No room for science that is not "on message"

It has been a while since I have posted, as has been pointed out to me.

The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.

I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.

It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.

There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.

Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.

The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:

"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"

Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.

His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)

Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.

The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.

David is the one Hills seems to like.

Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.

That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.

As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.

But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.

Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.

The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.

The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.

It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things

This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.

Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”

Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.

The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.

UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.

Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.

Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.

Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.

The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.

No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.

Eating chocolate for science

It’s a dirty job – but somebody’s got to do it and it is for science.

A team at the University of East Anglia are searching for 150 women to each chocolate for a whole year! The team are trying to establish if compounds present in chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease. The women will have to eat specially formulated Belgian chocolate.

Report claims home birthers at greater risk if transferred to hospital

Sometimes one wonders at what otherwise presumably professional people do with statistics.

Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.

They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.

The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.

The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.

As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.

Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.

A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.

One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.

Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.

Healthy living promotes a longer life

Research done by the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council in Norfolk between 1993 and 2006 involving 20,000 people has revealed the startling information that:

Taking exercise, drinking in moderation, eating enough fruit and vegetables and not smoking can add up to 14 years to your life.

This held true regardless of how overweight, or poor people were.

To paraphrase John Cleese - Can we get them on Mastermind? Next contestant, University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council, specialist subject: The bleedin' obvious.

How much did this study cost?

My mother was telling me exactly that in the seventies (except for the exact figure of 14 years) I very much doubt she was the only one - maybe they should have paid her and had the benefit of the information 30 years earlier?

Come to think of it, if they had asked, she would have happily advised them for free, better to have asked me - after she had told me...

Are memory researchers making monkeys of themselves?

It seems Japanese memory researchers have tested young chimpanzees against University students and found that the chimps perform better in certain memory tests than the students.

Now I am not normally a betting man, but in this case I would be prepared to bet that they didn’t even think about testing the chimps against non, or pre-literate people.

I recall reading a study, or article, some years back - but I can’t remember ;-) where now - that showed non and pre-literate people performed significantly better in certain similar memory tests. It was concluded that this was because literate people, being able to and used to writing down what they wanted to ‘remember’ didn’t need to practice and develop their memory in that way. Conversely in certain other sorts of memory test literate people performed better.

I do seem to recall studies on the detrimental impact of cannabis on memory as well...

Dr Tetsuro Matsuzawa innocently said: ”No one can imagine that chimpanzees - young chimpanzees at the age of five - have a better performance in a memory task than humans.” Well, based on the above, one might well do so.

It could be the good Dr would have done better selecting his test subjects from amongst illiterate hunter gatherers.

God knows what the availability of the internet will do to us…

Selective inactivation of micro-organisms - Zapping Bugs

This could have far reaching consequences.

Specifically ‘Selective inactivation of micro-organisms with near-infrared femtosecond laser pulses’ - That means zapping targeted bugs with lasers to the rest of us.

The process is being proved by a team of 4 (K T Tsen, Shaw-Wei D Tsen, Otto F Sankey and Juliann G Kiang) in the US, based in Arizona.

Just the sort of thing they promised us in the late 50s and early 60s - and it seems that someone may be finally set to deliver on it.

Seriously, if they can bring it off practically, this could have very far reaching consequences indeed. They may be well on the way of developing an effective way of using lasers to selectively kill bacteria and Virus organisms without harming the cells that we are made of. Because of the wavelengths used the lasers will be able to penetrate body tissue.

A way of sterilising an object a room or a whole body, inside and out, that could stop and cure any germ, or viral, infection, including aids, or a flue pandemic.

Lets hope the bugs have no way to adapt to it.


Now - Where is the flying car for every family…