|
|
|
January 04, 2010
Are You Now Or Have You Ever Fudged The Data?
Climate researchers at Penn State are in for a nasty shock this morning. As I said yesterday, one of our jobs this year is to wipe the complacent smiles off the smug faces of the lobbyists, "experts", "scientists", politicians and activists pushing AGW.You can read the e-mail at the link. Michael Mann has only been at Penn State for three years so most of his fiddles were done before he arrived. It may be that Penn State has no jurisdiction over the worst of Mann's "adjustments". It may also be a stretch to prove fraud when most of what the "Team" did was to prevent publication of adverse papers. Take this example of the "Team" attempting to keep criticism of Siberian data out of the record: ...Russia is back in the spotlight. Research released through Moscow's Institute of Economic Analysis suggests the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK was selective and forgetful with data from Russian weather stations, and exaggerated the scale of global warming in Russia.The only way to get to the bottom of all this is to do a full Audit of the data starting with the raw station data. Then a verification of the models. What is amazing is that no official verification of the models was ever done. That would never be allowed for a medical device or equipment that goes on aircraft (even the entertainment systems that are part of an aircraft have to be verified). So why hasn't the software and data that may determine the spending of trillions of dollars a year world wide been verified? From algorithms to results. I suspect it is a case of Lysenko Science. Politicians are paying for results they want to hear. It wouldn't be the first time. In illegal drug science Dr. Heath at Tulane used to half asphyxiate monkeys with marijuana smoke and then claim the marijuana killed brain cells. And the truth? Marijuana like most anti-depressants probably grows brain cells. Fortunately we are no longer torturing monkeys in the name of anti-drug "science". Now if we could just get the politicians to stop paying for the torturing of climate data with adjustments, deletions, suppression of criticism, and ginned up models we might actually learn something useful about what is actually going on planet wise. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.04.10 at 08:23 AM
Comments
Happy, What ever the case - the study that was used to "prove" marijuana kills brain cells was faulty. M. Simon · January 9, 2010 05:13 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• It isn't every day that I don't have to hold my nose...
• US government gives bin Laden a Commie hairdo • The conspiracy theory conspiracy theory (a call for censorship that wasn't there) • Are we living on an angry red planet that wants to be green? • A Scientific Hypothesis Gone Bad • Diddlin With The Data • December Retail Sales Not So Hot • NASA Caught Cooking The Books • "Sustainability." A rich lecture directed at the poor. • Giving the devil his due
Links
Site Credits
|
|
That Newscientist article was interesting, but does not remotely support your statement.
The substance that was shown to cause brain cell development was a synthetically derived compound not naturally present in marijuana.
Meanwhile, from the article
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question of how they behave in humans.
While there is a fine line between 'probably grows' (your characterization) and 'might grow' (from the questionable title of the news report)there is a gaping chasm between those suppositions and the 'no neurogenesis' conclusion drawn from the data on the substance naturally present in marijuana.
Just because something is similar, or chemically related, to any given compound often says little about what it actually does within the body. Consider that apomorphine is derived directly from morphine, yet exhibits no analgesic potential.