The University of Sidney, Australia, did a two-year statistical study at The Children's Hospital at Westmead. The study was investigating the effects of temperature rise on fever rates among children under six years old.
The result?
The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.
A cursory reading would seem to indicate that a major problem in children's health is looming, and that climate change (read: "global warming") is the causative factor.
This conclusion is jumped at fairly quickly by researcher Lawrence Lam, a paediatrics specialist.
Dr Lam said the results, collated from The Children's Hospital at Westmead admissions, back up beliefs that children are less able to regulate their bodies against climate change than adults.
The brain's thermal regulation mechanism is not as well developed in children, making them more susceptible to "overheating" and at risk of developing illness, he said.
Once again the alarm is being sounded, and the gong is being beaten; the drums of global warming war are thundering, and the tide is moving relentlessly towards the tipping point of dire consequences.
Enough hyperbole for you?
Dig a little deeper into the article and you'll find the caveat:
[Dr Lam] said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible.
There are two problems here:
First, Fevers are caused by the body fighting a disease, usually a virus. The fever mechanism is symptomatic of the body's chemical and biological attempt to defeat the invading organism. While fevers can be life-threatening, they are a natural part of our ability to resist, and develop immunity, to the myriads of microorganisms that populate our planet.
Fevers are NOT caused by warm temperatures, in the same way that colds are NOT caused by cold temperatures. Temperature conditions can have a slight effect of lowering the body's resistance to disease, but the factors involved are far more complicated than just a rise or a fall in temperature. [The ostensible exception here being Heat Stroke, which is actually caused by dehydration and over-exertion during hot weather, not by the heat itself.]
[Note, also, that the study did not take into account the fever rates among children who live in warmer climates versus the fever rates among children who live in colder climates.]
The second problem is the nature of the "study" itself. Note at the top of this article I said that the Sidney study was a "statistical" study. As is typical in statistical studies, causative relationships are tautological at best: "when temperatures go up we see more fevers in children under six, so when temperatures go up we expect more fevers in children under six."
Statistical studies can prove nothing. Take, for example, a study that finds that people who have vehicles tend to also have cell phones. Many conclusions can be drawn from this type of data mining, including the notion that having a vehicle causes increased cell phone possession.
The second flaw is that these types of studies are set up to look for specific cause-and-effect relationships, thus they begin from flawed premises. In this case, "The study was investigating the effects of temperature rise on fever rates among children under six years old."
If this is the type of "science" we can continue to expect from global warming supporters - thus throwing more fuel onto the fire being fanned by the Global Warming Fascists - we can expect to see a continued heating up of the fanaticism surrounding this issue.
You've gotta love Vaclav Klaus, President of Czech Republic. In a testy interview on Mon Feb 12 2007 with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus takes on a rather rabid pro-global warming acolyte (formerly called a "member of the media", but of late the distinction has been hard to discern).
See, the Czech president has openly criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. Now, one would think the old adage would apply: "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it's a duck." The duck in this case is the fanatic propagation of pro-manmade-global-warming fascism, a strictly political entity with very little claims to real science.
But, calling the duck a duck is verboten - unless you have the truth on your side, like Klaus.
Here's the interview:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
Here are a few salient points you should take away with you. The very first question is designed to be antagonistic: "IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?"
"...false myth..."? "...this idea..."?
Clearly the questioner considers the case closed, and any questioning of the notion that 1. there IS global warming, and 2. it is caused by man, can ONLY be ideas without backing.
Klaus takes this head-on: "It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor."
There are a number of recent stories that lend credence to the clear fact that global warming is NOT a crisis - it may, in fact NOT be happening. And even if it were, the factors of its cause do not rest in the demesne of mankind, but rather in the cosmos - factors which have played the causative role in ALL climate change throughout the history of the planet.
I could go on, linking to many other science sites and scientists' work which deals squarely with the gaping holes in the global warming orthodoxy. This will not sway true believers, however, and many in the global warming camp have begun resorting to fascist tactics like censorship, and stripping "unbelievers" of their credentials.
The person who interviewed Vaclav Klaus brought these guns to bear with this question: "But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?"
Popgun tactics, but the tactics of the global warming fascists nonetheless. Amusing, in and of itself, since the most public spokesman of worldwide global warming catastrophe himself is NOT a climate scientist, and not does he have sufficient knowledge and enough information"!
I'm speaking, of course, of Al Gore.
However, we don't need to point out the obvious logical flaw in the question's premise. All we need to do is memorize President Klaus' answer:
Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.
This is such an incredible Grand-Slam-Dunk Homerun Winner that the interviewer never recovers.
This must be the rallying cry against the forces of fascism that threaten to undermine the very foundation of open scientific discourse. We must not allow the global warming cult to prevail, for in their desperation to promote a weak ideology, they will resort to the tactics of all fascists before them:
