Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Prologue: This is the fifth, and last, in a series of essays discussing ongoing scientific controversies—each one a so-called “science war”. This essay attempts to illuminate the similarities that exist between the four previous topics and, of course, the Climate Wars.
Warning: This is not a short essay. Dig in when you have time to read a longer piece.
So far in this series, I have written about The Salt Wars, The Great Barrier Reef Wars, The War on Sugar and most recently The Obesity Epidemic [aka The Obesity Wars]. At the end of each of these essays, I have encouraged readers not to get ahead of themselves by drawing parallels to the Climate Wars, promising that I will get to it in the end–this essay is that end. What follows is my analysis of the core elements of Modern Scientific Controversies.
All Modern Scientific Controversies (MSCs hereafter) begin with one required element without which there would be no MSC. That element is an ADVOCACY CAUSE (the Cause hereafter). We have seen these Causes in each of the MSCs discussed in this series: in the Salt Wars, the Cause is to “reduce the dietary salt intake of the general public to save lives”; in the Great Barrier Reef Wars the Cause is to “save the reef from destruction by human activity”.
In each case, the Cause is a position made up of three planks – like a political platform. These three planks, in each and every controversy, are: the Problem, the Truth, and the Solution.
MSCs usually, but not always, start off with a widely recognized Problem that needs resolution. In the Salt Wars, the perceived Problem is too many people are suffering from High Blood Pressure which increases public health care costs results in the premature deaths of too many citizens. It is something real, is actually happening (at least epidemiologically). In the Climate Wars, the average surface air temperature (as far as can be determined) seems to have risen by 1°C or so since the mid-19th century (which coincides with the beginning of the modern industrial era) and while, to some, this is good news, it is perceived by some to be a grave problem. In the Obesity Wars, rising numbers of the obese are considered to be driving up health care costs and harming the health of many.
We see that the Problem must be something real that can be convincing said to be actually happening and that can be communicated to be a situation that requires a solution or …. something bad continues or takes place in the future.
MSCs don’t always start with a problem to be solved…they can start with a preferred action—the Solution—and through back-formation, arrive at the problem that the solution could be said to solve.
The next two elements—planks—of a Cause are the Truth and the Solution.
Let’s start with the Truth. For the advocacy cause to gain any respectability—any veracity—the Truth element must be irrefutable. Let’s look again at the Salt Wars: the Truth of the Salt Wars is that dietary salt increases blood pressure. This is a fact—every time you feed a human a reasonable dose of salt, be it in his soup or on his mashed potatoes, the person’s blood pressure will go up for a period of time. In the Obesity Wars there are two Truths in play: “calories in > calories burned = weight gain” and obesity is a risk factor for many adverse health conditions. Both are facts, irrefutable. In the Climate Wars, increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth system to retain energy that would otherwise be re-radiated into space [h/t Physics].
In each MSC, the Advocacy Cause a Solution is then presented as an application of the Truth that brings about the necessary resolution of the Problem. We are all aware of these proposed solutions: Force everyone to lose weight to solve or prevent obesity, save lives, and reduce public health care costs; greatly reduce the amount of salt in the public diet through education, propaganda and government regulation of food manufacturing and prevent heart disease; stop all human activity that could adversely affect reefs and spend more money on reef research; reduce consumption of added sugars through a public campaign of sugar shaming, regulations and punitive taxation. [Post publishing addition (h/t to reader gregjxn): Notice that in almost all cases, the Advocacy Cause Solution contains an element of coercion or enforcement in which the general public or some portion is required to comply or participate in the Cause’s Solution–by direct government intervention, regulations and laws, public propaganda campaigns, required changes to public school curriculum, etc. 1816 hrs Eastern Time 2 Jan 16 17]
MSCs can feed on one another, the Great Barrier Reef Wars feed on the Climate Wars, the War on Sugar feeds on the Obesity Wars. They become mutually reinforcing.
I know, I know…..I hear some readers saying “But…But…But….”. You are right.
The other Key Factor in MSCs is that the Advocacy Cause—the three plank platform—ALWAYS has one or more serious FLAWs. Without the Flaw, there could be no controversy, the Advocacy Cause would simply, slowly or quickly, become the accepted reality of its science field and segue into public policy—there would be no opposition. The Flaw can be scientific—applying any of the three planks: Truth, Problem, or Solution. There may be something about the science of it that makes it invalid, inapplicable, unlikely, untenable, impossible, foolish or nonsensical. The Flaw can be social—the public may not believe the Problem, the Solution may be unacceptable socially, the Truth may offend moral sensibilities. The Flaw can be political: any of the three planks can simply be impossible politically in the area of concern.
Let’s look at some of these Flaws.
In the Salt Wars the flaw exists in the Truth (and thus infects the Solution). Dietary salt does increase blood pressure, but for the vast majority of the population the increase is very small and not clinically important. [see Minimal Clinically Important Difference — Defining What Really Matters to Patients by Anna E. McGlothlin, PhD and Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhD] It is only for those genetically-determined to be salt sensitive that salt reduction becomes part of the solution for high blood pressure. The Advocacy Solution of “reducing the dietary salt intake of all citizens” is thus flawed and rightly deemed by its medical opponents as being an ill-advised experiment that uses the entire population as a cohort (experimental subjects) without their informed consent; an experiment that may well have negative effects for most of the subjects.
In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Wars, there is a Flaw in both the Problem and Solution. It is true that human activity can harm reefs, especially near-shore reefs and reefs subject to intense sustenance over-fishing and that high surface sea water temperature can and does cause coral bleaching. In general, the problems are local in scope and thus solutions must be specifically local—for this island, we must stop sustenance over-fishing, stop the use of improper, destructive fishing techniques, dispose of wastewater from the city further out to sea. For the GBR, Australia has long-enforced very stringent restrictions on activities that could harm near-shore reefs and the results have been and continue to be very positive – the drum-beat of continued demand to further restrict human activities, which restrictions are unlikely to have much, if any, additional benefit, is seriously flawed. The advocacy position in the GBR Wars that is in support of the Climate Wars is an additional Flaw, bleaching occurs when El Niño comes into play, and Super El Niños bleach even more – cutting CO2 omissions will have little to no effect on sea surface temperatures and affect only very-near-surface reefs.
In a MSC not previously covered, the Flaw is social. Unless you are a pediatrician, involved in the fight against STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) or a school administrator, you may not have heard of the controversy surrounding Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The vaccine is recommended by the CDC for all 11-12 year olds. It has become simply another of the large range of normally administered childhood immunizations. The MSC though stems from—you guessed it—an Advocacy Cause. In this case, the Cause is to require that all girls entering junior high school to be vaccinated for HPV to be allowed to attend school. This movement, entirely unnecessary, poisoned the HPV vaccine effort – many citizens did not want to think that their precious little girls needed to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease at age 11 or 12, if ever. The Flaw is that the Solution proposed in the Advocacy Cause was socially unacceptable. Very few parents, however, had any objection to their pediatrician’s suggestion that children be vaccinated against HPV as part of the normal course of childhood vaccinations. It was only the Advocacy Cause to enforce vaccination through the public schools that generated opposition. In this MSC, as in others, there are also other contributing Flaws: the current vaccines only prevent some of the many types of HPV infections, the current vaccine can cause anaphylactic shock in some patients receiving it, etc.
In most of the MSCs, the Flaws are the very aspects of the Advocacy Cause intentionally introduced by the Advocates to inflate and exaggerate the seriousness of the Problem, to pump-up the effectiveness of their proposed Solution and/or to increase the applicability, scope, or significance of their Truth.
Dan Kahan, of the Cultural Cognition Project, has his own (his project’s) idea of what causes these MSCs, which his group labels the Science Communication Problem. I do not agree with their blindered social science conclusions but in one or two cases, Kahan has correctly identified the source of the problem: Advocacy gone wrong. It is a shame that Kahan and his associates are unable to take a few steps back to achieve perspective, instead, they assert the position that seems to be that any-and-all consensus statements from authoritative sources must be True, Pure, and Unbiased and therefore any opposition to their dictates must be irrational and caused by “cultural cognition”. John P.A. Ioannidis, taking a much more pragmatic view, states simply: “Claimed research findings [and their consensuses – kh] may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias”.
Many of our MSCs rely on “white hat bias” to gain support for their Advocacy Cause. Who could be against “fighting cancer” or “saving whales” or “preserving the world’s coral reefs”? The Advocates respond to criticism by repeating (endlessly and with infinite variation) their Truths and defy opponents to “deny the science” and invariably accuse opponents of “supporting (or being supported by) Big Tobacco or Big Oil”. Advocacy Solutions are forever exaggerated in effect: “will save millions of lives” and “bring about a brighter tomorrow”. Opponents, who have the audacity to point out the Flaws are vilified as “anti-science” or “against progress” and scientific findings by opponents are denigrated, regardless of their validity.
For Advocates “The Cause” often becomes all-consuming and leads them into behaviors that have been distasteful, harmful, duplicitous and illegal. I leave it to readers here to inform each other of examples.
The Bottom Line:
All Modern Scientific Controversies are brought into being by Advocates, who build an Advocacy Cause on a three plank platform of a Truth, a Problem, and a Solution.
- In each MSC the Advocacy Cause contains major, invalidating Flaws in one or more of these planks.
- Advocates, usually on the basis of white hat bias, use exaggeration to increase the seriousness of the Problem, the applicability of the Truth, and the benefits of their Solution.
- The more heated a MSC becomes, the worse the behavior of the participants – personal attacks, denigration of valid scientific findings, guilt by association, assassination of professional reputations, backstabbing, and name-calling are all par for the course — usually confined to the Advocates but also infecting opponents in some cases, when they find themselves frustrated, abused, vilified and fighting for their reputations.
- The general public is left confused and polarized with their trust in Science and Scientists betrayed and left diminished by the public display of uncivil and unscientific behavior on the part of the scientists involved.
- And in the Climate Wars all of the above in spades.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I enjoy reading your comments – I read them all, every one, as long as WUWT leaves comments open. I do try to reply to comments specifically addressed to me, leading with “Kip….”. I strive to keep my replies pertinent to the topic of the essay and hope you do will do the same.
Regular readers will know that I have little interest in what are called The Climate Wars, particularly as “fought” in the comment sections of the various climate blogs. I generally do not respond to salvos from either side of the climate divide. There are plenty of opportunities for Climate Warriors to battle elsewhere – please take that kind of activity to those other blogs.
I’d love to see your analyses of Modern Scientific Controversies – you may see many things that I have failed to see.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Hansen: you might want to fix the first sentence in Paragraph 11:
Something doesn’t parse there.
Paul ==> I really like people who can edit — who care enough about the words and how they are used.
You are absolutely right — the sentence “In each MSC, the Advocacy Cause a Solution is then presented ” contains an unnecessary (and incorrect) article “a”. I have edited the text in the main essay to “line out” the extra word.
Great Barrier Reef has experienced several extreme weather events in the past few years. The Queensland floods of 2010-11 and this past year surely produced an effect on the GBR. Coral animals are filter feeders and the fine clay turbidity in the runoff certainly must have had deadly effect. The bleaching is another word for death.
I find it difficult to think that coral have not adapted to temperature change over deep time. In my experience as a carbonate stratigrapher, the most common factor deadly to a reef is clay sized particles. That the floods coincided with el Nino is interesting but may not be the direct factor. I believe poor coastal management is the main cause of stress and bleaching world-wide.
Francis Manns ==> The stresses to coral reefs are fairly well understood — runoff from shore as a result of heavy rains and onshore development (including sewage discharge) has damaged nearshore reefs in all areas where human development is dense. Reefs near human habitation are most affected by runoff and local fishing – usually sustenance fishing (and some locally important commercial fishing) — this fishing often uses techniques that are destructive of the coral or focuses on species are that necessary for reef maintenance (parrot fish, etc). i wrote about some of this here.
The 2010 floods were, as I recall, during a La Nina phase, and the recent bleaching seems to be related to the recent El Nino, when the related sudden rise in both temperature and sea level result in bleaching, especially in the shallow reefs – so multiple causality. There are, of course, ‘healthy’* reefs in much warmer waters – it’s the rate of change that’s the problem.
*We should be wary of words like ‘healthy’: nature is in a constant flux, and we should not privilege any particular state.
I’m convinced that two of the human race’s major problems are:
1) Unwillingness to accept the results of experiments even after any possible confounding factors have been removed.
2) Attempting to solve a problem before carefully deciding exactly WHICH problem you have.
Which explains why the attempted solutions don’t work and the bafflement that that could possibly be happening.
Mike Borgelt ==> Very few people, even fellow researchers in the same field, have what it takes to determine if an experimental result has had “any possible confounding factors have been removed.” (I assume you mean any and all…). Very few experiments today are designed properly enough to achieve even approaching that level of certainty. The claims to remove confounding factors through the use of statistics alone is spurious and doubtful as an endeavor.
I write about this here: Is much of current climate research useless? where I discuss the work of John P. A. Ioannidis.
I have to agree that failure to let a new field mature enough to allow it to properly identify “What The Problem Is” is a huge failure of modern science.
“…carefully deciding exactly WHICH problem you have.”
A good example of this is the Canberra traffic problem. The normal speed limit for Canberra has always been 60KPH, just like the rest of Australia. But about 6 years ago, the government decided to drop the speed to 50KPH. This was going to save 20 lives every year. Needless to say, this didn’t actually save any lives. So now the government has reduced the speed limit in all shopping centres to 40KPH.
They didn’t bother to tell us how many lives it would save, just that it was for public safety. So, if we saved 20 lives the first time, perhaps the government can show us the names of the people that were save. No there aren’t any, it’s just playing with statistics.
It looks to me, that the problem being solved isn’t the safety, or lives. The problem is that there are cars moving at speed and cyclists don’t like it. The current minister is “an avid cyclist”, which is code for hates cars. So many of the solutions applied to Canberra’s roads can be pointed to as measures to hurt car drivers. For instance the speed reductions, closing off left turn lanes and new corners designed to put incoming traffic at a very bad angle, which I call widow-makers.
Canberra is a great argument against devolved government.
All the MSC’s I’ve heard of started with an Advocate who either purposely used flawed science, flawed the science themselves, or “authorities” who never took the time to do serious confirming research. Salt- it took years for epidemiology to show there wasn’t much effect on a population basis before investigators began looking at it more closely and discovered genetically susceptible individuals. The same history followed peptic ulcers. The ‘normal’ treatments didn’t improve recoveries before the bacterial link was discovered.
Obesity again similar. While calories eaten > calories burned it took a looong time for researchers to start seriously looking into obesity. Again, the epidemiology showed that only a relatively few people showed long term results. They’ve now started to pinpoint possible real causes such as genetics, adenoviruses, upbringing, and culture.
For me there is no argument about HPV, although it should be chosen voluntarily. Like most vaccines the incidence of dangerous reactions is very small(9 out of 29,000) were associated with test subjects dying.
Global Warming unfortunately has big problems with all four- Advocacy, Science, Truth, and Solutions.
For me the government enforcement, through compliance is a huge issue. It is the arm of government least accountable and fastest growing.
Take the EPA in the US as a goes example.
How much of a tax burden does this place on the people & they will not do themselves out of a job, so they find another problem that requires more people,grow the team (which manager does not want a bigger team – shows their important 🙂 ) . On and on forever.
Or Health / Education, where there are more people in administration that front line delivering services.
Re: “White Hat Bias” – I was permanently cured of a deferential bias towards experts when I sat through the Coronial Inquest (& later the civil litigation) into the landslide in Thredbo village in Australia in which 18 people lost their lives. Because of the implications for damages, the principal parties employed the most senior geotechnical experts – all internationally renown – to argue for scenarios that shifted blame away from their clients. It was so very instructive. Each case was persuasively argued from opposite positions, employing the most sophisticated argument and copious evidence. Hired guns every one of the. Interestingly, though, it was quite apparent that most (if not all) appeared to have become genuinely convinced of the absolute truth of their positions. I doubt if I will ever completely trust an “expert” again. It drives my family and friends mad.
Amazingly, as an historian, I have always understood the nature of partisan historical interpretation, yet somehow did not apply it to the scientific endeavour.
Vicki,
The US Supreme Court rulings on what constitute ‘expert evidence’ (especially Daubert v Merrill Dow) go some way to imposing some discipline – especially through an essentially Popperian view of science. God only knows how they handle ‘post-normal science’! Any legal experts out there with some recent knowledge?
KIp. As usual I broadly agree.
One nit: Early in the essay, there’s a date and time 1816 hrs Eastern Time 2 Jan 16]. It’s not obvious what it refers to, but if it’s today, shouldn’t the year be 2017?
And one very minor point. There may be cases where the “freedoms” of the many really might need to be restricted to protect a few. The example that popped into my mind is a nearby public school where at least one of the students is violently allergic to nuts and nut products. Violently as in potentially life threatening Anaphylaxis. A middle school or high school student can probably be expected to take a lively interest in their own welfare. But what do you do about a six year old or eight year old other than train the staff about the symptoms and treatment, ban nut products from the school, and hope that’s good enough?
Don K ==> eGads! I’m in a time warp!
By the time I get to the middle of your article I have no idea what MSC stands for. Why can’t you (they) spell it out each time you use it: Modern Scientific Controversies, or sometimes Modern Scientific Controversy (singular). It would only increase your long essay by one or maybe two lines. (“I hate acronyms” – maybe I should have that on my tombstone).
I read your entire article and rated it “excellent”. Just that the acronyms get to me. Maybe that is why in the Navy I only got to LTjg instead of LT, because of the profuse use of acronyms there.
Just sayin…
JPP
I remember one: BOQ – bachelor officer quarters…lol
JPP ==> First sentence of he second major paragraph “All Modern Scientific Controversies (MSCs hereafter) begin with one required element without which there would be no MSC. “
Regarding the obesity wars, I was at two kids programs this past Christmas season, and certainly on the second one which occurred after Kip’s obesity post, I noted how many fat kids were up on stage singing Christmas carols. Answer: not very many, It’s a matter of demographics, old people and some ethnic groups tend to be heavy. But it’s taboo to mention the latter. It seems that the obesity problem is gospel.
On another note, a few hours ago I watched CBS nightly news where Scott Pelly’s crew told us that the Chicago murder rate was the highest it’s been in two decades. Well if you looked up the Chicago murder rate year by year you would quickly find out that it was a hell of a lot higher in 1974 and the early 90’s. Does the Modern Scientific Controversy apply to the Chicago murder rate?
How does the soaring murder rate a MSC? The fact that it’s the highest in 19 years is significant. Due largely to the age structure of the population and lax city governments in the early ’90s, yes, it was higher. But that applied everywhere. Chicago and cities which have reined in their cops now suffer high rates again.
Los Angeles, for instance, still has far fewer murders than in the past.
Chicago, by contrast, suffered a surge in violence, especially involving firearms, in 2016: 762 murders, 3550 shooting incidents and 4331 shooting victims, according to a statement released by the police department on Sunday. There were 480 murders in 2015, the most in the city since 1997.
Not a scientific controversy but a fact.
Steve Case, childhood obesity is an intersting question.
On the face of it the issue is obviously wrong. Look at children – they aren’t obese (with a few exceptions).
Look at the medical records – lack off calories causes more need for intervention (eating disorders) than obesity.
However, the statistics are more subtle.
The obese children are now more obese than ever. They have access to cars and so don’t walk. They have central heating and so don’t use calories on warming themselves. They have a more sedentary lifestyle.
The distribution of weight is not a bell curve. You can get a lot more overweight than underweight before you die. So the mean child weight rises.
In the long run this may cause problems as the children who are obese will have more severe conditions when older than the obese children of yesteryear did.
Interesting article. I have seen the “white hat bias” up close and personal. I’ve been a health (radiation) physicist for over 20 years, working for regulatory agencies and currently for a major university. There is a site in California (still contentious), where the anti-nuclear crowd crowed about how the State and US NRC were in the “pockets of industry,” or were taking surreptitious action “under the cover of night” (seriously, they said these things), but that US EPA was there to help the poor citizens (victims)…until that is, they got what they had claimed to want, and EPA finally agreed to list the site on the National Priorities List (aka make it a Superfund site). At that point, there was an abrupt turn-around, with the anti-nuclear advocates loudly claiming that the EPA could not protect the citizens as well as the California Legislature, who was contemplating an even more ridiculous (and, not scientifically defensible) clean-up limit than the EPA’s recommend goals.
So, for years EPA wore white hats, but as soon as they took the bait and agreed to oversee the cleanup, they were black-hatted within a year. It seemed to me, and still does that the real, underlying purpose of the citizen soldiers in this case was to simply perpetuate non-action – i.e., fight every proposal tooth and nail to keep the donations coming – at least that is my opinion. The safety was never really in question from a scientific perspective – at least not with respect to the residual radioactive materials – basically a very small percentage of natural background radiation per year (which varies dramatically around the country and around the world), but tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars later, they still bickering about the cleanup.
Barbara
Steve Case ==> Disputed facts, or misrepresented facts, do not mark a MSC. I don’t know much about the murder rate there.
controversy is fine when it’s legitimate. there can be rational disputes.
if a person wants to smoke, drink, go vegetarian or coprophagic- it’s not anybody’s business but his own.
flaws are of no concern when they have no cost – when you can ignore it as you please.
what is always the problem is violating somebody’s right to do with his own life, liberty, body, mind and property whatever the hell he wishes to do without interference.
coercion is the nature of a tyranny and it’s wrong to do it.
so the concept of rights has been inflated and devalued to render victims defenseless.
victimhood has been elevated to a blank check claim on everybody else…
advocacy is america’s major industry now. take a course at any university and they’ll teach you how to find a problem, how to market it and how to get funding so you can exhort on the stolen dime rather than do anything productive at all. it’s a negative sum game. but in a country where debt is counted as an asset, a negative sum game is marked on the gdp ledger as value produced…lol
how successful has the advocacy been in denigrating individual rights?
well, the word ‘selfish’ is considered insulting… ‘ego’ (which is the first person pronoun in latin) is regarded as a psychological disorder… sacrifice is regarded as a virtue…
“…demanding that other people be required to make sacrifices is regarded as a virtue…”
Fixed it for you. 😉
fixed it for jesus, too
Kip Hansen: A wonderful series, my compliments!
In respect of your request, I held off on commenting to the end. I would like to address a couple of points which were missed or underplayed. I will take a somewhat wordy, narrative approach, and will concentrate on the Fat Wars. Keep in mind that the conclusions I draw apply at least equally as well to the Climate Wars and the others.
Up Front: I believe the Fat Gene is Total BS. Why? I have been around the block once or twice.
Point 0:
Growing up in the central semi-rural part of the state (1950s-1960s), we kids divided the school population into the “skinnys” and the “chubbies”. The skinnys far outnumbered the chubbies. The kids walked or rode bikes to school. The kids who rode the bus still had to hike a fair haul to the bus stop. The bus stops were placed for the convenience of the buses, not the kids (compare and contrast to modern practice). The chubbies were pretty much restricted to those who were driven to and from school every day by their mothers.
Fat Gene: Unheard of.
Point 1:
Freshman at Generic State College (GSC)
The student population is largely composed of students from the largely rural central and western parts of the state. However, this would change rapidly as the school grew and politics entered the scene. Nonethless, the skinnys far outnumbered the chubbies. The seniors would warn the frosh of the dangers of the Freshman Five. Said to be the number of pounds you would pack on from eating school chow if you did take care of yourself.
Fat Gene: Rumors only, generally scoffed at.
Point 2:
Senior at GSC
The political transformation of GSC is complete. The student body which once was largely rural, is now derived almost exclusively (95%+) from the urbanized eastern part of the state. The urban students are notably not very interested in the outdoors sports such as skiing, (x-country and downhill), hiking, backpacking, for which the school has a fine reputation. (The campus is only a few miles from the famous Appalachian Trail, and within hiking range of Vermont’s renowned Long Trail. Usually you would think that is an opportunity not to be missed.)
Indeed, the huge chorus of complaint from new arrivals is There is no Shopping here! I Want To Go Shooopppiiing!
The chubbies outnumber the skinnys by a fair margin. The Freshman Five has bloated into the Freshman Fifteen(!)
At this point, I have to make this Dramatically Clear. There is no genetic difference between the rural and urban populations on campus, at all. Everybody is classic Western European descent via the 20th century US Melting Pot.
You would be hard pressed to find a more homogeneous bunch of genetic mongrels anywhere in the country.
Fat Gene: A constant topic of conversation on campus, at least among the ladies. So far there is not a shred of support for the notion from the scientific community. I find this particularly surprising coming from the Biology Dept. These are seniors with majors in Bio., Nursing, and Med Tech. They know it it Bilge, yet they chatter on. It strikes me that what they are really doing is trying to evade culpability for the Freshman Fifteen, which they all have (some in spades!), and make it Not My Fault. As an aside, the previous favorite excuse was, “I just have big bones”.
This whole thing looks, for all the world, like the creation, from the grass roots up, of a new consumer demand. And we all know, if there is a demand out there, it will be met.
Fasten your seat belt, this ride is about to get wild!
Point 3:
Grad Student at Generic State University (GSU)
For four long years I watch the undergrads (and many grad students) fight the Battle Of The Bulge.
I note here that, although in a different state than GSC, GSU has a substantial population from the same urban area as GSC did. All told, the student population is the same homogeneous bunch of genetic mongrels as before. And losing the Battle Of The Bulge just as badly.
The Freshman Fifteen has ballooned Freshman Forty. Yikes!
The chubbies are now wholly dominant on campus and chubbier than ever. The skinnys are now so rare that they are considered oddities and are sometimes subject to verbal harassment. This sort of thing was previously unknown on campus. The Overton Window has well and truly shifted.
Fat Gene:
The undergraduate population cannot stop talking about the Fat Gene which is making them all fat. They can’t wait for the gene to be discovered, and with it, an effortless treatment which will make them all slim and trim.
There is now serious biomedical research dedicated to the hunt for the mythical beast. Looks like someone smelled money. They may not be able to find such a thing, so they can be depended upon to do the next thing, which is just as good. They will find Candidate Genes, more study required! They will not find just a few, they will find dozens, even hundreds of Candidate Genes. The More, The Merrier. The more Candidate Genes as set forth, the more difficult it is to conclusively prove that the whole thing is BS.
The demand is there, and the demand will be met.
Release The Hounds, The Game Is Afoot!
Conclusions:
A: If you have an agenda or a point to push, you need evidence, or at least “evidence”.
This works for Global Warming, the Fat Gene, and absolutely anything else.
To find something, fund people who are already looking. Get more people looking. They will find what you are after. If things get sketchy, confuse the hell out of things. Climate Change, many multiple genes, unknown regulatory factors.
B: Take a closer look at the science behind the discovery of the Fat Gene. Limit yourself to just two points.
1) Repeatability/Reproducability Either you got it or you don’t. In biomedical and pharma, we have found out, generally they don’t.
2) Wee p values, and the illegitimate technique of “p value mining”. Of course, along with the full range of statistical chicanery we have come to expect from junk science.
At the end of the exercise, see if the whole field looks like it was expertly napalmed.
C: One of the great contributing factors to all these scientific fiascoes, yet unmentioned.
A willing populace, or a piece of one, anyway. Gullible, scientifically illiterate, and for whatever reason, wanting, or needing, to believe. This, and this alone, will carry the fiasco forward.
Epilogue:
On the island of Dominica, in the capital city of Roseau, drinking my morning coffee at a nice little spot overlooking the Cruise Ship Dock. Every morning I am treated to the same scene. A ship ties up, and the day’s touristo hoard sallies forth. Now look carefully, there is a order to these things.
First, the younger people are off and running. then the somewhat more elderly people stroll off.
Next, the elderly Europeans (of Western European decent) stroll off, just a bit slower.
Last, the elderly Americans (of Western European decent) hobble off. Fat, obese, clinically obese, morbidly obese, hobbling and wobbling their way along with canes, walking crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs.
Even if you somehow overlook the difference in obesity, you cannot help but to be struck by the profound difference in mobility caused by the obesity.
Two subgroups, which in broad brush terms, are genetically equal. One subgroup is plagued by the effects of Fat Genetics, while the other is utterly untroubled by it.
The experts say:
“25 genes guaranteed to make you obese; 300 genes that add to each other to pack on pounds; 56 different types of obesity….definitely not simple.”
To buy into the Fat Gene Theory, you need to be able ignore powerful proof to the contrary, which you can gather for yourself with no more effort than drinking a cup of coffee and keeping your eyes open. And understanding what you are seeing.
But that is none of my business.
TonyL==> Interesting discourse on the idea of a Fat Gene.
There was a time when geneticists hoped to find a single (or narrow band) fat gene(s) which they could blame and or turn off to cure the rising tide of obesity. The science has advanced, leap-frogging itself many times since those days. Now, geneticists have found that there are genes that doom one to obesity — genes that if you got ’em in a certain form — a couple of dozen of them. A possible error in your approach, which leads you away from the current general understanding of the obesity field, is thinking that all gene expressions are strictly inherited — Mendelian. That is no longer the prevailing understanding. It isn’t “If Momma is fat, baby girl will be fat”. In my family, one of my brothers got a genetic mix that pre-disposed him to chunkiness while the other two brothers did not. I am apparently somewhere in between my perpetually stick-figure thin older brother and my chunky younger brother — I can wear off the rack suits with a perfect fit. They now believe that genes can be “turn on” and “turned off” by environmental factors, physiological events, hormones, etc etc.
Where I think you are on the right track is the refusal to believe that the Obesity Epidemic is down to some simplistic explanation — like an inherited Fat Gene. I had hoped that the main point of my Obesity Epidemic piece would come across to readers: The Obesity Epidemic is not simple and does not have some simplistic cure that can be expressed as a public health mantra.
I enjoyed your comment.
@ur momisugly Kip Hanson (assuming you word search for your name)
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
You say:
“They now believe that genes can be “turn on” and “turned off” by environmental factors, physiological events, hormones, etc etc.”
Of Course! Back in the day, we used to call this “Metabolism”. Which provides an easy lead in to the “scientific basis”. Look at all the Fat Gene studies out there and see if they are not really studies of metabolism. It seems with the current narrative, any and all metabolic effects causing or caused by obesity (it works both ways), are simply lumped together as Fat Genetics.
Consider the signature issue of the Fat Gene, that people simply can not lose weight on diet and exercise, without a complete overhaul of lifestyle. Is this really a problem for genetics, or is it really a problem in biochemistry and metabolism. (Note Well: It does not illuminate to point out that all biochemistry is ultimately genetically mediated.) This is really the big problem. Taking a huge chunk of metabolic biochemistry and simply rebranding it as Fat Genes to fit the narrative.
TonyL ==> You should read the papers from the two obesity gene teams mentioned in the original Obesity essay. Let me know what you think after reading their stuff.
I was first introduced to the fallibility of “Modern Science” with the Creation-Evolution wars… a war so well fought that everyone just dismissed this post as laughable.
The “problem”: People didn’t want to feel they were accountable to a “Creator God”
The “truth”: That all living things despite their awesome diversity are related to each other.
The “solution”: Deny that there was a creator, that there never was a world-wide flood, or that anyone who claimed so should be taken seriously. (and kick God out of School while we are at it)
Funny thing is, that the same people who didn’t want to be accountable to a loving and righteous God have ended up creating their own morality and trying to force it on the rest of us anyway – without any real justification for doing so (other than “the majority”)… so the problem was flawed
So all living things are related in that they have DNA… but we humans are millions of “changes” (insertions, substitutions, deletions) apart from anything else, with no mechanism known or proposed to cause this to scale of change to succeed. You may as well state we are all made from protons, electrons and neutrons. The truth is flawed.
If you look at the world geologic features for evidence of a really big flood; rounded boulders far from water, water gaps through mountain ranges, multiple sedimentary layers spanning vast areas, ocean fossils on tops of mountains, footprints all heading the same way (away from rising water) – you will find it… I don’t think you could come up with one expectation of a world-wide flood that has not been found. And in denying the flood, we think we can know the earth’s temperature for longer than it has had since that flood – flawed science resting on flawed science. And so the solution is flawed too.
Until you accept that scientific populism/bullying started with Evolution (and not the flat earth), you will be blind to the full folly of man.
Other common threads to these things… less trust on God, and more on Government. (Modern government is an exercise in creating panic over things that only the Government can do anything about)
If God made the world, then he didn’t build a system with a dangerous feedback loop in it, no need to panic…. If he didn’t, then we must trust in Government for the correct diagnosis of the problem and it’s solution (less CO2).
If God made salt or sugar, then it is a food and falls into the same rules as the rest of food, too much is not good, other than that, enjoy…. If he didn’t then people don’t know what is good for them and they must be regulated.
If God made the coral eco-system, then it already survived a world wide flood, snap freeze and thaw and is still kicking, a little CO2 is not going to end it… if he didn’t then… (actually this one never made sense to me, as if it evolved, then it should be fine too)… must just be another case of Governments needing to throw their weight around for our own good.
If God made our body then what he provided for us would be good for us and not make us fat… but we thought we knew better and called “fruit roll-ups” real fruit, with plastic wrapping and a printed use-by-date, rather than trust the one the creator provided with built-in wrapping and use-by-date. And with sugar and foods in general, the more it is refined from it’s natural state, the worse for us it gets. Add in some artificial colours etc, and it’s just another reason to trust that govt knows best, and needs to regulate the ingredients… sigh.
I could keep going.
(What follows is a comment about spiritual stuff as it relates to the physical stuff we’re all surrounded by. If you’re not interested in the spiritual stuff, feel free to skip this.)
I’ll throw this into the mix.
It has to do with just who’s pulling the strings of what God set up now.
I put this up on Caleb’s blog about 3 years ago. If you want to respond at all, please don’t do it there. (Maybe not even here if it would send this post way off topic.) He doesn’t have a dog in in this fight.
To whoever is left, just for your consideration.
(Scroll a bit less than halfway down for what I meant to “throw in the mix”.)
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/attention-surplus-disorder-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-686
CommonA,
Humans are no more distantly related to other living things than are most other organisms. We are genetically closer to chimps than horses are to donkeys. The great gulf which you imagine exists between humans and other animals is a fantasy. We are very close to all our living primate relatives, and of course even closer to our extinct ancestors.
There are various ways of comparing relatedness, but if you look at genes, parts of the genome which code for proteins, humans share 60% with chickens, and of course much more with mammals.
As for the mythical global flood, there is zero evidence for it. Naturally you find evidence of past floods around the world, but they didn’t all happen at the same time and never came close to covering all the mountains as they existed 4500 years ago. Indeed, a flood covering the highest mountains is a physical impossibility. Where did the needed water–more than three times the volume of all surface water on earth today–come from and where did it go?
What does belief in an ancient Mesopotamian myth have to do with belief in a Creator God, anyway? The conflicting flood stories in the Bible were just part of ancient Middle Eastern people’s attempts to explain natural phenomena, like the rainbow, and weave a moral tale around this made up tale.
There were two. The first between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
The observable evidence has been interpreted by one with an agenda that goes back far before any of us were born.
Talk about someone having an Agenda!
(No, Chimp, I wasn’t referring to you.)
Gunga,
I’m not sure that the editor of Genesis had an agenda. As with other books, if, when compiled after the Babylonian Captivity, there were two or more versions of the same stories, the editor just put in both or all of them. In the case of the flood myth, he interweaved them. In the case of the two creation stories, he put the Six Day story first, followed by the Adam and Eve story. As with the differing flood stories, the versions are incompatible, but the editor didn’t feel the need to make them jibe.
This is most obvious in the case of Chronicles and Kings, which are often practically identical, but parts of other books differ irreconcilably with each other.
And you know this how? What evidence for the motivation of the ancients do you have, or do you just believe you are correct?
I would also point out that notwithstanding any genetic similarities we may have with other living things, and DNA is common to all living things, we are very obviously different from any other creature alive or dead. If that difference isn’t because of genetics then it is because of something else not yet known or understood.
Your closely held certainties may bring comfort to you Chimp but I prefer the thought that Shakespeare had Hamlet speak for him,
” There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy”.
Your naive attempts to force consistency of your world view onto things you cannot know anything about is no less faith based than those you despise for having faith. Better to say I don’t know, even nothing at all, than to make a fool of yourself.
Keith,
I’m just stating facts, which apparently make you uncomfortable.
All the differences between humans and chimps are right there in our genomes to be seen. No need to posit other mysterious causes. You imagine more difference than there is.
Some of the minor differences between humans and chimps result from simple mutations, for instance one which allows larger brain growth and a gross chromosomal change associated with upright walking. Others are simply a matter of the sequences which control how long legs grow and short body hair grows. We have the same number of follicles per square inch of skin.
It’s also a fact that the biblical flood myth and other stories are simply reworkings of Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths. The similarities and differences are easy to trace as the stories move from their Sumerian originals to Babylonian versions, with Marduk replacing Sumerian gods, to the Assyrian, Ugaritic (starring Ba’al Zaphon, the Canaanite storm god equivalent of Marduk) and Hebrew variants, featuring Yahweh.
I’m not forcing anything, just reporting the facts. The foolish attempt to force consistency on a recalcitrant belief system is all yours. You’d look less foolish if you had actually studied the subjects under discussion before presuming to comment upon them.
PS:
It works both ways. Chimps have some mental functions superior to humans, to include spatial memory, and the cognitive development of their young is more rapid than ours. While we are different species, the gap just isn’t that great, and is filled by extinct human and chimp ancestors, back to our last common ancestor several million years ago.
No it doesn’t make me uncomfortable Chimp it simply reinforces my opinion that there is a subset of atheists who think they know far more than they do and to reinforce their certainty feel it necessary to denigrate religious faith.
As to the Chimp story, so what? Fish are better swimmers, Eagles have better eyesight, cheetahs run faster and so on. My point is that humans have many more attributes than other living creature and more importantly have synthesized them into the natural wonder that is man.
As you point out genetically we aren’t far from several animals but in the round we are far more than the genetics would suggest indicating that genes aren’t the complete story.
As for the rest they are just opinions. Conjectures, hypotheses even but they are certainly not fact. Not knowing is not a crime Chimp and trying to understand more is a virtue. You may find learning about the causes of belief in others a useful pursuit rather than just belittling them.
I am an atheist and have been for over five decades. Like most atheists I was brought up as a Catholic and thanks to the teaching skills and character of the Jesuits who taught me I was able to think for myself and escape. I have never tried to put down those who don’t and it irks me greatly when I see arrogant and intolerant atheists who see it as their lifes work to belittle believers.
You cannot use reason to dislodge faith any more than you can use faith to defeat reason.
Sorry
A lot of the health related things are ‘correlation is causation’
i.e. narrow arteries cause high blood pressure, ergo anything that lowers blood pressure ‘fixes’ narrow arteries.
It doesn’t. It ‘fixes’ high blood pressure which is over a period, damaging of itself, but its not getting at the heart (sic!) of the problem.
Treating symptoms instead of causes is very endemic in medicine today.
Leo,
Excellent point. Try looking up physiological causes of hypertension – huge knowledge gap, so they rely on epidemiological studies to correlate it with “bad” behaviors (e.g., salt intake, alcohol intake, etc.), but do not demonstrate causation, and,as you say, the only treat the symptoms.
Barbara
There are two types of scientific controversies. Controversies among experts, and controversies among politicians projecting public sentiment. Public advocacy is for power and control. Scientific debates occur because defining what one person considers truth may not be the valuation used by others. For example, to define a mineral, the standard is X-ray spectroscopy. But that is expensive. When I use infrared spectroscopy, are my results valid? To many, no. So I then have to look for correlations of X-ray and Raman and infrared, as each instrument reports what we call truth to identify a substance. So scientific controversies are centered around methods and instruments and the kinds of conclusions that appear sustained by the data. Public debates are shaped by individual self-worth and their perceived role in the world. Science debates among scientists surround what conclusions can we reach from what biased instruments show. Public debates involving science are affected by the same problems of scientific measurement and conclusions that might be derived from them when almost all of the instrument problems are kept from view.
Another “scientific” issue was that of EMF’s and childhood leukaemia and other cancers. In the 1980’s there was great fear spread about in the USA and Australia ( in particular) and fast amounts of money found its way to questionable research that sometimes declared significant effects when they were actually statistically insignificant. The fear mongering fell away without much, if any fanfare, as bigger and better projects loomed. No doubt someone will try to resurrect the issue at some time – probably after AGW has died.
Kip, you present a concise and clear structure for analyzing how MSC develop. Any thoughts on the process of how they are (or could be) resolved?
As context for that question, I think that science is a system concerned with the advancement of knowledge. Ideas flow through that system and make it ever more complex. As you point out, facts and social factors have great influence on how well the ideas progress toward general acceptance as knowledge. Controversies are blockages to the advancement of knowledge. However, all systems naturally adjust to overcome blockages (see Bejan’s work at https://constructal.org/). So my question has to do with how the system (i.e., science in all its technical and sociological aspects) responds to overcome these impediments.
The only logical/rational approach is to recognise all the underlying emotional and biological factors.
Physical scientists seem to be governed by the right brain and often unwilling to explore what the right brain offers. As Mr Spock would say, “Most illogical.”
Gary ==> It is a difficult question. There have been instances in which the Advocates have apparently won, at least for the time being. Darwinian evolution (“all existing genetic traits must have had survival value”) has been known to be an ill-formed idea for a long time, yet it is a poison topic for science — it will brook no opposition (except in the very incestuus clique of deep evolutionary science — where it is simply acknowledged to be false). Other Wars have been won by Opponents, by slow attrition, wearing away at the Flaws, bringing forth new contrary data (over and over again), and the fact that battles won cease to be fought — Advocates having won the day tend to fight less and the truth can slowly out — The Cholesterol Wars are an example.
Thanks, Kip. IOW, resolution is “chaotic” and unpredictable. Too many parameters in play.
Kip Hansen: A wonderful series, my compliments!
In respect of your request, I held off on commenting to the end. I would like to address a couple of points which were missed or underplayed. I will take a somewhat wordy, narrative approach, and will concentrate on the Fat Wars. Keep in mind that the conclusions I draw apply at least equally as well to the Climate Wars and the others.
Up Front: I believe the Fat Gene is Total BS. Why? I have been around the block once or twice.
Point 0:
Growing up in the central semi-rural part of the state (1950s-1960s), we kids divided the school population into the “skinnys” and the “chubbies”. The skinnys far outnumbered the chubbies. The kids walked or rode bikes to school. The kids who rode the bus still had to hike a fair haul to the bus stop. The bus stops were placed for the convenience of the buses, not the kids (compare and contrast to modern practice). The chubbies were pretty much restricted to those who were driven to and from school every day by their mothers.
Fat Gene: Unheard of.
Point 1:
Freshman at Generic State College (GSC)
The student population is largely composed of students from the largely rural central and western parts of the state. However, this would change rapidly as the school grew and politics entered the scene. Nonethless, the skinnys far outnumbered the chubbies. The seniors would warn the frosh of the dangers of the Freshman Five. Said to be the number of pounds you would pack on from eating school chow if you did take care of yourself.
Fat Gene: Rumors only, generally scoffed at.
Point 2:
Senior at GSC
The political transformation of GSC is complete. The student body which once was largely rural, is now derived almost exclusively (95%+) from the urbanized eastern part of the state. The urban students are notably not very interested in the outdoors sports such as skiing, (x-country and downhill), hiking, backpacking, for which the school has a fine reputation. (The campus is only a few miles from the famous Appalachian Trail, and within hiking range of Vermont’s renowned Long Trail. Usually you would think that is an opportunity not to be missed.)
Indeed, the huge chorus of complaint from new arrivals is There is no Shopping here! I Want To Go Shooopppiiing!
The chubbies outnumber the skinnys by a fair margin. The Freshman Five has bloated into the Freshman Fifteen(!)
At this point, I have to make this Dramatically Clear. There is no genetic difference between the rural and urban populations on campus, at all. Everybody is classic Western European descent via the 20th century US Melting Pot.
You would be hard pressed to find a more homogeneous bunch of genetic mongrels anywhere in the country.
Fat Gene: A constant topic of conversation on campus, at least among the ladies. So far there is not a shred of support for the notion from the scientific community. I find this particularly surprising coming from the Biology Dept. These are seniors with majors in Bio., Nursing, and Med Tech. They know it it Bilge, yet they chatter on. It strikes me that what they are really doing is trying to evade culpability for the Freshman Fifteen, which they all have (some in spades!), and make it Not My Fault. As an aside, the previous favorite excuse was, “I just have big bones”.
This whole thing looks, for all the world, like the creation, from the grass roots up, of a new consumer demand. And we all know, if there is a demand out there, it will be met.
Fasten your seat belt, this ride is about to get wild!
Point 3:
Grad Student at Generic State University (GSU)
For four long years I watch the undergrads (and many grad students) fight the Battle Of The Bulge.
I note here that, although in a different state than GSC, GSU has a substantial population from the same urban area as GSC did. All told, the student population is the same homogeneous bunch of genetic mongrels as before. And losing the Battle Of The Bulge just as badly.
The Freshman Fifteen has ballooned Freshman Forty. Yikes!
The chubbies are now wholly dominant on campus and chubbier than ever. The skinnys are now so rare that they are considered oddities and are sometimes subject to verbal harassment. This sort of thing was previously unknown on campus. The Overton Window has well and truly shifted.
Fat Gene:
The undergraduate population cannot stop talking about the Fat Gene which is making them all fat. They can’t wait for the gene to be discovered, and with it, an effortless treatment which will make them all slim and trim.
There is now serious biomedical research dedicated to the hunt for the mythical beast. Looks like someone smelled money. They may not be able to find such a thing, so they can be depended upon to do the next thing, which is just as good. They will find Candidate Genes, more study required! They will not find just a few, they will find dozens, even hundreds of Candidate Genes. The More, The Merrier. The more Candidate Genes as set forth, the more difficult it is to conclusively prove that the whole thing is BS.
The demand is there, and the demand will be met.
Release The Hounds, The Game Is Afoot!
Conclusions:
A: If you have an agenda or a point to push, you need evidence, or at least “evidence”.
This works for Global Warming, the Fat Gene, and absolutely anything else.
To find something, fund people who are already looking. Get more people looking. They will find what you are after. If things get sketchy, confuse the hell out of things. Climate Change, many multiple genes, unknown regulatory factors.
B: Take a closer look at the science behind the discovery of the Fat Gene. Limit yourself to just two points.
1) Repeatability/Reproducability Either you got it or you don’t. In biomedical and pharma, we have found out, generally they don’t.
2) Wee p values, and the illegitimate technique of “p value mining”. Of course, along with the full range of statistical chicanery we have come to expect from junk science.
At the end of the exercise, see if the whole field looks like it was expertly napalmed.
C: One of the great contributing factors to all these scientific fiascoes, yet unmentioned.
A willing populace, or a piece of one, anyway. Gullible, scientifically illiterate, and for whatever reason, wanting, or needing, to believe. This, and this alone, will carry the fiasco forward.
Epilogue:
On the island of Dominica, in the capital city of Roseau, drinking my morning coffee at a nice little spot overlooking the Cruise Ship Dock. Every morning I am treated to the same scene. A ship ties up, and the day’s touristo hoard sallies forth. Now look carefully, there is a order to these things.
First, the younger people are off and running. then the somewhat more elderly people stroll off.
Next, the elderly Europeans (of Western European decent) stroll off, just a bit slower.
Last, the elderly Americans (of Western European decent) hobble off. Fat, obese, clinically obese, morbidly obese, hobbling and wobbling their way along with canes, walking crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs.
Even if you somehow overlook the difference in obesity, you cannot help but to be struck by the profound difference in mobility caused by the obesity.
Two subgroups, which in broad brush terms, are genetically equal. One subgroup is plagued by the effects of Fat Genetics, while the other is utterly untroubled by it.
The experts say:
“25 genes guaranteed to make you obese; 300 genes that add to each other to pack on pounds; 56 different types of obesity….definitely not simple.”
To buy into the Fat Gene Theory, you need to be able ignore powerful proof to the contrary, which you can gather for yourself with no more effort than drinking a cup of coffee and keeping your eyes open. And understanding what you are seeing.
But that is none of my business.
@ur momisugly Kip:
Second attempt to post. I hope you find some merit in my thoughts.
You could also add the “gay Gene” to the “fat gene” – same category in my opinion – people looking for comfort that it’s not their fault, they were made that way – and both based on flimsy wishful thinking “research” by people trying to find something they believed must be there.
Scientists are just like regular people — sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong.
Sometimes there is an “establishment” scientific consensus that’s right, and sometimes the establishment consensus is wrong.
If you read author Hanson’s articles you will see a strong bias toward believing the “establishment” consensus is wrong.
That bias is just as bad as assuming the consensus is right.
I went through all his articles, and found one I felt was obviously wrong — the obesity article.
Hanson would agree with establishment scientists that eating/drinking ‘too many calories’ causes weight gain … but insisted that reducing calories was ineffective for reducing obesity.
That belief was incredible to me:
Hanson was saying REDUCING calories was ineffective in reducing obesity!
The only other choices would be are INCREASING calories, which couldn’t cause weight loss …
or eating/drinking THE SAME NUMBER OF calories (that made you obese in the first place) … which also would not cause weight loss.
Hanson’s belief was that no possible change to caloric intake could solve the obesity problem — that makes makes no sense — anyone who believes that is as dumb as a rock!
We already know from concentration camp victims that EVERYONE can lose weight from large reductions in caloric intake. While those were not scientific experiments, the results were obvious:
(1) Reducing caloric intake will result in weight loss.
(2) Statement (1) applies to EVERY human.
Hanson’s conclusions about obesity are wrong, so why should his beliefs be trusted on other subjects.
We know in advance Hanson will always, or nearly always, believe the non-establishment consensus scientists … as if they are always right, and the “establishment” scientists are always wrong.
When someone starts out with an obvious bias like that, his writings should not be trusted.
Richard ==> Welcome back. You should read the linked articles and background material for the Obesity Wars piece.
Not only does the simplistic formula Eat Less Exercise More not cure obesity for most people, but even bariatric surgery is not a sure cure. Try reading “After Weight-Loss Surgery, a Year of Joys and Disappointments” for why this is so.
For short answers on weight loss, read Gina Kolata’s “Short Answers….” piece. In it she quotes Dr Kaplan (a weight loss expert) saying that through lots of careful dieting and exercise, most people can maintain a weight loss of 5% of their body weight–for a 250 pound obese man, this equals 12 1/2 pounds — getting him down to 237 pounds, still obese.
Because obesity and severe overweight is such a complicated and complex physiological problem, the simplistic idea of flipping the apparent cause around–from Eat More Exercise Less goes to Eat Less Exercise More–does not result in a correction, a cure.
None of this is my fault — I just report what the obesity experts find. However, what the experts find, and what is pushed as “public health policy” by the Obesity Wars Cause advocates is different.
YOU WROTE:
“None of this is my fault — I just report what the obesity experts find. However, what the experts find, and what is pushed as “public health policy” by the Obesity Wars Cause advocates is different. ”
MY COMMENT:
What you report, I assume, is a summary of what you’ve read and believe to be true.
Don’t blame anyone else — YOU did the reading, and YOU wrote the article.
You were wrong about obesity … and still are.
The “experts” you chose to believe are not ALL the experts.
They are the anti-establishment “experts” that you ALWAYS PREFER.
I actually hate to use the term “experts”, because today’s “expert” could be tomorrow’s “fool”.
There are only three choices for how many calories are ingested by an obese person:
(1) More.calories.
(2) Same amount of calories that caused the obesity.
(2) Fewer calories.
An obese person is not going to become normal weight with Same or More.
That leaves Fewer (calories) as the only possible answer to losing a lot of weight.
It’s basic physics.
As I wrote in a past comment, which I will repeat here because I enjoyed saying it so much the last time:
– A six year old child could understand this.
– Go find a six year old to explain it to you.
For the subject of obesity, you’ve double-downed on wrong, and that makes it harder to believe anything you write on other subjects..
(1) You’re wrong about the TRUTH you chose to believe about obesity.
(2) That’s a PROBLEM.
(3) The SOLUTION is to admit you were wrong, and move forward.
But, from reading many comments you have added to the comments section after your articles, It appears that you have never admitted to being wrong in your entire life — lust like Obama.
Rich Greene
2′ 10″ tall
855 pounds
Not my fault
Bad genes.
Richard ==> You obviously have not done your homework — have not read the supporting material nor done your own research which, if you had, you would have found the evidence that I have presented in my essay, and which Gina Kolata summarizes in her series on obesity in the NY Times.
Instead, you present a perfect example of what I point out sometimes happens when someone opposes the Advocacy Platform on a topic involved in a MSC:
Ranting on and on while neglecting to even look at the actual evidence — the innumerable studies that have showed the same thing over and over — does not make good science discussion.
I would be glad to discuss with you any actual evidence that you can come up with that is contrary to the main points of my Obesity essay….it is a fascinating topic, particularly because of the counter-intuitive findings of obesity research.
I would prefer that you comment on the Obesity topic there.
However, if all you plan to do is insist that “I’m right” no matter the evidence, there won’t be much to discuss.
Kip, a suggestion for your request to look elsewhere on this topic of Controversies in Science, is to have a look at the issue of Domestic Violence. A mine field mired in politics ans ideology, but focus on the science instead. A brief overview is in the link below.
https://mobile.sites.google.com/site/nzchinatravels/2015-amy-adams/responce-to-review-of-dv-september-2015
Ellen Pense who framed the whole concept of of “Male Privilege” actually reneged on her own thesis when she reviewed her work just before she died, and basically admitted one of her critics Professor Dutton was correct. However her ideology still continues unabated as a jurisdictional solution of choice in many countries, where the well supported and accepted concept of relationship counselling has been repeatedly shouted down by Duluth advocates.
christopherpetersmith ==> All academic/scientific fields infected by advocacy politics–victim groups, the social justice movement, gender politics–are beyond hopelessly compromised until the individual fields of study come to their senses. The Advocacy Groups allowed to gain even a toe-hold of power are soon buoyed by piggy-backing on other ridiculous and unfounded notions of other groups and boosted into the forefront. There are so many issues that can not be discussed even on university campuses founded by the free-speech movements of the past.
Kip, one controversy that is worth looking at is the “origins of the universe” debate, in which on side is largely so thoroughly muffled that most people take the “Big Bang” theory as a matter of fact. Yet even a little study reveals that there are empirical, observational matters that conflict with the Standard Model of cosmology. You can even find a bit of apparent concealment of problematic information (e.g. NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 and Markarian 205, where NASA produced positive images with tweaked contrast to [apparently] conceal a physical linkage between a high-red-shift quasar, Markarian 205, and a much lower red shift galaxy, NGC 4319). There are other interesting aspects and you might identify another diagnostic trait for these situations, the lack of viable alternative theories. If you examine the “climate controversy” you have one relatively coherent, but plainly inadequate theory, adhered to by both AGW supporters and by luke warmers. The opposition consists of a monumental grab bag of “theories,” mutually incompatible.
General response to Mr. Know it All On Every Subject, Mr.Kip Hanson, concerning his huge bias against all “establishment consensus” science beliefs, in all of his many articles, on many different subjects, that have been posted here:
You have us believe that you are an expert in more different subjects than any other person has ever claimed on this website … or anyone I’ve met in the past 60 years.
Right away, that’s very hard to believe.
As a self-proclaimed “expert” on many subjects, you believe you are capable of deciding which subject matter “experts” know what they are talking about, and which do not.
With you having absolutely no personal experience with obesity — experience that I have — you have arbitrarily decided that eating fewer calories is not the logical answer to move away from obesity.
You would have us believe the majority / establishment / science consensus is ALWAYS wrong — clearly displaying a HUGE, unjustified bias against establishment views, which is very obvious in ALL your articles.
I have nothing against an anti-establishment bias — as a Libertarian I have an anti-government bias, which could be called an anti-establishment bias.
I deliberately try to find contradictory information from establishment sources to offset my known bias — on the internet confirmation bias is particularly dangerous.
When I observe your anti-establishment bias, I compare it with my own anti-establishment bias, and I believe YOU have gone “over the top”.
You have become predictable — on every subject your conclusion is that the establishment scientific consensus is wrong.
You have a predictable anti-establishment pattern — the establishment is ALWAYS wrong — and that is idiotic “conspiracy theory thinking.”
In your bizarro world, the majority of trained scientists are WRONG on EVERY subject (that you write about as a self-proclaimed “expert”).
Not sometimes wrong – wrong every time.
I do not claim that I’m right about obesity no matter what “evidence” is presented.
That is a smarmy red herring you invented out of thin air, and posted here, in order to character attack me.
I’m only saying the consensus is right that obese people, in general, need to reduce caloric intake to lose weight.
And the evidence they are wrong — which you falsely accuse me of not reading — failed to convince me the “establishment consensus” on obesity is wrong.
I’ve look at “your” sources, and see garbage science.
You see anti-establishment “experts” — I see conclusions worth less than a large pile of steaming animal digestive waste byproducts.
I have explained before, but you appear incapable of changing your mind on any subject, that blaming obesity on genes makes no sense because the US obesity epidemic happened suddenly — around 1980 there was an unexpected, sudden acceleration in the number of obese children and adults, a trend that may still be in progress.
Genes did not change suddenly in 1980.
And I don’t care if a columnist at the New York Times, a left-wing biased newspaper that you apparently love, says so.
Obese people have been blaming their condition on “genes” for a century — that doesn’t make them right either.
We already know from “climate science” that many scientists get attention, and funding, by making unproven claims based on “data” or “studies” that other scientists can’t replicate.
For obesity, the only other choices besides taking in fewer calories, would be taking in more calories, or not changing the eating/drinking habits that caused the obesity in the first place.
So, if you continue to claim intake of fewer calories won’t help obesity, then you are implying caloric intake does not matter for obese people like myself.
Your belief is wrong, and is downright stupid.
Since you stubbornly refuse to accept the basic physics of obesity, or even admit you might be wrong, I believe people should be skeptical of ALL the other articles, on many subjects, that you imply you are expert on, and get posted here.
Since many of your articles are off-topic, I have no idea why they get posted here.
They get posted here because I like to stimulate debate in science, and because I think Kip is doing a good job at that. If the articles bother you, don’t read them.
Kip is very “stimulating” for debate.
But his “the establishment is always wrong” bias in every article reads like a conspiracy theory — and that doesn’t help the effort to get real climate science in our government — we may have only four years to do that.
When the climate establishment can point to “deniers” and ridicule them by claiming they NEVER accept the scientific consensus on any subject, that’s a credibility problem for us.
The establishment can’t be wrong about everything scientific — even a stopped clock is right twice a day!.
Your are certainly entitled to your opinion, but having met Kip Hansen personally, I’m quite certain your opinion is overwrought.
It was simple observation that the sun orbits the earth – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that Vulcan orbited between Mercury and the sun – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that life occurred from spontaneous generation – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that the earth was expanding – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that combustible objects contained phlogiston – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that water filled canals existed on Mars – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that light propagated through luminiferous aether – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that people were blank slates, tabula rasa, at birth – but that was wrong.
It was simple observation that people could be analyzed from their bumpy heads, phrenology – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that the universe was static – but it was wrong.
It’s a simple observation that Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion apparatus puts out more energy than it takes in – but it’s wrong.
It’s a simple observation to point an IR instrument at the sky and measure hundreds of W/m^2 of downwelling radiation – but it’s wrong.
If this incorrect application and interpretation of IR instrumentation is all that “proves” “downwelling” radiation, then that is bupkis.
Guess where GHG/GHE theory is headed?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
“In the Climate Wars, increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth system to retain energy that would otherwise be re-radiated into space [h/t Physics].”
Not so fast. It doesn’t actually work that way. Lots of dissent. Nasif Nahle & Sky Dragons & me. I have posted the following explanation numerous places and have yet to receive a rebuttal that 1) shows where I am wrong or 2) explains the actual physical basis for “back” radiation.
References:
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10
This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the earth’s cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC/heat flow/balance/insulation problem.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
“Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.
The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 LWIR and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy aka created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
But let’s press on.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
Except they aren’t.
The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, an evenly distributed average or weighted by layers from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable, 45% to 75% of, shortfall from 333.
(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)
But wait!
The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333, 15% to 24% of.
But wait!
Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333, 1.5% to 2.4% of.
But wait!
All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data until it gives up the “right” answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.
The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“The Discovery of Global Warming” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.
The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that energy flow, i.e. heat requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.
Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.
Nicholas Schroeder ==> I’m afraid i don’t engage in the Climate Wars. As I am sure you are aware, I was just stating the general AGW founding principle — to which you are welcome to mount as strong as an objection as you wish.
You “have yet to receive a rebuttal” — and you will not receive one from me either.
I would be interested in seeing an essay here from you, if Anthony would publish it…written in language tailored for the general, non-technical audience — with a clear explanation as to how your view differs from the IPCC view — and from other alternative views.