Melanie Phillips - Ignorant Fuckwit, Or Just Mentally Unstable?

You decide. The world famous climatologist has been once again sharing her perceived wisdom with the world. Here are her latest pearls of wisdom:

Hang on, you murmur: in any event, aren’t we simultaneously being told that global warming will mean parched summers and winter deluges? Sure — but global warming is a truly miraculous theory. It means that, without a shadow of a doubt, we will have dry summers and wet winters, and wet summers and er, well, wet winters. As Dr Stott says:

‘In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.’

As it gets dryer, it will get wetter. Truly, this global warming theory has some extraordinary properties.

Now, it struck me that good old Mel has rather missed the point here. What Dr Stott is saying is that as the country becomes generally drier, it will be subject to more extreme rainfall (ie heavy bursts of rainfall over short periods of time). It is quite a simple concept to get your head around, providing you are not clinically insane of course. The phenomenon of high temperatures and a drier climate combined with heavy bursts of rainfall is not unusual. NASA helpfully explains this in reference to Sub-Saharan Africa:

In the tropical wet-and-dry climate, there is a distinct dry season during the winter months. During the dry season, very little rainfall occurs and droughts are common. Rainfall occurs during the remainder of the year. Rainfall in the tropical wet-and-dry climate can be highly irregular, varying tremendously from one year to the next. In this climate regime, destructive floods can be followed by severe drought. Vegetation in the tropical wet-and-dry regions of Sub-Saharan Africa is mainly tall savanna grass and low, drought resistant deciduous trees.

So there we have it. It is possible, as the climate becomes drier, that there can be cases of extreme rainfall during general drying periods. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Mel fails to grasp such basic science, after all this is the woman who believed that water vapour makes up most of the atmosphere. However, the really bizarre thing about this article is that she openly ridicules Dr Philip Stott. This is odd because she usually relies on Dr Stott to attack those who believe in climate change here, here, here, and here. Undermining her own source? She really has lost it.

* Unlike Mel, I am happy to admit that my knowledge of science is pretty sketchy. If there is any obvious cock-up regarding rainfall in dry climates, please tell me.

Drug Firms Fighting to Overturn Advertising Ban

Once again, the big pharma companies are flexing their muscles and threatening the EU unless it eases legislation on the industry. They are desperate to advertise their 'products' direct to the patient and they have drawn the support of various patient groups (which are in turn funded by the drug companies themselves) who believe that they have a right to choose which medication they are prescribed. We are heading towards very dangerous waters indeed. Although the idea of choice sounds wonderful, this is one of those cases where there is no such thing as 'choice', at least not an informed choice.I have two fundamental problems with the very notion of direct advertising borne out of my own experience with the drug industry. The first is cost, the second is knowledge. Allow me to explain.

First of all, let me paint you a picture of the current situation regarding advertising medicines and the subsequent costs. For some time now, drug companies have been able to advertise OTC (or 'over the counter') medicines in various forms. It is not unusual to see adverts for Calpol, Nurofen, Hedex on the television on an average day. One of the strongest OTC brands on the market is Panadol. Now, Panadol is essentially paracetamol. That's it, nothing more. The problem is that it has such a high level of recognition amongst the general public, many people ask for Panadol at the chemists for their headaches, colds etc. A pack of 16 Panadol tablets costs approximately £1.39 the cost of paracetamol (the active ingredient in Panadol) is substantially less than that. Nowadays, thanks to the 'wonders' of competition, you can pick up a pack of 32 paracetamol at your local chemists for approximately 65p. That is an amazing 74p difference, and you get twice as many tablets! And yet, they are exactly the same product. Only difference is, one is marketed as Panadol and one is marketed as a proprietary brand. And this, on a very small scale, is the problem that would be faced should the big pharmaceuticals get their way. POMs (or 'prescription only medications') are obviously far more expensive (in many cases) than OTCs. Imagine the difference in cost between a branded medicine and its generic equivalent. No matter that they are the same drug, the marketing campaign would ensure that a particular brand would stay in the patient's mind and encourage them to ask for that particular drug to be prescribed to them. This would clearly have vast consequences for the NHS. Whereas they would normally dispense the generic, cheaper drug, now they would have to dispense the more expensive branded drug. The cost to the NHS would be disastrous. But then, this is what the drug companies want anyway. The destruction of the NHS would ensure that their profits would reach previously unseen levels.

The other problem is the knowledge of the customer regarding the actual drugs themselves. I know many people think that they know everything there is to know about medication and various drug formulas. Well, I got new for you, you know jack shit. Why do you think doctors and pharmacists train for so long before they can prescribe or dispense these drugs? The general public only knows a fraction of the facts about the drugs they consume. However, it would be unfair to pin the blame for this solely on the consumer. Drug companies make it exceptionally hard for anyone to find out what the truth is about the drugs they manufacture, Even those who work in the health industry are not aware of all the facts about the drugs they issue. Take the case of Vioxx. The manufacturers Merck were found guilty of negligence in its
response to safety concerns about the painkilling drug. The reason for the safety concerns were because the drug wasn't fully tested. Imagine if Vioxx was backed by a huge advertising campaign. Just think how many people would have been affected if this was the case. This is where the problems begin. Even if the drug was properly tested, how could an average member of the public be able to disseminate complicated information about the drug trials and then make an informed choice? They can't. They will put their trust entirely in the hands of the drug companies. This is a very dangerous situation indeed. Doctors and pharmacists provide an important barrier between patient and drug company. The only people that can make judgements about the drugs we take are healthcare professionals (and even then they are still susceptible to financial inducements from the drug industry). I wouldn't have a clue about the effects of some of the POM medications that are on the market, and that's the way the drug companies like it. Our ignorance is their profit.

Make no mistake, a relaxation in the rules governing the marketing of POMs would have disastrous consequences. The NHS would be further crippled by the rise in the dispensing of branded drugs in favour of their generic equivalents. It is believed that the NHS could save more than £300m a year by prescribing generic over branded, imagine the consequences if the reverse were to happen. The result would be the final collapse of our national healthcare system. Furthermore, the inability for the patient to make an informed choice could also have disastrous consequences. Without having access to all the trial data, let alone be able to understand it, the patient would rely solely on the advice of the companies that produce the drugs. One thing is for certain, that are not going to put off potential customers, they have a business to run after all. In short, this move to ease regulations must be resisted at all costs. There is no telling how much long term damage this would do. The following is the conclusion of a report in the British Medical Journal about the 'Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions':

Patients' requests for medicines are a powerful driver of prescribing decisions. In most cases physicians prescribed requested medicines but were often ambivalent about the choice of treatment. If physicians prescribe requested drugs despite personal reservations, sales may increase but appropriateness of prescribing may suffer. Concerns about the value of opening up the regulatory environment to permit direct to consumer advertising in the EU and Canada seem well justified.

Dr Melanie Phillips - Climate Change Expert, or Loopy Conspiracy Theorist?

Renowned climatologist Dr Melanie 'I hate all of you, especially you fuckin' Muslims' Phillips has been very vocal in her criticism of the consensus on climate change. Her detailed scientific studies have drawn her to the conclusion that it is all a scam dreamt up by 'loony' lefties with some kind of malicious agenda. Like many conspiracy theorists, Phillips believes there is a vast network of people intent on undermining Western society. Like all conspiracy theorists, this amounts to nothing more than the wild rantings of a person who has lost touch with reality and has entered the realms of fantasy.

One of the main sources for her incredulity towards scientific consensus, is Professor Richard Lindzen. Here is an example of the praise that Phillips heaps on her beloved Professor Lindzen:

The meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen one [sic] again injects some much-needed sanity – and scientific rationalism – into the global warming frenzy in an article in Newsweek.

She repeatedly cites Lindzen as a figure of authority on global warming, but she never gives much detail about the man himself. I decided to take the liberty of doing a little research on Richard Lindzen, and I was unsurprised by what I discovered. He has links to numerous institutes that are in turn linked to ExxonMobil, the biggest climate change denier in the world. A group that has been directly responsible for muddying the waters in the fight to battle climate change. Lindzen is linked to the following:

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy - Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Annapolis has received $200,000 from Exxon since 2003.

Cato Institute - Contributing Expert. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S. It has received $90,000 from Exxon since 2001.

Heartland Institute - Expert. Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." Heartland has received $561,500 from Exxon since 1998.

George C. Marshall Institute - Writer. Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change. Exxon has funded the institute to the tune of $630,000 since 1998.

Tech Central Station - Writer. The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com. Since establishment in 2002, it has received $95,000 from Exxon.

So, hardly a reliable source of information then. All the above was taken from Exxon Secrets. There is a link with all the information above, here (click 'skip intro'). And here's what they say about Lindzen himself:

Dr. Lindzen was a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive, and he has testified multiple times before Congress.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)[emphasis mine]

Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

In other words, not a source that is to be trusted. Not that Dr Melanie 'barking mad' Phillips would give you such information to allow her readers to make informed decisions about the sources she quotes. That would just make her look like a mad conspiracy theorist, wouldn't it?

Bush Attempted to Water Down Climate Change Science

What a shock. Despite the protestations of the renowned climatologists, Dr Melanie 'Fuck the Muslims' Phillips (incidentally what is it with her and her 'down with the kids' language??) and Dr Timbo 'Do You Want Free Publicity' Bliar (that's a deliberate typo for all you right-wing fruitcakes), Bu$h Corp have been instrumental in playing down the evidence of climate change. According to The Guardian:

The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday.

But it was all so plausible. Who would have thought that George 'friend to the oil companies' Bush would take action to protect oil companies? Not me. Who would have thought that a former oil industry lobbyist (Philip Cooney) would actively play down the science?

Documents released yesterday show that in 2003 Mr Cooney and other senior appointed officials imposed at least 181 changes to a strategic plan on climate change to play down the scientific consensus on global warming. They made another 113 alterations to minimise the human role in climate change, and inserted possible benefits of climate change. "These changes must be made," said a note in Mr Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory."

Some of the statements deleted on Mr Cooney's instruction were non-controversial, such as: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." He also deleted references to models indicating that temperatures have been rising for the last 1,000 years. However, amid such deletions he chose to highlight a study funded by his former employer, the American Petroleum Institute.

Under heated questioning, Mr Cooney admitted yesterday that the changes were all intended to cast doubt over the impact of global warming. He denied they were directly coordinated with the White House but said he had regular conversations with a senior White House aide. "We got notes from them," Mr Cooney said.

I'm sure Dr Phillips will have an entirely plausible explanation.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle

Once again, George Monbiot does an excellent job of debunking the arguments of those that seek to undermine the efforts to tackle climate change. This time, he debunks the Channel Four documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. As well as the article itself, there is also a copy of a letter by one of the contributors, Carl Wunsch. Mr Wunsch claims that his views were mis-represented and edited to suit the needs of the documentary. Once more, the climate change deniers are exposed.

US Guidelines to Scientists Abroad

When you read comments on climate change by US scientists abroad, be sure to take much of what they say with a pinch of salt. Lifted from jobsanger:

Memos from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to scientists going abroad have been exposed by two environmental groups - the National Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The memos state that any scientist traveling abroad on government business must understand that climate change, sea ice and polar bears are delicate subjects. The memos say that top officials of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must be assured that the traveling scientist "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues".