Maybe the FP will eventually get around to realizing that corruption and fraud are now the norm in "science" as science has been co-opted to provide the "evidence" to support the governing narrative.
Decision based evidence making, everywhere you turn.
In this updated piece Roger Pielkie Jr details how there are still 25 "science papers" a day being generated based on a ludicrous scenario for future emissions that was shown years ago to be completely unrealistic, RCP8.5. He had initially shown there were 17,000 papers based on this ridiculous premise, now there are over 45,000. So 28,000 papers based on a fraudulent premise.
So when you read nonsensical "news" about catastrophic future climate impacts, know that they are all fraud.
Continually amazes me that people here and on Public, Racket, etc rail about how government and MSM are all corrupt and you can't believe what they say regarding anything WOKE or censorship, but they publish an article referencing "science" that says greenland is going to melt in 50 years and we're all going to drown and you nod and says yes, OMG, ALL GOING TO DIE.
The third rail for TFP is obviously climate science. The biggest story in ages - the Michael Mann jury in a friendly DC court - and they haven't touched it. Mann refuses to release his data, as well, but the jury ruled that any criticism is libelous, because, as his lawyer put it, "so that in the future, no one will dare engage in climate denialism." In Canada, an MP recently proposed that anyone who does dare should be jailed.
If you think medical research is an issue these days - and it is - the climate stuff is all that plus politics. RCP 8.5 is based on a game of telephone played on layer upon layer of conclusions based on tiny probabilities. Then the climate models bake that in and play similar games on top of that.
Meanwhile, governments base decisions on these models and mandate converting everything to electric, so utilities are getting closer and closer to not being able to provide enough during peak demand periods. FERC's been warning us for years now.
It's not that surprising that there's warming after the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s. But the climate models based on RCP 8.5 and its predecessors are running very hot in just a few years. As we transition back into La Nina over the next few months, that difference will become even more significant.
You are referencing the idiotic Charlie Angus of the NDP here in canada. Being NDP i always question his intelligence but this proposed bill is so far over the top you need a space ship to catch up to it.
It doesn't even call out "climate denialism", whatever that is, it proposes to make illegal statements that a fossil fuel provided any positive benefit.
"Natural gas prevented us from freezing to death in January when all our renewables went to zero", a factual statement, would be punishable with fines and jail time.
These people are allowed to interact with society.
The FP can only go so far in calling out their masters. They will bend every corner in service to the Democratic Party machine that runs "the narrative" complex.
The danger from the warming climate is not so much sea level rise, it's the drastic increase in fires. Fire tornadoes are now a thing. They weren't 30 years ago. The sky being orange for days at a time in American cities wasn't a thing 30 years ago. Now it is.
Regardless of what a single scientist who may exaggerate may say, we can certainly look at average temperature records since the 1800s and see that there is a rapid rise that is faster than can be explained by the earth's natural processes.
Besides, moving to cleaner forms of energy is healthier in the long run anyway. Why would I want to live in a place that's covered in smoke from burning coal if I can live in a place with blue skies powered by solar, wind, nuclear or even natural gas?
Fire is how forests regenerate. There are even tree species that require fire to propagate. Recent trends have far more to do with brush-clearing policies and management than temperature. When management techniques began in earnest, less than 100 years ago, forest fires burned far more acreage than even the worst years today. But some of these techniques, now banned in many areas, were used hundreds - even thousands - of years ago by Native Americans.
In other words, one degree of temperature or a change in CO2 levels have no effect on the amount of acreage burned in a year. If it did, you'd see far smoother curves with no correlation to management techniques.
One day it's sea-level rise. When it's obvious that isn't causing any problems, it becomes tornadoes. When it's obvious those aren't increasing (better detection and warning systems have made them far less deadly, as well), it's the fires. Something notable is always happening somewhere with the climate. Yet fewer people are affected every year because what has improved is our ability to adapt, to warn people, to build better structures. The tragedy in Hawai'i last year was avoidable and had nothing to do with climate change.
You should note that the AP is paid millions every year to "report" on climate change - and in a very specific way. Other major news organizations are similarly corrupted. Journalism in the 2020s is not the independent voice it should be in theory. I hope TFP is willing to take on this story - Bari has done a great job illustrating the issues with grants and university funding. This story is all that and a media that is paid to scare you.
I agree and would like to add two additional points. One, houses are being built in places where they were not before, like wilderness areas and precarious coastal lots. Two, people no longer understand weather. My mother (a farmer’s daughter) taught us about weather, her parents taught her as generations before them have always done. People no longer consider weather as part of their daily lives, and barely watch the daily weather on the “news.”
Of course there were orange skies in the USA at various times through history, bad wildfire years happen. The DATA shows a decreasing trend of wildfires and area burned in north america and the world even though the percentage of fires started by humans increases every year. We in Canada had a bad record year in 2023, but the continental usa was at a historical low, less than 1/3 the average.
Isn't "climate change" global?
Here in Alberta, we had 90+ fires started in first two weeks of May, >95% human started and that was that. there are no resources to attack and put out that many fires at once so they raged away out of control.
There is no rapid temperature rise since 1800 that cannot be explained by natural factors and in fact there have been far greater changes in a shorter period in the last 10kyears so there goes another argument.
Oh, and according to "the science", CO2 levels never got high enough to start supposedly affecting the climate until after 1950 but yet its been warming since at least 1800.
And where exactly did i mention coal? That seems to be your strawman. The climate insane are 100% opposed to nuclear and gas, and new hydro, so again, your argument lacks.
160 years ago fires ravaged from time to time but most people didn't live very near to them. 60 years ago people managed the forests with logging and fuel clearance and controlled burns. for the more recent decades activists have pushed back against such activities to keep the forest in its "natural state". Its "natural state" is not one of never burning and yet also having tons of fuel building up. Its natural state is irregular smaller fires that burn off fuel.
Even the california budget office realized this, and blamed Newsom's forest management policies for the fires being so common and intesne now. Fuel is left there and even, in fact protected, until it builds up so much it results in a massive fire. Some cutting and lots of management are needed. The federal lands right next to state-managed lands haven't burned as often or as badly.
the sad part is we knew how to do all of this, but some people think they know better and have overriden that wisdom.
You need better information, I recommend https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/ - Cliff is an atmospheric scientist at UW and very even-keeled about climate. If you poke around there you'll find plenty of articles about how the scare-mongering about humans ruining the climate viz drought, heat waves, fire, hurricanes, etc. is not supported by any substantive evidence
When I was in graduate school and had to read dozens of scientific papers to prepare for my own research, I was shocked with how many of them contained bad data considering they were all peer-reviewed. Came to find out later the "peers" were all friends with the authors of these papers and they were all convinced that their hypotheses were the correct ones. My own research and my adviser's research disagreed with theirs, or least proposed an alternative discussion, and they were all bitter about it and would come to my presentations at conferences to try to tear down our research in front of the community. This was in the physical sciences but it all works the same. Lots of agendas leading to lots of bad science.
Academia, even at the most prestigious institutions, has fallen flat on its face. Even in something so serious as cancer research. First, we had Suzy Weiss' article on how reputable cancer researcher David Sabatini was pressured out of MIT by a vindictive female fellow researcher, now we're being told that scores of published papers used false and even imaginary data. And the only reason they were caught is that the authors included the raw data in their papers. It seems the Ivory Towers of cancer research have been invaded by snide high schoolers, eager to pose as serious intellectuals and sly enough to hide their inadequacies. Just don't publish the data, and you're home free.
The problems of corrupted medical research is profound. Pharma companies, and pharma connected foundations like Gates, etc. are the major funders of medical research. Its something like 90% of medical research is funded by the industry. Clinical trials in particular are expensive. The goal becomes to make the new treatment or drug succeed the trial. Covid vaccines! psychiatric drugs! You can't trust the research...
This is a frightening reality; especially if you are dealing with cancer in your family, with friends, or yourself. I had heard this years ago when cancer research put all their money into everything but the research. I hoped that it was not true anymore. The truth here is painful.
I wonder how many of America's "leading researchers" or journalists or other people who engage in this sort of fraud vote Democrat?
I bet it is in a super-majority... but of course, THAT has nothing to do with this story...
I also wonder why the Democratic Party Rehabilitation Project (aka the Free Press) can't seem to connect its own stories to this most obvious fact. I wonder why Bari Weiss and her team can't seem to see why groups of people who steal money from government all might band together to vote for the group of people who promises to continue to steal money from the people.
I wonder why there is such resistance to real investigation at the Democratic Party Rehabilitation Project.
I have wondered for years about how there has seemingly been almost no real progress against cancer despite the billions of dollars raised for it over the last few decades. Too lucrative to find a cure?
It's insanely lucrative for Pharma. There certainly have been a LOT of cancer drugs/treatments approved in the last 10 years, and they are making tons of money. Merck's Keytruda made 23 BILLION in 2023 (worldwide)...that's a lotta coin. Since pharma isn't invested in preventing cancer, that falls to the NIH....but they are fully in bed with pharma, or Universities, but they are in bed with NIH so there you go!!
You are not correct. It is the opposite. Pharma has pursued many drug leads based on the academic research only for it not to work. One big pharma company looked at a large set of papers and tried to reproduce them and found a large percentage they could not. This kind of fraud does not help pharma at all, quite the opposite. Pharma ends up wasting money looking for drugs based on academic research that is not real. It has been a real problem. As a Pharma scientist I know. There is a different standard for approved drugs through the FDA. They have to work and clearly demonstrate such, at least regarding cancer. A far higher standard than just getting a paper published in a scientific journal. Your fantasy about the NIH being in bed with Pharma is just that, a fantasy.
I'm not saying these collaborations aren't important and necessary, just that the collaborations can turn into relationships that sometimes lose their objectivity.
I come from Pharma too - 36 yrs in R&D/Regulatory. Retired at SVP level.
The unfortunate losers in all this are the genuine researchers (if any) who are conducting research to find cures. I'm aware of radiothons, races, galas, etc., held in my City of Boston to raise money for cancer research. Now I'm questioning whether I should contribute to these causes or if I'm simply enabling some bozo with a medical degree to get his name on a paper or in a journal. Pitiful.
In the early 1960s, my dad went to go and get a masters. He ended up not completing the degree after he got into a shouting match with the professor/researcher whose work he was using to complete his own thesis work. He went and spoke to the guy in the lunch room to ask him, not confront, about the work he was doing. My dad had been unable to replicate the man’s findings when he would try to replicate his research experiments. The man blew up at my father in public, and threatened to discredit him and have him expelled if he questioned it further. Needless to say, my dad never finished the degree.
this problem has been going on for decades, so it’s really nothing new, nor surprised to me.
We should simply follow the leftist science. There is no way the leftist medical mafia will lift an eyebrow in the search for a cure to cancer. Medicine in the US treats symptoms. Diseases that kill us are self inflicted by lifestyle and the myriad medications many of us prescribed.
I'll add this gem for anyone interested. The 200% uptick in cases of pancreatic cancer in young women should be sounding alarm bells in the west. Has anyone noticed?
This behavior has been around nearly 50 years, if not longer. The renowned Harvard cardiologist, Dr. Eugene Braunwald - one of the founders of the "clinical trials" racket - was involved in one of the earliest noteworthy cases: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,955142-2,00.html
As long as there are excess $$ from government (NIH), medical industry, and medical NGO's (American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc.), fraudsters will be among the pigs at the trough.
Maybe the FP will eventually get around to realizing that corruption and fraud are now the norm in "science" as science has been co-opted to provide the "evidence" to support the governing narrative.
Decision based evidence making, everywhere you turn.
In this updated piece Roger Pielkie Jr details how there are still 25 "science papers" a day being generated based on a ludicrous scenario for future emissions that was shown years ago to be completely unrealistic, RCP8.5. He had initially shown there were 17,000 papers based on this ridiculous premise, now there are over 45,000. So 28,000 papers based on a fraudulent premise.
So when you read nonsensical "news" about catastrophic future climate impacts, know that they are all fraud.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated-c2f
Continually amazes me that people here and on Public, Racket, etc rail about how government and MSM are all corrupt and you can't believe what they say regarding anything WOKE or censorship, but they publish an article referencing "science" that says greenland is going to melt in 50 years and we're all going to drown and you nod and says yes, OMG, ALL GOING TO DIE.
The third rail for TFP is obviously climate science. The biggest story in ages - the Michael Mann jury in a friendly DC court - and they haven't touched it. Mann refuses to release his data, as well, but the jury ruled that any criticism is libelous, because, as his lawyer put it, "so that in the future, no one will dare engage in climate denialism." In Canada, an MP recently proposed that anyone who does dare should be jailed.
If you think medical research is an issue these days - and it is - the climate stuff is all that plus politics. RCP 8.5 is based on a game of telephone played on layer upon layer of conclusions based on tiny probabilities. Then the climate models bake that in and play similar games on top of that.
Meanwhile, governments base decisions on these models and mandate converting everything to electric, so utilities are getting closer and closer to not being able to provide enough during peak demand periods. FERC's been warning us for years now.
It's not that surprising that there's warming after the Little Ice Age ended in the 1800s. But the climate models based on RCP 8.5 and its predecessors are running very hot in just a few years. As we transition back into La Nina over the next few months, that difference will become even more significant.
You are referencing the idiotic Charlie Angus of the NDP here in canada. Being NDP i always question his intelligence but this proposed bill is so far over the top you need a space ship to catch up to it.
It doesn't even call out "climate denialism", whatever that is, it proposes to make illegal statements that a fossil fuel provided any positive benefit.
"Natural gas prevented us from freezing to death in January when all our renewables went to zero", a factual statement, would be punishable with fines and jail time.
These people are allowed to interact with society.
it is a solid biological truth that we are all going to die. But the science is really not certain how we will die....
“In the long run we are all dead”.
The FP can only go so far in calling out their masters. They will bend every corner in service to the Democratic Party machine that runs "the narrative" complex.
Umm, I think you may be thinking of another publication. No one at TheFP is saying this.
There are some, that is the point.
That they can believe everything is BS, except for the climate stuff, that is 100% science.
The danger from the warming climate is not so much sea level rise, it's the drastic increase in fires. Fire tornadoes are now a thing. They weren't 30 years ago. The sky being orange for days at a time in American cities wasn't a thing 30 years ago. Now it is.
Regardless of what a single scientist who may exaggerate may say, we can certainly look at average temperature records since the 1800s and see that there is a rapid rise that is faster than can be explained by the earth's natural processes.
Besides, moving to cleaner forms of energy is healthier in the long run anyway. Why would I want to live in a place that's covered in smoke from burning coal if I can live in a place with blue skies powered by solar, wind, nuclear or even natural gas?
Fire is how forests regenerate. There are even tree species that require fire to propagate. Recent trends have far more to do with brush-clearing policies and management than temperature. When management techniques began in earnest, less than 100 years ago, forest fires burned far more acreage than even the worst years today. But some of these techniques, now banned in many areas, were used hundreds - even thousands - of years ago by Native Americans.
In other words, one degree of temperature or a change in CO2 levels have no effect on the amount of acreage burned in a year. If it did, you'd see far smoother curves with no correlation to management techniques.
One day it's sea-level rise. When it's obvious that isn't causing any problems, it becomes tornadoes. When it's obvious those aren't increasing (better detection and warning systems have made them far less deadly, as well), it's the fires. Something notable is always happening somewhere with the climate. Yet fewer people are affected every year because what has improved is our ability to adapt, to warn people, to build better structures. The tragedy in Hawai'i last year was avoidable and had nothing to do with climate change.
You should note that the AP is paid millions every year to "report" on climate change - and in a very specific way. Other major news organizations are similarly corrupted. Journalism in the 2020s is not the independent voice it should be in theory. I hope TFP is willing to take on this story - Bari has done a great job illustrating the issues with grants and university funding. This story is all that and a media that is paid to scare you.
I agree and would like to add two additional points. One, houses are being built in places where they were not before, like wilderness areas and precarious coastal lots. Two, people no longer understand weather. My mother (a farmer’s daughter) taught us about weather, her parents taught her as generations before them have always done. People no longer consider weather as part of their daily lives, and barely watch the daily weather on the “news.”
Of course there were orange skies in the USA at various times through history, bad wildfire years happen. The DATA shows a decreasing trend of wildfires and area burned in north america and the world even though the percentage of fires started by humans increases every year. We in Canada had a bad record year in 2023, but the continental usa was at a historical low, less than 1/3 the average.
Isn't "climate change" global?
Here in Alberta, we had 90+ fires started in first two weeks of May, >95% human started and that was that. there are no resources to attack and put out that many fires at once so they raged away out of control.
There is no rapid temperature rise since 1800 that cannot be explained by natural factors and in fact there have been far greater changes in a shorter period in the last 10kyears so there goes another argument.
Oh, and according to "the science", CO2 levels never got high enough to start supposedly affecting the climate until after 1950 but yet its been warming since at least 1800.
And where exactly did i mention coal? That seems to be your strawman. The climate insane are 100% opposed to nuclear and gas, and new hydro, so again, your argument lacks.
I can see an MSM follower.
160 years ago fires ravaged from time to time but most people didn't live very near to them. 60 years ago people managed the forests with logging and fuel clearance and controlled burns. for the more recent decades activists have pushed back against such activities to keep the forest in its "natural state". Its "natural state" is not one of never burning and yet also having tons of fuel building up. Its natural state is irregular smaller fires that burn off fuel.
Even the california budget office realized this, and blamed Newsom's forest management policies for the fires being so common and intesne now. Fuel is left there and even, in fact protected, until it builds up so much it results in a massive fire. Some cutting and lots of management are needed. The federal lands right next to state-managed lands haven't burned as often or as badly.
the sad part is we knew how to do all of this, but some people think they know better and have overriden that wisdom.
You need better information, I recommend https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/ - Cliff is an atmospheric scientist at UW and very even-keeled about climate. If you poke around there you'll find plenty of articles about how the scare-mongering about humans ruining the climate viz drought, heat waves, fire, hurricanes, etc. is not supported by any substantive evidence
When I was in graduate school and had to read dozens of scientific papers to prepare for my own research, I was shocked with how many of them contained bad data considering they were all peer-reviewed. Came to find out later the "peers" were all friends with the authors of these papers and they were all convinced that their hypotheses were the correct ones. My own research and my adviser's research disagreed with theirs, or least proposed an alternative discussion, and they were all bitter about it and would come to my presentations at conferences to try to tear down our research in front of the community. This was in the physical sciences but it all works the same. Lots of agendas leading to lots of bad science.
Vinay is our truth teller. Listen.
Newton said he was able to make his discoveries because he stood on the shoulders of giants.
Today, science seems to be standing on a swiveling office chair whose teflon coated casters are on an ice rink.
Academia, even at the most prestigious institutions, has fallen flat on its face. Even in something so serious as cancer research. First, we had Suzy Weiss' article on how reputable cancer researcher David Sabatini was pressured out of MIT by a vindictive female fellow researcher, now we're being told that scores of published papers used false and even imaginary data. And the only reason they were caught is that the authors included the raw data in their papers. It seems the Ivory Towers of cancer research have been invaded by snide high schoolers, eager to pose as serious intellectuals and sly enough to hide their inadequacies. Just don't publish the data, and you're home free.
This article dropped off like a cliff...I was scrolling to read more. That's it? This isn't the FP's usual depth. Very thin piece.
Love TFP, but I have to agree.
Is it Friday yet
The problems of corrupted medical research is profound. Pharma companies, and pharma connected foundations like Gates, etc. are the major funders of medical research. Its something like 90% of medical research is funded by the industry. Clinical trials in particular are expensive. The goal becomes to make the new treatment or drug succeed the trial. Covid vaccines! psychiatric drugs! You can't trust the research...
That’s it? That’s all the longer this article is?
The data was hidden.
This is a frightening reality; especially if you are dealing with cancer in your family, with friends, or yourself. I had heard this years ago when cancer research put all their money into everything but the research. I hoped that it was not true anymore. The truth here is painful.
I wonder how many of America's "leading researchers" or journalists or other people who engage in this sort of fraud vote Democrat?
I bet it is in a super-majority... but of course, THAT has nothing to do with this story...
I also wonder why the Democratic Party Rehabilitation Project (aka the Free Press) can't seem to connect its own stories to this most obvious fact. I wonder why Bari Weiss and her team can't seem to see why groups of people who steal money from government all might band together to vote for the group of people who promises to continue to steal money from the people.
I wonder why there is such resistance to real investigation at the Democratic Party Rehabilitation Project.
I have wondered for years about how there has seemingly been almost no real progress against cancer despite the billions of dollars raised for it over the last few decades. Too lucrative to find a cure?
It's insanely lucrative for Pharma. There certainly have been a LOT of cancer drugs/treatments approved in the last 10 years, and they are making tons of money. Merck's Keytruda made 23 BILLION in 2023 (worldwide)...that's a lotta coin. Since pharma isn't invested in preventing cancer, that falls to the NIH....but they are fully in bed with pharma, or Universities, but they are in bed with NIH so there you go!!
You are not correct. It is the opposite. Pharma has pursued many drug leads based on the academic research only for it not to work. One big pharma company looked at a large set of papers and tried to reproduce them and found a large percentage they could not. This kind of fraud does not help pharma at all, quite the opposite. Pharma ends up wasting money looking for drugs based on academic research that is not real. It has been a real problem. As a Pharma scientist I know. There is a different standard for approved drugs through the FDA. They have to work and clearly demonstrate such, at least regarding cancer. A far higher standard than just getting a paper published in a scientific journal. Your fantasy about the NIH being in bed with Pharma is just that, a fantasy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9302569/#:~:text=The%20National%20Institutes%20of%20Health%20(NIH)%2C%20and%20especially%20its,%2Ddilutive%20funding%2C%20scientific%20guidance%2C
I'm not saying these collaborations aren't important and necessary, just that the collaborations can turn into relationships that sometimes lose their objectivity.
I come from Pharma too - 36 yrs in R&D/Regulatory. Retired at SVP level.
The unfortunate losers in all this are the genuine researchers (if any) who are conducting research to find cures. I'm aware of radiothons, races, galas, etc., held in my City of Boston to raise money for cancer research. Now I'm questioning whether I should contribute to these causes or if I'm simply enabling some bozo with a medical degree to get his name on a paper or in a journal. Pitiful.
In the early 1960s, my dad went to go and get a masters. He ended up not completing the degree after he got into a shouting match with the professor/researcher whose work he was using to complete his own thesis work. He went and spoke to the guy in the lunch room to ask him, not confront, about the work he was doing. My dad had been unable to replicate the man’s findings when he would try to replicate his research experiments. The man blew up at my father in public, and threatened to discredit him and have him expelled if he questioned it further. Needless to say, my dad never finished the degree.
this problem has been going on for decades, so it’s really nothing new, nor surprised to me.
We should simply follow the leftist science. There is no way the leftist medical mafia will lift an eyebrow in the search for a cure to cancer. Medicine in the US treats symptoms. Diseases that kill us are self inflicted by lifestyle and the myriad medications many of us prescribed.
Leftism is the root of all that ails humanity.
I'll add this gem for anyone interested. The 200% uptick in cases of pancreatic cancer in young women should be sounding alarm bells in the west. Has anyone noticed?
This behavior has been around nearly 50 years, if not longer. The renowned Harvard cardiologist, Dr. Eugene Braunwald - one of the founders of the "clinical trials" racket - was involved in one of the earliest noteworthy cases: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,955142-2,00.html
As long as there are excess $$ from government (NIH), medical industry, and medical NGO's (American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc.), fraudsters will be among the pigs at the trough.