A short one today because I'm working again. Have to get all the invoices out so the companies can write off that expenditure in this tax year - but it all comes as cheques so it won't go in my bank until after April 5th.
Fortunately, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist has already done the hard part for me. In my reports, anything that is statistically less than 95% likely to be different is considered the same. Many of those junk scientists are declaring important differences at 10% confidence. If a student had ever tried that, they would have received a zero mark from me. There is no point even doing the experiment at that level of confidence. If you were to simply guess the answer you'd have a 50% chance of being right. As it is, levels of difference that no sane statistician would even contemplate are being used to scare us into compliance.
It's not just in the statistics.
In that last post, the linked story claims that the rats showed an overwhelming preference for 'junk' food over their 'healthy' diet. What it does not mention is that the 'healthy' diet comes as a dry chemical mix that has been formulated by scientists to provide everything a rat metabolism needs. Unfortunately it tastes like eating a powdered, gritty own-brand muesli with no milk. Given the choice of that or a sausage, I'd tolerate a mild electric shock to get the sausage.
If I was fed on the dry powder diet from birth and then experienced bacon, I'd refuse to eat the dry powder again.
The results prove only that rats have a sense of taste and smell, and don't like the crap they are routinely fed. It's junk science.
There is more and more of it, and now it is being defended with 'We know best and you're all stupid' because there really is no other defence these pretend-scientists can apply.
New Scientist recently poured scorn on those who want the teaching of global warming in schools to be balanced with 'It might not really be happening' and 'Not all scientists agree on this', rather than the frankly ridiculous assertion that 'the science is settled'. New Scientist compares that with calls for the teaching of creationism in science class.
The climate heretics are not calling for the introduction of a whole new subject area, a subject that properly belongs in religion class rather than science class. They are calling for a balanced approach to a scientific idea, an unproven one. They are in fact doing the opposite of the creationists - they are calling for the removal of a religious doctrine that should really be in a green-painted classroom taught by someone in a hair shirt and sandals, and built around a fine old oak known as the 'hugging tree'.
Now, James Lovelock complains that we are all too stupid to save the planet. This is the guy who claimed that the whole planet was one living thing (Gaia) and was self-regulating. Now he believes it's not self-regulating at all, and we have to do it.
To that end, he wants to suspend democracy. That's right, an unelected tree-hugger wants to rule us on his say-so and his alone. On the basis of some seriously dodgy science, we are to give up all freedoms and democratic processes.
Harmless? The Climatologists have the ear of the Gorgon. The Gorgon would love to suspend democracy. Permanently.
We are all expecting an election on May 6th. There has been no announcement. Parliament has not been dissolved. Labour are still making up new laws. All it will take is one sunny day and bingo - global warming! Emergency! Postpone the election while we deal with it! It will take centuries!
Would you put it past him?
Don't imagine you can trust the scientific community either. There has been something in the wind for a very long time and it's getting close enough to see now.