Culture Intelligent Design Peer review Science

Jonathan Bartlett: Twenty Years on, Aliens Still “Cause Global Warming”

Spread the love

That’s how Michael Crichton skewered skewering politically motivated science. One can reuse the idea, skewering the bad, politically motivated science around COVID-19:

Now, in the midst of the current COVID-19 crisis, another questionable study has been released, again by The Lancet. This study claimed that, not only was hydroxychloroquine not helpful in fighting COVID-19, it was actually dangerous. The World Health Organization (WHO) cancelled its trials of the drug due to this study.

The problem? The data is totally bogus. The now retracted study overstated COVID cases and deaths, sometimes by a factor of 80. Why the rush to publish a study with such bad data? Is it because an unpopular public figure was touting hydroxychloroquine, which made everyone look the other way when data that appeared to refute him didn’t match up?

What is even more disturbing is that influential groups are using such studies to form the basis for censorship—not just of controversialists—but even of world leaders. Facebook, for instance, possibly on the basis of this very study, removed the public statements of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro which claimed that hydroxychloroquine was working. Why? Because it breached their “misinformation guidelines.” That is, the post contained information which was at odds with established science—and the established science in this case is a now-retracted study.

Jonathan Bartlett, “Twenty years on, aliens still cause global warming ” at Mind Matters News

Some people may still think that “science” is whatever gets published in a journal. Not any more, that’s for sure.

6 Replies to “Jonathan Bartlett: Twenty Years on, Aliens Still “Cause Global Warming”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I’ve used the following quote from Michael Crichton’s speech several times before whenever, instead of presenting any empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, Darwinists have instead appealed to ‘consensus science’, i.e. saying something along the lines of “no serious scientist doubts Darwinian evolution’,,,

    Aliens Cause Global Warming – Michael Crichton – Caltech – January 17, 2003
    Excerpt: I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
    scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because
    you’re being had.
    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    https://mindmatters.ai/2020/06/twenty-years-on-aliens-still-cause-global-warming/

    Interestingly, even the claim that Global Warming was accepted by a consensus of scientists was, in and of itself, found to be a politically motivated claim that simply was not true.,

    The myth of the 97% climate change consensus – May 30, 2014
    What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
    Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.
    There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.,,,,
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    This study claimed that, not only was hydroxychloroquine not helpful in fighting COVID-19, it was actually dangerous. The World Health Organization (WHO) cancelled its trials of the drug due to this study.

    Just in case anyone is following, the WHO actually just paused the HCQ arm of the trial whilst they checked to see if it was giving similar results.

    But, having checked, they have now decided that arm can continue:

    On 3 June 2020, WHO’s Director-General announced that on the basis of the available mortality data, the members of the committee have recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol.

    The Executive Group received this recommendation and endorsed the continuation of all arms of the Solidarity Trial, including hydroxychloroquine.

    I think the bottom line here is not to trust single studies, but let evidence accumulate.

    The problem? The data is totally bogus. The now retracted study overstated COVID cases and deaths, sometimes by a factor of 80.

    if anyone actually reads the link, they’ll see that the factor of 80 figure is not from this paper (it’s from another, in a different journal, but from the same company).

    I haven’t seen any definitive statement that the data were bogus, although I agree it seems the simplest explanation for what has happened, and why so little information is being made available. Certainly the retracted paper should be ignored – even if by some chance it is genuine (and the errors can be fixed), I don’t think there is any way we could trust its validity. A dodgy and depressing business all round.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    HCQ, by itself, is only affective if it changes your pH enough to have an effect on your ACE2 receptor’s spatial configuration. However, when coupled with zinc, HCQ is supposed to be an ionophore which allows more zinc into the cell than the cell normally requires. This added zinc is supposed to prevent the virus from replicating.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    It comes down to the editors again. A paid editor of a medical journal should have access to some serious databases, and should know how to use them. Outsiders pretty much have to rely on Google or Wikipedia. With access to those expensive databases (plus a couple of well-connected phone calls), the editor could quickly determine that this Surgisphere company was dubious.

    Big journals charge big prices for subscriptions, and can afford to pay good editors and pay for databases. Now that most data is available for free, selectivity is the ONLY selling point of the journals. They’re not selecting properly, so they’re selling under false pretenses.

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    polistra –

    It comes down to the editors again. A paid editor of a medical journal should have access to some serious databases, and should know how to use them.

    I’m sorry, what sorts of data base are you thinking of? They’ll have access to a reviewer database, but I don’t see how that helps.

  6. 6
    BrunoAr says:

    Most people listen to and are influenced by words and then act. They usually don’t understand the meaning of the words they hear, but then it’s too late.

Leave a Reply