Grab a coffee.

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” *

…every seven-year-old looking at a globe has noticed the same jigsaw puzzle, but remarkably until the 1960s, scientists did not find that compelling. No one looked and said, “Hmm, that’s odd.”
h/t A Ziggen

I’m sure it’s nothing that Premier Notley is going release her climate change policy today.
A day when the Edmonton Eskimos are playing the Calgary Stampeders for the Western Semi-Final.

Right before COP-21 too. That will leave a mark.

In a major speech setting out a new strategy, the energy secretary is expected to say that from now on, policies will balance “the need to decarbonise with the need to keep bills as low as possible”.
“Energy security has to be the first priority. It is fundamental to the health of our economy and the lives of our people,” she will say.

Funny, how seniors freezing to death tends to galvanize politicians who care more about their constituents than their “international reputation”.

But he said there should be a “break from the past” in order to “meet objectives in the most cost-effective way possible, with the government getting out the way and letting the market prevail where it can”.

Read: subsidies are going to stop.

CBC News;

The study published last week in BMJ Open [British Medical Journal] compared data from provinces like B.C. that have introduced mandatory helmet laws to those without them. Although helmet legislation was effective in getting more cyclists to wear helmets, it did not translate into fewer head injuries.
“Helmet laws didn`t make a difference to hospitalization rates for head and brain injuries,” said study author Prof. Kay Teschke.

Unexpected Honey Study Shows Woes of Nutrition Research

Almost everything we “know” is based on small, flawed studies. The conclusions that can be drawn from them are limited, but often oversold by researchers and the news media. This is true not only of the newer work that we see, but also the older research that forms the basis for much of what we already believe to be true. I’m not ignoring blockbuster studies because I don’t agree with their findings; I’m usually just underwhelmed by what I can meaningfully conclude from them.

h/t meatriarch (who may have a hidden agenda in passing this along)

Lucas Bergkamp (via Judith Curry);

In short, consensus is not necessarily irrelevant, but consensus needs to be understood to determine how much weight it should be given, and how it compares to other scientific opinions. Unthinkingly rubberstamping consensus science is not a good practice. In a court room, a claim that there is scientific consensus raises several questions. First, what is the basis for the claim that there is consensus? In other words, how do we know there is consensus at all, and how strong is the evidence supporting the consensus? Second, what is the nature and extent of the scientific consensus? This examination covers issues such as precisely on which findings and facts is there consensus and why, and on which findings and facts is there disagreement and why. Third, how was the consensus produced, i.e. in what kind of environment? Of course, consensus that is based not on persuasive argument, but on silencing dissent by inappropriate means, is not worth anything. Likewise, if an area of science is politicized, consensus may not signal the state of the science, but political dominance.

The story of the day is Peter Whoriskey’s meticulously reported tale of whole milk — demonized for decades, accused of harboring killer fats, but on closer analysis not actually bad for us. In fact, studies suggest that people who drink whole milk appear to have lower rates of heart disease than people who drink low-fat or skim milk.

It’s really, really hard to catch;

A British nurse who was apparently cured of Ebola earlier this year is now in a critical condition, doctors have said, with experts expressing astonishment at the deterioration of her condition. […]
Doctors have said she is suffering an “unusual late complication” of her previous infection. Ebola virus can linger for months in survivors without causing serious ill effects or infection risk and is also known to cause long-term health problems in many patients.
However, medical understanding of the disease’s after-effect is limited due to the relatively low number of historic cases.

Nonetheless…

“The change in [Pauline Cafferkey’s] condition does not imply any increased risk to the general public…”

Never let a limited understanding get in the way of certainty, I say.

Gentlemen, start your analogies: But new research shows that many ants in a colony seem to specialize in doing nothing at all.