what’s this?
November 20th, 2007
climate change
There are two news items of interest this week - of interest if you are one to question the “experts”. First, the Washington Post together with “60 Minutes” broke their investigation of the FBI’s bullet lead analysis farce. Since JFK’s assassination, the FBI - with presumably the country’s top forensic scientists - have been using what is now known to be junk science in over 2500 criminal cases, where for at least 50, this bogus evidence was pivotal in obtaining a conviction. Until 2004, when studies conducted by the National Academy of Science confirmed that “bullet lead analysis” was essentially worthless, this was considered good forensic science. What’s remarkable about this is that anyone with a college level course in chemistry could have easily questioned the scientific basis for such an analysis, yet this was not done despite the “analytical” evidence being used in 2500 cases! Not until 1991, when one retired FBI chemist questioned it on his own, was it challenged - and not until the NAS study verified his concerns did the FBI acknowledge the problem. Even so, they are doing little about it - except maybe to suggest the analysis isn’t good.
Why was this never challenged? Was it because it was “established” science? Supported by forensic science - PhD’s and other experts?
Vioxx - a block buster arthritis drug introduced by Merck in 1999- was pulled off the market by the FDA because of the high incident of heart attacks associated with its use. Just this past week, Merck agreed to a structured settlement for $5 billion to resolve the litigation against it.
So how did this happen? One of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies markets a drug with a high incidence of fatal side effects after following the regulatory process of our Food and Drug Administration; both the FDA and Merck are staffed (presumably) with experts. Yet, the “science” - all of it - failed.
And of course, we’re begging the issue by pointing out the reasons given for our attacking Iraq; those too proved to be in error despite all the “expertise” brought to bear on the problem.
So when someone says the “debate is over” or that the “scientific consensus” is such and so… or that the “experts all agree”, then you can be sure something is amiss.
Which brings us to the spaghetti graph at the beginning of this post. It is a multiple data plot of 18 paleoclimate temperature proxies covering the last 2000 years prepared by Craig Loehle. This graph, and the discussion behind it can be found at ClimateAudit.org here. Many of these paleoclimate temperature proxies used in Craig’s graph are found behind the infamous “hockey stock graph” of Michael Mann, used by the IPCC for its dire warnings, as well as by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”, disguised as the “Thompson” thermometer, but actually is Thompson’s own referenced version of the original Mann graph.
What’s the difference? Well, for one, the data is basically raw; not “massaged” but simply calibrated. And it omits a few proxies that Mann used (Bristlecone pine - tree rings). See any “hockey stick” in that data?
Here’s the “hockey stick” of Michael Mann:
Note: Mann’s graph only covers the last 1000 years.
Comments