There has been a development over the last 10-15 years or so in the scientific peer reviewed literature that is short circuiting the scientific method.
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis and then seeking to refute it. If all attempts to discredit the hypothesis fails, we start to accept the proposed theory as being an accurate description of how the real world works.
A useful summary of the scientific method is given on the website sciencebuddies.org.where they list six steps
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Unfortunately, in recent years papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature that fail to follow these proper steps of scientific investigation. These papers are short circuiting the scientific method.
Specifically, papers that present predictions of the climate decades into the future have proliferated. Just a two recent examples (and there are many others) are
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998.
Solomon, S. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print January 28, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed; e.g. see in the article by Hannad Hoag in the May 27 2009 issue of Nature News Hot times ahead for the Wild West.
These studies are based on models, of which only a portion of which represent basic physics (e.g. the pressure gradient force, advection and the universal gravitational constant), with the remainder of the physics parameterized with tuned engineering code (e.g see).
When I served as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Reviews (1981-1985), The Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (1996-2000), and as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG for the American Geophysical Union (1993-1996), such papers would never have been accepted.
What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.
This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Everyone come gather around the campfire; we should listen to Pielke Pere.
=============================================
When the science is settled and the debate is over, you don’t need process. The experts have decided everything that needs to be decided and anyone who does not agree is simply wrong. And not reputable. Nor an expert.
Simpler that way.
Pay your money and shut up.
What to expect when the AGW doctrine is eriged into official science? For instance, I browsed the French IPSL site (direction GIEC’s own Jean Jouzel…) that depends from the CNRS (national center for scientific research) and the CEA (French atomic commission)
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/liens/Climat.htm
and was curious as to the links offered. It was hilarious to discover they quoted Real Climate as the site from “Iowa University”, Jean Marc Jancovici, a well known polytechnician, expert consultant linked to the LMD Academician Le Treut, and who was sent packing by Leroux for his crass ignorance in climatology and the website of a well known french green activist Nicolas Hulot, among others in their “SCIENTIFIC files” section!
And BTW the French BRGM (bureau for geological and mining research) was working for many month on a Climate tax that has been announced yesterday, right after the european elections where O surprise the greens have done well…
Ah, but it’s even worse than that. The scientific method puts the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, on the proponent of a hypothesis, essentially challenging the proponent to prove, by replicable testing, the conclusion he would have the world reach.
These scientific poseurs seek to allocate the burden of proof of their hypotheses on those who ask for proof, on the skeptics, and then declare the challenges to their hypotheses unconvincing, meaning that their conclusions must be true.
Call it inversion of the scientific method, or, equally accurately, a non-scientific method. Either will do.
Cogent comment from Dr Pielke as usual. Many thanks for your insights over the last decade, sir. 🙂
[ “What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.”]
Well put.
Excellent piece! Bravo!
and I only take issue with the last paragraph because Mr. Pielke has far too much class and generosity of spirit to point out what’s actually driving this state of events. Mr. Pielke closed with:
“This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it.”
I believe the main reason for this turn of events is that the “policy community” has already predetermined the answers it wants for purely political and revenue raising reasons, and has undertaken a campaign of rewarding those so-called scientists who give it what it wants while demoting and marginalizing those who threaten to slow the gravy train down with a little truth.
It’s not about the science anymore, if it ever was. But science itself will be badly damaged unless other true scientists stand up with Mr. Pielke and demand a return to real values and honest dealing.
The models don’t make “predictions”; they make “projections”. Problem solved. 🙂
Seeing Dr. Solomon’s name above reminds me of her dubious exercise in historical climate reconstruction, the book “The Coldest March”.
Any true belief would welcome debate. If the belief is true, then it cannot be proven false and having a debate would only show others how right your belief really is. It is only the false beliefs that suppress debate because they cannot stand up to a test. I’m speaking in generalities because it applies to science, religion, everything.
I think science has been under attack for some time now and too often scientific issues have been taken over by politicians on the extreme left (global warming) and the extreme right (creationism). The result has been that instead of science being the common ground for both liberals and conservatives is has become just another tool to be manipulated by politicians. In addition, all the junk science out there on everything from what foods are good for you eat (at least for today) to what thing is going to kill us next has made lot of people skeptical of all science, or so scared that they just hang on to whatever opinion makes them feel good. To be honest I don’t see this going away any time soon and bogus issues like global warming will hang on for a long time despite the science that increasingly contradicts the whole premise.
Anyone who thinks a prediction based on a computer model is science is an idiot!
I am not even certain climate prediction can be qualified as science; if someone can comment on that it would be much appreciated. As an environmental engineer, I have dealt with numerous models that predict the performances of processes (e.g. pollutants removal by adsorption, BOD removal by activated sludge). Most of them are built with some scientific theory and some empirical correlations. But, at the end of the day, the validity/applicability of any given model is put to test by comparing model predictions to data generated by the process. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t; and we just need to accumulate experiences on when it does and doesn’t work. Is this how climate models getting validated and fine-tuned? I would like to know.
Wade-strictly speaking I would say only the un-confident refuse to debate. It does not necessarily mean they are wrong, but it does put their own belief in their opinions in doubt.
Now, what does the fact that “experts” who supposedly know a great deal about this stuff refuse to debate imply? Apparently even they are unconvinced by their evidence. Which is troubling in and of itself…
Repost from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/
How did we get into this mess?
The fundamental flaw…
Science as a cultural practice is subject to the same issues as any cultural practice, it can improve, stagnate or devolve.
The essence of the traditional practice of science, and still current practice for many scientists is the discourse between theory and experiment. Where experiment allows for the destructive testing of theory by empirical observation. Theories that don’t stand up to the destructive testing of experiment fall by the wayside. In this way Science is able to eliminate the false theories.
Over time (say the last 30 to 40 years) there has been the rise of Advocacy as a practice of science. Where Advocacy differs from the traditional practice of science is in the refusal to use destructive testing by experiment. Advocates instead defend their positions by highlighting “supporting” evidence and ignoring, and attacking contrary evidence. No advocate is “thrilled” by the prospect that their theory might be wrong, and that there might be something new to learn. Advocates substitute other theoretical constructs (i.e. Computer Models) for destructive testing. Theory ends up referencing theory in a closed loop. Advocacy = Bias.
Exploiting the opportunity…
With the rise of Advocacy Science, and the concurrent development of scientific blindness to false theory, there have emerged a large number of opportunists who seek to exploit the existing credibility of science to further their own agendas. These opportunists perpetuate the weakness of Advocacy Science to identify false theories, as it allows them to continue to use the credibility of science to further their own agendas.
Restoring Science…
As the root cause is the presence of Advocacy Science, the solution would involve the insistence on “destructive testing of theories via experiment with empirical observation”. This could be done by ensuring that government funding could only be accessed for science by insisting that proposals for research funding described in detail “how” the work to be funded would be subject to “destructive testing” and what the failure criteria would be.
To sum up…
Climate science as a cultural practice represents a devolution of the traditional and mainstream scientific practices of destructive testing of theory with experiment and empirical observation, and the adoption of a closed loop theory to theory discourse that is not grounded in empirical observation.
Advocacy has it’s place, in politics, in the law court, in business – just not in Science.
Note that no conspiracy is required for Advocacy to rise within the practice of Science. Science like any other cultural practice is subject to the vagaries of human nature. Any practice that is subject to Sloth, Hubris, Greed, Venality, Cowardice, etc… will devolve. By the same token, Courage, Hardwork, Intelligence and a real Commitment to restore science can still have an effect.
*****
Plus – Given current AGW funding for Advocacy Science, it is not surprising that more and more “science” papers reflect the flawed process described above.
Personally – I see this down-shift in Scientific Practice as a direct and pernicious assault on one of the core foundations of modern, western civilization, and very dangerous to the future of our societies and the general welfare of humanity.
Michael Crichton also wrote an excellent piece on this topic.
REF: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
I wonder to what extent the failure of the scientific method is the very thing that allows conclusions to be promulgated which receive the response from people like me: “I don’t know the science, but I know nonsense when I read it”.
I predict Roger Pielke Sr will be ignored for decades.
An excellent and essential post. As many have remarked here, human history is replete with examples of cultural/political purposes overriding (or murdering) the scientific process. Wattsupwiththat and many other blogs remain true to science. This is an important — if not the most important — legacy for future generations, our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. I am very grateful. Thanks to Dr. Pielke, Sr., and Mr. Watts and all those committed to truths.
A most excellent point. As a scientist, this is actually one of my largest concerns with the AGW community – ultimately this will not only discredit climate scientists but all scientists & the public will no longer trust anything scientists say. This could have a huge adverse effect on the progress on a technological society such as ours.
“Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed”
I think the old axiom about checks and balances with respect to the different branches of US government (i.e., Executive, Senate, House of Representatives) has often missed a fourth element which is the media (MSM). Even when the three traditional branches fall to one side of the political spectrum, the media has the ability to provide real time checks and balances. We now are part of an experiment in government without checks and balances and it’s scary by my observation/opinion.
The same logic could also be applied to the science of climate. Basic checks and balances have been set aside in the scientific community and to make matters worse, media has become a willing participant in promoting alarmism over science and common sense. Further, the MSM plays to the cycle of a.) Research as headlines, b.) Headlines as recognition, c.) Recognition as means to capture grants and/or funding for further research.
Common sense dictates a return to checks and balances…
John A (19:45:09) :
I predict Roger Pielke Sr will be ignored for decades
Already been done.
Although many scientists would like to pretend that this:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
is the Scientific Process, it is my experience [and it certainly has been true for me over several solar cycles] that this not how it works. The hard part is the very first one: knowing which question to ask. If you know that, you are 90% home. In practice, the process goes more like this:
1) some observation is anomalous and doesn’t fit
2) the anomaly is often ignored [as most of them are flukes anyway]
3) at some point there are so many anomalies of this type that they can no longer be ignored
4) or, somebody decides to take the anomaly at face value and see where it leads [so the data ‘asks the question’]
5) a working hypothesis is formed and either more observations sought or some active experiment done. And only then does the rest of the Process come into play.
There are problems, too, at the other end of the process: “communicate the result”. This is also a lot harder than it sounds because the communication will be ignored unless relentlessly repeated and agitatedly propagandized [what the Soviets called ‘agitprop’ – which is basically positive rather than negative]. You have to convince first yourself [in my view the hardest – other people have the opposite opinion on this], then your immediate colleagues, and finally the ‘scientific community’ of which you are a part, e.g. Solar Physics. The last step can take decades and is sometimes only successful when your opponents die off [so plan on living for a while]
There’s a typo in Pielke’s article (delete one of the “of which’s”:
“of which only a portion of which”
REPLY: I’ll point it out to him, but I won’t edit his article. – Anthony
Leif, I am reminded of the life course Albert Einstein found himself on as he wrote his first major paper — as a patent clerk. Talk about a weird scientific process. His was all in his head! And he wasn’t even an employed scientist at that time.
The weakly supported speculations of the primary AGW studies is bad enough, but they have been used as a jumping off point for a mountain of other, even more speculative, opuses, that take the general form of “The effect of Global Warming on the exacerbation of hemoplagic ringworm in the flying wombats of southeastern BumF**k Egypt”. These mostly worthless studies have proliferated like the Ebola virus in a petri dish, and the larger the degrees of separation from the primary studies, the less compulsion the authors seem to feel to reveal that a 5C rise in average global temp is not really a rock solid certainty. They have proved to be a gold mine for the journalistic profession, since even if they have slept in due to being overserved the night before, a quick Google search will likely net them any number of hysterical press releases announcing the publication of today’s offerings, which with just a bit of copy and paste will allow them to fulfill their daily quota of bovine excrement. Of course they are all subject to peer review, but the primary review question seems to be “Does the title contain the words global warming or global climate change?” If that condition is met it’s down the pipeline to the printers.