Climate Science in the Age of Gruber—Part I: It’s all about the model

If you, gentle reader, have not had the opportunity to be outraged and personally insulted by MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber’s statements on “the stupidity of the American voter” and “a lack of transparency” making it possible to get Obamacare passed, you may have been out of the country, suffering a bad case of the flu, or relying on the mainstream media for news for the past month.

Gruber, a one-time darling of the left, created the now infamous GMSIM, or “Gruber Microeconomic Simulation Model,” a computer model upon which Obamacare, and before that, Romneycare, was built. Quite a few states have also paid Gruber hundreds of thousands of dollars for his healthcare modeling expertise.

The GMSIM model uses economic theory combined with actual experience to predict the results of any proposed health insurance law.

Obamacare is a law. Why does it need a Model?

A simulation model is simply a set of mathematical equations that takes data measured in the real world and manipulates it to predict what will happen in the future. A good model can predict with accuracy, while a poor model’s predictions usually won’t come true.

For example, a good weather model uses data about actual temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, etc., over a large geographic area, and runs a computer “simulation” to predict what temperature you can expect tomorrow, and the chances that it will rain.

A good model can predict with accuracy, while a poor model’s predictions usually won’t come true.

According to GMSIM documentation on the MIT website, Gruber and his team of grad students used data on 80,000 individuals and families, collected in the census, along with data from insurance companies, the non-profit National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

This part of the model is pretty straightforward, as long as you trust the data coming from these organizations—which is not a question to be ignored, but let’s assume it’s OK for now.

Added to this real-world data, the economists input “varying information of policy parameters.” With this, they can predict the effect of different policy changes by converting changes in the law to estimated price changes. Or, in other words, it can predict how much insurance will cost for different groups of people, based on how the law is written.

Is Gruber’s Model Accurate?

Anyone can make a model, but the question remains, is the model accurate? An accurate model will predict the future accurately. An accurate weather model will predict the temperature a day or a week from now, and sure enough, the temperature will register fairly close to what was predicted. If not, the model sucks.

If the model does NOT accurately predict the future, modelers will often try to fix the situation using “fudge factors.” As defined by Google a fudge factor is “a figure included in a calculation to account for error or unanticipated circumstances, or to ensure a desired result.” (italics mine)

Computer modelers of all kinds throw fudge factors into their models

Computer modelers of all kinds throw fudge factors into their models in order to get their simulations to match what has happened in the real world. Fudge factors are one way the scientists running the simulations can make them come up with the answers that they want.

Another way to adjust the model to get the “right” answers is to change the starting point, ending point, or duration of the simulation run. For example, in modeling the costs of Obamacare, the clever lawmakers looked at a 10-year window of time, but deliberately delayed implementing some of the provisions for two or more years, so that the cost would be appear lower.

“Torturing” the Model

Gruber, who teaches Public Finance and Public Policy at MIT, knows how to “adjust” his model in order to change the outcome quite drastically.

In one of his infamous videos, he admits that “this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the [individual] mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” He understood that if it became clear that the mandate was a new tax imposed on them, the public would revolt.

This was unacceptable, politically, so Gruber and his “grubs” went to work to get the model to come up with a completely different answer. Of course, none of this was done in a closet. Congress actually “loaned” Gruber to the CBO to “help” them score the Obamacare law properly, as Max Baucus admitted on the Senate floor.

They discussed how to surreptitiously kill the health care tax benefit

Gruber is on record meeting with the head of the CBO in the Oval Office with President Obama, during which they discussed how to surreptitiously kill the health care tax benefit in such a way that no one would notice or complain.

After several months of messing with the model in order to get the right answers, in March 2010, CBO declared that Obamacare would become “deficit neutral” in 10 years, meaning that the costs of implementing the law averaged across that time would equal out the savings to the Federal Government. However, the law would only be in operation 6 of those 10 years, making the scorecard a joke.

The CBO’s finding, however tortured, was crucial in getting support for the bill in Congress, and was used as a cudgel to beat in the heads of conservatives and Republicans for months.

CBO, Other Models All Based on Gruber’s

According to a 2012 article in the New York Times Gruber spent decades developing his proprietary GMSIM model. Writer Catherine Rampell says that it was Gruber who convinced the administration that Obamacare could not work without the individual mandate (Don’t forget that Obama had run in 2008 on the position that a mandate was unconstitutional).

Futhermore, Rampell wrote, Gruber “has nearly cornered the market on the technical science behind these sorts of predictions.” She also quotes a different economist who claims that other similar models “all use Mr. Gruber’s work as a benchmark.”

Gruber is the only person you can go to for that kind of thing

“He’s the only person you can go to for that kind of thing,” Rampell quotes Harvard Economist David Cutler as saying, “which is why the White House reached out to him in the first place.”

In fact, the Obama Administration had no choice but to hire Gruber: his model is an inaccessible black box, due to its proprietary nature.

Persona non Gruber

But, perhaps most distressing for the way forward, is that Gruber’s GMSIM model, with its deliberately tortured and deceptive results, now forms the basis to which any future changes, updates or replacements to the Obamacare law will be scored.

And because the CBO doesn’t reveal how it calculates the costs of a particular bill, there is no way of telling exactly to what they will compare any future healthcare bills.

But according to J. Anderson writing in the Weekly Standard, “because the model that the CBO used in scoring Obamacare is the same one it uses today, any alternative to Obamacare that doesn’t include an individual mandate — which is to say, any conservative alternative — would be scored by the CBO as falling well short, in terms of coverage numbers.”

Gruber himself has quickly become persona non grata in the Democratic Party

Even though Gruber himself has quickly become persona non grata in the Democratic Party, his GMSIM model lives on, spreading deceit and mayhem wherever it is found.

But how does this cautionary tale of a computer model run amok relate to Climate Science? We’ll discuss that in the next article.

NEXT UP: Climate Science in the Age of Gruber, Part II: Models, Models Everywhere


Failing the mumps test

Are you old enough to remember the “mumps test”? That’s when your mother gives you a dill pickle and watches while you bite down on it and then scream in pain, confirming that you have indeed contracted a case of the mumps.

Yes, all these decades later, Ms. Contrarian Scientist can remember the feverish haze, the swollen chipmunk cheeks, and the sting of pain after taking a bite out of that dratted pickle.

Eight young men living together in a frat house or playing on the lacrosse team at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey never had a need for the mumps test—until now. They join another eight frat brothers at Fordham University in New York City, who contacted the disease earlier this year. And a significant outbreak of mumps is going on in and around the Ohio State University in Columbus.

Sick child in bed with teddy bearFully immunized

Despite its silly name, the mumps is no laughing matter. The disease, which is caused by a virus and spread through saliva, can render you deaf or sterile, or even kill you. There’s good reason to fear the mumps, which is why it has long been included in that standard combination vaccine most babies receive—the term MMR stands for “measles, mumps and rubella.”

And these sick young people were all fully immunized against mumps, or they wouldn’t be allowed to attend their respective schools.

So our question today is, “What does the Scientific Method have to say about incidents like these?”

First off, it’s pretty obvious that the mumps vaccination does not prevent all people from contracting the mumps.

Beware the mind police

But you can’t just come out and say that, can you? Because the mind police will be after you like white on rice.

Alrighty then, you could safely conclude that the particular form of the mumps vaccination these young men took did not prevent them from contracting the mumps. Was there some change in the vaccination 15 or 20 years ago when these students received it that weakened its effectiveness? That’s something to look into.

Or, maybe because it’s been years since their last booster shots, the effects have worn off. Some doctors concur:

“The immunity that’s induced by the virus starts to wane. They believe that it holds until at least late teenage years, but then it starts to wane,” said Dr. Dana Saltzman, a disease specialist told NBC New York. “There’s no way to predict who’s going to lose their immunity or not.”

Infant child baby kid hand with medical insulin syringeBut saying that the vaccine wears off gradually doesn’t fit the vaccine narrative, does it? I thought that once we’ve been exposed to a particular virus, we can never catch that virus again.

Works for me, but not for thee

Could it be that the vaccine just doesn’t work on everyone? Vaccines contain de-fanged versions of diseased cells that cause your body to mount an immune defense against them. The theory is that once your body has created the specific immune cells needed to fight a disease, it “remembers” what to do the next time it encounters those particular germs. But maybe not everyone has an immune system strong enough or “smart” enough to do this.

Another possibility: The vaccine just makes you less likely to get the mumps, and if you do get them, there is less risk of serious complications. But, weren’t we always told that the purpose of a vaccine is to PREVENT the disease, not just lessen the risk of complications?

Or, as one commenter on the Stevens Institute story noted, will vaccinations go down as one of the biggest con jobs in history?

A complicated puzzle

From just the arguments and counter-arguments presented in this short article, it’s easy to conclude that we (and by we, I mean scientists) don’t really understand the whole vaccine thing the way we thought we did. Questions remain—big questions.

But for some odd reason, scientific journals don’t allow publication of data that contradicts the vaccination bullies, even when that data comes from published, peer reviewed science.

Because, to hear public health authorities talk, we KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that VACCINES ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC and furthermore VACCINES NEVER CAUSE PROBLEMS, so SHUT UP AND TAKE YOUR SHOTS, baby.

I wonder if the nurses at the Stevens Institute clinic gave those unfortunate young men the pickle test?

About Ms. Contrarian Scientist

Ms. Contrarian Scientist
Ms. Contrarian Scientist

Having studied science in college and then gone to work as an engineer for a large corporation, Ms. Contrarian Scientist (MCS) woke up one day and said to herself, ”I wish I could believe in God. It would be such a relief to know that God is real and that He cares about me, that I’m not just some random accident of the universe. BUT—Science proves that God is not real and that evolution is the way we got here, and there is no need for a God, so in fact there is no God. Too bad.”*

Through the years, MCS has come to realize that she is not the only one who has ever doubted God’s existence, due to a reverence for Science. In fact, she bets that there are thousands, if not millions of folks out there who know that something is missing in their lives and they want to believe in God. But they are sad because they believe that Science as the ultimate truth kicks God out of the picture.

Furthermore, MCS bets there are thousands, if not millions, of God-believers out there who FEAR Science, who fear to look closely at Science because they worry that Science disproves God. And they cower when they hear others loudly denounce anyone who believes in God, because—SCIENCE!

Does Science rule out God?

The word “science” comes from a Latin word that means “knowledge.”

According to all the definitions, science is a methodical study of the natural world. The Scientific Method is a structured way of learning the truth about the world around us. So true science is a search for the truth, which is a great thing.

We don’t have to try to ‘protect God’ from science.

God himself is all about truth. And those of us who believe in God, or who are searching for God, should never fear the true truth. We don’t have to try to “protect God” from science, either. He’s a big God—he can handle it.

Ms. Contrarian Scientist

Now, practical science (or engineering) has brought us many wonderful things—such as iPads, longer lifespans, and no-iron shirts.

However, science, no matter how beneficial it has been and can be, is carried out by fallible human beings. Scientists, no matter how intelligent, are every bit as human as the rest of us. Any honest scientist, including MCS herself, will freely admit—at least in the middle of the night—that he or she is not perfect, the same as any other human being.

Scientists have every right to fight for their pet theories—that’s only natural. But if they can’t admit to mistakes or even downright falsifications, then they are not following the best practices of science.

Existing on a ‘higher plane’

Ms. Contrarian Scientists finds that scientists often fall back on a “scientific consensus,” which they consider their higher authority, similar to the way believers consider God their higher power.

Scientists use this scientific consensus in an effort to prove that, because they exist on a plane much higher than ordinary folks, and because so many other scientists agree with them, they must be right, even when the data doesn’t go their way, or when someone challenges them on their theories.

But voting on the truth is no way to find the truth, and it’s definitely NOT The Scientific Method. Science is a dialog, NOT a democracy.

Science is a dialog, NOT a democracy.

Here at, Ms. Contrarian Scientist will cover the debate over whether humans are causing Earth’s climate to change catastrophically.

And she will cover the debate over whether the Universe was created by an Intelligent Designer, though that topic is also well-covered elsewhere.

Science is a DialogIn doing so, the primary goal of this site will be to demonstrate both the genius and the humanity of scientists—and the inhumanity of scientists who personally attack, withhold funding and otherwise persecute other scientists because they don’t want dissenting (Contrarian) voices to be heard.

Throughout the history of science the powerful have often used their power to destroy others.

Throughout the history of science—and Galileo is just one example—the powerful have often used their power to destroy others in order to maintain their power. Or, even more sinister, they harbor ulterior plans for which they need to steer public opinion through the use of “peer-reviewed scientific studies.” This is NOT science, it is politics and worse.

So the goal of is to give the little guy, the lost sheep, the underdog—YOU, Gentle Readers—ammunition in this battle for truth that is taking place in your own mind and in the minds and hearts of the general public.

In order to do this, MCS will strive to demonstrate the weakness in “scientific studies” that are being used as weapons against ourselves, our religious beliefs, our homes and our businesses.

But she will also do this by showing the human side of science throughout history: The squabbles, the mistakes, the evil plots against outsiders who have dared to go against the “Consensus Science” of their day, and who ultimately were proven right in their predictions.

And so, we begin.

“Stay stubborn.” —Einstein to a young scientist who underwent much ridicule for his experimental results.

*Thankfully, MCS was mercifully united with the Word of God and Maker of all things, who died on a cross to set her free from sin and death.