green science and other oxy-morons

I have been a strong supporter of Michele Bachmann, and I continue to be, despite what I am about to write.  Probably I could have written this before, but I did not have the heart to attack her.  It seems pretty clear to me that she is out of the running for president, so I do not feel any compunction or guilt for writing here what is true.

Michele made a mistake about immunizations.  To be fair, it is a common mistake–many parents of disabled children are aware of the (now discredited) article linking autism to immunizations.  At least one of the authors of that paper now admits that the data was faked, even though others maintain that the conclusions reached are correct.  Michele should know better than to make this claim about immunizations, a claim based in bad science.

Michele was correct that immunizations are not without risk.  I am a strong proponent of universal immunizations, and I know that immunizations have prevented and continue to prevent disease in the US and in the world.  The disease prevented far out measures the side effects that are caused by immunization–by at least a hundred fold, and probably by a million fold in most cases.  Even so, we must admit that immunizations have risk.  Mental impairment has never proved to be one of those risks.

Sorry Michele.  I still support you for president, and would vote for you in a second, but you made a mistake there.

Science is about the provable.  If you have a paper with conclusions you agree with, that still does not matter if the paper is based on bad data.  If everyone you know also agrees that the conclusions of that paper were right, it still does not matter if the paper is bad science.

Which brings me to my point.  Green science.  Every major paper that alleges to prove “global warming” is caused by CO2 elevation has been proven to be based on fake data and bad statistical models.  We disprove one paper, and, like playing ‘whack a mole’, ten more pop up, so the most recent papers have not yet been disproved, but they will be.  How do I know this?  Because I am a scientist, and an expert at detecting good research.

If we hold Michele to the standard that her research must not be based on research that is now disproved, why not hold the ‘global warming’ folks to the same standard?

my credentials:

I am a physician, with an MD from the University of Miami in 1992, I am currently licensed in the state of Minnesota, and I am board certified in two specialties in Pathology.  I am a clinical Pathologist, which means I run laboratories, and research patient care issues related to laboratory testing.  My areas of special interest are medical data coding and parasitology, and I hold two patents.

disprove ‘global warming’ in 100 words:

CO2 is elevated in the atmosphere–provably true–but this does not cause significant global warming or significant changes in sea level.  The concentration of H2O in our atmosphere is highly variable, but always at least a dozen times more than CO2, and often more than a hundred times higher.  H2O is a more active ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2.  Weather (Climate) is a chaotic system, which is partly buffered by the presence of atmospheric H2O, and when an external force is applied to a buffered chaotic system, that force may slightly shift the mean of the chaotic system, but will not have a lasting affect, unless it eliminates the buffering on the system.

I would not advocate ignoring the CO2 elevation–this is a significant finding which should be studied carefully.  It should be studied calmly, without hysteria.