A Direct Attack on “the Science”

Separating the Real from the Fake

A four part essay written by :

Baron Newhouse

Submitted to :
wattsupwiththat.com

2021 Essay Contest

Category : General Public

December 8, 2021

I. The Central Dilemma

In the heart of the climate change debate, lies the central question: should we trust the
science? Most will instinctively agree. Why shouldn’t we? So much of what is good in the modern
world is a product of science. The benefits of science are in almost everything we touch and do.
And true enough, science and scientists working on things we use everyday must be correct.
Otherwise, planes would not fly, cars would not start, and our thoughts and ideas would not
cross the globe at the speed of light.
 So, when physicists describe the structure of the atom or the irrational behaviour of
quantum particles, the common person, who has no capacity to even begin to question this,
accepts it as truth, simply because the useful products of this science stand as evidence of it’s
truthfulness. And thus, in the science of everyday things, the promise of profit compels strict
adherence to scientific principles. After all, no one wants to pay for a product which does not
work.

However, this logic breaks in the realm of public policy. When science is used as
justification for public policy, it behaves as most commerce does. It will simply produce whatever
is necessary to meet the demands of the pay master. This is most pronounced when the
difference between true and untrue is but a fraction of a degree and researchers are pressed to
find meaning in the minutiae of data and the intricacies of computer models. In the realm of
public policy, the record of science stands in stark contrast to the science of useful things.

In order to better understand how science can be corrupted, we must first separate the
scientific principle from the scientific establishment. The scientific principle, being an abstract
idea, can not be corrupted. However, individual scientists and even whole scientific
establishments, being composed of human beings, can, and have been exploited by wealthy
interest groups in the pursuit of justification for favorable laws and regulations. This is
unsurprising in consideration of human nature and basic economic principles. When strict
adherence to the scientific principle is rewarded with sales and profit, then naturally the science
will strive to strictly adhere to the principle. Likewise, if fudging the science will be rewarded
with generous grants, then the science will be fudged.

II. Faulty Models

Once you know where to find scientific fraud, understanding the methodologies will give
you a much deeper insight into what to look out for. Two basic species of bad science have been
employed sometimes inadvertently and sometimes intentionally. The first of this is the faulty
model.
 One of the earliest examples of a faulty model was perhaps the Ptolemaic (geocentric)
model of the solar system. While it was clear that the sun, moon and stars appeared to revolve
around a stationary earth, the motion of other other planets was much harder to explain. The
planets wandered the night sky, sometimes stopping and sometimes going into retrograde. To
address this, Ptolemy developed a complex mathematical model to describe this erratic
movement. He proposed deferents and epicycles, spheres of movement within spheres of
movement, drawing a spiraling path around the earth. While it was surprisingly accurate for it’s
day, centuries of error accumulation had become problematic for later astronomers.

1,400 years later, many astronomers like Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei could no
longer reconcile the mathematics with observable data. Proponents of the geocentric solar
system advocated to refine the Ptolemaic model by “adding more epicycles”, more spheres within
spheres within spheres. Today this term is used among scientists to describe a futile layering of
complexity to a system that is essentially wrong. Although the Copernican (heliocentric) model
promoted by Kepler and Galileo was a much simpler, much more accurate model, the official
church policy could not abide by it. Keeping in mind that Giordano Bruno had been burned at the
stake for insisting on the same idea some years before, both Galileo and Kepler had to approach
this issue with caution. Galileo was placed in perpetual house arrest, narrowly escaping
conviction for heresy. Kepler on the other hand avoided directly “proving” his model. He merely
sought to show that it was compatible with direct observations.

In more recent times the british epidemiologist Niel Furgeson, employed a modified
version of his older transmission model in an attempt to simulate the early days of the covid
pandemic. His now infamous report 9, declared that if unmitigated, within four months, 510
thousand and 2.2 million people in the UK and US respectively, would die even without
accounting for the effect of hospitals being swamped. It recommended that the harshest
mitigation measures would be needed to reduce this number by half. This was used to justify all
the familiar lockdowns and mandates. Despite widely missing the mark even two years later, the
mandates are still in effect even if the justification had already been quietly forgotten. Furgeson
was later forced to resign, not on account of bad predictions, but for violation of his own
quarantine.
III. Correlational Studies

The second most common method of misinformation is the correlational study. Set
against an unexplained tide of heart disease, the scientist, Ancel Keys rose to prominence in the
1970’s with his famous seven country study. His thesis, laid squarely on a simple graph that
showed countries with the lowest consumption of saturated fat had the lowest incidence of heart
disease and the US with the highest level of consumption likewise had the highest level of heart
disease. This gave birth to the food pyramid, a brilliantly simple graphical representation of what
was then regarded as sound nutritional advice. The base of the pyramid recommended that
grains and other carbohydrates should take up the greatest portion of your diet. The tiny tip of
the pyramid represented a disproportionate reduction in all saturated fats and oils. The common
American breakfast of bacon and eggs was quickly replaced with sugary cereals and every food
product strived to declare themselves “low fat”.

Yet despite this dietary revolution, heart disease remains to this day, the leading cause of
death, not just in the US but most of the world. In addition to this, obesity and diabetes, once a
rarity, now afflicts a majority of American adults and an alarming proportion of children. Never
before has such an accepted public health policy failed so spectacularly. The result was the exact
opposite of the intention.

Recent developments have uncovered that the seven country study was based not just on
faulty science but willfully corrupt science. There was in fact data from more than just seven
countries. When taken in completeness, the data was inconclusive. Countries like France, had
high consumption of saturated fats but low incidence of heart disease. Apparently, when Ancel
Keys drew his famous upward graph, the countries that fell neatly onto the line were included.
The countries below or above this line were simply deleted.

This illustrates the common danger of correlational studies. When one sets out to prove a
hypothesis with data, there is always a bias to cherry pick ones that will be supportive. It is also
irrefutable that correlation is not causation. Although this normally would disqualify such studies
as actual science, it can not be helped in fields such as nutrition and medicine.

IV. In conclusion

In an age of limitless information and disinformation, in an age of ever limited

bandwidths and attention spans, how does one figure it all out? How does a simple person of
modest intellect, begin to separate the facts from the fictions? For this I have but once advice:

In the science of everyday things, be confident. The planes still do fly, the car engine
starts, and my thoughts have crossed the ocean to be on your screen. Have faith that the nucleus
sits in the center of the atom. However, when science is used to justify public policy, always be
skeptical, especially if these are computer models and correlational studies. Always ask
questions. How do we know that it is true? Is it reasonable? What arguments have been given to
the contrary? Who stands to gain from this proposed policy?

In this attempt to debunk the “climate emergency”, I have purposely avoided enumerating
facts about climate change. Others who have dedicated their life to science can do this more
eloquently and more thoroughly than I can hope to attempt. There are facts enough to debunk
this ten times over yet most people still believe in the “climate emergency” not for want of facts
but for misplaced faith in the scientific establishment. If this deception is driven by simple
messages, likewise our rebuttal must be equally simple.

-- end --