In 2005 the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published "The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet." It was an instant best seller outselling even Harry Potter in Australian bookstores that year.

The CSIRO claimed that the book was the product of years of research into diet and its effects on wellness. In other words, unlike other diet books, the CSIRO book was EVIDENCE-BASED and, therefore, reliable.

The book was controversial because it recommended people eat 1 Kg of meat per week. I am not a vegetarian. I love meat. But even I don't eat a kilo of the stuff a week.

It transpires that some of the research underpinning the book was financed by meat industry sources. This does not mean the research was wrong or corrupted; but it does raise questions.

One vehement critic of the book was Doctor Rosemary Stanton, OAM, a nutritionist at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. She went so far as to write a letter to John Howard warning of the dangers to the Australian populace should they follow the advice in the CSIRO book.

Dr. Stanton is herself the author of a number of books on nutrition and diet which she claims are also evidence-based and which deprecate meat consumption. To state the obvious, Dr Stanton has a financial incentive to discredit the CSIRO book.

The controversy was discussed on ABC "7:30 Report." See:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1545186.htm

Here is a link to the CSIRO research which underpins the book.

http://www.csiro.au/science/ps2gg.html

And here is a link to Dr. Stanton's AIHW home page.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/eventsdiary/ah04/speakers_rosemary_stanton.cfm

The CSIRO book was subsequently criticised in an editorial in the journal, Nature. The authors of the critique claimed, in essence, that the CSIRO research methodology was flawed.

The substance of Dr. Stanton's critique may be found in this article in The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-diet-thin-on-science/2005/08/28/1125167551089.html

I know of know way in which a lay-person can make a rational EVIDENCE-BASED decision between the CSIRO and its critics.

How do lay-people decide on complex scientific issues when there are so many vested interested all pulling in opposite directions?

I have no answer, but it's an excellent question.

Dear Steven,

'How do lay people decide when
scientists differ?'

I can only speak for myself.
I go to an expert I can trust,
and ask their opinion.

Or, depending on what it is,
I use my common sense.

Anything to do with my health and/or
dieting, it would be my GP.

I don't follow fads.
No matter who recommends them.

I agree that objective answers are often difficult to find. But that's where I think that we are far luckier than we have ever been before, in having the Internet at our disposal. Even those who can't own one can access one at libraries etc.

When it comes to things that impact personally upon us, such as medicine or nutrition we are now able to access studies, clinical trials, opinions, recieved wisdom, theses, medical papers etc. in an way we never could before.

Of course, no-one can make up our minds for us, but at least we can make more educated assessments than we ever could before.

Once we've done that, then I think we should trust our common sense a lot more than many of us do. If for example, we feel that a kilo of meat is too much, and we know for certain that people in other countries who do not consume as much meat as Australians or South Africans, are fit and healthy, then we should have confidence in drawing our own conclusions from this. "Miracle" cures seldom are. And "revolutions" in nutrition surely would only be applicable if there had been revolutions in the development of the human digestive system?

As has been pointed out on other threads - science is not infallible and we know this. So I think dependence upon "experts" has to be tempered by a bit of savvy and our own (unscientific) "gut" feeling.

But most of all, keeping an open mind is probably our best bet in all these issues. People who wholeheartedly embrace "new" diets, medications etc. with the fervour of the recently converted are often shown after the passage of time, to have been duped. And, in the process their health may have been compromised.

Yeah, I also agree life would be so much easier if we could know for certain what the absolute truth about something is. But at least an educated guess is better than a total stab in the dark.

I agree that objective answers are often difficult to find. But that's where I think that we are far luckier than we have ever been before, in having the Internet at our disposal. Even those who can't own one can access one at libraries etc.

When it comes to things that impact personally upon us, such as medicine or nutrition we are now able to access studies, clinical trials, opinions, recieved wisdom, theses, medical papers etc. Of course, no-one can make up our minds for us, but at least we can make more educated assessments than we ever could before.

Once we've done that, then I think we should trust our common sense a lot more than many of us do. If for example, we feel that a kilo of meat is too much, and we know for certain that people in other countries who do not consume as much meat as Australians or South Africans, are fit and healthy, then we should have confidence in drawing our own conclusions from this. "Miracle" cures seldom are. And "revolutions" in nutrition surely would only be applicable if there had been revolutions in the development of the human digestive system?

As has been pointed out on other threads - science is not infallible and we know this. So I think dependence upon "experts" has to be tempered by a bit of savvy and our own (unscientific) "gut" feeling.

But most of all, keeping an open mind is probably our best bet in all these issues. People who wholeheartedly embrace "new" diets, medications etc. with the fervour of the recently converted are often shown after the passage of time, to have been duped. And, in the process their health may have been compromised.

Yeah, I also agree life would be so much easier if we could know for certain what the absolute truth about something is. But at least an educated guess is better than a total stab in the dark.

Foxy,

The trouble is we have two groups of "experts" with different views. Both groups have impeccable credentials. The CSIRO is one of the most respected research organisations in the WORLD. Their book cannot be dismissed as a "fad diet" on the mere say so of one nutritionist.

On the other hand the journal, Nature, is the most respected scientific publication in the world and Dr. Stanton's credentials are also impressive.

There is no easy way, even for an "expert," to choose between the two groups.

You say you would trust your GP but how would he in turn know which group of experts to trust? GP's are not omniscient.

For that matter how would you know whether your GP has kept up with developments in his field since leaving medical school? If he qualified more than 20 years ago it is likely that much of what he learned is obsolete.

What I find missing from the CSIRO book is the role of EXERCISE in controlling weight. I once suggested to my GP that any weight loss program that failed to include an exercise component was doomed to fail. He wholeheartedly agreed.

According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, physical inactivity is now a leading cause of premature death in the US and lack of exercise plays a role in many chronic diseases that lead to early death. (See "Exercise Controls Gene Expression," Frank W. Booth and P. Darrell Neufer, American Scientist, 2005, Volume 93)

In fairness to Dr. Stanton she does make passing mention of the importance of exercise.

The CSIRO have now brought out a "Book 2" of their diet plan which includes an EXERCISE REGIME as well as recipes. Score one for the CSIRO.

For what it's worth I suspect there may be little to choose between the CSIRO diet and the diets proposed by Dr. Stanton. Either will work PROVIDED IT IS SUPPLEMENTED BY REGULAR EXERCISE.

I suspect that Dr. Stanton is pushing a vegetarian agenda. I have no problem with that but she should be honest enough to admit it.

"How do lay-people decide on complex scientific issues when there are so many vested interested all pulling in opposite directions?"

Good question Steven - particularly in this day and age.

I think the answer lies in making a judgment about the risks involved in NOT following a certain course of action. If you have been diagnosed with terminal cancer, how many experts do you need to consult before you decide that yes, maybe it is time to get your house in order?

If the conundrum is what diet to choose or exercise regime to follow (lifestyle choices), well ... I think there are more important things to be more concerned about - unless of course the precursor to the choice is life threatening. Otherwise, whatever you feel comfortable with.

As a lay-person, there is nothing wrong in accepting the collective wisdom of the science academies or respective medical institutions. However, it only takes one bright spark of genius to overturn the scientific consensus - it's a matter of finding that genius.

Dear Steven,

You did point out the fact that even scientists
have a hidden agenda (including CSIRO - for whom
I've worked for several years, by the way).

The opinion I gave you was strictly
from my perspective. That's why in the
case of any health issues, (including dieting)
I would have to go to my GP because they have
my medical history. I'm still being monitored
for certain things.

Scientists often differ in their opinions,
you have to do what's right for you,
common sense or that 'gut feeling,' is also
a good way to go, as I stated in my previous
post.

Steven,

The Nature 'Editorial' was not in fact an editorial, but a news report on Stanton's criticisms of the CSIRO diet. The critics were in fact Stanton and Patrick Holford, a British pill pushing crank.

The diet is designed as a weight loss diet and so limits carbohydrate intake in favour of protein. Certainly, exercise needs to be part of the equation.

As to who to believe? Look at the statements made. Are they internally consistent? What are they based on? Do the people talking have a good knowledge of the research? These are questions the layperson should ask. What the layperson should not do is seek to affirm their own prejudices. Richard Feynman in his famous advice to young scientists says: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool". It is good advice for the layperson too.

In this particular discussion, I would immediately discount Holford's views. That leaves the CSIRO scientists and Stanton. The Scientists maintain that a high protein diet is what works best. They could have opted for plant proteins as well as or instead of meat protein. So Stanton is half right, but as you say her position is colored by her promotion of vegetarianism. Belief in a lifestyle choice is much more likely to influence your statements than someone paying you to do some work.

As for me? Fortunately I understand metabolism, so I know the original diet would work best with exercise and that you could, if desired, substitute plant protein for animal protein, so long as you didn’t increase the carbohydrate content.

persons with belief systems usualy are very easy to pigeonhole for out of the mouth the heart speaks . If you are not gaining knowledge and changing you are usually a biggot and a knowall . Knowledge is doubling every 5 years if you are not constantly up grading you are becoming obselite .

Agronomist,

I am inclined to agree with you with one quibble. Meat is more than just protein and I am not certain to what extent plants can be perfect substitutes for meat. For example, I would guess that vegetarians may have to add iron supplements to their diet.

To be honest I am suspicious of Dr. Stanton. Writing to the Prime Minister over a diet book strikes me as grandstanding. She has also not been forthright about her vegetarian agenda.

For example in the Age article she writes:

"The real challenge is to maintain a good body weight over the long term, by adopting a health-giving, tasty, affordable and ECOLOGICALLY SOUND diet." (Emphasis added)

Ecological soundness is an important issue. But it is a DIFFERENT issue to the one addressed by the CSIRO book. Conflating the two seems ingenuous.

At the same time I cannot help but be a little suspicious of research, partially funded from meat industry sources, that finds people should consume a kilo of meat a week. The CSIRO book would have had more credibility had more disinterested parties funded the research.

So far as the Nature editorial is concerned, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. The editorial to which I refer was titled "A recipe for trouble" and appeared on page 1052 of the 21 December 2005 edition. It is savagely critical.

Quote.

"…The diet is also being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high-carbohydrate diet only for a subpopulation of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction."

It is definitely an editorial piece, not an article by or about Stanton and Holford.

Stanton and Crowe (not Holford) had an article in Nature of 12 April 2006. I have not read that piece. However the fact that Nature published Stanton's article does give her views some credibility

Steven, my apologies. I am working from the online version of Nature and there is not a December 21 issue in 2005. There is a December 22 issue, which carries the News report I mentioned on pages 1060-1061. It also carries a short editorial on Page 1052, which refers to and leans heavily on the news report. The 'critics' mentioned in the editorial would seem to be Stanton and Holford.

The quote you provide comes from the editorial. My reading of the editorial is that it is critical of the way the diet book is being hyped rather than the research. If you like, the criticism is that the hype exceeds what the research has established.

The article in the April 13 edition of Nature in 2006, page 868 is in fact a 3 paragraph letter (correspondence, rather than a research letter) by Stanton and Tim Crowe.

The first paragraph:

Correspondence
Nature 440, 868 (13 April 2006)

Risks of a high-protein diet outweigh the benefits
Rosemary Stanton1 and Tim Crowe2

School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

Sir:
Alastair Robertson of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) says that the CSIRO's high-protein Total Wellbeing diet is "based on peer-reviewed science within robust experimental frameworks" ("Diet's healthy blend of science and practicality" Nature 439, 912; 2006). These small studies reported no significant difference in weight loss between a high-protein meat-based diet and a control diet with lower protein content. The exception was a small sub-group of women with high triglyceride levels, who lost more weight over 12 weeks with a high-protein diet.

Steven , one of the best topics for some time.
Agronomist is right of course (don’t faint) in this instance. His methodology is sound.
However Steven the question is how does the LAY person decide? The internet is a double edged sword in that there is as much misinformation there as real. Therefore we’re back to the original question.

In truth often the most accessible (to the majority of the net users) information is often the least reliable. The recent show on the truth about the Mary Celeste indicated that clearly the mystery was created by a person’s persistent ego and the later sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Lawyers have a technique in some cases called the “paper blizzard” where the pertinent facts are hidden in a mountain of irrelevant distracting documents.
The practical issue then becomes:
• Who has the ability to make the investigation let alone understand it? Most people would be scratching to know what “Nature” was.
• Who has the time to research all topics and issues the average citizen faces on a day to day basis?
Realistically there is a conflict between the ‘reasonable man’ test and the business maxim ‘caveat emptor’. Facts can vary depending on the ‘interest’ or perspective of the person interpreting them.
I as a matter of course tend to look for the ‘interest’ and then factor that in when examining an issue. In the case of obvious bias etc I question more strenuously their assertions. This doesn’t mean they are wrong but in commercial issues this hyper scepticism has proven more than helpful.
As a manager when hiring staff I was also interested in ‘negative’ reference verification. This often gave me real insights into potential problems. Not that necessarily stopped me from hiring but fore warned is fore armed.What is a problem to some maybe manageable or even an advantage to me.

Richie10 writes

'Knowledge is doubling every 5 years if you are not constantly up grading you are becoming obselite .'

It is good to continue to gain knowledge although truth never changes. Jesus words are shown to be true thousands of years after they have been penned. Many seek knowledge that only puffs up with pride. The heart of man has not changed and the answer for humanities problems remain the same. Jesus Christ is the source of all true knowledge

Simple answer.Follow the money trail.Self interest sways both perception and analysis.In the complex realm of climate,you can justify anything in the noble persuit of saving the planet and lining your own pocket.

Since 1990 $50 billion has been given to the scientific community for research.Would they dare destroy the fear and trepidation that the UN has now established as a yoke by which we are now controlled?

Naturally..I sit on the sidelines of this great discussion with a bit smirk on my dial...musing over the 'objective' nature of that which is called upon to destroy 'religious' faith in such things as Creation:)

AAAAhh.. *SCIENCE*... It is sooo objective :)

Agronomist,

A search revealed that the CSIRO book received quite a bit of coverage in Nature. However we are in substantial agreement anyway.

Examinator

Glad you like the thread.

Arjay,

"Follow the money trail" is always sound advice but it is not a magic bullet. Often ALL protagonists to a dispute have huge sums of money at stake. Here are two cases in point.

Case 1.

Curbing greenhouse gas emissions benefits suppliers of alternative energy generating systems such as manufacturers of wind turbines and geothermal energy systems.

Refraining from curbing greenhouse gas emissions benefits the oil industry.

You cannot decide who is right in this dispute simply by following the money.

Case 2.

The trucking magnate, Lindsey Fox, has criticised the dredging of Port Phillip Bay to deepen the shipping channel. He favours expanding Western Port Bay instead.

Fox owns land around Western Port Bay and would make a bundle if the government follows his advice. But does that make it wrong? There are many people who argue that deepening the shipping channel in Port Phillip Bay is at best a short term solution and that Western Port Bay is a better option.

In fact I would guess that Fox bought the land because he figured it would be needed for a port one day.

Again this dispute cannot be assessed simply by following the money.

Polycarp,

The scientific enterprise is self-correcting. This dispute will be settled eventually and it will be settled OBJECTIVELY.

For what it's worth I think we'll find there are no one size fits all diets. Instead, as the science of genomics advances, nutritionists will be able to tailor diets to individuals.

Certainly science beats trying to find answers to scientific questions in the koran or bible.

Steven says .. "It sure beats trying to find scientific answer in the Quran and Bible"...

I rather agree. There are some interesting and noteworthy glimpses in the Bible "Circle of the earth" in Isaiah being one of them....but re Creation..it is all 'big picture' stuff..not micro.

But you say science is self correcting? :) hmmmmmmmm if that were so...then why is there massive disagreement between the parties you mention? well of course it's...funding..reputation..money... etc.

I suggest the best that will occur is that they will agree to disagree.
Of course the truth is 'out there'....but there are those 'out there' also who want a particular brand of truth for financial or reputational reward.

What I see is that facts are presented.. attacks/rebuttals made..and it's left up to the public to decide.

I always say "follow the money" to find out which side is telling more truth.

TRUTH is directly and inversely proportional to the degree of reward involved :)

A news update.

Calorie restriction diets such as the one recommended by the CSIRO are known to prolong life in rodents. Does this also work in humans?

It may not be that simple. The increased longevity of animals on calorie restricted diets is associated with declines in the level of a protein called IGF-1 (Insulin like growth factor 1).

The question is this:

When humans are put on a calorie restricted diet do their levels of IGF-1 fall?

The answer, according to a paper in the Journal, Aging Cell*, is not always. IGF-1 levels in humans on a high-protein calorie-restricted diet such as the one recommended by the CSIRO have the same levels of IGF-1 as people on more normal diets.

Only when BOTH calories AND protein intake are restricted do IGF-1 levels fall.

Here is a quote from the authors' abstract:

"In addition, our data provide evidence that protein intake is a key determinant of circulating IGF-1 levels in humans, and suggest that reduced protein intake may become an important component of anticancer and anti-aging dietary interventions."

Note how rapidly the science moves. This paper appeared a month ago and the research would not have been available to the CSIRO scientists when they wrote their book.

*"Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans," Luigi Fontana et al, Aging Cell, Oct2008, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p681-68

I agree, it's very difficult for the average lay person to distinguish between conflicting arguments about what we should eat, especially when those in conflict both claim to be evidence-based.

I'm currently embarking on what might be considered a dietary gamble. I'm going against all the conventional wisdom on the importance of low fat, low cholesterol food intake and have switched to a diet much richer in quality saturated fats and oils. I'm eating protein (mostly meat, but also egg, lentil and whey powder) and veg three times a day and finding I'm needing to do very little in the way of snacking. Apart from some occasional brown rice or wholemeal pasta, I'm eating very little carbohydrate and not much dairy either. It took a while to come at cooking things like eggs, sausages, bacon, mushrooms and tomatoes for breakfat but now I'm loving it and realising it really is the best way to start your day. My energy and mood levels are very stable and I'm the lowest weight I ever remember being.

I've made the switch on naturopathic advice which itself is based on the results of comprehensive blood testing. I was told, amongst other things, that my blood cholesterol was too low and that it was a contributing factor to some chronic health conditions. This flies in the face of every doctor's advice in the past that my low blood cholesterol was in fact a good indicator, not a bad one.

I'm also becoming persuaded to the idea that someone alluded to earlier on, that one-size-fits-all dietary regimes are not necessarily the best way for each individual to achieve good health outcomes. Tailoring dietary advice to individual needs is I think the way to go, but that in itself will often involve a flouting of conventionally accepted dietary givens.

I do feel I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm trusting the advice of respected and experienced professionals and as well my own gut instinct, based largely on prior knowledge and on how I feel. It's early days yet, so I guess only time will tell.

I guess when some “science” is not the product of absolute law but mere observation or even an academics personal conjecture it is open to not only dispute but claims of fraud.

Just look up “scientific fraud” (including the quotes) and google brings back79,400 hits in less than a second.

Anyone who has been around long enough to have observed human nature will likely agree that most folk place their own discovery and ego above pretty much all else.

Scientist are humans and subject to the same human traits.

When I read or hear of something which seems to be more “spin” than fact, I become skeptical.

My profession values skepticism and requires independent audit to verify results.

I have observed almost daily, people clinging to outdated and outmoded ideas because they have elements of themselves invested in anachronistic processes and systems. These folk will sabotage alternative opinions and beliefs, regardless of their merit.

So to answer the question

“How do lay people decide when scientists differ?”

It is simple, I apply common sense and the values which I personal consider those of the “reasonable man” (which is yet another subjective evaluation) and then try to defend the position in argument with others.

We all have a view on most things. Science is not some holy-of-holies which cannot be challenged by the lay-person, especially when we all know a lot of money and kudos might be up for grabs for the “winning” opinion (regardless of its veracity) - AGW being a case in point.

And I agree with Arjays points, when science is used to curb the free expression and consumption of people by tethering them to a political agenda it is no longer real science, it is merely Socialism by Stealth.

Col Rouge: << Just look up “scientific fraud” (including the quotes) and google brings back79,400 hits in less than a second

[...]

My profession values skepticism and requires independent audit to verify results. >>

That's very rich, coming from an accountant. I just googled "accounting fraud" (including the quotes) and it returned 245,000 hits in 0.27 seconds.

The trouble with applying the "commonsense" or "reasonable man" approach to scientific disputes is that very often such perspectives are plain erroneous. Much scientific discovery is counterintuitive, and indeed has to battle against entrenched ignorance that seems to be "commonsense" to "reasonable men". You know, stuff like the Earth being flat and the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Given that true science progresses via the falsification of theories and hypotheses, it's always wise to remain sceptical (in the true sense) of "scientific" claims and counter-claims that are reported in popular media, particularly when they have commercial implications.

<< Socialism by Stealth >>

Welcome back, Col - how was your holiday?

LOL Col Rouge,

For once I have to agree with CJ MORGAN. When it comes to fraud the scientists could learn from the auditors' correspondence course on how to make pond scum look like geniuses. Do the names Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, our own HIH, mean nothing to you? All these companies were given a clean bill of health from their auditors almost until the end. Yet we know that the problems were brewing for many years.

More to the point, the CEO and senior executives at these companies were able to reap bonuses worth tens of millions EACH on the basis of healthy "profits" attested to by the auditors' signatures on the financial statements.

See

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122713829045342487.html

I traced the quarterly returns of ENRON right up to the point at which the company went down the tubes. In the last quarterly report I counted the phrase "unconsolidated equity affiliate" 19 times. These "unconsolidated equity affiliates" accounted for over 85% of Enron's alleged profits. Yet their liabilities never appeared on the Enron group balance sheet.

And what the auditors did was legal and they were arguably in compliance with FASB.

IT TAKES REAL GENIUS TO DEVELOP ACCOUNTING STANDARDS THAT ENABLE YOU TO SIGN OFF ON THE BALANCE SHEETS OF A COMPANY MANIFESTLY ABOUT TO GO BUST.

You are correct in saying that lay people can challenge scientists. Actually anyone is free to challenge anybody.

However the reality is that people who lack a scientific training are rarely able to make a contribution to scientific debate.

Not never. It does happen on occasion.

But it is very rare.

In the end the world is what the world is and slowly science unravels the mysteries. Sometimes we take two steps back before taking three steps forward but we get there in the end.

Accountants, on the other hand, never seem to learn.

Hi steven, I am pleased you re-entered the debate, I am holding a policy position toward CJMoron, “don’t feed the trolls”, therefore could not reply to his stupidity.

Any comment upon the observance of fraud in the accountancy profession is easily countered

As a profession the reporting for corruption and fraudulent practices is high because of the number of opportunities available to unscrupulous and weak willed individuals.

It saddens me but I understand how my profession is so exposed to these flawed people.
However, it heartens me to know so many are caught and so many others are sacked (for which I proudly take credit of doing in a couple of specific circumstances) before they reach the level of notoriety and destruction of the Enrons, HIH, Cambridge Credit, WorldCom etc.

I watched a program on Bernie Ebers the other night, (Worldcom), I was living in Texas when that all happened, he was another shyster full of contempt for accountancy prudence and supported by the weak characters I referred to earlier. There are a lot of these ‘grifters’ who apparently work the ‘christian finance’ game, mostly ponzi schemes.

The Sarbane-Oxley legislation would disclaim your silly assertion that “Accountants, on the other hand, never seem to learn.”

I guess the reason the number of fraud references, as they apply to accountants, exceeds the number as they apply to scientist is

Accountants are far more scrupulous than scientists – certainly the scientists whose snouts are buried in the UN trough.

“However the reality is that people who lack a scientific training are rarely able to make a contribution to scientific debate.”

This world is not driven solely by the views and opinions of scientists, especially when those views are so often, like weak willed accountants, on offer to the highest bidder.

Re “You are correct in saying that lay people can challenge scientists. Actually anyone is free to challenge anybody.”

Yes, I know I am right and only by challenging things do we get to the truth.

Col, accountants are more scrupulous than scientists?
Now that's funny.

What were they saying about the economy 12 months ago?
What are they saying now?
Scrupulous, yeah that's not a word I would use personally.

Meanwhile all the scientists are rich dontcha know?
In fact, in science the data speaks for itself, of course there are always various competing interpretations of inconclusive data, but when a body of scientists (that already had jobs, btw) says that bad things are coming, I think it's time to listen.

I think that, from the consistency of his ignorant, selfish and mean-spirited comments to OLO, Col Rouge is a shining example of why his profession has such a bad reputation.

<< CJMoron >>

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, old chap. I'm reminded of that truism you like to quote from your senile heroine - you know, the one about people calling others names when they have no argument to present?

Perhaps your holiday wasn't quite long enough?

Bugsy “accountants are more scrupulous than scientists?”

The Accountancy profession is subject to professional discipline and ethics regulations, to say nothing of CPD and an extremely high examination bar to hurdle (when I studied and qualified, in UK, the process was administered by the profession and the pass rate for the 5 groups of 20 exam syllabus was 30%, in some instances dropped to only 10%, the opposite of where some shonky university set a pass rate to assure all but the village idiot will get their “science degree”). The account tancy profession is subject in some of its tasks to government licence, restricted on commenting on what it is not approved to do and of course, tied the edicts of commercial law.

But that aside, I did already comment regarding those of a weak and malleable character

IE “It saddens me but I understand how my profession is so exposed to these flawed people.”

“What were they saying about the economy 12 months ago?
What are they saying now?”

Maybe you need to understand the difference between an economist and an accountant.

I for one was anticipating an economic downturn as Rudd came to power. I started looking around for a more secure cashflow than what I had at the time because of the storm-clouds on the horizon and have just signed a long term contract which gives me just that .

As for your opinion of scientists, well if your insight to the accountancy profession is any guide, your opinion of scientists is not worth a brass razoo.

As for “says that bad things are coming, I think it's time to listen.”

Read back through my posts, I have been hinting at an economic downturn for much of the past year,

Bad things do happen, difference is, I do not rely on the efforts of malignant socialist governments to make me safe and my 'accounting' advise would be for no one else not to rely on them either.

Btw, I think you might have stepped in something nasty… if what is directly below your post is any guide.

"Btw, I think you might have stepped in something nasty… if what is directly below your post is any guide."

They say there's a first time for everything - well, I've just laughed at something penned by Col the bean counter. I certainly don't recall doing that before.

I know who'll be having the last laugh though.

"..my 'accounting' advise would be for no one else not to rely on them either."

Gee, Col, I hope your much vaunted accounting 'advise' isn't all written in that same vein. Your expensive words of wisdom are going to get lost in grammatical fog.

Col, I know the difference between an economist and an accountant. One has a personality.

There is a very good reason that you are subject to ethics regulations, and the "weak willed" are far more prevalent in your profession than science.

Perhaps you should say what you really mean: Accountants are more scrupulous than climate scientists that you happen to disagree with. You say accountants as a generality, I but I think that's only because you happen to be one. And you say scientists, but you only really mean climate scientists.

Really, you should take a look at how many accountants are in jail for fraud and compare that number to the number of scientists. I know you won't think that's an applicable comparison because the whole climate thing is a gigantic conspiracy isn't it?

Of course, there is really no such thing as accountancy - rather, there are individuals who count beans and avoid paying taxes.

Bronwyn.."lost in grammatical fog."

Yes - a redundant "not" between "else" and "to" tends to befuddle lucidity.

At least it suggests, despite rumours to the contrary, Accountants are human too.

Bugsy "Col, I know the difference between an economist and an accountant. One has a personality."

Actually the joke is "An Actuary is like an accountant but without the personality"

If you want other Accountant jokes, holler, I have heard them all and usually exchange them with my fellow bean counters.

"Perhaps you should say what you really mean: Accountants are more scrupulous than climate scientists that you happen to disagree with. You say accountants as a generality, I but I think that's only because you happen to be one. And you say scientists, but you only really mean climate scientists.:

I would observe, you are suggesting I said a lot of things which I did not say,

Please resist putting words into my mouth.

“you should take a look at how many accountants are in jail for fraud and compare that number to the number of scientists.”

You seem incapable of understanding, I acknowledged prior to your first post, given nefarious opportunity in combination with a professionalism adopted by those of the us who do respect honesty and ethics, the number of Accountants who end up in prison is not surprising, they deserve it.

“the whole climate thing is a gigantic conspiracy isn't it”

Well you said it.

All I have ever said is if it cannot be proven, why should anyone believe it?

The “Science Faculty" is where they teach “Absolute Facts”, not conjecture or subjective opinion, otherwise science would be taught in the “Arts Faculty”, along side accountancy and “lawyering”.

There is no conclusive proof, not even consensus among “scientists” about AGW.

When there is, we should respond to it. Until then, the entire “AGW:Carbon trading” industry is founded on the same stuff which fortune-tellers and sideshow magicians use-

the gullibility of the audience.

Except these necromancers are dragging governments into their performance and are going to use it as an excuse to impose “Socialism by Stealth”

I thought an Actuary was the one with the sense of humour, and the Auditor was the one without the personality? Never mind, accountancy humour is so interchangeable.

If you think the Science Faculty is in the business of teaching "Absolute Facts", then I can understand why you don't understand science or scientists.

You've got to admit though, it was a silly generalisation about scientists and accountants, they are both neither more more less scrupulous than each other. That is because both groups encompass broad and diverse sets of personalities and backgrounds. That accountants are governed by ethics regulations means nothing, as a libertarian you know that you cannot legislate for morality.

As you have demonstrated, it is climate scientists it seems you have issue with, as you seem to believe that science faculties deal with "absolute facts". I never seem to read you having an issue with molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists. I can only conclude that you didn't mean "scientists" as a generality, but rather made another silly generalisation.

Bugsy “the Science Faculty is in the business of teaching "Absolute Facts",

Completing the quote …“not conjecture or subjective opinion, otherwise science would be taught in the “Arts Faculty”.”

Science “knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”

“That accountants are governed by ethics regulations means nothing, as a libertarian you know that you cannot legislate for morality.”

The difference between a ‘libertarian’ and an ‘anarchist’ is “morality” and the support of and a belief in the rule of law.

I suggest you get an education before you engage in such ‘generalist’ observations.

“it is climate scientists it seems you have issue with,”

I have no particular issue with any scientist who can prove the hypotheses they are promoting.

I have great issue with anyone, scientist, theologian or any other so called or self-proclaimed “expert”, who believe their view is sacrosanct and unchallengeable, just as I have challenged a few of our own OLO “experts” in the past.

“I never seem to read you having an issue with molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists.:”

Maybe if we had any articles concerning “molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists” I would.

As it is we have had any number of threads related to the spurious “science” of ‘global warming’, where subjective, short term studies, often found to be wrong in their assumptions, disputable in their theory and lacking in sufficient data, in the nature of volumes of readings, length of chronology and location of readings, have been used to fraudulently justify the interjection in and limitation of individual human activity and choices, through increased governmental regulation and taxation. Which, as far as I am concerned is an abuse of governmental authority, bearing in mind, government is there to reflect the will of the electorate, not to determine it.

“I can only conclude that you didn't mean "scientists" as a generality, but rather made another silly generalisation.”

I leave the silly generalizations to you, you make enough to cover not only mine but several other posters allocation.

Completing the quote only reinforces the silliness Col (which is why I didn't bother).

To paraphrase yourself, if your insight to the scientific profession (and the scientifc method genrally) is any guide, your opinion of accountants and politicans is not worth a tinkers toss.

Science is full of competeing (and therefore by definition 'unproven') hypotheses, that's what makes it science. Hypotheses don't get proven, they get proven wrong an dismissed.