John Christy Rebuts Climatist Fake Smear Job

The cancel culture is driven by fears that a contrary point of view might be truer than one’s own way of thinking.  Dissing the messenger, and deplatforming if possible, is easier than reflection and self-examination.  Thus has John Christy been attacked and recently responded in his quiet and reasonable manner.  The article at AL.com is John Christy: We don’t ‘attack science’.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On Nov 2nd 2020 InsideClimate News (ICN) and AL.com published a fairly long (5,000 words!) profile on the climate research that Dr. Roy Spencer and I perform at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. They spent a good bit of time criticizing our satellite data as well as my personal life. The article seems schizophrenic at times, bouncing from highly critical assertions to a depiction of me as a sort of nice, hardworking, churchgoing Alabama scientist.

A major problem here is the technique of quoting antagonists of our work, without giving us a chance to respond. This is the modus operandi of advocacy-journalism. Add to that the numerous editorialized opinions such as, “… Christy’s data have been corrected repeatedly and his conclusions contradicted time and again …” A look at the record indicates this is not so.

But with all of the misleading claims, I’m able to forgive the reporters because they also say, “… he looks 69 going on 50 …” Awesome. How could a 69-year-old not love that?

Unfortunately, ICN ran the story as part of series called “The Anti-Scientists” that explores “the Trump Administration’s attacks on the science underlying environmental protections.” However, kudos to AL.com for including a link to my congressional testimony so the reader could hear my on-the-record story.

It should be clear to all that this agendized “hit-piece” (as we call it), is designed to discredit me, but the truth is, we don’t “attack science,” we “employ science.” Now, I’ve always been told, never pick a fight with someone who buys ink (cloud-storage) by the barrel (terabyte), but here it goes.

In 1990, Roy and I created and today still publish monthly values of the global temperature of three atmospheric layers from satellite measurements. A 1997 paper suggested our dataset had abrupt “downward” jumps. In response, we demonstrated the purported jumps were found in the sea water temperatures they used, not in the deep atmosphere we measured – so they were mixing apples and oranges. The next claim stating there are gaps in the satellite record is just false as every new satellite is directly calibrated to a satellite already in orbit. Later, scientists in Washington State misled the community with papers that (1) allegedly discovered “contamination” of one of our products by stratospheric influence, and (2) that our correction to account for the satellite’s east-west drift over time was wrong.

Neither complaint applied to our datasets. We had always published accurate representations of what our products measured including the stratospheric impact.

In fact, 12 years earlier we created one without the stratospheric influence to deal with this issue directly. The second complaint was moot because we had already adopted an advanced, observations-based adjustment for the east-west drift, while their proposed model-based correction had serious problems.

Early on, though, the very clever scientists at Remote Sensing Systems in California discovered two issues with our dataset, both of which were immediately remedied 15 and 20 years ago respectively with only very small impacts.

While we recognize no dataset is perfect, a detailed evaluation of our temperature products was published in 2018, demonstrating that ours outperforms other satellite products when compared against independent data. Why was this not mentioned?

Another scientist appears to refute our explicit conclusion that climate models are unrealistically aggressive in depicting the atmosphere’s warming rate. This is important because regulatory policies advocated in the media which include price-hikes for all our energy, are based on fears engendered by these models.

Again, our conclusion has stood the test of time, (that scientist published a similar result later). Even this year, more published studies continue to show climate models are poor tools for policy decision—they can’t reproduce the climate that has already happened, and they don’t agree with each other about the future.

Then, the clumsy attempt to connect me with an anti-evolution movement was misguided. The reporters would be chagrined to learn that I had testified before the Alabama State Board of Education advocating the removal of the “Evolution Disclaimer” from biology textbooks. Even the NY Times, of all places, took note and quoted me on the issue (Feb. 1, 2005.) So again, doing a little fact-checking rather than following today’s “jump-to-(my-biased)-conclusion” reporting style, would have saved us all some trouble.

Finally, a broader question to ask is this, “Why was so much effort and expense proffered to try to discredit a scientist like me?”

By the way, the title, “When Trump’s EPA needed a climate scientist, they called on Alabama’s John Christy” misinforms. I saw a federal notice asking for applications for the EPA Science Advisory Board and sent mine in, just like the others. I was eventually selected, based on my credentials, to be one of its 45 members.

But, the line that still carries the day for me is, ” … he looks 69 going on 50.”

Footnote:  Christy quote:

“The reason there is so much contention regarding “global warming” is relatively simple to understand: In climate change science we basically cannot prove anything about how the climate will change as a result of adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

So we are left to argue about unprovable claims.”

John R. Christy | Climate science isn’t necessarily ‘settled’

See also: Christy’s Common Sense about Climate

Note: John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville testified before the House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee on May 13, 2015, but his opening statement has been purged from the committee’s website.  In addition to the video above, his statement that day is available here.

In Praise of Science Skeptics

Pandemic Panic: Play or Quit? Only a skeptic gives you a choice.

Peter St. Onge writes at Mises Wire The COVID-19 Panic Shows Us Why Science Needs Skeptics Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

The dumpster fire of COVID predictions has shown exactly why it’s important to sustain and nurture skeptics, lest we blunder into scientific monoculture and groupthink. And yet the explosion of “cancel culture” intolerance of any opinion that doesn’t fit a shrinking “3 x 5 card” of right-think risks destroying the very tolerance and science that sustains our civilization.

Since World War II, America has suffered two respiratory pandemics comparable to COVID-19: the 1958 “Asian flu,” then the 1969 “Hong Kong flu.” In neither case did we shut down the economy—people were simply more careful. Not all that careful, of course—Jimi Hendrix was playing at Woodstock in the middle of the 1969 pandemic, and social distancing wasn’t really a thing in the “Summer of Love.”

And yet COVID-19 was very different thanks to a single “buggy mess” of a computer prediction from one Neil Ferguson, a British epidemiologist given to hysterical overestimates of deaths, from mad cow to bird flu to H1N1.

For COVID-19, Ferguson predicted 3 million deaths in America unless we basically shut down the economy. Panicked policymakers took his prediction as gospel, dressed as it was in the cloak of science.

Now, long after governments plunged half the world into a Great Depression, those panicked revisions are being quietly revised down by an order of magnitude, now suggesting a final tally comparable to 1958 and 1969.

COVID-19 would have been a deadly pandemic with or without Ferguson’s fantasies, but had we known the true scale and parameters of the threat we might have chosen better tailored means to both safeguard the elderly and at-risk, while sustaining the wider economy. After all, economists have long known that mass unemployment and widespread bankruptcies carry enormous health consequences that are very real to the victims suffering drained life savings, ruined businesses, broken families, widespread mental and physical health deterioration, even suicide. Decisions involve tradeoffs.

COVID-19 has illustrated the importance of free and robust inquiry. After all, panicked politicians facing media accusations of “killing grandma” aren’t in a very good position to evaluate these tradeoffs, and they need intellectual ammunition. Not only to show them which path is best, but to bolster them when a left-wing media establishment attacks.

Moreover, voters need this ammunition so they can actually tell the politicians what to do. This means two things: debate that is transparent, and debate that is tolerant of skeptics.

Transparency means data and computer code open to public scrutiny as the minimum requirement for any study that is used to justify policy, from lockdowns to carbon taxes to whatever comes next. These studies must be based on verifiable facts, code that does what it says it does, and the ensuing decision-making process must be transparent and open to the public.

One former Indian bureaucrat put it well: “Emergency situations like this pandemic should require a far higher—and not lower—level of scrutiny,” since policy choices have such tremendous impact. “This suggests a need for democracies to strengthen their critical thinking capacity by creating an independent ‘Black Hat’ institution whose purpose would be to question any technical foundations of government decisions.”

Even more important than transparency, debate must be tolerant of alternative opinions. This means ideas that are wrong, offensive, even dangerous, have to be tolerated, even celebrated. By all means, refute them—most alternative hypotheses are completely wrong, so it shouldn’t be hard to simply refute them without censorship. This, after all, is the essence of science—to generate hypotheses testable by anybody, not just licensed “experts.”

Whether we are faced with a new crisis, a new policy innovation, or simply designing a better mousetrap, groupthink and censorship are recipes for disaster and stagnation, while transparency and tolerance of new ideas are the very essence of progress. Indeed, it is largely this scientific tolerance that allowed us to rise up from the long, brutal darkness of poverty.

As Francis Bacon observed three hundred years ago, innovation and new knowledge do not come from prestigious “learned” insiders, rather progress comes from the questioner, the tinkerer, the skeptic.

Indeed, every major scientific advance challenged the “settled science” of its day, and was often denounced as pernicious and false, even dangerous. The modern blood transfusion, for example, was developed in the late 1600s, then banned for nearly a century by a hostile medical establishment, “canceling” tens of millions of lives at the altar of groupthink and hostility to skeptics.

It’s comforting to know that our problems are old ones, and also encouraging that our solution is both time-tested and simple: transparency and tolerance. After all, the very reason our culture elevates science is because it is built on a millennia-long evolutionary “battle of ideas” in which theories are constantly tested and retested in a delightfully endless search for ever better understanding.

This implies there is no such thing as “settled science”—the phrase itself is contrary to the scientific method. In reality, science is not some billion-dollar gleaming palace in Bethesda, rather it’s a gnarled mutant sewer rat that takes all comers because it’s been burned, cut, run over, crushed, run through the wood chipper, and survived. That ugly beast is our salvation, not the gleaming palace where we bow down to whichever random guy has the biggest degree in the room.

Only with free inquiry for the most unpopular, offensive, dangerous, and, yes, wrong ideas imaginable does that power sustain. And if we break that, we can expect a series of rapid catastrophes that, like failed golden ages of the past, return us to the nasty, brutish, and very short lives that have been humanity’s norm.

Whether pandemic, climate change, “institutional racism,” or whatever new crisis they conjure next, we have a fundamental right to tenaciously defend the transparency and tolerance that constitutes science itself so that it remains among humanity’s crowning achievements, and so that we preserve this golden age that would astound our ancestors.

Fight Coronavirus with Global Warming

An important study of our experience with the covid19 pandemic shows that warmer, more humid weather works against transmission of the disease.  The paper is High Temperature and High Humidity Reduce the Transmission of COVID-19 by Jingyuan Wang, Ke Tang, Kai Feng and Weifeng Lv. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Abstract: This paper investigates how air temperature and humidity influence the transmission of COVID-19. After estimating the serial interval of COVID-19 from 105 pairs of the virus carrier and the infected, we calculate the daily effective reproductive number, R, for each of all 100 Chinese cities with more than 40 cases. Using the daily R values from January 21 to 23, 2020 as proxies of non-intervened transmission intensity, we find, under a linear regression framework for 100 Chinese cities, high temperature and high relative humidity significantly reduce the transmission of COVID-19, respectively, even after controlling for population density and GDP per capita of cities. One degree Celsius increase in temperature and one percent increase in relative humidity lower R by 0.0383 and 0.0224, respectively. This result is consistent with the fact that the high temperature and high humidity significantly reduce the transmission of influenza. It indicates that the arrival of summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the COVID-19.

Discussion: Rough observations of outbreaks of COVID-19 outside China show a noteworthy phenomenon. In the early dates of the outbreak, countries with relatively lower air temperature and lower humidity (e.g. Korea, Japan and Iran) see severe outbreaks than warmer and more humid countries (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand) do. Considering the natural log of the average number of cases per day from February 8 to 29 as a rough measure of the severity of the COVID-19 outbreaks3 , in Figure 1, we show that the severity is negatively related to temperature and relative humidity using 14 countries with more than 20 new cases during this period.

Figure 1: Severity of COVID-19 outbreaks v.s. temperature and relative humidity for countries outside China.

Inside China, the COVID-19 has spread widely to many cities, and the intensity of transmission and weather conditions in these cities vary largely (shown in Table SI 1), we can, therefore, analyze the determinants of COVID-19 transmission, especially the weather factors. In order to formally quantify the transmission of COVID-19, we first fit 105 samples of serial intervals with the Weibull distribution (a distribution commonly used to fit the serial interval of influenza[8]), then calculate the effective reproductive number, R, a quantity measuring the severity of infectiousness[9] , for each of all 100 Chinese cities with more than 40 cases.

Figure 3: Effective reproductive number R v.s. temperature and relative humidity for 100 Chinese cities

Figure 2 shows the average R values from January 21 to 23 for different Chinese cities geographically. Compared with the southeast coast of China, cities in the northern area of China show relatively larger R values and lower temperatures and relative humidity. The scatter plots in Figure 3 illustrate two negative relations between the daily air temperature and R value and between the daily relative humidity and R value, respectively.

Our finding is consistent with the evidence that high temperature and high humidity reduce the transmission of influenza[10-14] , which can be explained by two possible reasons: First, the influenza virus is more stable in cold temperature, and respiratory droplets, as containers of viruses, remain airborne longer in dry air[15, 16] . Second, cold and dry weather can also weaken the hosts’ immunity and make them more susceptible to the virus[17, 18] . These mechanisms are also likely to apply to the COVID-19 transmission. Our result is also consistent with the evidence that high temperature and high relative humidity reduce the viability of SARS coronavirus[19,20] .

If omitting control variables, 7 the fixed-effects model of Table 2 provides an estimation of the R value for a certain city given its temperature and relative humidity:Assuming that the same relationship of Equation (1) applies to cities outside China and that the temperature and relative humid of 2020 are the same as those in 2019, we can draw a map of R values for worldwide cities in Figure 4 by plugging the average March and July temperatures and relative humidity of 2019 into Equation (1). This figure cautions people of the risk of COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, in March and July of 2020, respectively. As expected, the R values are larger for temperate countries and smaller for tropical countries in March. In July, the arrival of summer and rainy season in the northern hemisphere can effectively reduce the transmission of the COVID-19; however, risks remain in some countries in the southern hemisphere (e.g. Australia and South Africa). If we plug the normal summer temperature and relative humidity of Tokyo (28oC and 85%, respectively) into Equation (1), the transmission of the COVID19 in Tokyo will be seriously reduced between March and the Olympics: the estimated R value decreases from 1.914 to 0.992, a 48% drop!

Postscript:  Some Context on US Situation from Conrad Black

The United States is now outdone only by Germany and Canada, among countries with sophisticated public-health systems that publish believable numbers, in the small proportion of reported cases who die from the coronavirus. This is 674 people out of 51,542 cases reported, as of late afternoon Tuesday, or 1.25 percent of identified cases, and if those who are immune-challenged are removed from that figure, the percentage descends to less than half of 1 percent of the identified cases. Even though most of the people tested appeared to have possible coronavirus symptoms, only a little more than 15 percent of those tested have tested positively. Because the United States is ramping up its treatment capabilities so quickly, it has an inordinate number of the world’s reported cases, 23 percent of the world’s new cases reported on Monday, though it only has about 4 percent of the world’s population, but the world fatality rate is about 4 percent, more than three times the American rate. The disease is still spreading unavoidably, but if care is taken to insulate the elderly and infirm from contact, the mortality rate descends to a point not greatly above seasonal flu fatality numbers.

Though it is hard to be precise about it, less than 1 percent of the adult population of the U.S. have apparently reported coronavirus-like symptoms; of those, about 20 percent have been tested; of those, about a quarter have tested positive; and of those, apart from clearly vulnerable people, fewer than half of 1 percent have died. In epidemiological terms, this is a very serious penetration of the population by a very nasty virus, but it does not justify continuing the extreme restrictions on the economic life of the country, and specifically this lethal threat to the economic well-being of tens of millions of Americans.

 

Pandemic Good News Hidden in the Media

Given the mass media bias for amplifying bad news and speculating about the worst possibilities, it is hard to find news of any positives happening. I just watched a tv anchor interviewing a doctor and displaying a concerted effort to get the expert to say scary things confirming the anchor’s fears. The doc held his ground (No, droplets from sneezes or coughs do not stay in the air; No, surfaces are not infected for some fixed time; many factors affect how long the virus can live. )

There are hopeful things happening, and thanks to Peter Diamandis for posting these good news reports on his Tech blog and Doug for emailing me. All links can be accessed freely without any paywalls.

How about some good news for a change?

There have been A LOT of facts going around regarding COVID-19, and a flurry of “positive news” items to lift our spirits.

Here are a number of major victories from the Pandemic line. I’ve had my team fact-check these wins with links you can follow up on.

(1)Vaccine development: An experimental vaccine developed by Moderna Inc. began the first stage of a clinical trial on Monday, with testing on 45 healthy adults in Seattle. [link]

(2) China’s new cases plummet: China has now closed down its last temporary hospital built to handle COVID-19. Not enough new cases to warrant them. [link]

(3) Drugs that work: Doctors in India have successfully treated two Italian patients with COVID-19, administering a combination of drugs — principally Lopinavir and Ritonavir, alongside Oseltamivir and Chloroquine. Several are now suggesting the same medical treatment, on a case-by-case basis, globally. [link] [link]

(4) Antibodies to the rescue: Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center claim to have found an antibody that can fend off infection by COVID-19. [link]

(5) 103-year-old recovery: A 103-year-old Chinese woman has made a full recovery from COVID-19 after being treated for 6 days in Wuhan, China, becoming the oldest patient to beat the disease. [link]

(6) Stores re-opening: Apple has reopened all 42 of its Apple retail stores in China. [link]

(7) Test results in 2 hours: Cleveland’s MetroHealth Medical Center has developed a COVID-19 test that can now deliver results in just two hours, rather than in a matter of days. [link]

(8) South Korea’s dramatic drop in new cases: After its peak of 909 newly reported COVID-19 cases on February 29th, South Korea has now seen a dramatic drop in the number of new cases reported daily. [link]

(9) Mortality rates inflated? Experts predict that Italy has seen a higher mortality rate of COVID-19 given its significant aging population, as well as its higher percentage of COVID-19 patients with pre-existing health conditions. This might suggest that COVID-19’s fatality rate may have been slightly more inflated than previously thought for the general population. [link]

(10) Israeli vaccine development: More than 50 scientists in Israel are now working to develop a vaccine and antibody for COVID-19, having reported significant breakthroughs in understanding the biological mechanism and characteristics of the novel coronavirus. [link]

(11) Full recoveries: Three patients in Maryland who tested positive for COVID-19 have now been reported to have “fully recovered.” [link]

(12) Isolated virus: A network of Canadian scientists isolated the COVID-19 virus, which can now be replicated to test diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines. [link]

(13) Yet another vaccine in the works: San Diego biotech company Arcturus Therapeutics is developing a COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration with Duke University and National University of Singapore. [link]

(14) Treatment protocols: Seven patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Jaipur’s Sawai Man Singh (SFS) Hospital and Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital in India have recovered. The treatment protocol will be widely scaled to other hospitals. [link]

(15) Another treatment: Plasma from newly recovered COVID-19 patients (involving the harvesting of virus-fighting antibodies) holds promise for treating others infected by the virus. [link]

Some of COVID-19’s hardest hit nation victims are already emerging strong after peak infection, and biomedical innovators are tackling the virus at unprecedented speeds.

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER… While everyone is concerned about the super-high mortality rate of this virus — which is calculated by the “number dead” divided by “the number who have tested positive” (currently ~14,450/388,000) — the denominator, i.e. the number infected is actually VERY hard to know because so few people have been tested.

It may well be that 10x more are infected but subclinical. So is the mortality rate 4% or 0.4%?

We will find out as large scale-testing comes reliably online.

Wishing you the best. Remember that our most important tool during times of panic and crisis is our mindset.  -Peter Diamandis

Footnote (Update March 23) Senior vets recover from Covid19:

12 Of 14 Infected With Covid-19 Recover At Oregon Veteran’s Home

A home for senior veterans has been the hot spot in Oregon for positive coronavirus diagnoses, with 13 residents and one caretaker coming down with the virus.
However, as time has gone, 12 of the 14 are doing well, with one showing no symptoms anymore. It also looks like the virus isn’t transmitting as easily as we were led to believe, with 137 people who live and work at the facility testing negative.

How to Fight and Win Against Covid19

Dr. Bruce Aylward spoke in Geneva days after he left Wuhan province. He is not a contact and you can do what he did to not get the disease.

He was in Wuhan just a few days before. But he knew he was not a contact for COVID19 and so didn’t need to take any precautions. The press asked him why he wasn’t wearing a mask. He said that if he was a contact he wouldn’t be there, he’d be in quarantine, not talking to them with a mask on, it would make no sense (would not protect them adequately).

He is a top expert on such things – he led the campaign for almost complete eradication of Polio. He knows what he is doing.

COVID-19 ‘not beyond control,’ says Canadian WHO official Bruce Aylward

“What China demonstrates is that this one is not beyond control. It’s a function of your response,” said Bruce Aylward, who led an independent fact-finding mission to study the spread of the virus in China, as well as that country’s response.

COVID-19 spreads so rapidly that one Harvard researcher has warned that 40 to 70 per cent of the world’s adults will be infected. Its deadliness has raised frightening comparisons with the Spanish flu.

But “we don’t need to end up there,” said Dr. Aylward, who came away from China convinced that the virus is not spreading as easily as feared and that the outbreak can be arrested if public-health authorities prepare well and act swiftly. In China and elsewhere, there is little evidence of widespread community transmission, he said. Instead, “it is more a whole bunch of clusters of transmission.” Take the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan. Or members of a sect in South Korea. Or people living in single buildings in Beijing or Hong Kong.

That, he said, “is really important. Because you can get on top of that.”  But to do so, “speed is everything here.”

It Starts with the Right Hygiene

Robert Walker at Science 2.0 explains further in his well researched article How To Stop Yourself Getting Covid19 – And Help Stop The Spread – If Everyone Did This The Epidemic Would Soon Stop Excerpts in italics with my bolds

The WHO have said many times that governments can stop this disease by containing the virus swiftly and aggressively. Their most recent statement was the most blunt yet. They declared a pandemic, but one that we can stop. They said the question is not whether we can, but whether we will. Many governments have demonstrated this by doing it, including China, South Korea and Singapore.

Meanwhile you can stop yourself from getting the virus and so can your relatives and friends, by following the same simple rules that Bruce Aylward and his team used. This international team of experts toured the worst virus hotspots in China. They came away again confident that they are not contacts for the virus and didn’t need to be quarantined before talking directly to the press.

You can keep yourself safe from this virus in the same way, with the right hygiene. If most of us did this it would soon go extinct in the wild.

All of us who do this are helping our country and the world to contain the virus.

This is a graphic about it from the BBC.

 

  1. Wash hands frequently and thoroughly – that includes around the nails and between the fingers and the wrist.  You just need to use normal soap (or an alcohol wipe) because this is a virus, not a microbe. No need for anything antimicrobial. Soap completely destroys these viruses.
  2. Try to get out of the habit of touching your face, especially eyes nose, or mouth.  Don’t touch your face with unwashed hands after touching surfaces that could be infected.  If you can get completely out of the habit of touching your face then you don’t need to wash your hands so often. It can’t infect through the skin. Make sure you wash your hands before touching your eyes, nose or mouth – that’s the main thing.
  3. Keep a distance of 1 -2 meters from anyone sick especially if coughing or sneezing..Also if you cough or sneeze to cough into an elbow or into a tissue and dispose of it into a closed bin.  Disinfect surfaces you work with – and wash hands before during and after preparing food.

Do that and you won’t get it. You are also helping to stop it spreading.

Why These Behaviors Can Beat This Virus

While there is still much to be learned, we already know a great deal to be confident in following this protocol individually and collectively.  Some key things to remember.

This Disease is Hard to Get

It is very difficult to get this virus. Even if you are in a subway crowded together with others – for things like the flu you need to be there for 15 minutes or so to get it. But for this disease – so far there is no evidence of it being passed on to anyone else in public transport.

That is why it is so easy to contain it. The people who get it are usually people who were in prolonged or close contact.

Even with close contacts then between 95 and 99% of people don’t get it and for people living in the same household as a family or couple, then between 90% and 97% of people don’t get it – this is without taking any precautions to protect themselves.

This Disease is Not Airborne

This disease is not airborne (this was proved early on) – people sitting next to an infected person in an hours long plane journey won’t get it.

This is an early study that found that Canadian passengers in flights who had the disease didn’t infect anyone else (for SARS then in flight infections were a significant driver)

The evidence since then has been the same.

It Typically Only Spreads to Close or Prolonged Contacts

Normally you will get it from someone you know well, have close contact with or spend a lot of time with. This is why the contact tracing has worked so well. You are not likely to get it from a stranger at a busstop or on a train or plane.

This is different from SARS – there were many people got SARS from an infected person on the same flight. This has not yet happened at all with COVID 19 despite all the people who flew back from Wuhan with the virus.

Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission.  See Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 

Also few people get it even with close contacts. Between 1 and 5% of contacts, for people in the same households it ranges from 3 to 10%  So, even if you live in the same house as someone, 9 times out of 10 you won’t get it.  Even couples don’t get it from each other usually. Many stories of couples who are surprised their partner didn’t get it – you may have seen some on the media.

Not Likely to Catch It from Someone Without Symptoms

This is not a major factor for this disease – not a driver.

Transmission by people infected but not symptomatic is a major factor for flu but not for covid19.

Sometimes someone may be unwell but suppressing their fever using paracetemol as happened with the Chinese lady who infected many colleagues in Germany. But genuine asymptomatic spreading is exceedingly rare for covid19.

You can detect the virus before symptoms and some have such a mild version that they don’t even feel sick, these asymptomatic people don’t seem to be infecting others.

Almost No Genuine Community Spread Apart from Clusters

Although the Italian supermarkets are saying to stay a meter away from other customers – it’s the experience of China, Singapore etc that it doesn’t in fact spread this way.

They have found all the cases in Singapore through tracing close contacts all the way back to China.

Even in South Korea nearly all their over 7000 cases are from a few clusters.

The Italians are being hyper-cautious as it is a new disease and we are still learning about it. However there isn’t any evidence yet that this will make a significant difference to the spread.

As a personal guideline it is wise to keep a distance from anyone coughing and sneezing, and get out of the habit of touching your face if you can, wash hands frequently.

But even if someone coughs on you and they have covid19, in practice it is most unlikely that this infects anyone. Not just a single cough. It can’t because if it did this contact tracing would never have worked as effectively as it has.

The Disease Will Soon Stop if 75% of People Practice the Hygiene

It doesn’t need everyone to do this.

To see how it works – if you take no precautions at all, on average each person infects two others and the numbers double roughly every 4 days.

Starting with 100 people:

100 infects 200 new cases (day 4) infects 400 (day 8) infects 800 (day 12)
12 days later you have 1500 cases (100 + 200 + 400 + 800)

Now suppose we can stop 3/4 of those infections. This means that 100 people infect 50 instead of 200 (because you have stopped 3/4 of the infections)

100 infects 50 (day 4) infects 25 (day 8) infects 12 (day 12)
Now 12 days later you have 187 cases instead of 1500 (100 + 50 + 25 + 12).

This is a huge difference. Soon this outbreak will be over.

This is why the WHO say that although this is a pandemic, it can be the first pandemic we stop.

Most People Recover

Also most people get a mild version of the disease and nearly everyone recovers, 67,003 just now.

Most of the 125,865 cases will recover. Probably eventually many more than 120,000 will recover of the ones that have it so far.

For young people then its likely that out of 1000 cases 998 will recover with good health care (for under 40) and all 1000 for under 10s.

Most of the ones who haven’t recovered yet, and haven’t died yet, will recover.

Test Kits Are on the Way

Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 Test Gets Emergency Use Authorization For Coronavirus

Coronavirus has been categorized since the 1960s, that is why the latest outbreak has a -19 on the end, so other tests will still work, but due to bizarre rules and red tape created by government – there is no point in blaming Trump, both Obama and Bush forced or allowed this bureaucracy creep – a test that worked for coronavirus in 2003 or 2018 has to be treated like a new drug.

The New York State Department of Health got fed up with it and declared they were going on their own, FDA retreated and is allowing the state to validate NY labs in lieu of pursuing an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) with FDA.

Congratulations to Roche for being allowed to be part of the solution to a problem government created.

We Can Stop This

We can stop it by any of these, or a combination:

  • Case finding – e.g. testing anyone with flu / pneumonia symptoms with travel history with infected areas
  • Contact tracing and isolation of all contacts of known cases
  • Case finding rapidly – China can now find cases in 3 days from onset of symptoms. This requires you to have lots of testing capacity – and educate the public to report symptoms right away.
  • Personal protection through washing hands etc.

Remember you only need to stop 3/4 of the transmisisons, or even just a bit over half would do. For instance if we find all cases within 3 days of symptoms, instead of 14 days later, then they only have 3 days to infect anyone else and that alone could be enough to stop this virus in a few weeks

South Korea are doing this. Italy is doing all the right things too. It is nerve wracking when the outbreak is still rising and shows no sign of stopping but there is always a delay of several days to a week.  You don’t see the effects right away.

Good News in China and South Korea

No native covid19 cases in China outside of Hubei province on the 9th March. The 4 new cases were all imported from outside of China.

China are closing down 11 of their 16 makeshift hospitals because they are no longer needed – the largest of them with 2000 beds.

China are going to reopen schools this week and may lift the travel restrictions on Hubei province soon.

This underlines what the WHO have been saying – this virus can be contained. They only did lockdown of cities in Hubei province – in the other provinces it was mainly rapid case finding with their fever clinics, contact tracing, and public hygiene education and some other restrictions but not a total lock down.

A few weeks ago on 29th January all provinces in China were at level 1 “red” for risk the highest possible risk – the whole of China was red.

South Korea is close to containing their outbreak too, had less daily cases than they have had for two weeks.

Footnote:  A helpful chart from WHO

Meanwhile, back in the mass media world:

Life on Arctic Seafloor Under the Ice

In some places, life manages to get a toehold in an otherwise barren landscape. (Photo: AWI, OFOBS team)

This is a great science story, untainted by activist agendas or grandstanding.  An article at ScienceNorway describes Here’s what it looks like 4000 meters below the Arctic ice.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Far below the Arctic ice lies a special area with volcanic activity. What lives down there? Scientists have gone on a journey to find out.

Hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. They look like pipes sticking out of the seabed and emit warm “smoke”, which is actually hot fluid loaded with minerals.

In the Atlantic and Pacific, many of these vents, also called chimneys, are surrounded by unique ecosystems with clams, blind shrimp, beard worms and extremophile bacteria.

Life there does not get its energy from the sun, but from the interior of the earth.

Microorganisms use reduced compounds from the vents as an energy source to make organic matter, just as plants and algae use photons from the sun. Larger animals live in symbiosis with these microbes.

However, no one has previously looked at the fauna in this type of area in the Arctic.

What lives in these cold, deep waters, 4,000 metres below the ice?

“We wanted to see if this ecosystem had developed in isolation — whether it is very different from other places with hydrothermal vents, or whether the fields are interconnected,” says Eva Ramirez-Llodra.

“It was hard to plan the days, because you work at the mercy of the ice,” says Ramirez-Llodra.

Arctic sea ice is not quiet. It breaks up, freezes, and varies in thickness. That made it difficult to get to the right place. The researchers towed a camera after the boat to film the seabed.

On October 3, they finally got a good position over what they believed was the field. Everyone’s eyes were fixed on the screens in the control room and the tension was high.

The pictures show the typical fauna on the Aurora volcanic field. The first picture shows a large sinkhole. (Photo: AWI, OFOBS team)

It was a huge hydrothermal vent, a black smoker, and later the researchers found two others.

“We could see that we were approaching the vents, because the sediments became coarser, and there were more stones and colours on the sea floor,” Ramirez-Llodra says.

One encounter was a little close. The researchers pulled the camera up over a mound, and suddenly they saw black smoke billowing out of a gaping, underwater crater.

“It’s not actually smoke, but very hot liquid at about 350 degrees C. The camera ran right into it. It went so fast that we couldn’t stop it. Everything went black and we were scared that we had burned everything up,” she says. “Fortunately, we got the picture back after a few minutes. We could continue. This was our first close encounter with a black smoker.”

Scientists saw fields that shone like gold on the otherwise colourless bottom around the chimneys.

The material the researchers saw wasn’t gold but sulphite that is deposited by the black “smoke”, Ramirez-Llodra says, although there are also traces of gold and silver in the fluid that gushes from the vent. Around the vents were clusters of white organisms that glistened as they reflected the light from the camera.

The area around the Aurora field was covered by a thick layer of fine-grained sediments. Where the ground was solid enough for something to stick, there were white, spooky sponges. There were shrimp frolicking in the depths, and sea cucumbers and anemones. The occasional fish also swam around.

But the bulk of the organisms in the depths were glass sponges. They are relatively rare, can grow up to a metre wide, and some of them can live for several centuries, according to an article about the trip written by National Geographic. The sponges are largely made up of silica, and only a little of their mass is organic matter. They can be said to barely be alive.

Glass sponges and shrimp do not depend on the vents but thrive in the cold depths. Researchers aren’t yet certain exactly which species these are. (Photo: AWI, OFOBS team)

The researchers did not find the diversity of life that has been discovered around hydrothermal vents in other ocean areas.

“There wasn’t much life down there,” says Ramirez-Llodra. “But we’re not exactly sure why yet.”

Hydrothermal vents in the Atlantic and Pacific contain colourful communities of beard worms, clams and crabs that have adapted to the special environment around the vents.

“Most of these have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria and microorganisms that live by chemosynthesis. The bacteria can be inside their bodies or in special organs,” says Ramirez-Llodra.

“Some organisms don’t even have a mouth or digestive system, but only live from what the microbes inside their body produce.”

Ramirez-Llodra says the researchers don’t know yet if there is a similar relationship between organisms around the vents in the Aurora field.

Additional studies of the videos and samples the researchers took will reveal more about the previously unknown environment on the Gakkel Ridge.

Ramirez-Llodra says they will embark on a new expedition later, to take samples even closer to the vents.

Postscript:  How refreshing to know about scientists following their curiosity to discover something new about life and the universe.  It encourages one about the future in spite of all the crazy talk of climate “crises” or “emergencies”.  Best wishes and hopes for an unalarming 2020!

Global Volcanism Program, East Gakkel Ridge at 85°E

See Also  Overview: Seafloor Eruptions and Ocean Warming

Let Science Students Handle Doubt and Diversity

Jerry Ravetz writes at Nature Stop the science training that demands ‘don’t ask’. Jerry Ravetz is an associate fellow at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, UK.Excerpts In italics with my bolds and images.

It’s time to trust students to handle doubt and diversity in science.

As a child, I realized that my parents spoke in Yiddish when they didn’t want me to know what they were talking about, so I became aware that some knowledge was intended only for grown-ups — don’t ask. In college, I was taught an elegant theory of chemical combination based on excess electrons going into holes in the orbital shell of a neighbouring atom. But what about diatomic compounds like oxygen gas? Don’t ask; students aren’t ready to know. In physics, I learnt that Newton’s second law of motion is not an empirical, approximate relation such as Boyle’s and Hooke’s laws, and instead has a universal application; but what about the science of statics, in which forces are balanced and there is no acceleration? Don’t ask. Mere students are not worthy of an answer. Yet when I was moonlighting in the social sciences and humanities, I found my questions and opinions were respected, even if only as part of my learning experience.

Observant students will notice that social problems surrounding science are seldom mentioned in official curricula. And now, these pupils are starting to act. They have shamed their seniors into including more diverse contributors as faculty members and role models. Young scholars insolently ask their superiors why they fail to address the extinction crises elucidated by their research. Such subversions are reminiscent of the mass-produced heretical pamphlets circulated by Martin Luther’s supporters at the start of the Protestant Reformation in sixteenth-century Europe.

The philosopher Thomas Kuhn once compared taught science to orthodox theology. A narrow, rigid education does not prepare anyone for the complexities of scientific research, applications and policy. If we discourage students from inquiring into the real nature of scientific truths, or exploring how society shapes the questions that researchers ask, how can we prepare them to maintain public trust in science in our ‘post-truth’ world?

Diversity and doubt produce creativity; we must make room for them, and stop funnelling future scientists into narrow specialties that value technique over thought.

In the 1990s, Silvio Funtowicz, a philosopher of science, and I developed the concept of ‘post-normal science’, building on the Kuhnian terms ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ science. It outlines how to use science in a society confronted with high-stakes decisions, where both facts and values are uncertain; it requires drawing on a broad community with broad inquiries. Suppressing questions from budding scientists is sure to suppress promising ideas and solutions.

As a nonagenarian and former historian of science, I know that even foundational building blocks can be questioned. The unifying patterns of the periodic table are now seen, under closer scrutiny, to be riddled with anomalies and paradoxes (E. Scerri Nature 565, 557–559; 2019). Some scientists now wonder whether the concept of biological ‘species’ contributes more confusion than insight, and whether it should therefore be abandoned (see go.nature.com/2offaav). However, such a decision would affect conservation policy, in which identification of endangered species is crucial — so it is not just an issue for basic science.

Science students generally remain unaware that concepts such as elements and species are contested or are even contestable. In school, college and beyond, curricula highlight the technical and hide the reflective. Public arguments among scientists often presume that every problem has just one solution. When they were students, these researchers had never learnt that they have a right to be wrong.

And when scientists advise on policy, they are pressured to become attached to official stances on issues, or to shun the responsibility entirely. They then find it difficult to resist dismissing all critics as cranks or ‘denialists’, whose rejection of ‘facts’ is a sign of their depravity. (To be sure, much of science denial is cynical and self-serving.)

Nonetheless, vacillating advice on complex issues, most obviously nutrition, should be a warning that, from a future perspective, today’s total scientific consensus on some policy issue might have been the result of obduracy, a conflict of interest or worse.

Trust in established science will not be protected by exhortations, denunciations and absolutism. Just as a healthy democracy accommodates dissent and dissonance, the collective consciousness of science would do well to embrace doubt and diversity. This could start with teaching science as a great, flawed, ongoing human achievement, rather than as a collection of cut-and-dried eternal truths. There is plenty of material for such a Socratic education in science: physics and cosmology now enjoy creative ignorance; the digital and life sciences abound in moral mazes; and environmental and sustainability sciences demand recognition of complexities. The established ‘facts’ can function as tools for ongoing dialogues.

I recall a legendary chemistry professor who was inept at getting classroom demonstrations to work — but discussing what went wrong helped his students to thrive. A mathematician friend ran his classes like those in an Athenian agora: pupils discussed every statement in the textbook until all were satisfied. They did very well in exams, and taught themselves when he was absent. Treating people at all levels as committed thinkers, whose asking teaches us all, is the key to tackling the challenges to science in the post-trust age.

Footnote:  Contrast what Ravetz says with the Italian proposal to indoctrinate students with climate change dogma and activism.  Lubos Motl reports Italian schools: 33 mandatory hours of climate hysteria a year

In this week, the media have announced that starting September 2020, ten months from now, all Italian public schools will require the education in “climate science”. It was ordered by the Italian minister of education, Lorenzo Fioramonti.

If I understand well, this absolutely ludicrous new subject should be taught every year. If you spend 8 years at school and multiply it by 33 hours a year, you should be exposed to 264 hours worth of the climate science education.

This is just a breathtaking amount of time. It is very clear that the most famous person associated with the climate hysteria today, Prophet Greta Thunberg, doesn’t know even 26.4 minutes worth of climate education – assuming that the teacher doesn’t okay the idea that 27 minutes of screaming “how dare you” counts as the climate science. How can an average Italian schoolkid meaningfully learn 33 hours worth of climate science every year? It just doesn’t make the slightest sense.

Science 101: Null Test All Claims

Francis Menton provides some essential advice for non-scientists in his recent essay at Manhattan Contrarian You Don’t Need To Be A Scientist To Know That The Global Warming Alarm “Science” Is Fake. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

When confronted with a claim that a scientific proposition has been definitively proven, ask the question: What was the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected?

As Menton explains, you don’t need the skills to perform yourself the null test, just the boldness to check how they dismissed the null hypothesis.

Consider first a simple example, the question of whether aspirin cures headaches. Make that our scientific proposition: aspirin cures headaches. How would this proposition be established? You yourself have taken aspirin many times, and your headache always went away. Doesn’t that prove that the aspirin worked? Absolutely not. The fact that you took aspirin 100 times and the headache went away 100 times proves nothing. Why? Because there is a null hypothesis that must first be rejected. Here the null hypothesis is that headaches will go away just as quickly on their own. How do you reject that? The standard method is to take some substantial number of people with headaches, say 2000, and give half of them the aspirin and the other half a placebo. Two hours later, of the 1000 who took the aspirin, 950 feel better and only 50 still have the headache; and of the 1000 who took the placebo, 500 still have the headache. Now you have very, very good proof that aspirin cured the headaches.

The point to focus on is that the most important evidence — the only evidence that really proves causation — is the evidence that requires rejection of the null hypothesis.

Over to climate science. Here you are subject to a constant barrage of information designed to convince you of the definitive relationship between human carbon emissions and global warming. The world temperature graph is shooting up in hockey stick formation! Arctic sea ice is disappearing! The rate of sea level rise is accelerating! Hurricanes are intensifying! June was the warmest month EVER! And on and on and on. All of this is alleged to be “consistent” with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

But, what is the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected? Here the null hypothesis is that some other factor, or combination of factors, rather than human carbon emissions, was the dominant cause of the observed warming.

Once you pose the null hypothesis, you immediately realize that all of the scary climate information with which you are constantly barraged does not even meaningfully address the relevant question. All of that information is just the analog of your 100 headaches that went away after you took aspirin. How do you know that those headaches wouldn’t have gone away without the aspirin? You don’t know unless someone presents data that are sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Proof of causation can only come from disproof of the null hypothesis or hypotheses, that is, disproof of other proposed alternative causes. This precept is fundamental to the scientific method, and therefore fully applies to “climate science” to the extent that that field wishes to be real science versus fake science.

Now, start applying this simple check to every piece you read about climate science. Start looking for the null hypothesis and how it was supposedly rejected. In mainstream climate literature — and I’m including here both the highbrow media like the New York Times and also the so-called “peer reviewed” scientific journals like Nature and Scienceyou won’t find that. It seems that people calling themselves “climate scientists” today have convinced themselves that their field is such “settled science” that they no longer need to bother with tacky questions like worrying about the null hypothesis.

When climate scientists start addressing the alternative hypotheses seriously, then it will be real science. In the meantime, it’s fake science.

Summary

The null test can be applied to any scientific claim.  If there is no null hypothesis considered, then you can add the report  to the file “Unproven Claims,” or “Unfounded Suppositions.”  Some researchers call them SWAGs: Scientific Wild Ass Guesses.  These are not useless, since any discovery starts with a SWAG.  But you should avoid believing that they describe the way the world works until alternative explanations have been tested and dismissed.

See Also: No “Gold Standard” Climate Science

No GHG Warming Fingerprints in the Sky

Scientific vs. Social Authenticity

Credit: Stanislaw Pytel Getty Images

This post was triggered by an essay in Scientific American Authenticity under Fire by Scott Barry Kaufman. He raises modern issues and expresses a social and psychological sense of authenticity that left me unsatisfied.  So following that, I turn to a scientific standard much richer in meaning and closer to my understanding.

Social Authenticity

Researchers are calling into question authenticity as a scientifically viable concept

Authenticity is one of the most valued characteristics in our society. As children we are taught to just “be ourselves”, and as adults we can choose from a large number of self-help books that will tell us how important it is to get in touch with our “real self”. It’s taken as a given by everyone that authenticity is a real thing and that it is worth cultivating.

Even the science of authenticity has surged in recent years, with hundreds of journal articles, conferences, and workshops. However, the more that researchers have put authenticity under the microscope, the more muddied the waters of authenticity have become.

Many common ideas about authenticity are being overturned.
Turns out, authenticity is a real mess.

One big problem with authenticity is that there is a lack of consensus among both the general public and among psychologists about what it actually means for someone or something to be authentic. Are you being most authentic when you are being congruent with your physiological states, emotions, and beliefs, whatever they may be?

Another thorny issue is measurement. Virtually all measures of authenticity involve self-report measures. However, people often do not know what they are really like or why they actually do what they do. So tests that ask people to report how authentic they are is unlikely to be a truly accurate measure of their authenticity.

Perhaps the thorniest issue of them all though is the entire notion of the “real self”. The humanistic psychotherapist Carl Rogers noted that many people who seek psychotherapy are plagued by the question “Who am I, really?” While people spend so much time searching for their real self, the stark reality is that all of the aspects of your mind are part of you.

So what is this “true self” that people are always talking about? Once you take a closer scientific examination, it seems that what people refer to as their “true self” really is just the aspects of themselves that make them feel the best about themselves.

Even more perplexing, it turns out that most people’s feelings of authenticity have little to do with acting in accord with their actual nature. The reality appears to be quite the opposite. All people tend to feel most authentic when having the same experiences, regardless of their unique personality.

Another counterintuitive finding is that people actually tend to feel most authentic when they are acting in socially desirable ways, not when they are going against the grain of cultural dictates (which is how authenticity is typically portrayed). On the flip side, people tend to feel inauthentic when they are feeling socially isolated, or feel as though they have fallen short of the standards of others.

Therefore, what people think of as their true self may actually just be what people want to be seen as. According to social psychologist Roy Baumeister, we will report feeling highly authentic and satisfied when the way others think of us matches up with how we want to be seen, and when our actions “are conducive to establishing, maintaining, and enjoying our desired reputation.”

Conversely, Baumeister argues that when people fail to achieve their desired reputation, they will dismiss their actions as inauthentic, as not reflecting their true self (“That’s not who I am”). As Baumeister notes, “As familiar examples, such repudiation seems central to many of the public appeals by celebrities and politicians caught abusing illegal drugs, having illicit sex, embezzling or bribing, and other reputation-damaging actions.”

Kaufman Conclusion

As long as you are working towards growth in the direction of who you truly want to be, that counts as authentic in my book regardless of whether it is who you are at this very moment. The first step to healthy authenticity is shedding your positivity biases and seeing yourself for who you are, in all of your contradictory and complex splendor. Full acceptance doesn’t mean you like everything you see, but it does mean that you’ve taken the most important first step toward actually becoming the whole person you most wish to become. As Carl Rogers noted, “the curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.”

My Comment:
Kaufman describes contemporary ego-centric group-thinking, which leads to the philosophical dead end called solipsism. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

His discussion proves the early assertion that authenticity (in the social or psychological sense) is indeed a mess. The author finds no objective basis to determine fidelity to reality, thus leaving everyone struggling whether to be self-directed or other-directed. As we know from Facebook, most resolve that conflict by competing to see who can publish the most selfies while acquiring the most “friends.”This is the best Scientific American can do? The swamp is huge and deep indeed.

It reminds me of what Ross Pomeroy wrote at Real Science: “Psychology, as a discipline, is a house made of sand, based on analyzing inherently fickle human behavior, held together with poorly-defined concepts, and explored with often scant methodological rigor. Indeed, there’s a strong case to be made that psychology is barely a science.”

Scientific Authenticity

In contrast, let us consider some writing by Philip Kanarev, A practicing physicist, he is concerned with the demise of scientific thinking and teaching and calls for a return to fundamentals. His essay is Scientific Authenticity Criteria by Ph. M. Kanarev in the General Science Journal.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A conjunction of scientific results in the 21st century has reached a level that provides an opportunity to find and to systematize the scientific authenticity criteria of precise knowledge already gained by mankind.

Neither Euclid, nor Newton gave precise definitions of the notions of an axiom, a postulate and a hypothesis. As a result, Newton called his laws the axioms, but it was in conflict with the Euclidean ideas concerning the essence of the axioms. In order to eliminate these contradictions, it was necessary to give a definition not only to the notions of the axiom and the postulate, but also to the notion of the hypothesis. This necessity is stipulated by the fact that any scientific research begins with an assumption regarding the reason causing a phenomenon or process being studied. A formulation of this assumption is a scientific hypothesis.

Thus, the axioms and the postulates are the main criteria of authenticity of any scientific result.

An axiom is an obvious statement, which requires no experimental check and has no exceptions. Absolute authenticity of an axiom appears from this definition. It protects it by a vivid connection with reality. A scientific value of an axiom does not depend on its recognition; that is why disregarding an axiom as a scientific authenticity criterion is similar to ineffectual scientific work.

A postulate is a non-obvious statement, its reliability being proven in the way of experiment or a set of theoretic results originating from the experiments. The reliability of a postulate is determined by the level of acknowledgement by the scientific community. That’s why its value is not absolute.

An hypothesis is an unproven statement, which is not a postulate. A proof can be theoretical and experimental. Both proofs should not be at variance with the axioms and the recognized postulates. Only after that, hypothetical statements gain the status of postulates, and the statements, which sum up a set of axioms and postulates, gain the status of a trusted theory.

The first axioms were formulated by Euclid. Here are some of them:
1 – To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
2 – To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
3 – That all right angles equal one another.

Euclidean formulation concerning the parallelism of two straight lines proved to be less concise. As a result, it was questioned and analyzed in the middle of the 19th century. It was accepted that two parallel straight lines cross at infinity. Despite a complete absence of evidence of this statement, the status of an axiom was attached to it. Mankind paid a lot for such an agreement among the scientists. All theories based on this axiom proved to be faulty. The physical theories of the 20th century proved to be the principal ones among them.

In order to understand the complicated situation being formed, one has to return to Euclidean axioms and assess their completeness. It has turned out that there are no axioms, which reflect the properties of the primary elements of the universe (space, matter and time), among those of Euclid. There are no phenomena, which could compress space, stretch it or distort it, in the nature; that is why space is absolute. There are no phenomena, which change the rate of the passing of time in nature. Time does not depend on anything; that’s why we have every reason to consider time absolute. The absolute nature of space and time has been acknowledged by scientists since Euclidean times. But when his axiom concerning the parallelism of straight lines was disputed, the ideas of relativity of space and time as well as the new theories, which were based on these ideas and proved (as we noted) to be faulty, appeared.

A law of acknowledgement of new scientific achievements was introduced by Max Planck. He formulated it in the following way: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”. Our attempt to report the reliability of this law to the authorities is in the history of science an unnecessary intention. Certainly, time appeared in space only after matter. But still we do not know of a source that produces elementary particles – building blocks of the material world. That’s why we have no reason to consider matter absolute. But it does not prevent us from paying attention to an interconnection of the primary elements of the universe: space, matter and time. They exist only together and regardless of each other. This fact is vivid, and we have every reason to consider an indivisible existence of space, matter and time as an axiomatic one, and to call the axiom, which reflects this fact, the Unity axiom. The philosophic essence of this axiom has been noted long ago, but the practitioners of the exact sciences have failed to pay attention to the fact that it is implemented in the experimental and analytical processes of cognition of the world. When material bodies move, the mathematical description of this motion should be based on the Unity axiom. It appears from this axiom, that an axis of motion of any object is the time function. Almost all physical theories of the 20th century are in conflict with the Unity axiom. It is painful to write about it in detail.

Let us go on analyzing the role of postulates as scientific authenticity criteria. First of all, let us recollect the famous postulate by Niels Bohr concerning the orbital motion of the electrons in atoms. This catchy model of the process of the interaction of the electrons in the atoms goes on being formed in the mind of the pupils in school despite of the fact that its impropriety has been proven more than 10 years ago.

The role of Niels Bohr’s generalized postulate is great. Practically, it is used in the whole of modern chemistry and the larger part of physics. This postulate is based on the calculation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. But it is impossible to calculate the spectrum of the first orbit of the helium atom (which occupies the second place in Mendeleev’s table,) with Bohr’s postulate, to say nothing of the spectra of more complicated atoms and ions. It was enough to dispute the authenticity of Bohr’s postulate, but the mission of doubt has fallen to our lot for some reason. Two years were devoted to decoding the spectrum of the first electron of the helium atom. As a result, the law of formation of the spectra of atoms and ions has taken place as well as the law of the change of binding energy of the electron with the protons of the nuclei when energy-jumps take place in the atoms. It has turned out that there is no energy of orbital motion of the electrons in these laws; there are only the energies of their linear interaction with the protons of the nuclei.

Thereafter, it has become clear that only elementary particle models can play the role of the scientific result authenticity criteria in cognition of the micro-world. From the analysis of behaviour of these models, one should derive the mathematical models, which have been ascertained analytically long ago, and describe their behaviour in the experiments that have been carried out earlier.

The ascertained models of the photons of all frequencies, the electron, the proton and the neutron meet the above-mentioned requirements. They are interconnected with each other by such a large set of theoretical and experimental information, whose impropriety cannot be proven. This is the main feature of the proximity to reality of the ascertained models of the principle elementary particles. Certainly, the process of their generation has begun from a formulation of the hypothesis concerning their structures. Sequential development of the description of these structures and their behaviour during the interactions extended the range of experimental data where the parameters of the elementary particles and their interactions were registered. For example, the formation and behaviour of electrons are governed by more than 20 constants.

We have every reason to state that the models of the photons, the electron, the proton and the neutron, which have been ascertained by us, as well as the principles of formation of the nuclei, the atoms, the ions, the molecules and the clusters already occupy a foundation for the postulates, and new scientific knowledge will cement its strength.

Science has a rather complete list of criteria in order to estimate the authenticity of scientific investigative results. The axioms (the obvious statements, which require no experimental check and have no exceptions,) occupy the first place; the second place is occupied by the postulates. If the new theory is in conflict with at least one axiom, it will be rejected immediately by the scientific community without discussion. If the experimental data, which are in conflict with any postulate (as it happened, for example, to the Newton’s first law), appear, the future scientific community, which has learned a lesson from scientific cowardice of the academic elite of the 20th century, will submit such a postulate to a collective analysis of its authenticity.

Kanarev Conclusion

To the academicians who have made many mistakes in knowledge of the fields of physics and chemistry, we wish them to recover their sight in old age and be glad that these mistakes are already amended. It is time to understand that a prolongation of stuffing the heads of young people with faulty knowledge is similar to a crime that will be taken to heart emotionally in the near future.

The time has ended, when a diploma confirming higher education was enough in order to get a job. Now it is not a convincing argument for an employer; in order to be on the safe side, he hires a young graduate as a probationer at first as he wants to see what the graduate knows and what he is able to do. A new system of higher education has almost nullified a possibility for the student to have the skills of practical work according to his specialty and has preserved a requirement to have moronic knowledge, i.e. the knowledge which does not reflect reality.

My Summary

In Science, authenticity requires fidelity to axioms and postulates describing natural realities. It also means insisting that hypotheses be validated by experimental results. Climate science claims are not scientifically authentic unless or until confirmed by observations, and not simply projections from a family of divergent computer models. And despite all of the social support for climate hysteria, those fears are again more stuffing of nonsense into heads of youth and of the scientifically illiterate.

See Also Degrees of Climate Truth

Earth and Universe As Never Seen Before

This is an introduction to amazing graphics done by Eleanor Lutz (no relation) at her website Tabletop Whale, an original science illustration blog. Above is a data-based view of Earth’s seasons. If you watch in full screen, the four corners show views of the cycle from top, bottom, and sides. Below is her map of the solar system, showing how much scientific information is represented in the illustration (H/T Real Clear Science)

An Orbit Map of the Solar System
JUNE 10 2019 · Link to the Open-Source Code

This week’s map shows the orbits of more than 18000 asteroids in the solar system. This includes everything we know of that’s over 10km in diameter – about 10000 asteroids – as well as 8000 randomized objects of unknown size. This map shows each asteroid at its exact position on New Years’ Eve 1999.

All of the data for this map is shared by NASA and open to the public. However, the data is stored in several different databases so I had to do a decent amount of data cleaning. I’ve explained all of the steps in detail in my open-source code and tutorial, so I’ll just include a sketch of the process here in this blog post:

To see details, open image in new tab, then click on it to enlarge.

To see details, open the image in a new tab, then click on it to enlarge. Then browse the solar system to your heart’s content.