the small issue

yet another exposure of twisting of data to make a propaganda seem real. i see around me, many who have happily lapped up the imposed guilt of global warming climate change and continue to change the way they live, without ever questioning the basis of it all. only the loud noises get heard in today’s world. the soft voice of sanity is easily subdued.

[...] Dr. Gray’s experience revealed that, “Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.”

“I have been forced to the conclusion that, for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound…normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.”

“I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.”

Dr. Gray concluded that the only reform “I could envisage, would be its abolition.”

[...]

Undaunted, Dr. Gray continued, “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible.’ Evidence for both of this claims is fatally flawed.”

High Cost of Climate Lies by Alan Caruba — Capitalism Magazine

Full Text of Dr. Grey’s Letter: in which he talks of even how the term global warming has evolved, since the inconvenient truth is, that this year will see cooling.

And, then after all, there has been no “global warming”, however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of “global warming”. The buzzword is “Climate Change” which is still blamed on the non-existent “warming”

funny, most people dedicated to the cause of climate change are still fighting the war against global warming.

it was interesting that i picked up the independent yesterday. dominic lawson had an interesting comment about the ongoing obesity statistics, which, i feel, is just a race in one outdoing the other. so much, that some folks concerned with obesity are competing with climate change, as regards its impact. before i discuss dominic’s article, here is another report that featured in the independent the day before.

A startling new study by medical researchers in the United States has caused consternation among public health professionals by suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, being overweight might actually be beneficial for health.

[...]

In fact, scanning the whole gamut of diseases that could curtail your life, being over weight is, on balance, a good thing. The bottom line, the scientists say, is that modestly overweight people demonstrate a lower death rate than their peers who are underweight, obese or – most surprisingly – normal weight.

The findings will be hard to dismiss. They are the result of analysis of decades of data by federal researchers at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not a study from a fringe group of scientists or sponsored by a fast-food chain.

Being overweight, the report asserts in its conclusions, “was associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality overall”. [ Via: The Independent: Now doctors say it's good to be fat]

note, that this report is published “in the respected journal of the american medical association” and like the report states, be hard to dismiss as it comes from cdc and doesn’t have a “sponsor”.

coming back to dominic’s article, very well written, and i appreciate it a lot because this is one small voice of sanity that cuts through the ruckus that publishers of decontextualised statistics (read: most newspapers) create. his article starts out, ironically with statistics:

My paternal grandmother lived into her tenth decade, subsisting almost entirely, or so it appeared, on cigarettes and whiskey. Her only form of exercise was shuffling decks of cards – she was to the end a lethally competitive bridge player. My sister, Thomasina, worked for the NHS in rural Wales and her great pleasure was to eat the vegetables she grew in her own garden. She died of cancer at the age of 32. [Via The Independent: Dominic Lawson: Eat, drink and be merry – you can ignore this unhealthy obsession with obesity]

when a single instance like this is cited, it is never take seriously because of the minimum number of data points that statistics, as a subject, needs, to arrive at a conclusion. yet, dominic gives a clue to what’s missing in all the alarming reports that we read as headlines that cover half the front page. the context of it. genetic constitution, culture, adaptation, climate, lifestyle, and many such factors that influence disease and death. this, i find relevant because many indian newspapers, including the hindustan times, which i had come to respect in recent times, publishes these reports without any context whatsoever. what a newspaper like ht fails to realise is that most studies use ‘local samples’. the ‘study’ doesn’t include factors that are relevant to the majority of the readers of the ht. it is almost as if the newspapers are starved for news and they need studies published across the world to fill in the papers.

then there is this play with numbers. this is something, I have suspected happens, for nearly every such statistic that is published.

It is especially significant that the report emanated from the CDC. In early 2004, the then director of the CDC published a report in the self-same Journal of the American Medical Association which claimed that obesity was responsible for 400,000 deaths per year in the US.

[...]

Diet Nation reveals how, following a series of furious letters from doctors questioning the report’s basic methodology, in April 2005 the CDC published a new analysis of the data. It said the net number of obesity-related deaths in the US annually was not “400,000″ but “25,814″. This correction was, of course, much less widely reported than the original dodgy dossier[...]

exaggerated fifteen times over. but we might miss the pertinent point here, if we, like them, crunch numbers. what is more important is, “This correction was, of course, much less widely reported than the original dodgy dossier“. and this is where our beliefs and fear take root. the number 400,000 is obviously a much better headline than 25,814. a newspaper would much rather look for a statistic that has a significantly higher number for the front page that helps sell. i find this funny, because i’d believe it is much more fun to write an interesting headline about the correction than hunt for bigger numbers that allow for sensationalism. perhaps i am mistaken, yet. perhaps there is something bigger at play here:

It is not just that Cabinet ministers have a vested interest in exaggerating the problems they face, thus making a greater claim both for departmental budgets and for their own political profile. In the field of healthcare, there is an almost sinister alliance between apparently disinterested campaigners in the public sector and the big pharmaceutical companies.

and yet, dominic does point to where it matters:

We journalists must take some of the blame for this – it is the uncritical reporting of scare stories as fact which does as much as anything to send healthy people to doctors demanding pills to make them lose weight and thus live longer. A recent search of British newspaper archives showed that some titles had a hundred times as many stories about “childhood obesity” in 2004 as they did 10 years earlier. Yet, over the same period, the average weight gain among British girls aged 15 was 0.4kg and among boys of the same age it was 1.9kg.

the conspiracy alliance may do what it may, the truth, however uninteresting needs to be revealed. because science will almost become a rhetorical tool rather than the study of natural philosophy, if it goes unchecked.

and while this isn’t related to obesity, according to michael siegel (hat tip: simon clark> why? because they can get away with it):

[...]while some misrepresentation of the science may have been occurring for some time, there has, without a doubt, been a dramatic increase in the amount of this misrepresentation.” [Michael Siegel: IN MY VIEW: Why Has The Tobacco Control Movement Lost Its Scientific Integrity?]

this is what will become of science and statistics if “they” have their way.

this is today’s small issue, tomorrow’s big issue.