C3

Remember When Experts Told Us Statins For The Heart Were Safe & A Life-Saving Drug?

Trusting the authorities and experts in the modern medical health and research fields has recently proven to be very dangerous to one's  health, and costly to society.

Readers familiar with the ins-and-outs of climate science are well aware that incidents like Climategate proved that government scientists and bureaucrats, especially those with an agenda, could not be trusted to inform the public honestly.

Unfortunately for health patients, they too have blindly trusted for decades. They have trusted the advice of doctors and pharmaceutical experts claiming a "consensus" and the "settled" science that powerful statin medications must be taken to heal cardiovascular disease and prevent heart attacks.

Yet after decades of trust, the public is now learning that stains have a high potential of producing faster aging and undesirable brain effects. From the latest research:

"Statins make regular users become older faster, leaving them open to long-term mental and physical decline, according to disturbing new research...Scientists have found the heart disease drug badly affects our stem cells, the internal medical system which repairs damage to our bodies and protects us from muscle and joint pain as well as memory loss."

And it's not like the doctors and health experts had not been told that statins were proving to be dangerous. The patient anecdotal reports and medical research literature are littered with past reports of a wide variety of negative side effects that this class of pharmaceuticals has been associated with.

Despite all the damning statin evidence coming forth, the expert medical elites, with their anti-science agenda (which essentially amounted to accepting the non-evidence based claims from both pharma experts and many conflicted pharma-funded health organizations that these drugs were safe), kept pushing for the public's statin consumption to increase.

As we have stated before, it's not only the climate science advocates and their research that can't be trusted.

Simply stated: "Trust No One" and especially elites and experts with an agenda.

Remember When Climate Models Predicted U.S. East Coast Warming Oceans?

(click on to enlarge)

The climate doomsday-cult promoters at the Huffington Post and Climate Nexus did their usual thing, trying to convince the American public that Hurricane Joaquin was the result of global warming.

Of course, when the alarmists uttered these claims, they were based on the hurricane computer models that forecast Joaquin's path would strike the East Coast of the U.S. Fortunately for the coastal residents, the climate change doomsters were wrong, spectacularly.

And speaking of spectacularly wrong, the expert climate-change computer models predicted rapidly warming waters that the hurricane's path would traverse.

Instead, as the adjacent chart clearly documents, those ocean waters have cooled since 1940, not warmed as predicted. Another case of 'those stubborn facts'.

In summary, the empirical evidence again confirms that climate simulations and computer models are very suspect regarding their capabilities at both short and long-term predictions/forecasts. Governing elites, bureaucrats and the public should absolutely not base any expensive policy-making decisions on these research tools.

Prior climate model articles and charts.

Remember When Experts Said Antidepressant Drugs Were Safe For Children?

Source: Bing images

Government-funded climate science is not the only research field where "experts" make bogus claims, conduct fraudulent science and report only cherry-picked data.

It's recently been uncovered that young people are potentially 10 times more likely to be violent and/or suicidal if consuming prescribed antidepressant drugs.

Turns out the scientists who developed this class of drugs failed to mention that these medications would produce unwanted outcomes, and the peer-reviewed journals subsequently failed to warn the public regarding the bogus science.

"The new study, published in the journal BMJ, proves the long-suspected dangers of the drug also known as Paxil, Aropax, Extine­ and Paxtine. Study leader Jon Jureidini said it raised wider implications about the need for medical researchers to publish their underlying data — standard practice in genomics and astronomy, but rare in medicine."

John Cook of Univ. of Queensland & Skeptical Science ('SS') Does Identity Theft Of Luboš Motl, A Theoretical Physics Scientist

Australian universities are well on the way towards establishing themselves as the cesspool of falsehoods and fraud regarding global warming and climate change.

And John Cook of University of Queensland has again confirmed that Down Under academia has sketchy regard for ethics and morals. Here is a university that seems to condone fabrications and lies regarding science issues by hiring a person known for being truth-challenged.

Plus, he's a person possessing questionable judgment skills (see here and here why he's dressed as a 'SS' Nazi, shown adjacent).

Cook, who is also the proprietor of the 'Skeptical Science' web site, has now been exposed as literally posing in comments on certain blog postings as the famous theoretical physicist, Luboš Motl. Simply put, this is premeditated identity theft meant to deceive. This reprehensible behavior was done under the auspices of a Western Australia University's "scientific" experiment, prior to his Queensland employment.

On top of that, Cook's fake comments misrepresented Motl's views about climate science - in other words, Cook just made up lies stuff.

Certainly, global warming alarmists long ago jumped-the-Nazi, so to speak, which Cook's most recent bizarro revelations obviously confirm. Then there are the previous Cook episodes that expose the level of global warming alarmist "science" B.S. - see here, here, here and here.

Then there is the University of Western Australia's ethics debacle in approving shoddy science by university employees and Cook's associates. This is the same university of the climate-doomsday cult that then decided to double-down on their support of the cult.

Yikes! What's up with Australia, mates?

Consensus Quackery: 30+ Years Experts Push Bad Science & The Public Pays

Article: The consensus quackery that medical dogma, experts, politicians and mainstream media have promulgated over 3 decades has proven to be a health disaster.

In America and other other industrialized countries, government bureaucrats and health research elites relying on non-validated science have essentially ruined the public's health with growing epidemics: obesity, diabetes and multiple related chronic diseases.

Similar to today's popular "consensus" obsession jihad science against CO2, the anti-fat and anti-cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease was embraced by all the right-thinking experts, special interest groups and politicos.

This was a mandated politically-correct consensus: fat and cholesterol were the enemy and needed to be eliminated - an enemy that turns out was never supported by the actual empirical evidence.

Now after 30+ years of literally wreaking havoc on the health of millions with bad medical science and absurd advice, the experts are finally being forced to admit they were stupendously wrong and skeptics were right.

In the meantime, people's lives have been shortened and healthcare costs have been increased by trillions due to an unbelievable surge of chronic diseases tied directly to government diet nutrition quackery.

But a tipping point has now been reached, with objective scientists and the public finally rejecting the quacks who remain possessed by the irrational fears of saturated fat and cholesterol.

And how much longer will it be before the public finally rejects the bureaucrat-science quacks and political/institutional/celebrity elites who continue to push the failed CO2-based anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, whose real political agenda is not science related whatsoever.

A House-of-Lies? The Exaggerated Claims of Columbia University's NASA/GISS Unit, 'Mattress Girl' & etc.

(click on image to enlarge)

Is Columbia University an ivory tower of mistruths, falsehoods, fakery, lies and pseudo science?

Multiple unflattering examples begs the question.

For example, when one contemplates global warming research bogosity, Columbia University's climate research unit usually percolates to the top of any meaningful discussion and analysis.

The NASA/GISS laboratory located at Columbia has long been "enhancing" global warming trends from the raw empirical evidence - truly an art form in its own right, sans the mattress of course.

The outcome of this "scientific" art has been the reduction of public belief in global warming and climate change "crisis."

Adding a question mark to the university's scientific competence and reputation, the institution has recently been rocked by the infamous gay-marriage study. A study based on non-existent and/or fraudulent data, of which Columbia University's own Donald Green was forced to retract from Science, the esteemed peer-reviewed journal.

A warmup to the current junk science shenanigans took place a few years back. In 2001, there was the well publicized science scandal perpetrated by Columbia researchers claiming that prayer enhanced pregnancy outcomes - supposed "birth miracles" - were proven by the empirical evidence. It was a study published in the prestigious Journal of Reproductive Medicine, receiving wide-spread and prominent media coverage.

The end result of the birth-miracle study? Ultimately, a massive embarrassment for the university regarding its institutional capabilities (lack thereof?) of separating truth from falsehood - a serious shortcoming that appears to still plague the university.

And then there is the alleged rape claim by the student-artist known as the 'Mattress Girl' at Columbia University. These are allegations debunked by outside authorities, thus essentially consigning the rape charges to the ash heap of suspected art-fraud. Yet, at graduation Columbia allowed the tarnishing of the celebratory event for families by permitting this "artist's" fact-challenged allegations to be visually center stage.

Is it a House-of-Lies? Okay, that's likely too harsh of a condemnation, but be forewarned. Any future claims by those associated with Columbia University should now be automatically suspect - obviously, the university has yet to effectively clean its proverbial 'house' of fraud-like behavior, so to speak.

Note: Article that is source of image.

Remember When Experts Predicted That Eating Saturated Fat Would Give You Heart Disease?

The establishment's health/medical/nutrition consensus science rivals the IPCC's anti-CO2 crusade climate science in terms of producing spectacularly wrong theories and the associated fact-less, terrible predictions.

The anti-fat/cholesterol heart disease theory has been a mainstay of medical dogma for decades. In recent years though, it has been torn asunder by actual real empirical science. This non-consensus science is finally coming to the forefront due to establishment-nutrition skeptics, not the goose-stepping health elites and their press release parrots, the mainstream media.

More here, here, here and here.

Why Do 97% of Climate Scientists Agree That CO2 Is Not A Climate 'Control Knob'?

Even the most die hard, green climate scientist who spouts CO2 catastrophe hysteria does not really believe in the unicorn of climate mythology - the mythical CO2 'control knob' - an anti-science myth pushed by the likes of Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Obama and scientist Leo DiCaprio...and there is a very substantial reason why scientists don't believe it...all the empirical evidence easily refutes its existence.....

(click on to enlarge)

Climate scientists who are not of the payroll of 'Big Green' NGOs, nor dependent on government research grants, find it much easier to speak out against the utter nonsense and myths of anti-CO2 activists and the slimy crony-greens.

An example: As climate scientist Judith Curry indicates, there is no basis for a magical 'knob' that would allow today's politicians and bureaucrats to dial-in a desired climate outcome for next month, or the next year, or the next decade, or the next century.

The facts, simply stated: There is no science, no computer model, nor any available mechanism(s) that would allow today's humans to tweak CO2 emissions a certain way in order to produce a future climate of specific attributes by, say, 2050.

It's what is referred to as, "no frakking way."

The inner circle of establishment climate science knows this, yet due to political agenda reasons, they are forced to deliver lip service to the ludicrous 'knob' analogies.

The massive failure of billion$ climate models and the ongoing 17+ year pause in global warming provide the necessary and vivid testimonials to the fallacy of a climate thermostat knob, whether controlling natural and/or human CO2 emissions.

In addition, there is the latest empirical evidence that completely invalidates the 'knob' assertion.

This adjacent plot of 5-year temperature change versus 5-year atmospheric CO2 level change is based on the most recent empirical evidence published by the government's GISS/NASA scientists (and they happen to be some of the largest proponents of chicken little global warming calamities).

This empirical science published by NASA is undeniable, and most alarmist scientists accept, although grudgingly - the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in temperature are, at best, significantly lame weak.

Indeed, the two dataset plots reveal zero relationship with a correlation that produces a r² barely above zero. A non-existent relationship from 1880 to the end of August 2014,

Look at the green and red fitted trends. Obviously, the green CO2 trend exhibits rapid, accelerating and even exponential growth after 1950. And the global temps? The red temperature trend depicts very little growth in temperature change, and currently exhibits a deceleration that climate models and "experts" never predicted.

In fact, one could surmise that the temperature changes reflect a natural cycle of ups/downs (ie. a pattern), which the accelerating CO2 growth has absolutely zero influence on.

Ergo, the 'control knob' proposition has the same likelihood of reality as those space alien abductions one reads about, Big Foot enrolling at Univ. of Washington, Congress balancing the budget, or Earth developing a climate of "boiling" oceans.

Which is why at least 97% of actual climate scientists categorically reject this particular brand of Hollywood anti-science fantasy.

And yes, one can be a member of the 97% who believe humans have a warming influence on climate, and yet, still completely reject the existence of this particular mythical CO2 unicorn.

Additional temperature and climate charts.

Note: Temperature dataset; CO2 datasets. Excel was used to calculate 5-yr changes (ie. differences); and to produce plots and 6th order polynomials. To calculate a 5-yr. temp. change example: subtract the August 2009 temp. anomaly from the August 2104 anomaly. The same subtraction method used to calculate 5-yr. CO2 level (ppm) changes. Starting with January 1885, the 5-yr chg. calculations can be made for each subsequent month (GISS/NASA monthly dataset commences at January 1880).

Climate FactCheck: Exactly How Much Did The Democrats' 'Cash-for-Clunkers' Reduce Global Warming?

Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....

(click on image to enlarge)

The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.

This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.

Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.

First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.

Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.

That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?

The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero. 

Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)

Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).

What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?

Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.

Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?

Previous articles on quackery from politicians: light bulbs and plastic bags.

Climate FactCheck: Plastic Bags & More Quack, Global Warming Anti-Science From Democrats

(click on image to enlarge)

Previously, we analyzed the claim by Democrats that global warming was being caused by American light bulbs.

As shown here, that claim is found to be without any empirical merit - essentially, pure anti-science rhetoric on the part of Democrats.

Next we take a look at the Democrats' claim that plastic bags are a major cause of global warming.

For many Democrats, the banning of plastic bags in their local communities has become a personal  cause célèbre that represents a badge of honor in the fight against global warming.

But does the plastic bag "cause" have any scientific merit or is just more anti-science from quacks?

To the math. In the U.S. some 100 billion plastic bags are used each year. Yikes!

On average, it's been estimated that a plastic bag weighs 32.5 grams (for the record, a typical grocery store plastic bag weighs only 5 grams). And its been estimated that a plastic bag at the average weight represents about 200 grams of CO2 (when accounting for the plastic bag's production and eventual incineration).

As a result, via simple multiplication, those 100 billion plastic bags equal 20 trillion grams of CO2, which converts to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2.

Sooo.....what's the plastic bag impact on global warming from 20 million tonnes/year of CO2 over the next 20 years?

Well, it's squat, too. There is no warming impact, which makes the Democrats' claim more anti-science propaganda of the quackery sort.

Banning plastic bags due to their climate change impact is sheer nonsense, but banning them for other environmental reasons is a whole 'nuther issue.

The global warming impact calculation can be accomplished with the 'C3' simple estimator found here and just enter the CO2 tonnes amount desired. (Note: The image above is only a replica of the real tool.)

For comparison purposes, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a global warming nothing-burger.

Read about the 'C3' simple estimators.

Climate FactCheck: The Quack Anti-Science of Democrats - Dimmer Than A 40-Watt Incandescent Bulb

(click on image to enlarge)

These smiling Democrat senators recently held a "climate change" sleepover at the Capitol that was a rather blatant attempt to please their billionaire-crony donors.

Instead of accomplishing anything meaningful, the low-watt Democrats justifiably received a heavy round of mockery from all sorts of Americans.

The Democrats' climate science has now been in quack mode for an extended period.

An example of the economic harm imposed by this type of anti-science quackery was a legislative victory for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate during 2007 when the "Energy Independence and Security Act" was passed. This 'Act' effectively banned the future purchase of incandescent light bulbs by Americans.

Since the beginning of 2014, those desired, cheap light bulbs have been difficult to find. And it's completely due to the quack anti-science that Democrats believe.

This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.

Thus, they have forced every American to buy more expensive lighting replacements instead of the old, reliably pleasing and inexpensive incandescent technology.

Democrats did this in the name of "science." But as was the case with their recent anti-science climate-pajama party, factual science was pretty much AWOL in the war on light bulbs. 

So, what does the indisputable, factual science tell us about the global warming impact of keeping incandescent light bulbs out of the hands of Americans?

Simply put: It is squat - there is zero impact by doing so.

The science is actually pretty straightforward. First, Americans buy some 2 billion bulbs per year. Per the EPA, if each incandescent bulb purchased were replaced instead with an energy efficient CFL bulb purchase, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.0382 metric tonnes. So, two billion bulbs per year times 0.0382 tonnes totals to a yearly CO2 reduction of 76,400,000 tonnes.

Sounds impressive, no?

Well, in the scheme of things that are climate significant, it's not. As the real science dictates, by the end of the next 20 years the yearly CO2 reduction of 76 million plus tonnes will have zero impact on global temperatures. (And that's to the second decimal place.)

Let's do the math (or you can just use this 'C3' estimator whose replica is displayed below the Democrats' photo-op image): We know from the empirical evidence that since 1850 the Earth has warmed a +0.85 Celsius degree while humans have emitted approximately 1.4 trillion tonnes of CO2. As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01°C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.

How's that figure compare to the tonnes saved over 20 years by replacing 40 billion light bulbs? (BTW, it's highly likely there a lot fewer than 40 billion to be replaced.) All those incandescent light bulb CO2 savings would amount to only one-tenth the required 16+ billion tonnes.

And that then means all the CO2 savings would amount to no measurable global temperature impact. Hmmm...did we say 'squat' yet?

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing-significant outcome for the climate.

That's a climate factcheck.

Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor-cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate-impact substance.

Additional 'C3' estimator/calculation tools.

Hollywood's Global Warming "Science" Fantasies: Are You Dumber Than Jessica Alba?

Let's start with a couple of known-knowns: 1st, Hollywood is in the business of make-believe and fantasies; 2nd, Jessica Alba is definitely a drop-dead, freaking gorgeous Hollywood actress.

Of course, Jessica might be very pleasing to the eye, as many actresses and actors are, but inherited beauty genetics does not mean one will necessarily have a high IQ (or even impressive acting abilities).

U.S. & EU Govts Confirm What Skeptics Have Repeatedly Pointed Out: 'What Global Warming?'

The UN and the IPCC have pursued a political agenda that has relied extensively on fear-mongering about catastrophic global warming and climate change.

Their political agenda requires a non-science approach to emphasize doomsday fears within the political class. A fantasy science of climate unicorns, so to speak.

Unfortunately for the UN, the actual scientific research and empirical evidence does not comport with the unicorn predictions produced by billion dollar climate models.

Skeptics have been pointing this out for years. Now the U.S and EU establishment is finally waking up to the climate science reality.

Did we say crash and burn yet?

Peer Reviewed Studies: The Global Warming Alarmists Are In 'Crash & Burn' Mode

It's been a very bad week so far for the alarmists devoted to the global warming and climate change hysteria.

Their green fundamentalist, anti-CO2 religion looks about ready to explode in their collective faces.

First, the World Federation of Scientists (10,000 strong) announced that there is no crisis or threat to human civilization from climate change.

Second, a new study was released that provides additional proof that since the late 1970s, the Earth has received much more solar energy than previously thought...that solar impact would be multiple times more powerful than the concurrent human CO2 impact.

Third, another new study determines that CO2's impact has been minor compared to the impact of a natural cooling Pacific Ocean, due to a natural oscillation named ENSO - as the prominent climate scientist said: "My mind has been blown by a new paper..."

And fourth, in another new study, scientists confirmed that climate models way overestimated global warming for the last 20 years because.....wait for it.....the models are likely unable to simulate natural climate variation correctly.

Anti-science. Fear-mongering. Alarmism. Crash. Burn. Good.

Those Stubborn Facts: Hurricane Activity Is At Its Lowest - Despite CO2

(click on above for original/source)

As of this date, it has been eight years since a major hurricane struck the U.S.

All the IPCC climate "experts" predicted more hurricanes, not less.

As it turns out, these alarmists were pushing (and still are) a unicorn-type of science, based on fantasy climate change scenarios, which almost all have failed to happen.

Additional severe-weather charts and list.

Your Govt @ Work: Obama's Unicorn Green Efficiency Energy Programs Are 'Useless' Says National Academies

(click on above for original/source)

It's not very comforting when the nation's scientific advisory body identifies government policies as being essentially of the 'unicorn' type.

These are policies based on imaginary ideals without any empirical foundation or sound footing in science reality - thus, highly likely to be a failure.

As the experts found, in the case of Obama's many policies for reducing CO2 emissions, they either don't perform very well or they actually produce greater levels of emissions.

Okay, not a surprise - he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

How Did Obama Ever Get Duped On Global Warming Alarmism By the Likes of Al Gore & Lisa Jackson?

(Click on above for source/original)

Stumped by simple geography does not suggest the brightest bulb ... apparently, he's all booster, no payload - so to speak.

No wonder he believes the globe's temperatures are "accelerating" - he just hasn't quite figured out which direction yet.

Question: A reasonable explanation as to why the unicorn (ie, "global warming") holds sway at the White House?

Unicorn Climate Science: Crackpot Scientists Have Convinced Obama That Oceans Will Boil Because of CO2

NOT going to happen, dude.

Since Obama's election, oceans have been cooling, per NOAA, at a per century rate of -1.2°C.

Obama surrounding himself with crackpot scientists and fringe, extreme advisors has harmed his credibility immensely, and obliterated job growth for Americans.

Despite the obvious failures, Obama still believes in their lunatic fantasies of boiling ocean "climate science." Hmmm...did we mention 'unicorn' yet?

 

Note:  'Mad scientist' image source here. Chart plots and trends produced using Excel. Data sources can be found here. More temperature and climate charts here.

Unicorn Climate Science: CO2 Causes Global Warming & Climate Change, Not

A strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is a necessary condition of the CO2-based AGW hypothesis.

So, what does a strong correlation look like?

Well, for example, the top chart (A) for two economic variables reveals an incredibly strong correlation, a 'cause and effect' that is strikingly obvious since 2007. (see original here)

The bottom chart (B) reveals the correlation between temperatures (GISS/NASA) and CO2 levels during the exact same time period as chart A.

Look carefully - THERE IS NO CORRELATION! And over the last 15 years, the R² equals a miserably low 0.05

Unicorn climate science ignores the empirical evidence, replaced with wishful fantasies that don't exist in the real world.

P.S. Yep, the bottom chart does plot a slight cooling trend for the NASA temperature dataset since January 2007. (NASA/CO2 plot sources here; used Excel to produce the plots, linear trend and correlation)