Scientists In Denial.

“You’re mad,” said the doctor.
“I’m not,” the patient replied.
“You’re mad and you’re in denial,” the doctor said triumphantly.
Its actually surprising how many doctors and scientists are in denial. Machiavelli has been involved in a tussle with the boy – scientists of “The Bad Science Forum,” over the Autism /MMR vaccine issue. They have accused me of saying things I have not said, questioned me and then responded to the answer they wanted me to give rather than the one I gave and even presumed to tell me what I can and cannot write on my blog. In short they are utterly in denial of the fact that I might be right. Once they accept that I might be right they can start to examine the facts scientifically and so will understand that I am right. Well I shall deal with the boy – scientists, slashing them with Occam’s razor another time. For now let’s look at another group of scientists who draw their paycheque from the public coffers and are also in denial.
Most climatologists agree that unusual weather patters such as the recent floods are a consequence of climate change but there are a few who, like the boy scientists of Bad Science Forum, have turned the maxim “correlation does not prove causation” into a mantra. Perhaps like religious zealots they believe if they chant it often enough something magical will happen. But when things occur in sequence while not actually proving they are linked, is a pretty good clue they might be. We pollute the atmosphere at an accelerating rate for 200 years, the mean atmospheric temperature rises and weather patterns change in exactly the way most intelligent scientists predicted they would.
But there are a few who still insist that because scientific evidence cannot prove beyond doubts climate change is responsible for the floods we should dismiss it as a possibility. Well science cannot prove there is a link but cannot prove there is not a link. Even if they use statistical trickery to ignore the mountain of evidence, their case is still tissue thin. OK there is no smoking gun but look at newsreel footage shot in any industrial city in the 1950s and count the smoking chimneys. Look at clips of traffic jams in the 1970s and count the smoking exhausts.
Then there are the red herrings. Scientists, particularly those who work for the government, for all their affectation of high minded detachment are better than Rick Stein at serving up red herrings.
“The current floods are not due to climate change, they are a simple anomaly in the weather. There were similar floods in 1947,” one group has said. Well there were floods in 1947 but they were not similar. The floods then occurred in winter, when water tables and river levels are higher, when trees and plants are dormant and not taking up water. The 1947 flooods also happened when a thaw set in after the heaviest snowfall ever recorded. The whole of Britain had been blanketed in snow. It was a different scenario altogether.
The problem with the kind of scientists who refer to themselves as “scientists” is they tend to be nerdy, a tad obsessive and absolutely determined to eliminate from the equation anything that cannot be easily explained. This leads them to view a problem from too narrow a perspective and disregard the very obvious evidence that is all around them. In short they are the kind of people who need to get out more.
Look at the pictures of the floods. Think how early spring was this year. Think how long the leaves stayed on the trees last year. Something is going on.
Should we do something now or can we wait until “scientists” have argued about it for another fifty years?
Its not rocket science is it?

11 thoughts on “Scientists In Denial.

  1. No, and it’s not a precise science either.

    I’ve come up across some pretty blinkered behaviour.

    The first time was when we (the Centre for Crop Circle Studies) tried to get samples from crop circles analyzed, but no-one in the UK would touch them. We had to send them to the US, but this made testing for radio-isotopes tricky because most of them had carked it by the time the sample got tested. The attitude of British scientists was “it’s all a hoax, there’s nothing for us here” despite strong evidence of cellular abnormalities and other anomalies in the samples taken from within the formations. We were just completely stonewalled. I don’t understand this attitude, but then I have an enquiring mind. I think that’s the difference: scientists have rules and are threatened by anything which might threaten those rules.

    Many UK psychiatric health ‘experts’ and neurologists deny the existence of personality disorders such as Borderline PD and Narcissistic PD, presumably because these conditions previously escaped their notice and thus they didn’t discover them first (it is well-documented by their US counterparts). Now I can tell you without any doubt whatsover that there is such a thing as a personality disorder, having lived (in a state of permanent bafflement and despair) with a personality disordered man for the best part of 28 years.

    You only have to look at the developments in quantum physics to see that what scientists ‘know’ is a less than a single grain of sand in the vast desert of this universe.

    But the one thing a scientist hates more than anything is to admit he doesn’t really have a clue.

    Let them argue away to their hearts’ content. But let’s get on with it without ’em.


    1. Hmmm. If I was a scientist (and I am), and if I was given the choice of spending my time working on finding a cure for say parkinsons; or trying to boost crop yeilds to reduce world hunger; or trying to improve fuel efficiency to reduce global warming; or looking at a peice of corn to try and find evidence that little green men have been making pretty pictures, I don’t think I’d choose the last one.

      Maybe there are more gullible scientist in the US.


      1. Who brought little green men into the equation?

        How typical of a scientist to rubbish something out of hand. But of course you’re a scientist, and I’m not. Lucky you, eh? Poor gullible me.

        Although formations can of course be made by hoaxers (I know, I’ve met them), some formations appear to have anomalies that can neither be explained by science nor the hoaxers themselves. Something is possibly going on that we don’t understand. Aren’t you interested to know what? I am. Who’s to say that further study would not result to other scientific advances?

        But then, of course, you’ve just proved my point.

        Attempts have been made by various groups (including scientists) to recreate formations. It is of course possible (and quite easy) to make nice geometric patterns with a plank on a bit of string. It is not however possible to reproduce many of the features of a ‘genuine’ formation. Well, none of you clever people have managed it yet.

        Unlike you, I don’t have an axe to grind. I don’t believe in little green men, flying saucers, UFO abduction, pixies, or that Mother Earth is sending us little signs saying “stop it or else”. I joined the CCCS because I have an enquiring mind and was intrigued, and I left the CCCS because I was sick of certain individuals claiming to be ‘experts’ and making huge amounts of money out of spurious claims, when obviously one cannot be an expert in something which is unexplained. It makes not one whit of difference to me if it is all found to be the work of hoaxers. But it hasn’t been. Yet.

        Time for me to post on crop circles I think. But of course you won’t be interested, you’ve made up your mind.


      2. It always happens Sally, someone tries to get an intelligend disacussion going and Little Green Men pop up.

        A mate of mine, a mathematician by education, a computer programmer by profession but open minded by nature, once calculated it would take eight days to mark out and tread a complex crop circle using the methods described by people who claim to be responsible for crop circles.

        I can just see a bunch of hoaxers getting away with ruining a crop for eight days without a farmer with a shotgun popping up and saying “get orf moi laaaand.”

        The fact is we just don’t know what is going on. Some people find it hard to accept that the unexplainable is responsible for most of the “science” in our world. For instance, what keeps electrons in an atom orbiting the nucleus a just the right distance. And why if that orbit is disrupted does, say an atom of Uranium say, become something else, like Plutonium.

        A lot of people who think they are scientists would fall about laughing if I said it was Alechemy, but what happens in a nuclear reactor is exactly what medieval alchemists were trying to achieve.


  2. You’ve picked an odd analogy.

    The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and the cause is anthropogenic CO2. That’s what the evidence suggests. A few contrarian scientists may get media coverage but they haven’t swayed the scientific argument because the evidence doesn’t back their claims.

    The overwhelming scientific consensus is that MMR is not linked to autism. That’s what the evidence suggests. A few contrarian scientists may get media coverage but they haven’t swayed the scientific argument because the evidence doesn’t back their claims.

    As to one of your previous claims.,0,6679950.story?coll=ny-leadhealthnews-headlines

    The above is a news article from last Sunday concerning the Omnibus Autism hearings. It contains the following:

    “On June 26, three special masters finished listening to the first case in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, brought by the parents of Michelle Cedillo, 12, of Arizona. In large part, the hearing served as a time for each side — the families and experts retained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — to present its first argument.

    The court is expected to hear three tests and then make a ruling on those. If they side with the parents, the court is likely to set up a framework for compensation to the others.”


    “On the final day of the hearing, Special Master George Hastings said he expected to rule in several months. Two related cases are expected to be heard this fall.”


    “If the court rules for the families, they could gain access to the trust fund that was set up to help victims of vaccines pay for medical bills and treatments. And, Kinsbourne said, the special masters also could devise a framework for determining who else is eligible for compensation.

    But nothing is definite. “They could decide not to give anybody anything,” Kinsbourne said.”

    Your claims that the court has already ruled in favour of the link between vaccines and autism were incorrect. You shouldn’t really be surprised if people point out when you’re saying things that aren’t true.


    1. Sorry Seanie, but you still don’t get it.

      In my original posts I had a hidden agenda. And you helped me achieve my goal. Than you.
      Now its time you found closure and moved on. Don’t you think your obsession with my alleged errors shows you to be a bit autistic?


      1. Now I understand.

        You weren’t mistaken.

        You were just lying.

        Well that’s cleared it up then. No need to waste any more time.


      2. OOOOOOOh seanie, you raise my hopes and then dash them. No you didn’y understand because byou will only understand when I give you the answer you want.

        The word subtle is not in your vocabulary is it.

        I was not lying, just presenting the evidence in a perfectly valid way to present my case in the best light.


Leave a Reply

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