Google analytics

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

He's glowing.

As I type this by the green glow emanating from my radioactive son I wonder what the future will hold?

When I was younger, it was an indisputable fact that lung cancer was caused by the nicotine in tobacco products. Later this morphed into tar being the cause. Now it is other chemicals that are the killer.

I'm now seeing the same type of science being practised in the climate change debate.

Have we lost real science discipline in a search for a quick fix?

After all stomach ulcers for years were deemed to be caused by stress and dissenters vilfied. This illness was subsequently found to be caused by a bacterium.

Can science by concensus work, or is it killing millions?


  1. Science has never worked by consensus. The shared opinion of all the leading researchers in a field counts for naught against a contrary experimental result.

    The process of deciding what is right & wrong by consensus is called "politics".

  2. Science by consensus is fatally flawed because it only listens to scientists who agree with their consensus ( see climategate 1 &2) etc. Funding and reputation are only safe if you agree with the consensus.
    Archaeologists who proved that the highland glens were caused by the upheaval of the ice age were shunned. Climatologists who showed that CO2 wasn't the cause of climate change ( the climate is always changing) were labelled 'deniers' and made persona non grata.
    Ancient observers of the Universe who realised that the earth wasn't flat were killed and called heretics or flat earth deniers.
    People who highlight the dangers of chemtrails are labelled bonkers.
    It will always be so as long as we believe in 'consensus.
    I wish your son well and a speedy recovery.

  3. The trouble with science is that if you have an agenda you can make the figures and statistics say anything you want, for example;

    Beagles forced to smoke for extremeley long periods totally unlike the way people smoke, funniley enough the WHO and the Surgeon general in the USA do not recognise passive smoking.

    Remember when they said Saccahrin caused cancer? I remember seeing an article in my mothers lancet that they had been giving rats 600 a day to get the results they wanted.

    Let us not mention the removal of the medieval warm period to enhance the warmists argument.

    I will end by hoping that your son has a speedy recovery.

  4. Surely the lad's future lies here, continuing your good work. I wish your son a complete recovery, whether or not by science.

  5. Fluoride in water,
    All food additives,
    Additives in vaccines,
    Organophosphates in fertilisers,
    Sugar alternatives, specifically aspartame and cyclamate.
    Anything remotely connected with Donald Rumsfeld...
    To name but a few...

  6. btw...
    All of my very best wishes for a speedy recovery. Having previously a recipient of chemotherapy for N-H.L I know something of what he and all of his family are going through.

  7. Have we lost real science discipline in a search for a quick fix?

    Course we have.

    There was always a problem with real science in that somebody always wants to hi-jack it for their own purposes. I don't suppose that will change.

    Depressingly, the only partial remedy I can suggest is to keep on pointing out the Mandy Rice-Davies law; that people may have a personal interest in a particular viewpoint because they've staked their professional reputation on it.

    You can't expect anything sensible from UEA simply because it was always the Trojan for an uber-controling philosophy which wants to go back to the total domination of the civilian population as it did with rationing in WWII.


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.