How can scientific studies be counted on if the data is manipulated? 

September 7 – There are a number of famous quotes that focus on statistics – and mostly on the idea that statistics can be somewhat twisted to make any point look valid. 

A famous quote attributed to Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.” 

But what can we do when we see statistics every day used as a reason for possible legislation or laws? 

What if the data we’re using for the foundation of our rules was manipulated – and what if it had to be to support a specific narrative? 

Michele Jansen of NewsTalk 103.7FM said, “It’s been pointed out quite interestingly by a climate scientist, very respected apparently in the field, who came out and said he has to manipulate his research to meet certain narratives that the big journals want these days when it comes to climate to get his papers published. This is a guy who believes in climate change. He believes in the manmade impact. I think most of us reasonably think there is some impact, but he said you aren’t getting the full truth. You’re not getting the real science because of the desire for narratives to go out. We have to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions, so you can’t admit to the truth. He had written about the wildfires that are going on and 80 percent of them are man made, started by people. He had to leave certain facts out because it didn’t support the narrative that we all have to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is frightening and it’s not just in climate research that this is happening. We don’t have standards in research anymore, and we are being forced to fit narratives of those who say, climate is the worst problem, racism is the worst problem, gender is the worst problem and we’re getting lied to. Science is now very much distorted.”

Attorney Clint Barkdoll said, “This is getting a lot of coverage because this scientist, this researcher, he has written a column, essentially saying how he had to omit data if he wanted to get published in a journal like Nature or like Science, some of the leading publications in these fields. He basically says that if the paper doesn’t align with the pre-existing views of those publications, they’re not going to publish it. I think he’s really pulling the curtain back on what many of us have suspected for years, whether it’s in science publications or other research publications, how much of this is happening, where the journal itself is publishing something that they want to put out to the public, even if it’s not fully researched, even if they’re omitting key parts of the data? I’m curious if these journals now come out with any response to what the scientist has claimed.”

Jansen added, “It’s frightening because, again, you always hear well, the experts say. Well, you know what? The experts that we used to think of as being completely objective and doing research, using scientific methods, are going by the board. You’re not allowed to do that anymore. You have to start with a premise of a narrative and then do your research to kind of fit that narrative. This is not good for any of us. We’re living in a false reality now and being asked to do things based on this false science and false research. It’s in medicine. Unfortunately, you’re seeing it everywhere. So I hope this is a bit of a wake up call. Where’s the media? Because he says about the cooperation of the elite media because they want a certain narrative done. They’re not calling out these journals and saying, wait, where’s the truth?”

Barkdoll suggested, “Doesn’t this become a circular firing squad of sorts in these media outlets? So think about it, this paper gets published, the scientists deliberately omit data so that it will get published, and then other media outlets will cite this article, scholars, students at research universities, they will cite this quote unquote, research article that now its own author is saying it’s not completely true. So it’ll keep weaving its way into all of these other narratives when it comes to this issue.”

Jansen said, “This is how you get oh, there’s a consensus. No. It’s not. It’s not a consensus because it’s based on false data.”