Like Standing up at an AA Meeting

I think that sometime fairly soon I’m going to dust off the little prototype climate simulation model I wrote a few years back. But instead of just using a square metre on the Earth’s equator, I’m going to do the whole of the Earth’s surface. And I’m going to have an atmosphere. And clouds. And, who knows, maybe even winds blowing this way and that.

Last time I tried, I got a bit stuck trying to model the atmosphere, and ended up going in circles playing photon football. So I’ve been gradually sketching out a new approach.

Part of the reason for this is that, despite fewer and fewer people believing it, the AGW scam never seems to go away. It seems to remain government policy everywhere, despite the collapse in credibility.

The other part of it is that I just like building computer simulation models of things. It’s probably an addiction. Much like smoking cigarettes. Or drinking tea. Or anything else.

I’m interested in how people come to be be sceptical about global warming. I know how I started. I was watching Jon Snow on Channel 4 news back in early 2007, and he was saying that “global warming was happening”, and “humans were to blame”, and “the debate is over”. And with that, any belief in it all that I might have had suddenly evaporated. It was like flipping a light switch. One moment I was agnostic, and a second or two later I’d become a sceptic, and have remained one ever since. Because in real science the debate is never over.

And a few days ago on WUWT, an engineer named Jonathan Abbott wrote a piece about how he became a climate sceptic, and asked if any of the readers had similar experiences. And he got about 600 responses (including my own). They make fascinating reading. They ranged from

I watched an interview with the Hockeystick Mann and thought to myself, “what an unpleasant, conceited, self opinionated arsehole”. That was that.

to engineers like the author who had, after initial belief, had very gradually changed their minds.

Engineers can’t afford to take other people’s word for it, cut corners or massage the data. Otherwise buildings, bridges and entire cities would collapse. Where’s the accountability in climate science?

or people who a read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear or Christopher Booker, or who had come across WUWT or Climate Audit or Jo Nova by accident. Or who had been woken up by Climategate.

Then ClimateGate 1.0 came about, and I was convinced. There were actually a very small number of people shamelessly manipulating the media, the peer-review process, and most of all, the data, to make us believe it was all real. That, above all, convinced me it was not.

Jonathan Abbott was rather amazed at the response, and wrote:

I feel like I just stood up at an AA meeting.

And it was indeed rather like that (not that I’ve ever been to one of them). It was a long series of personal confessions. And they were all different. I’ve spent hours today reading them.

And I was thinking, as I usually do, that the tobacco scare is structurally the same as the AGW scare, and also a lot older. It provided the template. Which one or two commenters also drew attention to:

just pointing out that the second hand smoke scare is based on so called science that’s equally as shabby as climate science

At which point Anthony Watts, who runs WUWT, and both of whose parents were smokers who died of lung cancer, angrily stepped in with his only comment:

Enough of the tobacco talk, all further comments snipped.

It’s a premier climate sceptic blog, but WUWT will never be tobacco sceptic, I fear.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Like Standing up at an AA Meeting

  1. Marvin says:

    “Engineers can’t afford to take other people’s word for it, cut corners or massage the data. Otherwise buildings, bridges and entire cities would collapse. Where’s the accountability in climate science?”

    Amen to that!!

    IMO it is the split between “theory” and “practice” in science generally, (which today is a chasm), that is the reason for the spread of pseudo/fake science.
    On the one hand we have something that is WHOLLY theoretical (eg. present day cosmology/AGW) and on the other hand something WHOLLY practical (the technician who knows how to monitor the system, but does not fully understand it (eg. doctors/FBW commercial air line pilots).

    Today, there are very few scientists who understand the science AND have the practical ability to create something useful with it, such as Edison or Robert Noyce.
    These people like all good scientists and engineers COMBINE theory and practice into the one, single person, which makes them unique and valuable.

    There is an old adage, “sending rockets to the moon is 5% science and 95% engineering”, but who gets all the plaudits and social standing? – certainly not the engineers with their APPLIED science who make it all possible.

  2. Walt says:

    Already a skeptic, about 6? years ago I attended a debate between a panel of Warmists and a panel of There’s No Such Thingists, On the latter team (I think each team had 3) was Michael Crichton and on the former, I believe James Hanson himself (if that’s the name of the arch US Chicken Little). The debate was, of course, in uber-liberal NYC. The audience was asked, coming in, to vote Believer/. Nonbeliever and the Ayes had it. After the debate, the Nays won the night by an impressive margin, even here in NYC. And I’d attribute the reason to the arrogance, authoritarianism and patronization of the proponents. IOW I agree with the commenter you quote who said that the “unpleasant, conceited” a-holes destroy their own game.

    • Walt says:

      I bet the same would happen if Glantz and Banzaf debated you and Snowdon.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Al Gore totally avoided any open debates,he was simply a mouth piece but his dollars came from his Carbon trading company in Paris he set up back in the 90s. Your all right they destroy their own argument as much do Glantz and Banzhaft! The nazis seem to have upped their final solution to smoking starting to hit the airwaves with a new gallup poll asking about total prohibition of tobacco and all the other fast tracked bans they can get in place as fast as possible. I can say this,why would you move as fast as lightening to get your agenda put into criminal law…………quite simply political winds are going against them all!

        • Frank Davis says:

          a new gallup poll asking about total prohibition of tobacco

          Got a link?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          July 29, 2013
          In U.S., Support for Complete Smoking Ban Increases to 22%
          Another 55% support banning smoking in all public places
          by Andrew Dugan

          WASHINGTON, D.C. — More Americans than ever want to ban smoking outright: 22% say so today, up from 12% in 2007. Separately, 55% would make smoking in all public places totally illegal, also a proposal that has gained considerable support since 2007.

          Trends: Should smoking in this country be made totally illegal or not? Should smoking in public places be made totally illegal, or not?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Frank Mikle was saying the other day on your blog Gallup has changed its tune from truthful polling on another poll they did awhile back. Id have to go back a week or two to find it though.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Found it

          michaeljmcfadden says:
          July 22, 2013 at 2:15 am

          “In that way, we win over the waverers. Let us never forget the Mirror poll which showed that 80% are against the smoking ban.”

          The big pollers here in the US are the Gallup folks. One of the things they’re proudest of is their steady identical year after year polling showing trends.

          Five or ten years ago they included “A ban in all bars” in their poll. Unfortunately for the Antis only about 25% of the population liked the idea and it didn’t get any better over time. So last year Gallup CHANGED its polling to get rid of the question and lump bars in with restaurants! Absolutely incredible that they could have corrupted an institution that has built its entire reputation upon being incorruptible!


          – MJM

  3. margo says:

    Unlike many here, I remain agnostic about climate change and its possible causes. It seems to me that arctic ice, sea levels and temperature and the vagaries of the jet stream are all measurable, but other aspects are not so easily determined. It also seems to me that endless outpourings of pollutants by humans, constant deforestation and the loss of animal habitats, and so on, are for many reasons probably Bad, and the planet’s resources are not limitless (whereas, unfortunately, human proliferation seems to be). Climate science is young and there is a lot still to be learnt about the extent, if any, to which humanity is wrecking the planet. I have not read anything by climate scientists that tells me otherwise.
    On the other hand, there is no good science whatsoever in tobacco control. This is a completely different ball-game, absolutely not based on science. I was mystified when I found so many libertarian blogs lumping the two subjects together. I don’t see any similarity between them at all. For me, the one is a total scam being managed probably for purely political reasons, the other is a very worrying hypothesis that still needs a lot of work.
    For what it’s worth, that’s where I stand at the moment!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Psst Margo,the climate nutz use the same junk science that the nazi anti-smokers use!
      They are all the same folks with the same control it all agenda,both working the extremes to an end game result.

      Anti-smoking got their jump with the enviro-wackos precautionary principle at a rio summit in the 1970s………….no proof all of a sudden became proof!

      How did it happen,quite simply ENVIROMENTALISM!

      Precaution as Customary Law
      The question whether the precautionary principle is a principle of customary international
      law has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the principle’s inclusion
      in the Rio Declaration.

      Click to access 82.pdf

      Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

      The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

      Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,

      Yes indeed the precautionary principle is an intregal part of GLOBAL GOVERNANCE and well taking over the world!

      We fight them both as they are indeed the same enemy! Our fight is also cross aligned with fighting for the obese and for alcohol……….its all hand in hand and many of us just never figured it out until the same names started popping up and the epidemiology studies we are so familiar with started to be used by the Climate liars to back up their game plan and failed models they wrote the programs for………….

      They have invented everything to one end…………global control.

      We fight back!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Margo they have so completely destroyed the scientific process there is literally nothing left to BELIEVE. Everything over the last 40 years isnt just suspect but should probably be tossed into a giant burn pile and destroyed. Then return to actually requiring REAL PROOF and no more bogus theories. Weve seen for years the leftists and others yanking down the real science to toss up their own new science to replace tried and true levels of toxicty to chemicals. Then they take epidemiology and use it along with polling and media hype to create a blind allegiance belief amongst the populace to their agenda and claims……………The modus operendi is the same no matter the subject matter………..take the facts as in ice core samples and spin it using epidemiology to create little ice ages and the such to a catostrophic future event of their own making.

      Forget natural cycles of the earth where the climate changes every hundred years for a few decades and then it gets back to normal and these charletons know the 100 year cycles and started theyre collective hype back in the 1970s with burning rain forrests causing global cooling. They knew in advance the cyclic changes that occur at the 100 year marks and they were hoping to cash in on the deception they could create from it!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        We humans adapt to ever changing weather,hense why we started wearing clothing,then came modesty and other emotional hangups that created our cultures.
        We moved up the evolutionary chain and created our own world………..Then we get the great decievers working against our human system of living together and mutual respect of co-existance and try to control us thru any means they decide and then when we revolt we are labelled ” DENIERS” Even religion uses such schemes to subdue the weak minded. Truly independent folks rise up and are not duped and they become the true leaders against the controllers……….. As they say everybody needs something to believe in,but lies and propaganda arent beliefs they are created beliefs. Lets let our beliefs be based upon hard cold facts……………Not created myths of junk scientists.

        • Rose says:

          Could I just amend that statement slightly, Harley?

          “Lets let our beliefs be based upon hard cold, replicable , facts……………Not created myths of junk scientists”

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Yep right on Rose!

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism

    Global warming”: the Left’s last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy.

    For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It’s for Mother Earth! It’s for the children! It’s for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they’ve trumped up haven’t been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only “global governance” (Jacques Chirac’s words) can tackle such problems.

    Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left’s manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes—and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that “global warming” is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It’s the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could “solve” it. According to the logic of the greens’ own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government.

    Horner (an attorney and senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today’s environmentalists, dubbing them “green on the outside, red to the core.” He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics—and worse—against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examining the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol on an unwilling American public; and much more—including the green lobby’s favorite politicians (John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others).

    It’s time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted, and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Back when Mt St.Helens exploded it was said that it released more pollutants on a scale 1000s of times more than that of all human existence since man first walked upright. Then in short order mother earth cleaned it all up! Yet some how man is causing climates to change. You can clear a lot of brush and saplings and within a year its all grown back………..Nature is a never ending continuous cycle of life. We aint gonna harm it,but it will sure harm us! Thats what we have always done fought nature for the right to exist on earth,yet its what keeps us alive despite our human activity.

      • margo says:

        Excellent, Harley. I’m still working on it all. No, we won’t kill ‘nature’, but we’re changing it radically, I think, and may well go down because of it. Not convinced yet.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          No problem Margo……………….I still think a few things myself but not quite prepared to share them yet as there not related to any on going topic that we deal with right now in our fight for freedom.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank I stayed on topic…………………….lord kick me

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    When the Liberals finally manage to indoctrinate all of the politicians, all we will be able to drink will be Unicorn Milk and Smoke Fairy Dust. We will be doing this as we drive a Flux Capacitor Powered Prius while taking a Gay Boy Scout to a Vegan Buffet at a organic mall in Nirvana

  7. garyk30 says:

    “the debate is over”and “humanity is wrecking the planet.”
    1.In science the ‘debate’ over uncertain theories is never over.

    2. I doubt that the Earth is even aware, if it has awareness, that mankind exists.
    For every pound of people there are about 135,000,000 pounds of earth.
    This is akin to saying that: “birds pooping on a branch will wreck a very large Oak tree.”.

    • garyk30 says:

      “It’s probably an addiction. Much like smoking cigarettes. Or drinking tea. Or anything else.”

      These things are very sttrange addictions.
      They are only addictive when you are awake.
      I have been keeping track of my dreams for many years and I never dream of people smoking or myself ‘needing’ a cigarette and I smoke about 30 of them every day.

      If thirsty, I dream of of drinking large amounts of water and not being satisfied and the same with being hungry.

      When my bladder is full, dreams can be rather frantic.

      But, I never smoke in my dreams and, altho I drink a lot of wine, no one in my dreams is ever consuming alcohol and I am never desperate for booze.

      Do any of the other readers of this blog have the same experience?

  8. cherie79 says:

    Come to think of it I have never dreamed I, or anyone else, was smoking either.

    • garyk30 says:

      There we have it, a ‘consensus’, the debate is over.
      Smoking is not addictive!

      Am still curious, though most people probably do not remember their dreams.

      • Emily says:

        I don’t think I ever have dreamed about smoking. Anecdotally though, someone once told me that they quit smoking, and craved cigarettes for a long time, but then had a dream one night that there were smoking and woke up with all cravings gone. Interesting.

        • margo says:

          Me neither – never had a ‘smoking’ dream, though I’ve always been very interested in my dreams. It’s a bit weird, isn’t it. I think I’ve had ‘eating’ dreams, possibly, but never ‘smoking’.

  9. beobrigitte says:

    And I was thinking, as I usually do, that the tobacco scare is structurally the same as the AGW scare, and also a lot older. It provided the template. Which one or two commenters also drew attention to:

    just pointing out that the second hand smoke scare is based on so called science that’s equally as shabby as climate science

    At which point Anthony Watts, who runs WUWT, and both of whose parents were smokers who died of lung cancer, angrily stepped in with his only comment:

    Enough of the tobacco talk, all further comments snipped.

    It’s a premier climate sceptic blog, but WUWT will never be tobacco sceptic, I fear.

    It looks like the very shabby tactics Anthony Watts opposes and writes about work a treat on him.
    It is a pity that he never thought logically about the genesis of any cancer; he looked for ONE thing to blame for his loss.
    Is Anthony Watts aware that for a cancer to present there are MULTIPLE factors required? Is he aware that there are also DNA antibodies? How powerful does Anthony Watts think an autoimmune response is?
    Prime example:Type 1 Diabetes; absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle; it is the result of a response to a virus that presents a very similar protein coat as the insulin producing cells on the pancreas. You mount a response, your antibodies kill the virus but as they cannot tell the difference between the viral protein coat and the insulin producing cells due to similarity, your produced antibodies to this particular virus will destroy the pancreatic cells, too. Zap. From now on you will be a diabetic injecting insulin on a daily basis for the rest of your life.

    Perhaps Anthony Watts has embraced tobacco control a little too soon. I wish he was as critical of them as he is of climate change advocates. The tactics employed by both groups, after all, are the same and have been used before.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      “At which point Anthony Watts, who runs WUWT, and both of whose parents were smokers who died of lung cancer, angrily stepped in with his only comment …

      It is odd, isn’t it, how people can be sceptical about so many things, wary of Government and “expert” opinions on all number of topics, mistrustful of the authorities’ instructions as to how we should or shouldn’t live our lives and resentful of every hectoring fake-charity seeking to become – often, even in their own words – “the new tobacco,” and yet they can remain absolutely, devotedly wedded to the anti-smoking mantra despite the fact that there are so many similarities in so many ways to the very same things that they are wary, mistrustful or resentful about.

      It is almost as if anti-smoking has, in a subtle way, become the new national religion, to be defended at all costs and never criticised, even when it is quite clearly the basic template upon which all their other despised or mistrusted theories are based. These people can witter on all they like about dodgy climate science, creeping alcohol prohibition, the steady erosion of personal freedoms, the infantilisation of adult society and the nanny state, but ultimately they’ll get nowhere all the time they stubbornly adhere to the whole anti-smoking charade because, like the cancer that they so proudly like to blame smoking for, the rot that is anti-smoking will continue to sprout “secondaries” in its own image in other areas ad infinitum all the time it has their support.

      Being a climate change sceptic, or being against alcohol restrictions, or ID cards, or microchipping children, or Change4Life “nudging,” without also being against the anti-smoking movement is akin to painting over the mouldy patches in a damp wall. You might conceal the problem for a little while, and you might even be able to convince yourself that you’ve “solved the problem” – but it’ll just crop up somewhere else later. And it will continue to do so until you get right to the root of the problem and get rid of it completely.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Worth noting here from velvet glove today

    Clive Bates said…

    My own contribution to pouring scorn on the directive: a gargantuan dog’s breakfast.

    Particularly concerning for the Prime Minister and anyone concerned for our relationship with the EU will be the Department of Health contribution to the Balance of Competencies Review, which basically reports that all’s for the best in the best of all possible worlds….

    In summary, most of the responses we received suggested that the current balance of competence appears to be working well, resulting in complementary UK and EU action to reduce the harm from tobacco in the UK. Some respondents also noted that it has helped to strengthen the functioning of the single market. The Government recognises the positive joint working between Member States and the Commission, and that this work has been instrumental in reducing smoking rates across the EU. Those against legislation in the area of tobacco would appear to prefer a less regulatory approach to tobacco control more generally, regardless of whether that legislation emanates from the EU or is domestic legislation.

    Without legislation at the EU level, the UK would need to legislate domestically to ensure comprehensive tobacco control remained in place in the UK, affording the public with the same levels of protection from the harms from tobacco that they enjoy now.

    Legislation – both EU and domestic – has been shown to be an important tool in comprehensive tobacco control and has helped the UK comply with its obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

    In conclusion, based on the evidence submitted, the current balance of competence between the EU and the UK was considered by stakeholders to be broadly appropriate and that these competences are properly applied but that competence
    should not be extended further.

    That doesn’t seem to leave much room for Mr Cameron’s most difficult political challenge – renegotiation of the terms of EU membership. Not surprising really, DH has its hands dipped in the blood… all departments do, as they negotiated these arrangements over the years with the backing of the stakeholders they consulted. It would be odd if they suddenly declared them unfit. That amounts to a deep flaw in the design of the ‘balance of competencies’ process.
    30 July 2013 09:43

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Medicalizing of America

    Part I: The Numbers Game

    Medicalize: “To identify or categorize (a condition or behavior) as being a disorder requiring medical treatment or intervention,” American Heritage Dictionary.

    Responses to virtually all questions, medical and otherwise fall into two categories: 1. Those having a finite number of answers, including yes, no, or in-between, for example “are you hungry?” or “are you sick?” and 2. Questions having a range of answers or values. Biologic and other scientific measurements fall into this latter category and include such things as weight, age, height, blood pressure, blood chemical values, such as glucose, cholesterol, PSA, etc. Where we get into trouble is in deciding, particularly in medicine, what is indeed normal and what is not. No matter where we place the dividing line or cutoff point, we are faced with an irresolvable medical dilemma.

    If we make the cutoff between normal and abnormal too low, we include too many normal in the abnormal group (called false positives, a Type I error); if the cutoff is too high, we include an excess of abnormal in the normal group (false negatives, Type II error). In the first instance we call too many well people sick, and in the latter, too many sick people well. (We are assuming the spectrum of low to high corresponds to the range of normal to abnormal; sometimes this range is reversed.)

    Over the years, various cutoff points for normal values have been based on generally accepted statistical and common sense clinical grounds. For example we have “normal” values for fasting and non-fasting blood sugars, upon which the diagnosis of diabetes is based; the “normal” level for blood pressure, defining the condition, hypertension; cutoff points for weight, defining obesity; and “normal” levels of blood lipids (HDL,LDL and total cholesterol) which for some even define the presence of heart disease (sic!). In what appears as a fatally misguided hope of extending treatment benefits to as many citizens as possible, various professional societies as well as Government Agencies have indeed changed our definitions of disease with unforeseen consequences. Specifically, in the present climate of change driven by a perceived need to keep us healthy and long-lived, these cutoff points have been lowered progressively and so drastically as virtually to create a nation of patients.

    In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality. Using data abstracted from over 20,700 patients included in this Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors calculated the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and being overweight under the old and the new definitions and calculated the net change (i.e., number of new cases). Here are the results reported in the above article.


    Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
    People under old definition: 11.7 million
    New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
    People added under new definition: 1.7 million
    Percent increase: 15%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.


    High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

    Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
    People under old definition: 38.7 million
    New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
    People added under new definition: 13.5 million
    Percent Increase: 35%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

    Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

    High (Total) Cholesterol:

    Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People under old definition: 49.5 million
    New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People added under new definition: 42.6 million
    Percent increase: 86%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.


    Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

    Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
    People under old definition: 70.6 million
    New definition: BMI > 25
    People added under new definition: 30.5 million
    Percent Increase: 43%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

    “The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers. They add cautiously that “…the extent to which new ‘patients’ would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.”

    We seem to live in an equal opportunity consumer culture tyrannized by the fear of growing “epidemics” going by the leading risk brand names, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Diabetes, and High Cholesterol. Just read the papers, peruse the Internet, or turn on your TV to learn what the Government watchdogs, the consensus insurgency, and the other image makers have to say about our disastrous state of health.

    Several related questions arise when we consider the implications of these new definitions of disease (actually disease risk-markers). First how did these official and semi-official watchdogs achieve their status of “guideline-makers,”who appoints them and why, and how powerful an influence do they wield in terms of medical practice? Finally, one has to wonder what is the rationale for adding over 86 million new “patients” (not counting 45 million “prehypertensives”) to our already staggering over-the-top healthcare cost.

    Coming soon, these and other issues will be examined in our next newsletter.

    Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP
    Copyright 2005, Mathemedics, Inc.

  12. GC says:

    You may want to watch the first minute and a half… The main source of lung cancer, not smoking.
    Real Cure by Dr. Joel Wallach – Part 7 of 8

    • beobrigitte says:

      90% of lung cancer occurs in people who never smoked. Smoking is not “the” cause of lung cancer. It’s Inhaling all the fumes when you fry your food

      Prof Grieshaber did go a into this described in his book “Goetterdaemmerung der Wissenschaft” as part of his work. He did find that the lung cancer rates in cooks in e.g. restaurants was significantly higher than that of the personell being exposed to customers smoking.
      hare encountering “Prof Grieshaber also outlined (and ?implemented – can’t remember right now) ventilation systems to prevent cooks being exposed to these fried food fumes.
      On the other hand, Prof Grieshaber also observed in his EXTENSIVE study that lung cancer rates amongst waiters in smoking allowed restaurants was actually very low.

      So much for SHS as a cause of lung cancer.

      If you are a cook in a busy restaurant + are exposed to virae and bacteriae (aren’t we all every day? They are why we do have the ability to produce antibodies!) you encounter 2 REAL cancer causing factors being ignored in order to push a lobby group’s agenda: pin cancer on smoking because this lobby group hates the smell of tobacco and can’t persuade enough people to open a non-smoker pub.
      Health has nothing to do with smoking bans. The “poor chiiiildren”? The anti-smoking lobby gives a toss about children. They (ab)use them to drive for smoking bans, that’s all.
      (Has any of the anti-smoker cared about e.g. Syria’s children? They got the smoking ban there and they celebrate another state conned. The children there NOW are just “collateral damage”.

  13. raybarfoot says:

    dear frank, I have been watching for sometime now these jerks such as anne soubry amd Andrew black. simply mahvelous. this pinch-faced harridan actually had the nerve to tell the scrutiny committee she hd to side step the rules she just had to for the childreeennnnnn!!!!! a pox on her and black both they are not fit for purpose.granddads law states plainly when someone says it is for the children they have already lost the debate.also I am an aa member and at least in birmingham Alabama we don’t stand when we share, well we do if the room is crowded.but rarely standing room only. we share our experience strength and hope.on what ever is threatening our hold on sobriety that particular clubhouse went smokefree in 2005 and I am still not content with it but as they say life on life s terms. I still read your blog every chance I get. good fortune from united states of America. yours respectfully ray barfoot

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.