously unknown relative. Below is a just-received specimen; note that I never responded to earlier invites as well as other signs that this is an unedited from letter; note the poor written expression and syntax; but above all, browse the list of “Keynote Speakers” and “Part” listing of “renowned speakers”; a number of academics are quite happy to enjoy a grant-paid sightseeing vacation in China at an event organized primarily by Big Pharma and an entrepreneurial pseudo-conference-arranging outfit. Don’t neglect the link to the organizational home to note the huckstering of sponsorships, exhibition space, and the registration fees that range from $1300 to $2000; as well as the list of eight other concurrent “conferences” .

Dear Henry H. Bauer,

How are you? I wish everything goes well with you!

This is an email to follow up my previous invitations. I have not heard from you for a couple of weeks since my first letter. Now we have received well responding from worldwide experts in planned sessions, in case you won’t miss it, we’ d like to extend our invitation again. I am writing to confirm whether you would like to attend this grand congress and present a speech. Would you please give me a tentative reply? Thank you very much.

I apologize for the inconvenience if the letter disturbed you more than once. On behalf of the Meeting Organizing Committee, it is my pleasure and privilege to invite you to be the Session speaker in the 7th Annual International Congress of Antibodies (ICA-2015).

The conference with the theme “Innovations from Defending Surface to Penetrating the Membrane” will be held during April 25-28, 2015 in Nanjing, China. If the suggested thematic session is not your current focused core, you may look through the whole sessions and transfer another one that fits your interest. We sincerely wish your participation.

Keynote Speakers:

Dr. Brian E. Harvey, Vice President, Pfizer Inc., USA
Dr. Liangzhi Xie, Founder & CEO, Sino Biological Inc., China
Dr. Andrew Wang, Chairman, Taiwan Antibody Association, Taiwan
Dr. Jonathan Milner, CEO, Abcam, UK
Dr. Chien-Hsing Ken Chang, Vice President, Research and Development, Immunomedics, Inc., USA
Dr. Michael Yu, Presidert, Innovent Biologics, Inc., China

We look forward to seeing you in Nanjing in 2015 for this influential event.

If you need any assistance about the conference, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time!

For more information, please visit:
Sincerely yours,

Organizing Commission of ICA-2015
East Area, F11, Building 1,
Dalian Ascendas IT Park,
1 Hui Xian Yuan,
Dalian Hi-tech Industrial Zone,
LN 116025, China
Tel: 0086-411-84575669-860

PS: Part of Renowned Speakers:
Mr. Homan Chan, Investigator, Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research, USA
Dr. Tao Wu, Principal Scientist, Boehringer Ingelheim, USA
Dr. Liming Liu, Merck Research Laboratories, USA
Dr. Joshua DiNapoli, Senior Scientist, Sanofi Pasteur, USA
Dr. Ostendorp Ralf, Vice President, MorphoSys AG, Germany
Dr. Abdul Wajid, Senior Director, XOMA, USA
Dr. Ernesto Oviedo-Orta, Clinical Sciences Expert, Novartis Vaccines Diagnostics Siena, Italy
Dr. Guohong Wang, VP, Immunalysis Corporation, USA
Dr. Rong-Rong Zhu, Senior Scientist, EMD Millipore, USA
Dr. David P. Humphreys, Senior Group Leader, UCB-New Medicines, UK
Dr. Jian Li, Principal Scientist, Pfizer Inc., USA
Dr. Bing Kuang, Principal Scientist, Pfizer, USA
Dr. William Haseltine, Founder, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Human Genome Sciences, USA
Dr. Martin Lemmerer, Principal Scientist, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Inc., USA
Dr. Jijie Gu, Senior Principal Research Scientist, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA
Dr. Ronald C. Desrosiers, Professor, Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eva Kimby, Professor, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Joseph F. John, Professor and Chief, Medical University of South Carolina, USA
Dr. Dongfeng Tan, Professor, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA
Dr. Paul Fisch, Group leader and Professor, University of Freiburg, Germany
Dr. Koshi Mimori, Professor & Director, Kyushu University Beppu Hospital, Japan
Dr. Peggy Hsieh, Professor, Florida State University, USA
Dr. Rudiger Schade, Professor, Charité-University Medicine of Berlin, Germany
Dr. Tae Young Jang, Professor, Inha University, Korea
Dr. Oddmund Bakke, Professor, University of Oslo, Norway
Dr. Rajat Sethi, Chair, California Health Sciences University, USA
Mr. Tim Bernard, CEO, Pivotal Scientific Limited, UK
Dr. Dan Zhang, Chairman and CEO, Fountain Medical Development Ltd., China
Dr. Kaia Agarwal, President, Regulatory Compass, LLC., USA
Ms. Sandra Frantzen, Shareholder, McAndrews, Held Malloy, Ltd., USA
Dr. Seth D. Ginsberg, President, Global Healthy Living Foundation, USA
Dr. James R Harris, CEO, Healthcare Economics LLC., USA
Dr. Martin Gleeson, CSO, Genalyte Inc., USA
Dr. Mingjiu Chen, President and CEO, biosynergics Inc., China
Dr. Jane Dancer, Chief Operating Officer, F-star, UK
Dr. Xiaodong Yang, President and CEO, Apexigen, USA
Dr. Wenzhi Tian, President and CEO, Huabo Biopharm Co Ltd, China
Dr. Ralph V. Boccia, Director, Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, USA
Dr. Jun Bao, Senior Vice President, Shenogen Pharma Group, China
Dr. Francesc Mitjans, Chief Scientific Officer, Lykera Biomed, Spain
Dr. Fiona Greer, Director, SGS M-Scan, UK
Dr. Albrecht Gröner, Head Pathogen Safety, CSL Behring, Germany
Dr. Chung-Chou Lee, CEO of Medigen Vaccinology Corporation, Taiwan
Dr. Chengbin Wu, President of RD, Shanghai CP Guojian Pharmaceutical, China
Dr. Ni Jian, General Manager, National Engineering Research Center of Antibody Medicine, China
Dr. Ian Q. Li, Chief scientific Officer, ATGCell Inc., Canada
Dr. Terry Dyck, President, CEO, IGY Immune Technologies Life Sciences Inc., Canada
Dr. Vijay E-Bionary, CEO, E-Bionary Technologies, India
Dr. Allan Riting Liu, Vice President & Senior Advisor, Wanbang Biopharmaceutical Group, China


All I can say is, FOR SHAME, to everyone associated with such scams.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, peer review, scientific culture | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Autism and Vaccines: Can there be a final unequivocal answer?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/08/24

The suggestion that early MMR vaccination of babies can result in autism — first made by Andrew Wakefield et al. in 1998 — has been given new life by the revelation that Dr. William Thompson of (or formerly of? or soon to be formerly of?) the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has admitted to collaborating in a scheme to disprove any correlation between MMR vaccination and autism. CNN is also charged with complicity by deleting its article about this, see for example Celia Farber’s “CNN complicity in media blackout of CDC MMR Vaccine whistleblower deepens” and earlier blog-posts. The Liberty Beacon cites a number of published studies that support a vaccine-autism connection: “New published study verifies Andrew Wakefield’s research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine causes Autism)”.

The literature about this, pro and con, is enormous. Typically for such matters, the published material is highly polarized, which means highly biased. On one side, defenders of mainstream medicine over-react against any suggestion that any vaccination could be harmful; on the other side a fairly well-grounded suspicion that the mainstream can be wrong while never admitting it combines with anecdotal accounts from personally affected families as well as those who recognize that Wakefield has been treated unfairly, to say the least.

At some future time, relatively unbiased observers will sift through this enormous literature in an attempt to clarify the “scientific facts” as well as the social aspects of the controversy. In the meantime, there are very sound reasons for remaining on the fence, rejecting the claims made on both extremes. Perhaps the strongest reason is that the general question is unanswerable in the universal absolute form in which it is commonly framed: “Does MMR vaccine cause autism?” That asks whether the vaccine causes autism, presumably quite often if not always. But the Wakefield et al. publication only suggested that it had happened in a few cases.

A better question would be, “Can MMR vaccine cause autism?”

After all, there is no disagreement that many vaccines can harm a few individuals, though the reason may not always be evident — perhaps an allergic reaction, perhaps something unique about an individual’s precise condition at the time of vaccination, perhaps something unusual about an individual’s immune system in general or at times. No matter the reason, the fact is acknowledged, to the extent that public funds are available to compensate the small proportion of such unfortunate outliers from the more common experience of lack of harm [1].

The mainstream defense, that MMR vaccine does not cause autism, is based on statistical analysis. That can legitimately be stated as, “There is no statistically significant evidence”, which does not rule out that some small proportion of babies do react to MMR vaccine in a manner that predisposes to autism.

This point is not specific to the MMR-vaccine controversy, it is very generally applicable to clinical trials, drug approval, and proper medical practice: Medical “science” as incorporated in clinical trials delivers only statistical answers, whereas patient-doctor interactions should be on an individual basis, recognizing that any given individual may react differently than do most people [2]. In a sense, this is the sort of situation described by Alvin Weinberg as “trans-scientific” [3]: A question can be framed as though it could be answered “scientifically” when in reality it cannot, because there is no absolute universal answer, only a probabilistic one.

As Healy [2] points out, anecdotal evidence in medicine should not be dismissed automatically as “unscientific” and therefore to be completely disregarded. When administration of a drug produces an immediate or almost immediate effect, that should not be discounted just because not every person or patient reacts in the same way.

There exists no system that could potentially convert anecdotal evidence into widely useful information, but such a system can be envisaged in this age of information technology. If all data from all patients were archived and made mutually accessible, the rates of rare “side” effects and atypical reactions would become evident over time. For example, one might find that a small proportion of babies given MMR vaccine at early age do in fact seem to become more likely to develop autism.

At the moment, though, such data are not available. Decisions need to be made in absence of conclusive evidence. The issue then becomes, to what degree should informed parental consent be decisive as to the administration of MMR vaccine?

This question brings in not only the scientific uncertainty but also larger sociopolitical and even religious factors. Should Christian-Science parents be allowed to eschew antibiotics or blood transfusions for their children?

Such extreme cases make bad laws and may never have fully satisfying answers or outcomes. But for most intermediate situations, mainstream institutions ought to practice a degree of humility in the face of uncertainty and not overplay the evidence at their disposal. Since it is far from impossible that some babies might suffer autism after early vaccination with MMR, why not allow parents to choose between MMR and separate vaccines? And how strong are the data showing an advantage of earlier as opposed to later vaccination?

Sizable amounts of data have indicated that the mercury-containing vaccine preservative thimerosal has no statistically significant damaging effect. But since organic mercury compounds are known to be harmful, might not a few babies be harmed by even the small amount of thimerosal in these vaccines? It is not irrational, surely, for parents to wish to avoid even a small risk if the potential benefit is also not large.

The issue of informed consent in medical practice is in itself complicated. In most situations, patients are not given the opportunity to be truly informed, in part because physicians themselves may be uninformed or misinformed: cholesterol-lowering statins and blood-pressure-lowering drugs and bone-density-increasing drugs are prescribed promiscuously in absence of genuine evidence that their benefits outweigh the damage from their “side” effects [4].

The claim of whistleblowers and cover-ups should not be dismissed as conspiracy theorizing. As George Bernard Shaw pointed out, all professions are a conspiracy against the lay public. All bureaucracies, which means most institutions, have self-preservation and self-preferment as their highest goal. A massive organization like the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention makes public statements through an administrative hierarchy at whose public end are press and public-relations staff whose mission is to parrot the institution’s official positions, which do not normally include an admission of being wrong about anything.
Does MMR vaccine cause autism?
Perhaps God knows. We humans cannot be sure that it never does, only that most commonly it seems not to — which does not entail, however, that it never does, nor that it has no harmful effect at all on brain function even if autism does not ensue.


[1] National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
[2] David Healy, Pharmageddon, University of California Press, 2012
[3] Alvin M. Weinberg, “Science and trans﷓science”, Minerva, X (1972): 209-22
[4] Järvinen et al., The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention, British Medical Journal 2011: 342d2175;
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2175


Posted in consensus, medical practices, prescription drugs, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Idiotae non carborundum

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/07/01

Common slang advice for coping with nincompoops is the pseudo-Latin phrase, “Illegitimi non carborundum” — “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”. But I grew up in Australia, where a common affectionate greeting to a friend ran, “How are ya, ya old bastard?”.

I have no friendly feelings at all for those who parrot shibboleths about matters of science without knowing anything about the particular subject, so I prefer the less friendly and more accurate “Idiotae non carborundum”: “idiota, idiotae = uneducated person, ignorant person, layman” (New College Latin& English Dictionary).

It does wear me down, though, especially when people with whom I agree over lots of important things hold forth about matters of science about which they know nothing. I don’t so much mind as they prattle on about carbs, proteins, vitamins, “getting your potassium from bananas”, and so forth, because that may harm only themselves and their dependents. But I do care when it’s about HIV/AIDS or global warming, because promulgating untruths about those does tangible damage to hordes of people.

The evidence that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (The Case against HIV), and that human-caused release of carbon dioxide has not appreciably warmed the Earth, is very strong, and has been published by competent scientists for several decades. The most dispassionate and objective possible take on these issues is that the mainstream consensus remains to be translated into beyond-doubt-proven fact because of the competent fact-based objections raised against the mainstream interpretation. Yet most media and most pundits have been seduced into regarding HIV=AIDS and human-caused global warming (AGW, for anthropogenic GW) as “settled science”.

Sadly, people acquire their beliefs on these issues not from any acquaintance with the evidence but according to their political ideologies: left-leaners tend to believe one thing and right-leaners tend to believe the opposite (A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?). That’s a dreadful way to form views on matters of science. One wonders for how long a democracy can function when facts take second place to ideology.

I’m politically and socially left of center (though strongly critical of the politically correct extreme Left), and it saddens me deeply that President Obama is in the thrall of his ideologue Science Advisor John Holdren, that the most accurate view I heard recently on global warming came from a Republican politician (Marco Rubbio), and that my usually favorite sources of insight on television (The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, GPS) treat global warming “skeptics” as willfully ignorant denialists.

The Daily Show of Monday, 2 June 2014, labeled as equally flat-earthish those who campaign against vaccination and those who question a human cause of global warming.
But think for just a moment about what substantive commonality there might be between those two matters.
There is absolutely none.
The only commonality is the non-substantive one that both are contrary to the contemporary official mainstream consensus. Yet the lesson of history is absolutely clear, that no contemporary mainstream scientific consensus can be counted on in the long run; indeed, the greatest scientific advances have come though overturning well established scientific dogmas, even ones that had held sway for decades. If there is one fact that everyone should know, it is that contemporary scientific experts and any contemporary scientific consensus are to be trusted just as much as, but no more than, experts on economic or social or political or religious matters. When all of them agree, then they may be right (but they may still all be wrong, as history proves). But if even a few competent ones disagree with the majority, then it is far from a settled matter. Always remember Michael Crichton on consensus: No one says there’s a consensus that E = mc², “consensus” is invoked only when the matter is not settled.

The actual evidence for the efficacy of vaccination is of an entirely different order than the evidence for human-caused global warming (AGW, for anthropogenic GW). The Daily Show doesn’t understand that because it has not looked at the evidence. Vaccination against smallpox appears to have eliminated that scourge, as evidenced by the tangible fact that people don’t get smallpox nowadays. (That not all vaccinations are of proven value doesn’t gainsay that the concept has strong facts in its support — so strong, indeed, that unwarranted extrapolations of the concept have seduced large swaths of society, as with Gardasil (Deadly vaccines).

On the other hand, there is no good evidence at all that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

The trouble is that the AGW enthusiasts have managed to monopolize official agencies and the media, as illustrated by the pertinent entries at Wikipedia (The Wiles of Wiki). Furthermore, although there’s a vast literature debunking the claims of human-caused global warming, it’s of highly uneven quality. Books come from small or niche publishers (1,2), or they are self-published (3), often with incompetent copyediting (or none at all), perhaps lacking an index and with sourcing only to Internet sites (2). The best-presented as well as substantively sound works are much denigrated ad hominem because the authors or publishers are politically conservative (4-8).

A further difficulty in bringing dissenting views to public attention is that those who dissent from an entrenched mainstream dogma tend to become frustrated and to react in counterproductive ways (9,10). Some of the books mentioned above illustrate this with repetitive rants that detract from their substantive message.

As to the insinuation that funding by conservative viewpoints drives dissent from AGW dogma, it is at least equally true that funding drives the mainstream claim that global warming is significantly human-caused. Huge resources are available from governments and official agencies for research specifically on human-caused global warming because the dogma is promulgated by  “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [which] is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system’s authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth’s atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources”. Together with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “the voice for the environment within the United Nations system”, in 1988 WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which issues periodic reports about how human activities affect the climate.

Yet the case against the mainstream consensus includes some indisputable and easily understood points. For one, the consensus is based on computer models that are inherently, inevitably incapable of reflecting accurately the complex interactions among innumerable variables that determine global climate (2:111ff., 11). Further, the models consider only very recent times, a century or two, and fail to account properly for hotter temperatures only a millennium ago (the Medieval Warm Period) or the even more recent Little Ice Age which made it inevitable that present times would be experiencing warming from entirely natural causes. And none of the models can account for the undisputed fact that there has been no warming for at least the last 15-18 years despite significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide:


In ignorance of these facts, Fareed Zakaria’s GPS (CNN TV) of 29 June 2014 featured the bipartisan pair of esteemed economic experts, Henry Paulson and Richard Rubin, promulgating the Risky Business Report, “The Economic Risks of Climate Change”, which accepts without question the most dire predictions made by the proponents of worst-case AGW: “Risk catastrophic to life on Earth as we know it”, said Rubin.

What the media fail to reveal, culpably and unforgivably, is that even the IPCC’s own Scientific Reports make abundantly clear that the computer modeling is beset with inescapable uncertainties, whereas the IPCC’s “Summaries for Policy Makers”, released to press and public before the Scientific Reports, portray the role of carbon dioxide as established beyond doubt and its consequences as terrifying.

(The same tactic is used by UNAIDS, where Foreword or Preface signed by some eminent person lays out the horrible consequences of the continuing epidemic, while the actual data in the body of the Report contradict those projections [10: 197ff.]. What media and pubic need to know is that “Official reports are not scientific publications” [10: chapter 8].)

Those who insist on the catastrophic progression of human-caused global warming are either self-interested because their careers are vested in that conclusion or they are the idiotae of this blog-post’s title, people who take on faith what the mainstream scientific consensus is and then do not hesitate to parrot it and to malign dissenters who know far more about the issues than they do. Thus a lawyer holds forth about “Overheated: The Human Cost of Climate Change”, and a respected academic press (Oxford) publishes him (12). A compendium about “Junk Science” (13) is rightly critical of many things but is woefully ignorant about the credentials of global warming “skeptics” (and I’m always suspicious when both author and well established publisher feel the need to emphasize the author’s “Ph.D.” on the title page).

There is no lack of examples in hardcover and in softcover and in “news” reports and television punditry and internet blogs and comments that idiotae feel free to hold forth passionately for or against, depending quite predictably on political ideology and displaying no interest in the actual evidence.

Anyone who wants an informed opinion needs to dig into the evidence. Eventually, fairly well documented and fairly evenhanded sources can be found. They are easily recognized by relatively measured tone and by concentration on evidence instead of ad hominem charges. My recommendation currently goes to Warren Meyer’s site Climate Skeptic.
1 A. W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, Stacey International, 2010
2 Tim Ball, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Stairway Press, 2014
3 David Dilley, Natural Climate Pulse Global Warming — Global Cooling — Carbon Dioxide, free download at!climate-pulse-e-book/cav2
4 S. Fred Singer & Frederick Seitz, Hot Talk, Cold Science Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, The Independent Institute, 1999
5 S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008
6 Patrick J. Michaels, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, Cato Institute, 2005
7 Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, Encounter Books, 2010
8 Brian Sussman, Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, WND Books, 2010
9 Henry H. Bauer, Confession of an “AIDS Denialist”: How I became a crank because we’re being lied to about HIV/AIDS, pp. 278-82 in YOU ARE STILL BEING LIED TO: The REMIXED Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths, ed. Russ Kick, The Disinformation Company, 2009
10 Henry H. Bauer, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland, 2012, p. 251
11 Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science, Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009
12 Andrew T. Guzman, Overheated: The Human Cost of Climate Change, Oxford University Press, 2013
13 Dan Agin, Ph.D., How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, 2006



Posted in conflicts of interest, consensus, funding research, global warming, media flaws, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »