“Step up on the scale, Mr. Naughton.”

“Sure, Doctor. I’m looking forward to seeing this myself.”

“Let’s see … slide this over a bit … hmm, pretty bad. Your weight is up again.”

“Uh … Doctor, you mind getting your foot off the scale?”

“Oh, okay.”

“So … you want to weigh me again now?”

“Sorry, I’ve already recorded the results. You can step down now.”

“But–”

“Just as I predicted. Man-made body enlarging. I told you to stop consuming so much animal fat.”

“There’s nothing wrong with eating–”

“If this keeps up, you’ll weigh 650 pounds by the year 2030. It’s a looming disaster.”

“Doctor, excuse me, but there’s no way I’m gaining weight. Look at me. I had to buy a smaller belt last month.”

“That’s a temporary anomaly. I’m more interested in the long-term trend.”

“I’ve been shrinking for two years now. I’ve also been eating more animal fat. So it can’t be making me fatter. Your theory doesn’t hold up.”

“Do you weigh more than you did 40 years ago?”

“Yes, I was a skinny runt 40 years ago.”

“And did your fat consumption go up during the past 40 years?”

“I was 11 years old 40 years ago! Of course I eat more now.”

“Aha! So you agree there’s a long-term trend in your body enlargement.”

“Those are natural forces at work. I’m pretty sure that’s been happening forever.”

“But the rate of the enlargement has accelerated. Look at your weight chart. See there? All nice and even for two decades, then it shoots up here at the end. It looks like a hockey stick.”

“That chart is bull@#$%!”

“It can’t be. I showed it to a bunch of doctors who are friends of mine and they agreed: it looks like a hockey stick. We even wrote a paper about it.”

“Look, Doctor, I went through a period in my thirties when I was fatter than I am today, and I wasn’t eating animal fat because I was a vegetarian. Now I’m experiencing a thinning trend, even though I eat a lot of fat. So obviously, fat isn’t the problem, and that chart is bull.”

“I see. So you’re a denialist.”

“What?!”

“I suppose you don’t believe the Holocaust happened either?”

“No! I mean, yes, I believe it happened. There’s evidence it happened. But there’s no evidence that I’m gaining weight!”

“Who’s paying you to say this? The dairy industry? The cattle ranchers?”

“Nobody’s paying me! Just use your senses! I’m smaller!”

“This is the worst case of denial I’ve ever seen. I’m afraid we’re going to have to institute a fat-and-trade system. Every time you consume fat, you’ll need to pay me a stiff fine. Or you can buy a fat credit from another tubbo who’s willing to go without butter for a week. It’s the only way to stop you from getting larger.”

“I AM NOT GETTING LARGER!”

“Yes, you are. It says so right here in my computer data.”

“Let me see that.”

“No. I will not have you second-guessing my data. I don’t have to show you anything.”

“Yes, you do, Doctor. And if you don’t, I’ll call my lawyer and have him file the papers.”

“Damn! I was hoping you didn’t know about that law. Now I have to destroy the data.”

“What?!”

“Nothing. I didn’t say anything.”

“Give me that book!”

“Hey! Give that back!”

“Back off, Doctor, or I’ll smack you. Let’s see … Hey, what’s with all the emails and notes?”

“Nothing. Just doctor’s notes.”

“Nothing, my @##. Look at this: ‘James – I figured out how to apply Mike’s trick of mixing belt-ring data with actual weight measurements to hide Mr. Naughton’s mid-thirties fattening period.’  What the hell is that supposed to mean?”

“It doesn’t mean anything! ‘Trick’ is a common term in medical research. Give me that back!”

“And here’s a coding comment from the guy who designed your computer program. What does he mean, he’s having a hard time writing code that produces the results you want?”

“You know … just programmer lingo. That’s how they talk.”

“And this one: ‘James – Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues to boycott medical journals that publish articles by doctors who have seen people lose weight on high-fat diets. By the way, please delete this after reading.’ And you printed it out? What are you, an idiot?”

“Oh, I see. Already reduced to resorting to attacks on my character, huh?”

“And what’s up with this one:  ‘James. The fact is that we cannot account for Mr. Naughton’s failure to gain weight in recent years, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.’

“Well, uh …you see, the theory is still correct, because uh … I mean it’s not like we have anything to hide!”

“Let me get this straight … you wouldn’t give me your data, you threatened to destroy your data so I wouldn’t see it, your programmer was upset because he was having a hard time producing the data you wanted, you applied ‘tricks’ to your data, and in spite of all that, your colleague thinks it’s a travesty that you can’t explain why I’m not actually gaining weight. I’d say you were hiding something, Doctor.”

“But the theory is still correct! I’m sure of it!  To hell with your annoying weight loss.”

“No, to hell with you, to hell with your theory, and to hell with your fat-and-trade fines. I’m leaving.”

“Don’t go outside while you’re angry, Mr. Naughton! You’ll get heat exhaustion!”

“It’s snowing, you moron.”

Some articles on the climate research scandal:

From Heritage Foundation

From Forbes

From the UK Telegraph

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
29 Responses to “If Climate “Researchers” Became Doctors”
  1. Karen says:

    Obviously nutrition “scientists” and climate “scientists” had similar educations. Funny, their interpretation of the scientific method differs vastly from what I was taught.

    Must be some interesting classes they take.

  2. Jeanie Campbell says:

    Brilliant!

    Thanks.

  3. Jesrad says:

    Excellent ! Thank you, I just woke up and my day’s already great now 🙂

    Have a good one.

  4. Cynthia says:

    Another article worth reading: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars Having been a scientist once upon a time, I know how the big egos work. Stealing and manipulation to get published or funded first are common. That doesn’t mean the science is necessarily bad, just that the scientists are behaving badly. But it does mean we have to be careful not to believe everything we read, no matter what point of view we hold.

    Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of articles like this one. It’s CYA time for the media cheerleaders. Sure, the researchers lied, they ordered programmers to produce the results they wanted, tried to hide their data, threatened to destroy their data rather than share it, tried to hijack the peer-review process, etc., but that doesn’t prove they’re wrong, blah-blah-blah.

    The IPCC reports, Al Gore’s hockey stick, cap-and-trade, etc. were all based on what is clearly shoddy, manipulated, agenda-driven research. Does that prove absolutely that man-made global warming isn’t happening? Of course not, because there’s no way to DISPROVE that theory. But given that they want to tax the world’s developed economies to the tune of several trillion dollars, the burden of proof is on them. They’ve failed miserably to provide that proof, despite their dishonest efforts. All they can prove is that climate changes. We already knew that, because it’s been changing forever.

  5. DrA says:

    Excellent! Two birds with one stone!

    Let’s hope both birds are down for the count.

  6. MrsBurns says:

    This is the best piece of satire I have read in years. You are a genius. I am forwarding this to everyone I know. Merry Christmas!

    Merry Christmas to you as well.

  7. Josh says:

    If I lived near you, this’d be on YouTube already.

    A person on my Facebook posted a nice little “Guess I was wrong about this Global Warming thing” message. I thought it was nice, until I read a comment from one of their friends basically trashing Fox News and others for not saying that even though Warming looks to be false, it’s still a good idea to come up with alternative energies and make a cleaner environment.

    What?!? That wasn’t the argument. Nearly everyone agrees on cleaner, safer, more efficient.

    People can be maddening at times.

    Frankly, I’m stunned he or she even admitted to perhaps being wrong about global warming. This has become a religious belief for many people, and they simply will not let go of it. It’s stunning to see the mental hoops they can leap through in order to keep the cherished belief.

    As I’ve tried to explain to my “environmentalist” friends, this is not about pollution. We’re all against that. But CO2 is no more of a “pollutant” than oxygen or nitrogen. In earth’s history, the atmospheric level of CO2 has been several times higher than it is now, and we had nothing to do with it.

  8. April says:

    Wow are you really 51? You don’t look it at all from what I’ve seen in Fathead 😀

    I really am 51, and thanks.

  9. Kennedy says:

    Second Jeanie!

  10. Victoria says:

    Huh. So you’re a climate denier? How ridiculous. Guess I can take this blog off my feeds.

    Denier? Yes, I guess so. I also deny that the earth is flat. I deny that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. I deny all kinds of theories for which there is no evidence. I don’t deny that the climate is changing, because it’s been changing for millions of years. But I certainly don’t believe we’re causing it, and now that the researchers who say we are have been caught manipulating their data and threatening to destroy it rather than share it with other scientists, I don’t see how anyone can still trust these bozos.

  11. Matt Stone says:

    Yep, you can be pretty sure when there is a scientific consensus out there, that the exact opposite is true. I should have all my bases covered by eating a high-calorie, high saturated fat, high glycemic load, low fruit, high cholesterol, high-gluten, high red meat diet while working for a private jet company in lieu of exercise.

    That should do it.

  12. Dave Dixon says:

    That’s pretty much standard behavior by most scientists. It’s why I left science as a career.

    The biggest disappointment of researching Fat Head was coming to the conclusion that science is corrupt. I’m better off knowing that, of course, but I wish it weren’t true.

  13. Grok says:

    “I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!”

    The climate fanatics have no sense of humor, so they’ll disagree with you.

  14. Dave, RN says:

    It’s funny how when something happens in nature, we humans in our pridefulness think that we need to fix it. If we’d have been around in our current form in the days of the dinosaurs, we’d have thought there demise was our fault and try to keep it from happening.
    There’s much evidence that climate shifts (both colder and warmer) and other weather related anomalies are caused by the currently occurring polar shift. And there’s nothing we can do about the pole shift!

    Indeed. During our last warming trend, Mars was getting warmer as well. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t our fault.

  15. Jim Purdy says:

    That’s hilarious, even though we disagree.

    I think it’s obvious that our species is doing immense pollution damage to our planet in many ways, and temperature fluctuations are only a small part of the problems. Even if there is no man-made global warming, that doesn’t make it okay to pollute our land, water, and air.

    We actually don’t disagree. I’m also against polluting the planet, and I’d like to see something replace fossil fuels as our primary energy source. I believe that will happen. But CO2, the big issue involved in global-warming, is not and never has been a pollutant, any more than oxygen is. It’s been several magnitudes higher in atmospheric concentration at many points in earth’s history, and the vast majority of it is produced by plants and animals, even today. If anything, all the misguided focus on CO2 has detracted from the real pollution issues, which is a shame.

  16. Will says:

    Great post Tom. It seems to me that the climate debate, health debate, and probably several other US vs. THEM debates all suffer from political maneuvering. I really cannot say whether or not we are causing any kind of weather change simply because there is too much info being passed around as truth and spouted back out again by people who do not know what they are talking about.

    I had an Earth Science teacher at college that told us that major climate change was measured over centuries not decades and that even if it is warmer now than a hundred years ago and if it is warmer still in another hundred years, it doesn’t mean we had anything to do with it. But then I see pictures of melted icecaps that were far larger even 50 years ago and I think we should still look into the matter. And yet we had one of the biggest snowfalls last year in Texas in at least my lifetime and maybe longer. Again measured in centuries not decades.

    Even if we find out climate change isn’t happening or we are not the cause of it if it is, we should still look for alternatives to fossil fuels if only to get out from under the thumb of foreign oil that has not always been friendly to us.

    I really hope that people will come to realize that the internet can be used for research by people other than college kids.

    Your teacher was a rare bird. Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” does an excellent job of explaining the many, many warming and cooling periods that have happened over the millenia. (The cooling periods were the worst for humans.) A change of a degree or two over a 100-year span isn’t unusual, and certainly not proof of anything. We now appear to be in yet another cooling period anyway, with record cold summers and winters for the past few years.

    Pollution is still a real problem, and I’m afraid the CO2 debate has created warring camps among people who should be cooperating. The EPA, after all, was promoted and signed into existence by Richard Nixon. But when we’re talking about trillions of dollars in new taxes, based on an unproved theory promoted by a scientifically illiterate media that can’t resist calling CO2 a “pollutant” — which it clearly isn’t — it’s bound to create divisions.

    I agree about fossil fuels. I also believe something better will come along, probably something nobody is thinking of right now, save for a guy working in a home lab. The government didn’t create the steam engine, the combine, the piston, the telegraph, the radio, vaccines, X-rays, the telephone, the camera, the semiconductor, or the PC … yet somehow people believe only massive government spending on “green technology” can produce a better form of energy. Makes no sense.

  17. ScottR says:

    A wise man once said that math is how you know when your being lied to. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i2/chance.asp

    My college physics professor said the same thing when he gave a guest lecture in a humanities class: “Learn math, even if you don’t think you need it. Math is how you know if they’re lying to you.”

  18. Patrick T. Peterson says:

    Great Satire Tom!!!! I’m e-mailing this to everyone I know who has any interest in these issues. Posting on FaceBook, to several Yahoo Groups and other organizations who could use a good laugh with a great point. Fantastic! Made my day.

    We gotta laugh at these bozos to keep our own sanity.

  19. Boaz says:

    Dear Mr. Naughton,

    May I translate your post to Hebrew for our web site?

    Boaz

    Sure. I hope the humor translates well.

  20. Chad says:

    Based on the crap I’ve read over the last few years from many PhD’s, most of my high school teachers would’ve flunked them out of class for improper methodology. Personally, I’ve read many dissertations, and most of these idiots start with poor assumptions based on flawed models and inconclusive, incomplete data. There is a habit as you get more connected into the political/science heirarchy to deliberately exclude and cherry pick the data without taking into account and explaining all possible relationsips ( codependent and interdependent) revealed by the data gathered. I mean what is wrong with saying this is the data and we just can’t explain the following relationships at this time or that the data revealed something completely different than was expected. Oh wait I remember, institutional science grants that come up with conclusions different than the results desired by the funding establishment don’t get continued in perpetuity. These “academics” would have to get jobs in the real world and private sector but they would fail there too. I wouldn’t ask any of them to fix my car let alone forecast the weather 50 or 100 yrs from now.

    It’s time we stopped worshipping people simply because they have fancy titles, bogus degrees, and exceptional ass kissing ability to the corrupt socialist oligarchy. I was outright insulted the other day when my brother who works for an Online university said in a similar manner that he esteems someone who was an economics advisor to Carter. Obviously my brother is an ignorant jackass. Maybe this “disease” is contagious and something that the above dr should be genuinely researching

    That was the biggest disappointment of researching my film: learning just how much science is driven by agendas, egos, and funding sources … and how much cherry-picking and manipulation of data goes on. Nothing like the dispassionate, rigorous process the scientific method is supposed to be.

    An economics adviser to Carter?! You mean there are people willing to claim that title?

  21. Grok says:

    @TomNaughton

    “The climate fanatics have no sense of humor, so they’ll disagree with you” – LMAO

    “We actually don’t disagree. I’m also against polluting the planet, and I’d like to see something replace fossil fuels as our primary energy source.”

    I feel the exact same way. The climate is going to change no matter what, but we don’t need to be smogging and cancering ourselves to death. Especially when we already have the technology.

    The other biggy for me is sending away 9 zeros worth of $s for oil instead of keeping it at home. This leads into a whole pile of worm-cans like war and conspiracy 😉

    Not to mention all those foreign entanglements George Washington warned us to avoid.

  22. Boaz says:

    Thank You… You will soon be able to hear a good laugh from Israel – I hope this will not offset the grim mood we need in order to promote AGW in this parts of the world…

  23. Boaz says:

    Here it is in “Anochi” and in the “Green Blog”:

    http://www.anochi.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid=2

    http://green-logic.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-post_5694.html

    Thank You.

    Pretty interesting to see my picture over a column written in Hebrew!

  24. John Ansell says:

    Humour (yes, that’s how we spell it in 100% pure New Zealand) and simplicity are such devastating tools against liars like Climate Scientologists.

    Tom, in all the blog posts and articles and books I’ve read about the climate hoax, I don’t know that anyone has distilled the essence of the problem as clearly or as brilliantly as you have here.

    So while the likes of Ian Plimer, Ian Wishart, Jo Nova and Lord Monckton deserve huge recognition for their heroic efforts to detail the fraud, none of that counts unless the public ‘gets’ it.

    And most of the public will not read long articles and books. But they will read jokes. So…

    From those of us who cling to the theory that our brains are for thinking with and not merely padding to keep our ears apart, a humble and sincere thank you.

    Thanks, John. I believe bad science must be fought on many fronts, and the humor angle is one of them.

  25. KD says:

    Climategate is like Christmas come early to “denialists” (in a way, sad that it existed at all, however, given the consequences of having been led astray for so long….). Even if most ignore it or deny that it matters…. I can only imagine what we might find if the accounts of some nutrition organizations were also brought to light. I suspect they would be quite similar.

    I’d sure like to hack into a few of those computers and have a peek.

  26. Barry Groves says:

    Tom

    This article is brilliant!

    I run a website that deals with the misinformation about diet and health. I’ve been eating a high-animal fat diet for almost 40 years. I’ve recently added a small section on ‘climate change’ misinformation as I see it.

    Because of the medical slant, I would love to publish this article on my website (with proper attribution and links.

    May I have your permission to do so, please?

    Best wishes

    Barry

    Of course, Barry. I’m a fan of your work.

  27. Amy Dungan says:

    This is genius Tom! Too bad there is so much truth in there…

    Thanks.

  28. John says:

    Dude, you had better keep an eye open for the black helicopters. The guvment will be on you like a duck on a june bug!

    I figure if they haven’t killed comedian Tim Slagle by now, I’m safe. He’s been ripping the government goofs for years in his act.

  29. Jess says:

    Would we be able to survive without climate. i mean climate is a big part of our earth and stuff but what if we didnt have climate anymore. i need help. and also what would u think would happen if climate change would be to dissappear? i thought climate change was a good thing.. or atleast a bit of it?

    There will always be a climate. But it will change, always has, always will. Everything on earth is cyclical.

  30.  
Leave a Reply