Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
5,363 followers
5,363 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Will My Phone Work? Dot Net
https://willmyphonework.net

« Will My Phone Work?

Have you ever asked the question, “Will my mobile phone work with a certain mobile carrier?” Perhaps you're traveling to another country and want to make sure your smartphone works there. You could even be selling a cellular phone and need a website to point people to when they ask if the phone works on a certain carrier. WillMyPhoneWork.net can help you find the answer you're looking for.
[…]
How To Interpret The Results

When performing a search, you will be presented with three networks: 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE.

For the technical savvy, we have included the network frequencies that match between the mobile device and the network carrier. Also, we consider HSPA+ to be 3G.

Note: Will My Phone Work assumes that your device is unlocked or allowed to be run on the desired mobile network. Certain carriers such as Verizon USA have an "approved list" of devices. This means that although the phone is compatible with the carrier's network frequencies, the device is blocked. Also, some carriers make frequencies/bands available only to specific geographical regions.»

Post has attachment
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

Excerpt:

«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:06 -0400
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions, wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you. Some specific comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to hear back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let me know your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can* refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have *claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so apparently its kosher.
I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we need to play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1 which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2-- clearly it would be helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these from everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I've heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with this,
mike
[…]
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can pass it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of the list and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the other day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it comes out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will likely have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult when papers get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors get no guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims, criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9 or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike_

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs <JJacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding._
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article ----- in the form of the attachment you sent me -- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on "the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users, please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility, and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect, be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy & Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your colleagues intend for this position paper to be published simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110129004140/http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=322&filename=1054757526.txt


«From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

Dear friends and colleagues

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics' onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.

Warm wishes to all

Jim

On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209004028/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=309&filename=1051230500.txt

«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: My turn
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive these correspondances...

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I'd be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and radley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well...

cheers,

mike

p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/03 -0600, Mark Eakin wrote:_
[…]
>Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>Dear Tom et al,
>>
>>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list
>>here!
>>
>>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
>>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
>>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
>>in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and
>>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
>>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
>>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
>>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
>>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
>>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
>>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
>>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
>>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period".
>>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
>>scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For
>>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
>>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular
>>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD 800-1300
>>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th
>>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like
>>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
>>"MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from
>>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
>>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
>>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
>>don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
>>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
>>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
>>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
>>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
>>
>>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
>>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
>>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
>>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
>>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
>>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
>>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
>>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
>>the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
>>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
>>Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a
>>server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer
>>viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly
>>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?)
>>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g.
>>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of
>>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
>>
>>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
>>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
>>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
>>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
>>nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
>>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
>>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
>>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
>>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the
>>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
>>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done
>>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
>>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>
>>>Dear friends,
>>>
>>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
>>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>>>
>>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
>>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>>>
>>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
>>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>>>
>>>to which I add ....
>>>
>>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>>>
>>>__________________
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
>>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more
>>>than a direct
>>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
>>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
>>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
>>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
>>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
>>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
>>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
>>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
>>>in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>>>
>>>___________________________
>>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut._
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
>>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
>>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
>>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
>>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
>>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
>>>this?
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
>>>involved in writing a response.
>>>
>>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
>>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
>>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
>>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
>>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
>>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
>>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
>>>
>>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
>>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
>>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying .....
>>>
>>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
>>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
>>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
>>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>>>
>>>On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who
>>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
>>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>>>
>>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper —_
>>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>>>
>>>____________________________
>>>
>>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
>>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
>>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
>>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
>>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
>>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
>>>Soon, and so on).
>>>
>>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
>>>difficult.
>>>
>>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
>>>does get through.
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
>>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>>>
>>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
>>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>>>
>>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
>>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels'_
>>>PhD is at the same level).
>>>
>>>____________________________
>>>
>>>Best wishes to all,
>>>Tom.»

«From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Timothy Carter <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Tim,

I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah or me. He uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for the full range of uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the calibration zone -- so I doubt that it can work well for (e.g.) stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not been peer reviewed.
Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR version of the model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR version.

Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all).

Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.

Tom.

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

_____________________________

_____________________________

Timothy Carter wrote:
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Since you were online yesterday contributing to the "Climate Research"
> discussion, I figured that you might be in town to give your views on the
> Java Climate Model which, I understand, is based in large part on MAGICC:
>
> http://chooseclimate.org/jcm/ >
> and seems to be getting considerable exposure amongst the policy community
> now that Ben Matthews (was he a student of yours at UEA?) has made this
> available online.
>
> I wondered if this has been subjected to "peer review" by the people whose
> models it is based on or anyone else, since I have Ministry people here in
> Finland asking me if this type of tool is something they should think of
> using during the negotiating process!
>
> It's certainly a smart piece of software, though it seems to have
> irritating bugs, like returning to the default state when any little thing
> is adjusted. What is critically important, though, is that it can do what
> it is advertising. If it can't, then the careful work done offline by
> people such as yourself, could be undermined.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best regards from a sunny though cool Helsinki.
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. On the CR issue, I agree that a rebuttal seems to be the only method
> of addressing the problem (I communicated this to Mike yesterday morning),
> and I wonder if a review of the refereeing policy is in order. The only way
> I can think of would be for all papers to go through two Editors rather
> than one, the former to have overall responsibility, the latter to provide
> a second opinion on a paper and reviewers' comments prior to publication. A
> General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in the event of disagreement.
> Of course, this could then slow down the review process enormously.
> However, without an editorial board to vote someone off, how can suspect
> Editors be removed except by the Publisher (in this case, Inter-Research).»
Source:


«From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:38 -0600

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'

to which I add ....

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

__________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did in the above example -- then this is an advantage.

___________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?

_____________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary._

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, pp. 1»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209050313/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=306&filename=1051156418.txt


«From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000
Cc: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
[…]
The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record against my target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The *re-calibrated* mean of the reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the reconstructions. It has enhanced variability, because averaging the reconstructions results in a redder time series (there is less common variance between the reconstructions at the higher frequencies compared with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a smoother curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend (over my calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend. This results in enhanced variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due to fewer effective degrees of freedom during calibration.

Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the analysis will not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

It is, of course, interesting - not least for the comparison with borehole-based estimates - but that is for a separate paper, I think.

My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
(i) a single example reconstruction;
(ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
(iii) a plot of the "envelope" containing the cloud of reconstructions (perhaps also the envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates), but without showing the individual reconstruction best guesses.

How many votes for each?

Cheers

Tim

At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209004955/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=302&filename=1047503776.txt

«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:07:43 -0500
Cc: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[…]
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a great idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one in the time plot.
Group #1 could include:
1) Crowley & Lowery
2) Mann et al 1999
3) Bradley and Jones 1995
4) Jones et al, 1998
5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD reconstruction]
6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others won't make much of a difference]
I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings, and with slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:
1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic reconstructions],
2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on different assumed sensitivities]
1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th century land use changes as a forcing].
I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the 20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings best).
I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.
We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to Scott as an _ascii attachment, etc.
thoughts, comments?
thanks,_
mike
At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Tom,
Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
If there is group interest in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead too...
Comments?
mike
At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:»_
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209045614/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=300&filename=1047485263.txt

«From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:15:48 -0500
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil et al,

I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have been made before.

rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.

I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional nature of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.

rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions - one that emphasizes the commonality of the message.

Tom

Dear All,
I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a good idea, but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being done over the next few years.
We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is probably the best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for the EGS journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few have, so we declined.
However,
it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the editorial board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high profile.
What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul) that just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need to build on this.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:»_
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209010217/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=298&filename=1047478548.txt

«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:12:56 -0500
Cc: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
I like Phil's suggestion. I think such a piece would do a lot of good for the field. When something as full of half-truths/mis-truths as the S&B piece is put forth, it would be very useful to have a peer-reviewed review like this, which we all have endorsed through co-authorship, to point to in response. This way, when we get the inevitable "so what do you have to say about this" from our colleagues, we already have a self-contained, thorough rejoinder to point to. I'm sure we won't all agree on every detail, but there is enough commonality in our views on the big issues to make this worthwhile.
Perhaps Phil can go ahead and contact the editorial board at "Reviews of Geophysics" and see if they're interested. If so, Phil and I (and anyone else interested) could take the lead with this, and then we can entrain everyone else in as we proceed with a draft, etc.
mike
p.s. Keith: I hope you're feeling well, and that your recovery proceeds quickly!
At 10:02 AM 3/12/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209004955/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=302&filename=1047503776.txt

«From: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:53:07 -0500
Cc: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[…]
Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a short, pointed story out to the most people (though I have no feel for the international distribution). My sense (being relatively new to this field compared to everyone else) is that within the neo- and mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of people who don't or won't "get it" and there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit). Those (e.g. us) who are engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature should be able to distinguish between well done and poor work. Should then the intent of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not directly involved in MWP/LIA issues including those both on the perifery of the issue as well as those outside? If so, then the issue that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is significant and I think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.

Cheers,

Scott

On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209025802/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=299&filename=1047484387.txt

«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:12:56 -0500
Cc: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[…]
At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

HI Malcolm,
Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular problem with "Climate Research". This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is* a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...
But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom's latter idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly greater territory too.
Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very busy,
mike_
At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine to which some of you have already been victim. The general point is that there are two arms of climatology:
neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal interests.
paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" - dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology, using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may be modeled accuarately and precisely.
Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g. Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there could well be differences between our lists).
End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
> Hi guys,
>
> junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
> done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
> longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing
> Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change." I kind
> of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
> a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
> paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
>
> Tom»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209015435/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=297&filename=1047474776.txt


«From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!_
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110511111117/http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt

«From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:49:22 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>

Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom's old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at the weekend as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't the warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Cheers
Phil

Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !

Cheers
Phil»
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101209030152/http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=296&filename=1047390562.txt

Index selected emails:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110524020803/http://www.eastangliaemails.com

Comment:
Thanks to the release of the ClimateGate I emails (released on 20 November 2009) there's unquestionable evidence that for a long time a group of Global Warming bullying activists have been gatekeeping the articles the peer-reviewed research journals and using them for propaganda purposes or to dictate the "consensus" (i.e., for "setting agendas" or "enabl[ing] agendas to be set"):

Global Warming activist site whitewashing:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=315
______

URL G+ post source comment:
plus.google.com/+ChrisDyerDirty/posts/GkPUf9kbpu2

Post has attachment
• Amina Khan (Los Angeles Times). "Scientists tally the environmental impact of feeding meat to our cats and dogs. It's huge." Phys.org (August 7, 2017)
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-scientists-tally-environmental-impact-meat.html

Post has attachment
Superheating Water with Microwaves

mrcvry
Sometimes you are using a thermos bottle and sometimes water kettles. How important is the correct temperature?
I have measured an isolated cup and in 10 min the temperature dropped 10°. I was even more surprised that it dropped in a Gaiwan 20°-30° in seconds!
Pouring water from the kettle already cools the water down around 5°. The 99° from the brewing table is not possible.
p.s. I have tested the Morphy Richards hot water dispenser. Very interesting but the water is cooling down too quickly. It is coming out with 95° but in the cup it is already 80°. I think that it is not good for black tea. Great for green tea, coffee or soup.

— Have you tried using a microwave oven? Microwave ovens are (in)famous for superheating water beyond its boiling point:

«On several occasions, the water has started to bubble violently after he has added a tea bag. On one occasion, the boiling started when he was removing the mug. It was so violent that it blew 90 per cent of the water from the mug
[…]
A portion of the water in the cup is becoming superheated—the liquid temperature is actually slightly above the boiling point, where it would normally form a gas. In this case, the boiling is hindered by a lack of nucleation sites needed to form the bubbles.

This never occurs when boiling a kettle, for example, because the presence of the rough surface of the element, as well as the convective stirring from rising hot water, are sufficient to produce proper boiling. Turbulence in liquids is known to provide enhanced nucleation in other cases: when you pour a cola drink, for example.

In your colleague’s case, the addition of a tea bag (and, in the other case, simple movement) sufficed to allow bubble formation. Even with a large proportion of the water superheated, only a little will convert to steam, as the amount of latent heat required for this phase change is very large. I imagine that by keeping the cup still and microwaving for a long time, one could blow the entire contents of the cup into the interior of the microwave as soon as you introduced any nucleation sites. It is this sometimes explosive rate of steam production that means you should take great care when using a microwave oven.»

— Murray Chapman (question), Richard Barton (answer). "The Last Word: 'Micro madness'." New Scientist (10 January 1998) no. 2126 ; New Scientist (14 February 1998) no. 2121
Q: https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg15721168-500-the-last-word
Q&A: https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg15721219-400-the-last-word

• David Mikkelson. "Superheated Microwaved Water: Can water boiled in a microwave oven suddenly 'explode'?" Snopes. com (March 12, 2010)
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp

• James P Sethna. "Critical Droplets and Nucleation." Cornell university (March 11, 2002)
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/Nucleation

• William J Beaty (Electrical Eng., U. Washington). "Microwave Oven Myths." High Voltage in the Kitchen: Unwise Microwave Oven Experiments - The "Tesla Coil" of the 1990s, Weird Science (c. 2005)
http://amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage3.html

"Superheating and microwave ovens." Physclips, The Australian Office for Learning and Teaching Council ; School of Physics, UNSW
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/superheating.htm

"Superheating." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM-8tHNeDu4&lc=z130zhpy1lqltj2m522qg3yztwevshyf3

Post has attachment
A Nice Cup of Tea (George Orwell's Edition)

Excerpt:
«First of all, one should use Indian or Ceylonese tea. China tea has virtues which are not to be despised nowadays — it is economical, and one can drink it without milk — but there is not much stimulation in it. One does not feel wiser, braver or more optimistic after drinking it. Anyone who has used that comforting phrase 'a nice cup of tea' invariably means Indian tea.

Secondly, tea should be made in small quantities — that is, in a teapot. Tea out of an urn is always tasteless, while army tea, made in a cauldron, tastes of grease and whitewash. The teapot should be made of china or earthenware. Silver or Britanniaware teapots produce inferior tea and enamel pots are worse; though curiously enough a pewter teapot (a rarity nowadays) is not so bad.

Thirdly, the pot should be warmed beforehand. This is better done by placing it on the hob than by the usual method of swilling it out with hot water.

Fourthly, the tea should be strong. For a pot holding a quart, if you are going to fill it nearly to the brim, six heaped teaspoons would be about right. In a time of rationing, this is not an idea that can be realized on every day of the week, but I maintain that one strong cup of tea is better than twenty weak ones. All true tea lovers not only like their tea strong, but like it a little stronger with each year that passes — a fact which is recognized in the extra ration issued to old-age pensioners.

Fifthly, the tea should be put straight into the pot. No strainers, muslin bags or other devices to imprison the tea. In some countries teapots are fitted with little dangling baskets under the spout to catch the stray leaves, which are supposed to be harmful. Actually one can swallow tea-leaves in considerable quantities without ill effect, and if the tea is not loose in the pot it never infuses properly.

Sixthly, one should take the teapot to the kettle and not the other way about. The water should be actually boiling at the moment of impact, which means that one should keep it on the flame while one pours. Some people add that one should only use water that has been freshly brought to the boil, but I have never noticed that it makes any difference.

Seventhly, after making the tea, one should stir it, or better, give the pot a good shake, afterwards allowing the leaves to settle.

Eighthly, one should drink out of a good breakfast cup — that is, the cylindrical type of cup, not the flat, shallow type. The breakfast cup holds more, and with the other kind one's tea is always half cold before one has well started on it.

Ninthly, one should pour the cream off the milk before using it for tea. Milk that is too creamy always gives tea a sickly taste.

Tenthly, one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, but I maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk whereas one is liable to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round.

Lastly, tea — unless one is drinking it in the Russian style — should be drunk without sugar. I know very well that I am in a minority here. But still, how can you call yourself a true tealover if you destroy the flavour of your tea by putting sugar in it? It would be equally reasonable to put in pepper or salt. Tea is meant to be bitter, just as beer is meant to be bitter. If you sweeten it, you are no longer tasting the tea, you are merely tasting the sugar; you could make a very similar drink by dissolving sugar in plain hot water.

Some people would answer that they don't like tea in itself, that they only drink it in order to be warmed and stimulated, and they need sugar to take the taste away. To those misguided people I would say: Try drinking tea without sugar for, say, a fortnight and it is very unlikely that you will ever want to ruin your tea by sweetening it again.

These are not the only controversial points to arise in connexion with tea drinking, but they are sufficient to show how subtilized the whole business has become. There is also the mysterious social etiquette surrounding the teapot (why is it considered vulgar to drink out of your saucer, for instance?) and much might be written about the subsidiary uses of tealeaves, such as telling fortunes, predicting the arrival of visitors, feeding rabbits, healing burns and sweeping the carpet. It is worth paying attention to such details as warming the pot and using water that is really boiling, so as to make quite sure of wringing out of one's ration the twenty good, strong cups of that two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent.»

— George Orwell. "A Nice Cup of Tea." Evening Standard (12 January 1946) ; Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (editors). "The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell - Vol. 3: As I Please, 1943-45." Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd (1968) ISBN: 0436350165 ; Penguin Books (1970) ISBN: 0140031537
http://booksatoz.com/witsend/tea/orwell.htm
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/tea/english/e_tea
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0436350165
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0140031537
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Cup_of_Tea

«The chemists and the author of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four are in agreement on Indian tea, and a china or earthenware teapot. There is a minor divergence over warming the pot: Orwell recommended placing the pot on a hob, Dr Stapley defends a microwave as a 21st century equivalent. But on the issue of milk the gap is unbridgeable.
[…]
Dr Stapley is adamant. "If milk is poured into hot tea, individual drops separate from the bulk of the milk, and come into contact with the high temperatures of the tea for enough time for significant denaturation - degradation - to occur. This is much less likely to happen if hot water is added to the milk."
[…]
· Chemists' recipe
The Royal Society of Chemistry's definitive recipe for the perfect cup of tea

Ingredients: Loose leaf Assam tea, soft water, fresh chilled milk, white sugar.

Implements: Kettle, ceramic teapot, large ceramic mug, fine mesh tea strainer, tea spoon, microwave oven.

Method: Draw fresh soft water and place in the kettle and boil. While waiting for the water to boil place a teapot containing a quarter of a cup of water in a microwave oven on full power for one minute.
Place one rounded teaspoon of tea per cup into pot.
Take the pot to the kettle as it is boiling, pour on to the leaves and stir.
Leave to brew for three minutes.
The ideal receptacle is a ceramic mug.
Pour milk into the cup first followed by the tea, aiming to achieve a colour that is rich and attractive.
Add sugar to taste.
Drink at 60-65C, to avoid vulgar slurping which results from trying to drink tea at too high a temperature.»

— Maev Kennedy. "How to make a perfect cuppa: put milk in first." The Guardian (25 June 2003)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jun/25/science.highereducation

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wziqKyRIelI&lc=z12oyvapfvivyli5b04cjdha1mndff0grsw0k
_____

https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/orwellian-tea-injunctions/2844/26

http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/george-orwell-and-douglas-adams-explain-how-to-make-a-proper-cup-of-tea.html

http://www.openculture.com/2013/05/10_golden_rules_for_making_the_perfect_cup_of_tea_1941.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvYymrCn4g

Post has attachment
• Don Mei. "Caffeine in Tea: Facts and Myths." Mei Leaf (Feb 25, 2017)

Quite accurate and comprehensive information. Not very long ago I did some research on regard to this issue and reached most of these same conclusions. I'd never heard of the modulating effects of polyphenols nor the synergistic effect of caffeine and theanine, though. As a matter of fact, I never looked into any of the physiological effects of theanine.

As for the alleged higher caffeine content with longer withering, you can't induce the production of any further caffeine once the tea leaves have been plucked and "killed" (conversely, you could theoretically denature or remove some of their caffeine content). Alternatively, you could increase the bioavailability of its caffeine content, so it would be more readily released into water when brewing the tea.

But that's not what they usually measure in the lab when they compare different teas, but rather the maximum caffeine content they can extract by leaving the tea a much longer time in water.
E.g., boiling water was poured on tea leaves and stirred for 10 minutes:
http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/08057.pdf

You could concentrate the caffeine content by partially degrading or removing some of the other components present in the tea leaves, such as water, which is one of the purposes of the withering process. But if at the end point of the process all tea varieties have the same water content, the greater water loss during a longer withering phase would be irrelevant.

There are other components present in the tea leaves that are degraded during the withering phase. Apparently, chlorophyll begins to degrade, some of the carbohydrates are broken down for use as energy, and the polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase enzymes becomes active, as a result of those degradation processes, some of the volatile compounds dissipate (including CO2). A greater extent of degradation would render a higher caffeine concentration in the remaining dry matter (assuming the extent of caffeine degraded by such processes be negligible).

URL source YouTube comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7jQ1uFoJXY&lc=z220dllzrrffjh32hacdp43aurz3lrmzaowu5a2zm3lw03c010c
______

References:

Studies on caffeine in tea:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522465
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20722909
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0963996996000385
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/food-beverages/tea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22285321
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=1807&content=PDF
Possible health benefits of caffeine:
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-caffeine-health-benefits
Roasting and Caffeine in coffee:
https://driftaway.coffee/caffeine
Other Articles:
http://chadao.blogspot.com/2008/02/caffeine-and-tea-myth-and-reality.html

References (extended):

Studies on caffeine in tea:

• Gramza-Michałowska A. "Caffeine in tea Camellia sinensis-- content, absorption, benefits and risks of consumption." J Nutr Health Aging (2014) vol. 18 (2) pp. 143-9 DOI: 10.1007/s12603-013-0404-1
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12603-013-0404-1
http://sci-hub.bz/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12603-013-0404-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522465

• Unachukwu UJ, Ahmed S, Kavalier A, Lyles JT, Kennelly EJ. "White and green teas (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis): variation in phenolic, methylxanthine, and antioxidant profiles." J Food Sci (2010 Aug 1) vol. 75 (6) pp. C541-8 DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01705.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01705.x/abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45719265
https://www.academia.edu/16520987
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20722909

• Hicks MB, Peggy Hsieh Y-H, Bell LN. "Tea preparation and its influence on methylxanthine concentration." Food Res Int (1996 Apr-May) vol. 29 (3-4) pp. 325-30 DOI: 10.1016/0963-9969(96)00038-5
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0963996996000385
http://www2.hcmuaf.edu.vn/data/lhquang/file/Tea1/Tea%20preparation%20and%20its%20influence%20on%20methylxanthine.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.bz/science/article/pii/0963996996000385

"Tea." Micronutrient Information Center, Linus Pauling Institute | Oregon State University
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/food-beverages/tea

• Jang HS, Jung JY, Jang IS, Jang KH, Kim SH, Ha JH, Suk K, Lee MG. "L-theanine partially counteracts caffeine-induced sleep disturbances in rats." Pharmacol Biochem Behav (2012 Apr) vol. 101 (2) pp. 217-21 DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2012.01.011
http-//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305712000123
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.bz/science/article/pii/S0091305712000123
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22285321

• Friedman M, Kim S-Y, Lee S-J, Han G-P, Han J-S, Lee K-R, Kozukue N. "Distribution of Catechins, Theaflavins, Caffeine, and Theobromine in 77 Teas Consumed in the United States." J Food Sci (2005 Nov) vol. 70 (9) pp. C550-C559 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb08304.x
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/1807
http://comilac.com.tr/uploads/pdf/42PomGT.pdf

Possible health benefits of caffeine:

"Top 25+ Caffeine Health Benefits." Caffeine Informer (Last Modified: May 12, 2017)
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-caffeine-health-benefits

Roasting and Caffeine in coffee:

• Scott. "Do Darker Roasts Have More Caffeine?" Driftaway Coffee (March 28, 2015)
https://driftaway.coffee/caffeine

Other Articles:

• Nigel Melican. "Caffeine and Tea: Myth and Reality." Cha Dao (February
6, 2008)
http://chadao.blogspot.com/2008/02/caffeine-and-tea-myth-and-reality.html

Don Mei's tea blog: https://teatipsy.com
Mei Leaf website: https://meileaf.com
Mei Leaf Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/meileaf
Mei Leaf G+ account: https://plus.google.com/112336940738269786981

Post has attachment
Most Mexicans are descendants of native indigenous Americans

[I'm tired of Search Google+ shadow-banning my comments with references to the ethnic makeup of the population in Mexico, so I've decided to post them in a separate post.]

«But most people in Mexico or of Mexican descent these days are not indigenous but rather mestizo, meaning they have a mixture of indigenous, European, and African ancestry. Do their genomes also vary by what region of Mexico they come from, or has all that local variation been smoothed out by centuries of different groups meeting, mixing, and having babies?

To answer that question, the team collaborated with Mexico’s National Institute of Genomic Medicine, which has been collecting genetic data from mestizos for many years. Somewhat surprisingly, they found that mestizos in a given part of Mexico tended to have the same “rare” genetic variants as their indigenous neighbors. The mestizo genomes “track so well with the indigenous groups that we could use the genetic diversity in mestizos to make inferences about [their native] ancestors,” Pasaniuc says. Strong genetic markers of Maya ancestry, for example, show up in the genomes of modern people living in the Yucatán Peninsula and the northern part of Mexico’s Gulf Coast in the modern state of Veracruz, which likely reflects a pre-Columbian Maya trade or migration route. “It gives us a historical understanding of what these populations have been up to,” says Christopher Gignoux, a postdoc in Bustamante’s group at Stanford.»

— Lizzie Wade. "People from Mexico show stunning amount of genetic diversity." Science (June 12, 2014)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/people-mexico-show-stunning-amount-genetic-diversity

• Kristen Bole. "Mexican Genetics Study Reveals Huge Variation in Ancestry: UCSF-Stanford Team Uncovers Basis for Health Differences among Latinos." UCSF News Center (June 12, 2014)
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/06/115251/mexican-genetics-study-reveals-huge-variation-ancestry

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140612-science-mexico-genes-diversity-research
http://europe.newsweek.com/dna-proves-not-all-mexicans-are-created-equal-254642

Reference article:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/344/6189/1280/F2.large.jpg

— Moreno-Estrada A et al. "Human genetics. The genetics of Mexico recapitulates Native American substructure and affects biomedical traits." Science (2014 Jun 13) vol. 344 (6189) pp. 1280-5 DOI: 10.1126/science.1251688
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1280.long
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264633144
http://www.academia.edu/20863891
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156478
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926019

Comments:
https://wp.unil.ch/genomeeee/2015/01/04/the-genetics-of-mexico-recapitulates-native-american-substructure-and-affects-biomedical-traits
https://wp.unil.ch/genomeeee/2015/01/18/the-genetics-of-mexico-recapitulates-native-american-substructure-and-affects-biomedical-traits-2

« Ethnic groups
Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for nearly one-fifth of the total, and Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”), who constitute between one-tenth and one-fifth of the total. Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for between one-half and two-thirds of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Although myths of “racial biology” have been discredited by social scientists, “racial identity” remains a powerful social construct in Mexico, as in the United States and elsewhere, and many Mexicans have referred to their heritage and raza (“race”) with a measure of pride—particularly on October 12, the Día de la Raza (“Race Day”)—whether they conceive of themselves as indigenous, mestizo, or European. Their identities as members of ethnic groups may be additionally complicated, given that ethnicity is a function of cultural patterns and traditions as varied as a group’s sense of linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic history.
[…]
Following the arrival of Europeans, intermarriage resulted in an increasing mestizo population that over the centuries became the dominant ethnic group in Mexico. Northern Mexico is overwhelmingly mestizo in both urban and rural areas. Mexicans of European descent, including those who immigrated during the 20th century, are largely concentrated in urban areas, especially Mexico City, and in the West. As is the case throughout Latin America, people of European descent and other lighter-skinned Mexicans dominate the wealthiest echelons of Mexican society, owing to racial discrimination and centuries of economic, political, and social policies favouring the inheritance of wealth. In contrast, mestizos occupy a wide range of social and economic positions, while indigenous Indians are predominantly poor and working-class, often industrial and service workers in cities and peasants in the countryside. Notwithstanding such generalizations, some individuals manage to improve their lot through education, political action, or entrepreneurship.

There are several areas where indigenous peoples are still the dominant population group. Maya speakers constitute the majority in the rural Yucatán and the Chiapas Highlands. In the Oaxaca Valley and in remoter parts of the Sierra Madre del Sur, indigenous (primarily Zapotec) communities abound. Despite their decreasing numbers, enclaves of American Indians also are still significant in isolated mountain areas on the eastern margin of the Mesa Central.»

— Angel Palerm, Ernst C Griffin, Gordon Willey, Henry Bamford Parkes, Howard F Cline, Marvin David Bernstein, Michael C Meyer (article primary contributors), Jeff Wallenfeldt, Gloria Lotha, Mic Anderson, Manuel Castellano, Mark Gonzales, Amy Tikkanen, Richard Pallardy, Melissa Petruzzello, Kathleen Sheetz, Anthony Tsoumbris, Yamini Chauhan, JE Luebering, Grace Young, Magnus Pharao Hansen, Virginia Gorlinski, Maren Goldberg, Veenu Setia, Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer,
Adam Augustyn, Deepti Mahajan, Marco Sampaolo, Great Museums, The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica (other article contributors). "Mexico." Encyclopædia Britannica Online (August 11, 1998; Last updated: May 11, 2017)
https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico
https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Ethnic-groups

«Ethnic groups:
mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Amerindian 21%, Amerindian 7%, other 10% (mostly European)
note: Mexico does not collect census data on ethnicity (2012 est.)»

"Mexico." The World Factbook, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

Ancestry forum:
http://ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/81bafe4397

• Gustavo Arellano. "Why Do Mexicans Like to Deny Parts of Their Ancestry?" OC Weekly (April 28, 2016)
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/why-do-mexicans-like-to-deny-parts-of-their-ancestry-7148297

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Ethnicity_and_race
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/México#Grupos_étnicos
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografía_de_México#Grupos_étnicos
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_étnicos_de_México
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizaje_en_México

Further reading:

«Guatemala is a multiethnic and multilingual country located in Central America. The main population groups separate ‘Ladinos’ (mixed Native American-African-Spanish), and Native indigenous people of Maya descent. Among the present-day Guatemalan Maya, there are more than 20 different ethnic groups separated by different languages and cultures. Genetic variation of these communities still remains largely unexplored. The principal aim of this study is to explore the genetic variability of the Maya and ‘Ladinos’ from Guatemala by means of uniparental and ancestry informative markers (AIMs).

Results
Analyses of uniparental genetic markers indicate that Maya have a dominant Native American ancestry (mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA]: 100%; Y-chromosome: 94%). ‘Ladino’, however, show a clear gender-bias as indicated by the large European ancestry observed in the Y-chromosome (75%) compared to the mtDNA (0%). Autosomal polymorphisms (AIMs) also mirror this marked gender-bias: (i) Native American ancestry: 92% for the Maya vs. 55% for the ‘Ladino’, and (ii) European ancestry: 8% for the Maya vs. 41% for the ‘Ladino’. In addition, the impact of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade on the present-day Guatemalan population is very low (and only occurs in the ‘Ladino’; mtDNA: 9%; AIMs: 4%), in part mirroring the fact that Guatemala has a predominant orientation to the Pacific Ocean instead of a Caribbean one. Sequencing of entire Guatemalan mitogenomes has led to improved Native American phylogeny via the addition of new haplogroups that are mainly observed in Mesoamerica and/or the North of South America.»

— Söchtig J et al. "Genomic insights on the ethno-history of the Maya and the 'Ladinos' from Guatemala." BMC Genomics (2015 Feb 25) vol. 16 art. 131 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-1339-1
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-1339-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422311
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25887241

«The mtDNA haplogroup frequency in the pre-Hispanic Maya population (60.53%, 34.21%, and 5.26% for haplogroups A, C, and D, respectively) was similar to that of most Mexican and Guatemalan Maya populations, with haplogroup A exhibiting the highest frequency. Haplogroup B most likely arrived independently and mixed with populations carrying haplogroups A and C based on its absence in the pre-Hispanic Mexican Maya populations and low frequencies in most Mexican and Guatemalan Maya populations, although this also may be due to drift. Maya and Ciboneys sharing haplotype H10 belonged to haplogroup C1 and haplotype H4 of haplogroup D, suggesting shared regional haplotypes. This may indicate a shared genetic ancestry, suggesting more regional interaction between populations in the circum-Caribbean region than previously demonstrated. Haplotype sharing between the pre-Hispanic Maya and the indigenous populations from Asia, the Aleutian Islands, and North, Central, and South America provides evidence for gene flow from the ancestral Amerindian population of the pre-Hispanic Maya to Central and South America.»

— Ochoa-Lugo MI et al. "Genetic Affiliation of Pre-Hispanic and Contemporary Mayas Through Maternal Linage." Hum Biol (2016 Apr) vol. 88 (2) pp. 136-167
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313483707
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/111
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28162001
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.13110/humanbiology.88.2.0136

• Homburger JR et al. "Genomic Insights into the Ancestry and Demographic History of South America." PLoS Genet (2015 Dec 4) vol. 11 (12) art. e1005602 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005602
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005602
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4670080
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26636962
_____

URL source G+ posts:
plus.google.com/116075839158488910523/posts/4Hcfc3ohx6V
plus.google.com/109944400408185420304/posts/fKJLLqU6qLm
plus.google.com/+MSinclairStevens/posts/3SUvspx92CG
plus.google.com/+chrisricemrzu/posts/gBbiGpdxiJM
plus.google.com/117733585408125938205/posts/QnC43BH7VEA
plus.google.com/+EdwardFeenman/posts/exVoFtwm2FD

Google+ Account Activities
plus.google.com/apps/activities
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/HQ7Bq2dL384
____________

Post has attachment
The pseudo-vestigial vermiform appendix

+Michael S: "…our appendix or our little toe, this traids ar [sic] not beneficial to us anymore even if they may have been."

— Who told you that those traits aren't overall more beneficial than detrimental? Do you know what the function of the vermiform appendix is and know how many times it has independently evolved in separate animal clades? On the other hand, what is usually considered "vestigial" (arguably, not the case of the appendix anymore) most often still fulfils certain valuable function (e.g., the pelvic bones in cetaceans).

• Laurin M, Everett ML, Parker W. "The cecal appendix: one more immune component with a function disturbed by post-industrial culture." Anat Rec (Hoboken) (2011 Apr) vol. 294 (4) pp. 567-79 DOI: 10.1002/ar.21357
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21357/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21370495

• Smith HF, Parker W, Kotzé SH, Laurin M. "Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors." Comptes Rendus Palevol (2013 Aug-Sep) vol. 12 (6) pp. 339-354
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

• Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Bollinger RR, Parker W. "Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix." J Evol Biol (2009 Oct) vol. 22 (10) pp. 1984-99 DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01809.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01809.x/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19678866

• Randal Bollinger R, Barbas AS, Bush EL, Lin SS, Parker W. "Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix." J Theor Biol (2007 Dec 21) vol. 249 (4) pp. 826-31
fliphtml5. com/eqqg/jszl
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.bz/science/article/pii/S002251930700416X
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936308

• Kooij IA, Sahami S, Meijer SL, Buskens CJ, Te Velde AA. "The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature." Clin Exp Immunol (2016 Oct) vol. 186 (1) pp. 1-9 DOI: 10.1111/cei.12821
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cei.12821/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27271818

• Im GY et al. "The appendix may protect against Clostridium difficile recurrence." Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol (2011 Dec) vol. 9 (12) pp. 1072-7 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.06.006
http://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(11)00580-5/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21699818

• Rob Dunn. "Your Appendix Could Save Your Life: The humble organ may help us recover from serious infections." Scientific American Blogs (January 2, 2012)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/your-appendix-could-save-your-life

• Douglas Theobald, PhD. "The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix: A modern reappraisal." The TalkOrigins Archive (Last Update: April 19, 2007)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

• Charles Q Choi. "The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising." Live Science (August 24, 2009)
https://www.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html

• Brandon Miller. "Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)." Live Science (February 9, 2005)
https://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html

• Duke Medicine News and Communications. "Appendix Isn't Useless at All: It's a Safe House for Bacteria." Duke Medicine (October 8, 2007; Updated May 17, 2010) ; Science Daily (October 8, 2007)
http://web.archive.org/web/20130903161512/http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/10151
http://web.archive.org/web/20130903161512/dukehealth.org/health_library/news/10151
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

• Tara Long. "Is Your Appendix Actually Useless?" DNews/Seeker (August 27, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDIgbjDGsOM [2 min]

• John Borland. "Appendix Not So Useless After All?" Wired (October 10, 2007)
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/appendix-not-so

Further references:

• Mesentery. "Is vermiform appendix no more a vestigial organ?" Biology, Stack Exchange (January 30, 2017)
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/55796/is-vermiform-appendix-no-more-a-vestigial-organ/56553
____

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vcMQboy2Jg&lc=z12jy1bqhyrwctxla22pvhwq0pezi5hr104
__________

Related comment:

+MilitantAntiTheist: "But...you can't live with an inflamed one. An inflamed appendix will eventually rupture, spreading bacteria throughout your body and you'll eventually die of sepsis."

— Your confidence and reliance on your ignorance or the ignorance of your militant pals is indication that rather than an "anti-theist" you're a militant pseudo-skeptic of the pseudo-atheist variety. A genuine anti-theist wouldn't spread the first urban myth he had picked up from some locker-room without even bothering to fact-check it, simply because it fitted well into his worldview and his preconceived ideas. Counter-examples:

• Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB. "Spontaneously resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients." Radiology (2000 May) vol. 215 (2) pp. 349-52
http://pubs.rsna.org.sci-hub.bz/doi/10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma08349
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796906

• Kothadia JP, Katz S, Ginzburg L. "Chronic appendicitis: uncommon cause of chronic abdominal pain." Therap Adv Gastroenterol (2015 May) vol. 8 (3) pp. 160-2 DOI: 10.1177/1756283X15576438
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416293
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25949528

• Vons C et al. "Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial." Lancet (2011 May 7) vol. 377 (9777) pp. 1573-9 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60410-8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51105889
https://www.academia.edu/15255629
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21550483

• Saurabh Jha MD. "Kevin, M.D. > Antibiotics for Appendicitis Has Its Downsides: Antibiotics rather than surgery for appendicitis sounds good, but there are drawbacks." MedPage Today (September 09, 2015)
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/kevinmd/53463

«There is a small group of patients in whom the inflammation and infection of appendicitis remain mild and localized to a small area. The body is able not only to contain the inflammation and infection but to resolve them as well. These patients usually are not very ill and improve during several days of observation. This type of appendicitis is referred to as "confined appendicitis" and may be treated with antibiotics alone. The appendix may or may not be removed at a later time. There is still some controversy, however, about leaving the healed appendix in place since appendicitis can recur.»

— Jay W. Marks, MD (author), Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD (editor). "Appendicitis Symptoms, Causes, Treatments, and Surgery." MedicineNet.com (Last reviewed: July 3, 2017)
http://www.medicinenet.com/appendicitis/page7.htm#what_is_the_treatment_for_appendicitis

«Appendectomy was performed in 59.70% of inpatients diagnosed with appendicitis. The overall incidences of appendicitis, total appendectomy, and perforated appendectomy were 22.71, 13.56, and 2.91 per 10 000 population per year, respectively.»

— Lee JH, Park YS, Choi JS. "The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in South Korea: national registry data." J Epidemiol (2010) vol. 20 (2) pp. 97-105
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/20/2/20_JE20090011/_article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900807
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3900807
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20023368

• Ron et al. "Unusual appendicitis." General Surgery, Surgical Forums (January 21, 2017)
http://for-surgeons.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=797
____

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDIgbjDGsOM&lc=z133ytwpnqamsxrak04cfbzblkqvirzwgso0k
__________

URL related G+ post:
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/SsZSwCf3rHY

• Rishi Desai, BG, MPH (reviewer). "Appendicitis - causes, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment & pathology" Osmosis.org (February 26, 2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9amif1DQMc [5 min]

«To describe the epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States, the authors analyzed National Hospital Discharge Survey data for the years 1979-1984. Approximately 250,000 cases of appendicitis occurred annually in the United States during this period, accounting for an estimated 1 million hospital days per year. The highest incidence of primary positive appendectomy (appendicitis) was found in persons aged 10-19 years (23.3 per 10,000 population per year); males had higher rates of appendicitis than females for all age groups (overall rate ratio, 1.4:1). Racial, geographic, and seasonal differences were also noted. Appendicitis rates were 1.5 times higher for whites than for nonwhites, highest (15.4 per 10,000 population per year) in the west north central region, and 11.3% higher in the summer than in the winter months. The highest rate of incidental appendectomy was found in women aged 35-44 years (43.8 per 10,000 population per year), 12.1 times higher than the rate for men of the same age. Between 1970 and 1984, the incidence of appendicitis decreased by 14.6%; reasons for this decline are unknown. A life table model suggests that the lifetime risk of appendicitis is 8.6% for males and 6.7% for females; the lifetime risk of appendectomy is 12.0% for males and 23.1% for females.»

— Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. "The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States." Am J Epidemiol (1990 Nov) vol. 132 (5) pp. 910-25
http://doi.org.ololo.sci-hub.bz/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115734
http://academic.oup.com.ololo.sci-hub.bz/aje/article-abstract/132/5/910/88731/THE-EPIDEMIOLOGY-OF-APPENDICITIS-AND-APPENDECTOMY
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2239906

«As compared to results obtained in research on Western populations, appendicitis and appendectomy had a similar perforation rate and seasonality, but a higher overall incidence, in South Koreans. Between 2005 and 2007, the incidence of appendicitis and appendectomy was constant. Overall, an estimated 15 incidental appendectomies are performed to prevent 1 inpatient with suspected appendicitis, and 26 incidental appendectomies are performed to prevent 1 appendectomy. Incidental appendectomy may have greater preventive value in Koreans.»

— Lee JH, Park YS, Choi JS. "The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in South Korea: national registry data." J Epidemiol (2010) vol. 20 (2) pp. 97-105
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/20/2/20_JE20090011/_article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900807
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3900807
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20023368

«We identified 44,683 cases of appendectomies and 42,742 cases of appendicitis (95.7%) during the study period. The age-standardized incidence rates among men ranked between 132.1 cases per 100,000 population in 2003 and 117.46 cases per 100,000 population in 2000 without a clear trend through the study period. The appendiceal perforation rate was 12.1% and the negative appendectomy rate 4.3%. The global mortality was 0.38%.»

— Andreu-Ballester JC et al. "Epidemiology of appendectomy and appendicitis in the Valencian community (Spain), 1998-2007." Dig Surg (2009) vol. 26 (5) pp. 406-12 DOI: 10.1159/000235956
http://sci-hub.bz/https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/235956
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19923829

« Incidental appendectomy
In total, 178 LIP patients and 15,926 NP patients underwent an incidental appendectomy. The overall incidence of incidental appendectomy was 8.69 per 100,000 per year (95% CI: 6.87-10.52) in the LIP, which was 11.4% higher than that in the NP (7.80 per 100,000 per year; 95% CI: 6.07-9.54) (p > 0.05). The overall incidence of incidental appendectomy was higher for males than for females in the LIP, with an overall male–female ratio of 1.29:1. This situation was reversed in the NP, which had an overall male–female ratio of 0.86:1. The median age of incidental appendectomy patients was 52(40, 70) years for LIP patients and 54(41, 68) years for NP patients. The annual incidence of incidental appendectomy gradually increased with age in both the LIP and the NP for almost all ages, except for females aged 75 years or older in the LIP, whose rate was lower than that of the age group of 45–74 years (Figure 5).»

— Lin KB et al. "Epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy for the low-income population in Taiwan, 2003-2011." BMC Gastroenterol (2015 Feb 13) vol. 15 art.18 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-015-0242-1
https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-015-0242-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329676
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888516

«We analyzed all appendectomies in Sweden 1989-1993 (n = 60,306) recorded in the national Inpatient Registry. Our focus was on diagnostic accuracy, incidence rate of appendicitis, perforative appendicitis, and length of stay by day of admission and hospital category. The incidence rate of appendectomy decreased by 9.8% in women compared to 4.1% in men. Since the number of patients with an end diagnosis of appendicitis remained almost constant, diagnostic accuracy increased each year. This was more pronounced in women than men, seen in all hospital categories, and was higher for those admitted during periods of low capacity (weekends/ holidays).»

— Blomqvist P et al. "Appendectomy in Sweden 1989-1993 assessed by the Inpatient Registry." J Clin Epidemiol (1998 Oct) vol. 51 (10) pp. 859-65
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub-bz/science/article/pii/S0895435698000651
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9762879

«Just curious because I have talked to several people who asked me if I had my appendix removed when I had my hysterectomy. I didn't, but I know several women who did. I am curious to know if any of you had your appendix removed during your hysterectomy?
[…]
It used to be fairly common for an appendectomy to be done during a hysterectomy just because it could be! Now, doctors are more apt to only remove the appendix if the appendix is actually diseased or problematic.»

— GeorgiaPeach300 (Hysterectomy: June 19, 2009; Surgery Type: DvH;
Ovaries: Removed both), Weiser (Hysterectomy: November 14th, 2000; Surgery Type: LAVH; Ovaries: Kept 1 or both) et al. "Appendix removal with hysterectomy." HysterSisters.com (September 8, 2009)
http://www.hystersisters.com/vb2/showthread.php?t=377847

«We searched for all pathology reports with the term “appendectomy” or “appendicitis”, which identified 13,867 pathology reports from the CLS database. Pathology reports were manually reviewed to exclude patients with an incidental appendectomy or a diagnosis other than appendicitis leaving 9,442 cases pathology-proven acute appendicitis.
[…]
The overestimation of the incidence of appendicitis is predominantly explained by misclassification errors as demonstrated by an overall PPV of 83%. Further, our study demonstrated that this misclassifying of a normal appendectomy was accentuated in children diagnosed with appendicitis. One explanation for the misclassification error was that some cases of normal or incidental appendectomy were falsely recorded as appendicitis.[13] In contrast, the incidence of appendicitis derived from the pathology-proven registry would not capture patients with appendicitis treated non-operatively with antibiotics or milder cases that spontaneously resolve. In our administrative database we identified 255 patients (2.4%) who were coded for appendicitis, but lacked a corresponding procedural code for an appendectomy and did not have a pathology report. These patients likely represented medically managed appendicitis.
[…]
Also, the routine performance of incidental appendectomies has fallen out of clinical practice.[27]»

— Coward S et al. "Incidence of Appendicitis over Time: A Comparative Analysis of an Administrative Healthcare Database and a Pathology-Proven Appendicitis Registry." PLoS One (2016 Nov 7) vol. 11 (11) art. e0165161 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165161
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165161
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27820826

«Preoperative diagnostic accuracy is of utmost importance during pregnancy because a negative appendectomy is associated with a significant incidence of fetal loss. The increased morbidity associated with appendectomy delay suggests that prompt surgical intervention remains the safest approach. Routine incidental appendectomy should not be performed except in selected cases. Interval appendectomy is not indicated because of considerable risks of complications and lack of any clinical benefit.»

— Teixeira PG, Demetriades D. "Appendicitis: changing perspectives." Adv Surg (2013) vol. 47 pp. 119-40
http-//www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.bz/science/article/pii/S0065341113000031
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24298848

• Tam T, Harkins G. "Elective laparoscopic appendectomy in gynecologic surgery: When, why, and how." OBG Management (2013 Mar) vol. 25 (3) pp. 42.59
http://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement/article/65279/surgery/elective-laparoscopic-appendectomy-gynecologic-surgery-when-why
PDF: http://www.mdedge.com/sites/default/files/issues/articles/OBG_0313_Tam-Harkins.pdf

Post has attachment
The government of the State of Texas in the bathroom

Martin Lewitt Public Jul 25, 6:44 PM
What the heck is a "transgender child"? Just like with the Pledge of Allegiance, circumcision, tattoos and piercings, parents should encourage/insist that their children wait until the age a majority to make any such serious commitments or decisions. Once they're out of the closet, it is kind of tough for them to go back in, if in their mature judgment they would make a different decision.

• Alexa Ura. "IBM ups the ante in fight against Texas bathroom bill: As Texas lawmakers reconvene for a special legislative session, IBM and other major companies are re-upping their opposition to legislation they say would discriminate against transgender children and harm its Texas recruiting efforts." The Texas Tribune (July 17, 2017)
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/17/ibm-ups-ante-fight-against-texas-bathroom-bill
______

Zephyr López Cervilla
So do you side with Government to meddle in bathroom use issues and against private businesses interests? And who are you to tell parents what they should encourage/insist their children? What make you assume that until "the age of majority" you have any say on what other people should do with their children, resorting to Government coercion to impose your views when necessary? Your collectivist belief system?
In such case, you may be closer to Melissa Harris-Perry mindset than you may think:

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we have this private notion of children. 'Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility.' We haven't had a very collective notion of 'these are our children.' So part of it is to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

— Melissa Harris-Perry, PhD. "Promo for MSNBC’s 'Lean Forward' campaign." (2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAMGatMHss [30 s]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Harris-Perry

And to that of Adolf Hitler:

"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"

~Adolf Hitler, in a speech given on November 6, 1933, quoted in page 249 in

• William L Shirer. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany." (1959) Simon & Schuster (reissued edition, 2011)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6QngAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA249
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451651686
______

Martin Lewitt
+Zephyr López Cervilla I see two aspects to the different proposals. In both I take anti-collectivists/anti-government positions. One is the state seeking to restrain or override local government from imposing requirements on businesses and schools to accommodate minority gender identities. I oppose these local mandates.

The other class of proposals is mandating which restrooms children should use in public schools. Here the goal is usually to preserve the special protected status of girls and women, although recently that has been extended to protecting young boys from predators as well. While such bias has been taken too far as in the case of the Titanic, this is generally what the most human societies want' Here, as in many other school related issues, I think the solution is separation of school and state. I don't mind laws temporarily which put political and social pressure on this unfortunate dangerous collectivist union, but the ultimate goal is elimination of state control of education.

As to my advice to parents, they should, of course, take it for what it is worth. I argue that as a general principle, adults should be making decisions for children and children should not be making decisions for adults, and that part of the maturing of children is the gradual assumption of responsibility for their own decisions. Children should be protected from making decisions with serious long term implications for the adult they someday will but have not yet become.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Martin Lewitt: "One is the state seeking to restrain or override local government…"

— Exactly the same bullshit argument brandished by the Federal Government cheerleaders to justify the so called "civil rights" and affirmative action. The only thing Government mandates restrain is individual freedom.

+Martin Lewitt: "Here the goal is usually to preserve the special protected status of girls and women, […] this is generally what the most human societies want'"

— Further collectivist nonsense. Don't hide behind fictional entities. "Societies" don't want shit, individuals do.

+Martin Lewitt: "Here, as in many other school related issues, I think the solution is separation of school and state."

— Through state mandates, right?
That's like setting the fox to guard the hen pen.

"The government [e.g., of the Sate of Texas] doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety, it certainly doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in its own power, that’s the only thing, keeping it and expanding it wherever possible."
— George Carlin. "It's Bad for Ya." (2008)

On the other hand, how do you plan to separate the state from tax-funded schools? Who accredits the teachers? Who fixes the standards and designs the academic curricula?

How many people send their children to private schools in Texas or homeschool them? Most Texans are statist worshippers, don't count on them to separate anything from the state. They want the state to keep control over other people's lives as a way to impose their views and religious beliefs on them, just like you're eager to do with the bathrooms issue.

+Martin Lewitt: "I don't mind laws temporarily which put political and social pressure on this unfortunate dangerous collectivist union, but the ultimate goal is elimination of state control of education."

"Preachers say, Do as I say, not as I do."

— John Selden. "Table-Talk: Being the Discourses of John Selden, Esq; Being His Sense of various Matters of Weight and high Consequence; relating especially to Religion and State." (c. 1654, first published 1689)
https://archive.org/stream/tabletalkbeingd01milwgoog#page/n128
https://archive.org/stream/tabletalkbeingdi00seldiala#page/114
https://books.google.com/books?id=G7QUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA93
https://books.google.com/books?id=4ONeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA97

+Martin Lewitt: "I don't mind laws…"

«I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society’s power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law.
[…]
The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.»

— John Hasnas. "The Myth of the Rule of Law." Wisconsin Law Review (1995) no. 199 pp. 199-233
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
http://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas

+Martin Lewitt: "Children should be protected from making decisions with serious long term implications for the adult they someday will but have not yet become."

— Too bad, they're already born. Preserving the status quo is also a decision.
______

Martin Lewitt
+Zephyr López Cervilla Actually the belief that there is rule of law, is precisely what is needed for a republic such as ours to work. The founders recognized that the republic depended upon the character of its citizens. I too have lost faith that the separation and enumeration of powers and the bill of rights are sufficient to protect us. Winner take all geographical districts are no longer a practical necessity. "Election" to the house by subscription would be a useful reform, giving minorities power to help protect themselves.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla
+Martin Lewitt: «Actually the belief that there is rule of law, is precisely what is needed for a republic such as ours to work. The founders recognized that the republic depended upon the character of its citizens. I too have lost faith that the separation and enumeration of powers and the bill of rights are sufficient to protect us. […] "Election" to the house by subscription would be a useful reform, giving minorities power to help protect themselves.»

— Your ardent defence of the virtuous Republic and your plans to (re-)design it brings to mind Michael Munger's article titled "Unicorn Governance":

«When I am discussing the State with my colleagues at Duke, it's not long before I realize that, for them, almost without exception, the State is a unicorn. I come from the Public Choice tradition, which tends to emphasize consequentialist arguments more than natural rights, and so the distinction is particularly important for me. My friends generally dislike politicians, find democracy messy and distasteful, and object to the brutality and coercive excesses of foreign wars, the war on drugs, and the spying of the NSA.

But their solution is, without exception, to expand the power of "the State." That seems literally insane to me—a non sequitur of such monstrous proportions that I had trouble taking it seriously.

Then I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it. When I finally realized that we were talking past each other, I felt kind of dumb. Because essentially this very realization—that people who favor expansion of government imagine a State different from the one possible in the physical world—has been a core part of the argument made by classical liberals for at least 300 years.
[…]
In my experience, we spend too much time fighting with our opponents about their unicorns. That is, we claim that the unicorn/State itself is evil, and cannot be tamed in a way that's consistent with liberty. The very mental existence of the unicorn is the target of our arguments.

The problem, of course, is that the unicorn they imagine is wise, benevolent, and omnipotent. To tell them that their imaginations are wrong is useless. So long as we insist that our opponents are mistaken about the properties of "the State"—which doesn't exist in the first place, at least not in the way that statists imagine—then we will lose the attention of many sympathetic people who are primarily interested in consequences.

To paraphrase Hayek, then, the curious task of the liberty movement is to persuade citizens that our opponents are the idealistic ones, because they believe in unicorns. They understand very little about the State that they imagine they can design.»

— Michael Munger. "Unicorn Governance." Foundation for Economic Education (August 11, 2014)
https://fee.org/articles/unicorn-governance
Comments: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/08/michael-munger-the-state-as-a-unicorn.html
______

Martin Lewitt
+Zephyr López Cervilla "But their solution is, without exception, to expand the power of "the State." .... The problem, of course, is that the unicorn they imagine is wise, benevolent, and omnipotent."

No one who supports checks, balances, enumerated powers, the bill of rights and sees the need to separate the state from the control of education is sanguine about the state.
______

URL G+ post source comments:
http://plus.google.com/115092536678890873638/posts/gtZstx1VvCN

Post has attachment
Big Fat BiaSes

[At 4:56] • Steven Novella. "The Skinny on Saturated Fat." Science-Based Medicine (June 28, 2017)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-skinny-on-saturated-fat

— You shouldn't blindly trust Steve Novella, he's been wrong before:

«If you want to live longer, here is what the evidence clearly shows in terms of lifestyle:
Eat a well-rounded healthy diet
Exercise regularly
Get enough sleep
Don’t smoke
Use alcohol in moderation»

— Steven Novella. "An Apple a Day." Science-Based Medicine (December 18, 2013)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-apple-a-day

«Even after this study I am left unconvinced that there is any advantage to consuming moderate amounts of alcohol. I think we are still likely dealing with an artifact of observational studies. But even if there is a small health benefit (which would be from decreased CHD), there does not appear to be any benefit to taking up drinking, and so this has no implications to lifestyle choices. Meanwhile the potential downside to increased alcohol consumption (despite this one study) is well established. Public health measures would be better off focusing on better established and larger lifestyle factors – quitting smoking, diet, and exercise.»

— Steven Novella. "Alcohol and Survival." Neurologica Blog (September 2, 2010)
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alcohol-and-survival

FWIW,

• Bahar Gholipour. "Moderate Drinking Has No Health Benefits, Large Review of Studies Concludes." Live Science (March 22, 2016)
http://www.livescience.com/54115-is-moderate-drinking-good-for-you.html

• Stockwell T et al. «Do "Moderate" Drinkers Have Reduced Mortality Risk? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Alcohol Consumption and All-Cause Mortality.» J Stud Alcohol Drugs (2016 Mar) vol. 77 (2) pp. 185-98
http://www.jsad.com/doi/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.185
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26997174
_____

«CONCLUSION: Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations.»

— Hamley S. "The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials." Nutr J (2017 May 19) vol. 16 (1) art. 30 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28526025

E.g.,

• Hooper L, Martin N, Abdelhamid A, Davey Smith G. "Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease." Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2015 Jun 10)(6) art. CD011737 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011737
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737/abstract
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068959

Reference cited by Steve Novella:

• DiNicolantonio JJ, Lucan SC, O'Keefe JH. "The Evidence for Saturated Fat and for Sugar Related to Coronary Heart Disease." Prog Cardiovasc Dis (2016 Mar-Apr) vol. 58 (5) pp. 464-72 DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2015.11.006
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856550
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26586275
_____

URL source YouTube comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnx9NB-hpEE&lc=z13idphymuuvxvcly220dllzrrffjh32h
____________

The most effective rule of thumb to get enough calcium in your diet (either vegetarian or plant-based omnivorous) is to strongly restrict or totally avoid certain foods, namely, refined foods ("empty calories") such as sugars, refined oils, alcoholic beverages, or even honey, sodium, tobacco smoking, and… cereals and derivatives (that's right, the staple foods in most of the world, that's why age-related low bone mineral density is so common):

«Calcium and osteoporosis

It is becoming increasingly evident that overall skeletal mass developed during youth and early adulthood is a critical factor influencing the likelihood of osteoporotic fractures in later life (25, 49). Although affected by heredity, race, and gender, the peak bone mass accumulated by any given individual also reflects the mechanical stresses to which the skeleton has been subjected (50, 5 1). In addition, adequate lifetime calcium intake appears to augment the bone-building effects of exercise (52), perhaps synergistically (53). In view of these relationships it should hardly be surprising that the skeletal mass achieved by humans living in the Late Paleolithic Era exceeded that of people living subsequently (54, 55): the lifestyle of Stone Agers demanded levels of physical exertion that exceeded those common among contemporary humans (27) and their dietary calcium intake averaged twice that consumed by Americans today. Even as late as 12 000 y ago the humeral cortical thickness of Stone Age hunters (Near Eastern Natufians) exceeded that of current whites and blacks by an average of 17% (56).

Some loss of cortical bone after mid adulthood is a universal phenomenon (57) and, if substantial, the resulting bone mass reduction increases an individual’s fracture risk. Like the accumulation of peak bone mass during youth, the rate and extent of bone mineral loss in later life is influenced by physical activity (58-63). However, the relationship of dietary and/or supplemental calcium to involutional osteoporosis is controversial (64-67) and in this regard anthropological evidence may have some bearing. The bone density of hunter-gatherers was relatively stable over time (68); they experienced less bone loss than did the agriculturists who succeeded them in both the Near East (56) and the Americas (69).

It is not yet clear whether the adoption of agriculture eased or increased human workloads; skeletal indicators of physical stress do not show definite trends at this stage of human experience (42, 70, 71). However, agriculturists did obtain less calcium from their diets (72) after grains (poor calcium sources) (Table 7) became major staples. For example, as maize became an important dietary constituent in prehistoric North America there were multiple temporally related adverse effects on health (73), including an increase in osteoporosis (72, 74; DA Nelson, unpublished observation, 1985). Nelson (unpublished observations, 1985) compared the bone mineral content and cortical thickness of Archaic hunter-gatherers (living 6000 y ago) with the corresponding characteristics of transitional maize agriculturists (~1250 AD) in Illinois and Michigan. The hunter-gatherers had denser, thicker bone and experienced less bone loss with age than did the agriculturists.

There was one hunter-gatherer population in whom the prevalence of osteoporosis was high, higher even than that observed in present-day Americans. Both male and female Inuit (Eskimos) developed bone mineral loss earlier than did industrialized Westerners and the loss occurred at a faster rate so that the severity of osteoporosis in older traditional Inuit was pronounced (75, 76). Like Natufians, Cro-Magnons, and Archaic Amerindians, the Inuit lifestyle required considerable physical exertion; furthermore, all these groups had diets that provided a great deal of protein and phosphorus. However, as opposed to the other population groups for whom high calcium consumption is likely, the calcium intake of aboriginal Inuit was probably low (77). Unlike Cro-Magnons living in Ice-Age Europe, Eskimos lived in high-latitude, circumpolar habitats and as a result their access to plant foods was severely restricted. Their calcium sources are postulated to have included seasonally available berries, moss, and buds, but came mainly from chewing small bones and eating the gastric and intestinal contents of game animals (78). The amount of calcium obtained from these sources is unknown, probably limited, and quite likely insufficient to maintain bone health in older Inuit despite their continuing high levels of physical activity.»

— Eaton SB and Nelson DA. "Calcium in evolutionary perspective." Am J Clin Nutr (1991 Jul) vol. 54 (1 Suppl) pp. 281S-287S
http://ajcn.nutrition.org.sci-hub.bz/content/54/1/281S.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2053574

«MINERALS
Little specific information is available about the mineral content of the native diet, but it appears to contain adequate amounts of the essential in organic elements with the possible exception of calcium. Meat is notably low in this element, and dairy products (the main source of dietary calcium in industrialized countries) were unavailable to Eskimos until recent times. Explorers' accounts indicate that calcium was derived mainly from the soft bones of fish and the spongy portion of the bones of land and sea mammals. Recent biochemical research has elucidated a vitamin D-dependent mechanism which enables the body to adapt to a range of calcium in takes by modifying the efficiency of absorption, and this mechanism undoubtedly enabled the Eskimo to adapt to the limited quantity of calcium supplied by his diet. There is no evidence, however, that Eskimos have an unusual capacity for such adaptation and, indeed, the calcium content of their traditional diet is not notably different from that of many cereal-based food cultures.

The low calcium content of the meat regimen may be of lesser significance than its exceptionally high content of phosphorus. Adult animals and humans fed a high phosphorus diet, particularly one in which the calcium content is low, exhibit mild hypocalcemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism and an increased rate of bone resorption. It is of interest, therefore, that Mazess and Mather (1974:916-925) and Pawson (1974:369-380) observed an unusually high rate of aging bone loss among Eskimos of northern Alaska. Further, a high protein intake is known to produce calciuria. To what extent, if any, the accelerated rate of of bone resorption observed in aging Eskimos is attributable to their high protein, high phosphorus, low calcium diet is unknown.»

— Draper HH. "The aboriginal Eskimo diet in modern perspective." American Anthropologist (1977) vol. 79 (2) pp. 309-316
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1977.79.2.02a00070/full
http://www.jstor.org/stable/673842

On the other hand, contrary to conventional "wisdom", dairy products aren't particularly good dietary sources of calcium due to their relatively high caloric density.
_____

URL source YouTube comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnx9NB-hpEE&lc=z13ishypwmfajvg4z04cc1aabyyxhhxogdo
____________

Milk and dairy aren't such great sources of calcium. Dairy products aren't calcium dense in relation to their caloric content. You'd need to take the equivalent to 1.3-1.7 L/0.35-0.46 gallons of milk a day to get an adequate amount of calcium. A simple way to ensure you get enough calcium is to avoid foods that are poor sources of calcium such cereals and derivatives (see Eaton and Nelson, 1991), oils and sugars, and foods and drinks in which those are a primary ingredient (e.g., soft drinks, candies, ice cream, fried food, etc.), alcoholic beverages, as well as salty foods and tobacco smoking. In addition to that, some source of vitamin D over the whole year, either enough UV-light exposure or vitamin-D supplements.

According to the following paper, the daily intake of a typical pre-agricultural diet used to be about 1,400 mg Ca/day:

• Eaton SB and Nelson DA. "Calcium in evolutionary perspective." Am J Clin Nutr (1991 Jul) vol. 54 (1 Suppl) pp. 281S-287S
http://ajcn.nutrition.org.sci-hub.bz/content/54/1/281S
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2053574

Acording to this other paper, it was 1,600 mg Ca/day:

• Eaton SB and Konner M. "Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications." N Engl J Med (1985 Jan) vol. 312 (5) pp. 283-9
http://www.uuliv.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Eaton-paleolithic-nutrition-a-consideration-of-its-nature-and-current-implications.pdf
http://www.nejm.org.sci-hub.bz/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198501313120505
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2981409

And according to the following update, 1,960 mg Ca/day:

• Eaton SB et al. "Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications." Eur J Clin Nutr (1997 Apr) vol. 51 (4) pp. 207-16
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v51/n4/abs/1600389a.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9104571

A litre of milk contains about 1,130 mg of calcium.
A gallon of milk contains about 4,278 mg of calcium.
_____

That's right, meat and fish are poor sources of calcium. It's mentioned by as a likely cause of the high prevalence of loss of bone mineral density, osteopenia and osteoporosis among ageing Eskimos living on their traditional diet, what is also cited by the paper by Eaton and Nelson that I cited above as the only exception of such problems among pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer peoples.

«Little specific information is available about the mineral content of the native diet, but it appears to contain adequate amounts of the essential in organic elements with the possible exception of calcium. Meat is notably low in this element, and dairy products (the main source of dietary calcium in industrialized countries) were unavailable to Eskimos until recent times. Explorers' accounts indicate that calcium was derived mainly from the soft bones of fish and the spongy portion of the bones of land and sea mammals. Recent biochemical research has elucidated a vitamin D-dependent mechanism which enables the body to adapt to a range of calcium in takes by modifying the efficiency of absorption, and this mechanism undoubtedly enabled the Eskimo to adapt to the limited quantity of calcium supplied by his diet. There is no evidence, however, that Eskimos have an unusual capacity for such adaptation and, indeed, the calcium content of their traditional diet is not notably different from that of many cereal-based food cultures.

The low calcium content of the meat regimen may be of lesser significance than its exceptionally high content of phosphorus. Adult animals and humans fed a high phosphorus diet, particularly one in which the calcium content is low, exhibit mild hypocalcemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism and an increased rate of bone resorption. It is of interest, therefore, that Mazess and Mather (1974:916-925) and Pawson (1974:369-380) observed an unusually high rate of aging bone loss among Eskimos of northern Alaska. Further, a high protein intake is known to produce calciuria. To what extent, if any, the accelerated rate of of bone resorption observed in aging Eskimos is attributable to their high protein, high phosphorus, low calcium diet is unknown.»

— Draper HH. "The aboriginal Eskimo diet in modern perspective." American Anthropologist (1977) vol. 79 (2) pp. 309-316
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1977.79.2.02a00070/full
http://www.jstor.org/stable/673842

More recent studies (on Artic native populations with more Westernised diets):

«Similarly, only 14% of men and 7% of women met the recommendation for calcium, and less than 4% reported met their recommended intake of fiber.
[…]
Our study found low calcium intakes, which has been previously reported (4–5,10). Low levels of calcium intake may contribute to osteoporosis, an important public health problem for Alaska Native women, especially as their life expectancy increases. Low-bone density is highly prevalent among Alaska Native women, affecting 45% as evidenced by hip, ankle and foot fractures or a diagnosis of osteoporosis (25). In one study, smoking was an additional risk factor and 45% reported they currently smoked cigarettes (25). In our study, fluid milk accounted for just 2% of total calories reported, but provided 14% of the dietary calcium

We documented low dietary fiber intake and low vegetable and fruit intakes, which is consistent with previous studies (1,3–5,10). Low dietary fiber intake has been associated with a variety of adverse clinical effects, including impaired laxation, reduced calcium absorption, an increased risk of cancer, obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes (16).
[…]
Although there was a wide range of intake in this study, caffeine consumption averaged 309 mg/day. Cummings et al. identified caffeine consumption of 190 mg/day as a risk factor for hip fracture among older white women (27). Given the women in our study had low dietary calcium intakes, frequent coffee consumption, low fiber intake and a high prevalence of smoking, there emphasis needs to be placed on their increased consumption of calcium, vitamin D and fiber and their reduction of tobacco use in future health programs.
[…]
To counter low intakes of calcium and high sugar consumption, we support increasing low fat milk consumption for those who can tolerate it and reducing intakes of sugary beverages.
[…]
The low intake of calcium, dietary fiber, fruits and vegetables could be contributing to the increased incidence of cancers of the digestive system.
[…]
Our findings support current dietary recommendations that are intended to minimize development of chronic disease among Alaska Native people. For residents 13 years of age and above in these 2 regions, we concur with these recommendations: […] _ (5) assuring the optimal consumption of minerals and vitamins, especially calcium.»

— Johnson JS et al. "Dietary intake of Alaska Native people in two regions and implications for health: the Alaska Native Dietary and Subsistence Food Assessment Project." Int J Circumpolar Health (2009 Apr) vol. 68 (2) pp. 109-22
http://coaction.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/ijch/article/view/17381
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/ijch.v68i2.18320
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19517871

«Mean daily intakes for men and women were lower than the recommendations for dietary fibre, total folate, calcium and vitamins B6, D and E. Mean daily vitamin A and zinc intakes were below the recommendations for men.
[…]
Calcium and vitamins A and D were inadequately consumed by ≥60% of men and women of all ages, whilst vitamin B6 and iron were adequately consumed by ≥70% of the participants.
[…]
Juice was the primary contributor to total energy, carbohydrate and sugar, and was the second greatest contributor to calcium intake. [By a scarce margin bannock was the first]
[…]
The present study provides data on dietary quality of Inuit adults in a remote community in Nunavut, Canada, and identifies several dietary inadequacies (i.e. dietary fibre, calcium, total folate and vitamins A, C, D and E, as well as zinc amongst men).
[…]
Nutrient deficiencies of calcium and vitamins A and D have been observed amongst Native American women (Lebrun et al., 1993), as well as in similar Arctic populations in Canada (Blanchet et al., 2000; Sharma et al., 2009).

The nutrients most inadequately consumed in this community, including dietary fibre, calcium, total folate and vitamins A, C, D and E, were likely consumed in adequate amounts in the traditional Inuit diet (Nobmann et al., 1992; Receveur et al., 1997; Blanchet et al., 2000; Kuhnlein et al., 2004, 2006).
[…]
_Dietary fibre, calcium, folate and vitamins A, D and E were consumed inadequately by 60–100% of all men and women, although most participants consumed iron and vitamins B6 and B12 at recommended levels.»

— Hopping BN et al. "Dietary adequacy of Inuit in the Canadian Arctic." J Hum Nutr Diet (2010 Oct) vol. 23 pp. 27-34
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01099.x/full
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49684079
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21158959

«White bread was the largest contributor to folate intake (31%) and was a significant contributor to calcium intake (24%) as well. However, dairy foods accounted for the greatest proportion (31%) of calcium intake.
[…]
White bread was a notable contributor to folate, iron, and calcium—a benefit of wheat flour fortification. However, this high glycaemic food may cause fluctuations in blood glucose and insulin levels which over time are associated with gain in weight and increased risk of heart disease and diabetes (65).»

— Schaefer SE et al. "Sources of food affect dietary adequacy of Inuit women of childbearing age in Arctic Canada." J Health Popul Nutr (2011 Oct) vol. 29 (5) pp. 454-64
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225107
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3225107
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22106751

«Aboriginal Arctic populations have experienced a transition in diet and lifestyle over the past fifty years, resulting in decreased consumption of traditional foods, including fish, marine mammals, and organ meats, which are rich sources of vitamin D and calcium [13].
[…]
Despite adequate median daily calcium intake (1154±877 mg/day), 27% of women did not meet their EAR for calcium. The median intake of calcium was significantly higher in TFE (1299±798 mg/day) than NTFE (992±704 mg/day; p = 0.0005) and more NTFE (35%) than TFE (18%) were below the EAR for calcium (Table 2). About 5.1% of TFE and 14.4% of NTFE consumed <70% EAR, and 11.1% of TFE and 16.4% of NTFE consumed 70–90% EAR for calcium.
[…]
The main contributors to calcium intake were dairy products, (TFE = 25.5%; NTFE = 34.5%) followed by grains and NNDFs; overall, these foods contributed 77.8% and 83.4% to the total calcium intake amongst TFE and NTFE, respectively. Among TFE, traditional sea foods combined with traditional land foods contributed 7.8% of the total calcium intake.
[…]
Despite adequate median daily calcium intake, 27% of women did not meet their dietary daily recommendation for calcium. Amongst traditional food eaters 18% did not meet the calcium requirement, whilst 35% of women who were non-traditional eaters were below the EAR. Among traditional food eaters, traditional land, sea, and sky dishes contributed substantially to vitamin D intake, but not calcium. Among both TFE and NTFE, the contribution of grain to calcium intake was high, therefore resulting in calcium intakes similar to dairy products. This may also be related to the low intake of dairy products and high intake of grain in the Arctic.
[…]
Our data support the importance of fortification of milk, as the dairy food group was the highest contributor to vitamin D and calcium intake. While traditional seafood was the second highest contributor, those who were NTFE had lower median daily intake of vitamin D than TFE.
[…]
Despite food fortification and dietary intake guidelines, vitamin D and calcium inadequacies are posing an increasing health threat to women of child-bearing age.
[…]
Inadequate intake of vitamin D and calcium is a growing concern for the health of Inuit and Inuvialuit women of child-bearing age in Arctic Canada. Traditional foods were the main contributors to vitamin D and calcium intake among the Inuit, which is evident in the results of high intake of vitamin D among traditional food eaters.»

— Kolahdooz F et al. "Dietary adequacy of vitamin D and calcium among Inuit and Inuvialuit women of child-bearing age in Arctic Canada: a growing concern." PLoS One (2013 Nov 4) vol. 8 (11) art. e78987 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078987
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078987
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24223871

Further reading:

• Bjerregaard P et al. "Indigenous health in the Arctic: an overview of the circumpolar Inuit population." Scand J Public Health (2004) vol. 32 (5) pp. 390-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51366099
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15513673

• Krümmel EM. "The Circumpolar Inuit Health Summit: a summary." Int J Circumpolar Health (2009 Dec) vol. 68 (5) pp. 509-18
http://coaction.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/ijch/article/view/17381
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/ijch.v68i5.17381
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20044968
_____

URL source YouTube comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnx9NB-hpEE&lc=z12tcn5okkubff4f122zg54rhmixyzyqb04
____________

Related comment:

In my opinion, you're right for the most part. The claim that a diet high in saturated fat (or high levels of LDL cholesterol in blood) can cause by itself CVD reminds me of the claim already debunked that drinking alcohol in moderation (or sporadically) is healthy for your heart (see top comment), a claim based on a spurious correlation that turned out to be the result of confounding factors and poorly-done research. With this other controversy, I also predict that time will prove Steve Novella wrong. As I stated in "The Skeptics' Guide" forums (June 26, 2017), "correlation does not imply causation", which incidentally, is the same argument brandished by Gary Taubes to cast doubt on the alleged causative association between LDL cholesterol and CVD (e.g., in "Waking Up with Sam Harris" episode no. 74; May 6, 2017).

PS: I wonder whether Dr Novella went also wrong with the advice of alcohol in moderation.

Edit: OMG, he did:

«If you want to live longer, here is what the evidence clearly shows in terms of lifestyle:
Eat a well-rounded healthy diet
Exercise regularly
Get enough sleep
Don’t smoke
Use alcohol in moderation»

— Steven Novella. "An Apple a Day." Science-Based Medicine (December 18, 2013)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-apple-a-day

And that despite the fact of having been much more skeptical three years before:

«Even after this study I am left unconvinced that there is any advantage to consuming moderate amounts of alcohol. I think we are still likely dealing with an artifact of observational studies. But even if there is a small health benefit (which would be from decreased CHD), there does not appear to be any benefit to taking up drinking, and so this has no implications to lifestyle choices. Meanwhile the potential downside to increased alcohol consumption (despite this one study) is well established. Public health measures would be better off focusing on better established and larger lifestyle factors – quitting smoking, diet, and exercise.»

— Steven Novella. "Alcohol and Survival." Neurologica Blog (September 2, 2010)
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alcohol-and-survival

Steve might be already in the early stages of diet-induced age-related memory loss (aka, dementia), or alternatively, he may be a consummate flip-flopper.
_____

• Gary Taubes (guest) and Sam Harris (host). "What Should We Eat?: A Conversation with Gary Taubes." Waking Up with Sam Harris (May 6, 2017) ep. 74 [127 min]
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-should-we-eat

• Gary Taubes. "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" The New York Times Magazine (July 7, 2002)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html
____________

URL related G+ posts:
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/h8Ek6ZucPsE
http://plus.google.com/100305066896630270381/posts/U2TcCMSaNX1
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/6MSTcSNBNwJ
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/PrqJGBvitEB
http://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/cqKTT2x4GAs
Wait while more posts are being loaded