Not so Friday Funny – Science is turning back to the dark ages


Science is in an integrity crisis, and climate science is leading the way for loss of integrity

Science is turning back to the dark ages Man-made global warming theory has been propped up by studies that many scientists have dismissed as methodologically flawed, ideologically bent or even fraudulent. The problem of scientific integrity, however, goes far wider. Psychology, neuroscience, physics and other scientific areas have been convulsed by revelations of dodgy research. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” –Melanie Phillips, The Times, 4 March 2016

Whistleblowers within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) complained last year that a major study by agency researcher Thomas Karl, refuting evidence of a pause in global warming, had been rushed to publication. If documents were to emerge suggesting temperature data was doctored to reach an expedient conclusion in the NOAA study, and if White House officials were part of such a scheme, that would be proof that science had been recruited to serve politics. Trust in government would be further eroded. Science must be free from pressure to validate political goals. If findings and measurements are altered to serve a political agenda, the findings are flawed. It’s called fraud, and should be punished. –Editorial, The Washington Times, 3 March 2016

h/t to Benny Peiser of The GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 4, 2016 7:46 am

..At last, the beginning of the end of climate insanity !

Eyal Porat
Reply to  Marcus
March 4, 2016 8:11 am

You wish. Too much money and too many interests in it already.

Reply to  Eyal Porat
March 4, 2016 11:56 am

I fear we have to wait 10 – 20 years more, as I shuddered when I read the following title in ‘Science’ of 12 Feb. 2016: “Climate confusion among U.S. Teachers” – “Teachers’ knowledge and values can hinder climate education”, by E. Plutzer et al., on p. 664. The sub-titles in this 2-page ‘Science Education’ article are: ‘Introducing the basics’; ‘Mixing messages’; ‘Improving Teachers’ knowledge’; and ‘Politics and identitiy threat’. I ask you – can it get worse than this…?

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Eyal Porat
March 5, 2016 8:27 pm

can it get worse than this…?

Yes. Bill Nye and short attention span theater.
At least teachers attempt to present it in some sort of framework.
Ingesting a series of shrill ‘science bites’ leaves them vulnerable to jingoism and science-shingles.
Corrupted climate science carried off many. Drink and the devil took care of the rest.
~Almost Robert Louis Stevenson

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  Eyal Porat
March 6, 2016 8:53 am

“Teachers’ knowledge and values can hinder climate education”,
Teachers teach what they have been taught to teach. In Australia the Whitlam government, which contained a number of dead set Marxists, was elected in 1972. One of their key actions was to declare that everybody had the right to a university education. The government paid the university fees, going to uni was free.
This had two big effects. It created a big increase in new teaching positions, which could be salted with their partisan mates, and it necessitated a dramatic lowering of standards, to enable a lot of less motivated people to graduate. It was in this system that our teachers of today got their knowledge.
As for the real science, in December 1986 the Hawke government changed the management of the marvellous CSIRO, appointing a partisan board, with Neville Wran, the National President of the Australian Labor Party as chairman. He was the first non scientist to hold that position. The CSIRO subsequently became a world force in the AGW scam.

The Expulsive
Reply to  Marcus
March 4, 2016 8:25 am

Don’t assume that, as the true believers have much clout and a moral high ground that they use (it is called the precautionary principle)

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 4, 2016 8:43 am

…The precautionary principle also tells us NOT to waste 100’s of billions on something that we can’t prove will happen !

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 4, 2016 11:05 am

They act like they have the moral high ground but in reality that is just one of the many logical fallacies they use called “just in case”, aka worse case fallacy.
The government misuses the precautionary principle all the time which misplaces the burden of proof. Like, there is no proof it wasn’t aliens, so prove that it wasn’t aliens.

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 4, 2016 1:29 pm

The AGW believers turn to “the precautionary principle” when they KNOW they have lost the scientific argument, and its all they have left.
Its a fall-back, last resort, position.

Reply to  The Expulsive
March 4, 2016 1:30 pm

ps.. As soon as they drag out “tpp”… you KNOW you have won.

Evan Jones
Reply to  The Expulsive
March 4, 2016 4:28 pm

It is a false appeal to Pascal. Pascal’s Conundrum posits that the costs are negligible and the issue at question is existential.

Tom Halla
March 4, 2016 7:50 am

WUWT has become something of a political site, but many of the issues are inherently political. In the US, one political party are purported supporters of the green blob, and casually defend it and derive support from it. The other party has a regrettable tendency to partly accept the conflation of the green blob and “The Environment” that the green blob pushes.
Consider the response Cruz got in the Senate with his hearings on Administration misconduct regarding scientific reporting. How much of the lack of support he got was fear of the green blob and how much was distaste for Cruz personally is unknown.
Hopefully, the green blob will be a major issue in the campaign, as there are real issues at stake.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 4, 2016 11:16 am

“Climate Science” has been political and corrupted from the moment the IPCC was founded out of a UN political process. It was born political and corrupted as soon as the first government dollar was paid to researchers. It is defined by a political agenda, Agenda 21, from Maurice Strong, The Club Of Rome, and fellow travelers at the UN.
The more general problem with science is the graduation of too many millions of mediocre minds with Ph.D. degrees needing a government funded paycheck or an industry job directed to counter government regulations. Then start the door revolving…

Leonard Lane
Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 4, 2016 9:35 pm

Thanks E.M.Smith, well said.
It seems climate science is to science what political correctness is to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and has steeped the population into a stance of not participating in a true public dialogue. These things are leading to loss of inherent rights and intimidation of the people.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  E.M.Smith
March 5, 2016 3:23 am

NCLB. It’s the law.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 4, 2016 2:29 pm

If WUWT was purely a science site, I would maybe pop in once a month instead of every single day. Social ramifications and political games are hugely important and people need to know what’s going on. Politics affect our lives more than science on its own does, and false science with false results for false reasons is being pushed with terrible consequences.
I have noticed a bit of an upswing in criticism of this site for not “sticking with science” (no reflection on your post, Tom Halla, your comment acted as a reminder).
Those pushing this agenda would love for it to all happen behind closed doors and for the average citizen to sit contented in front of the television – right up until they take away that citizen’s land and rights and freedom.
I come here to WUWT to find out what is going on and where the players in all this stand. None of us will ever know everything that is going on, but what we can see and what we can learn is important.
I agree with you, Tom, that all this is a major issue. It’s an issue that should be fully aired.

Tom Halla
Reply to  A.D. Everard
March 4, 2016 2:46 pm

Thank you. Politics free politics is exactly like the recent thread on “carbon free” sugar.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
March 4, 2016 4:59 pm


Reply to  A.D. Everard
March 5, 2016 5:40 am

+1 from me too.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 4, 2016 3:01 pm

WUWT has become something of a political site, but many of the issues are inherently political.

True. At times. Peaks every 4 years and spikes every 2 years. For some reason the political bent of post seems to follow the US election cycle.
Perhaps to prevent more AHA?
(Anthropomorphic Hot Air)

Bad Andrew
March 4, 2016 8:04 am

“It’s called fraud, and should be punished”
Unfortunately, current leadership/enforcement is not really interested in messing up the pies they currently have their forearms in.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 4, 2016 10:38 am

The DOJ ought to be referring the climate charlatans at NASA and NOAA to the FBI for investigation of criminal activity.

Evan Jones
Reply to  TA
March 4, 2016 4:32 pm

I think y’all mustn’t go there. How about both sides get to say what they want, publish what they want, vote as they please, and no one goes to jail?
We used to call that one “liberalism”. (Yet another word that no longer means what it used to mean.)

bit chilly
Reply to  TA
March 4, 2016 6:07 pm

i used to agree with ta, but now i think evan jones way will work out best for humanity in the long run.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  TA
March 5, 2016 11:39 am

I hope you will all forgive my ignorance but I am assuming that research produced by NOAA or other government agencies is submitted to peer review before publication. Further that as these are government product, the peer review should be beyond any possible reproach. If that’s not the case then the process is broken and the organisation is conducting anti-science. If government agencies can’t or won’t support the scientific process then tey should be shut down.

Brian H
Reply to  TA
March 6, 2016 3:03 am

John, careful.
Peer review is designed as as scientific proof-reading, looking for obvious flaws only. It cannot validate anything, only careful replication by peers can do that. And one failure can mean refutation.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 4, 2016 11:06 am

Ultimately, the hoax must fall, if not under a new administration, then when temperatures plummet in 20 years. The only question in my mind is whether the trials should be held in Nuremberg, Brussels, New York, the Hague, or Leningrad.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 4, 2016 1:49 pm

Ones found guilty can simply be left outside for nature to deal with.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 4, 2016 2:34 pm

The numbers are so great, Jorge, the trials would have to be held in all of those places and more. Each country would have to weed out its own – perhaps they can all get together in Paris and sign an agreement to do so. 😉

Evan Jones
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 4, 2016 4:34 pm

It will have a hard time plummeting when the PDO flips back to positive in 20 years.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 5, 2016 7:04 am

Hard to punish fraud in politics when politics is made up of about 80% fraud.
It’s like asking wolves to police how many chickens they take from the chicken shed. The punishment so to speak, only occurs when the wolves fight among themselves over who gets to take more chickens.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 8, 2016 8:34 pm

Always tricky to punish fraud d when it is supported by the gumment.

March 4, 2016 8:04 am
The natural philosophers have swapped places with the clergy.

Reply to  Pointman
March 5, 2016 7:23 am

And the clergy and their congregations have taken up residence in the universities. The thousands, even tens-of-thousands of recent PhDs are dependent on “soft” money generated by grants. Think of all the “climate”units, environmental units, centres of excellence (two or more folks with similar interests -self-designated), tens of computer centres that could use their skills for anything but “do” climate to follow the money. Then think of all the non-science graduates who staff the hundreds of “green” NGOs, some of which have hundreds of staff (including many lawyers). I once tried to get a handle on the depth of the industry but gave up as link led to link led to link. All of this, of course, has fed the universities an unbelievable amount of “overhead” skimming. It is little wonder that some politicians want everyone to go to university Free. Stuff the congregations into pens, create “safe places” and restrict free speech to reduce “micro-aggression”. This is a huge industry, and will not be unraveled soon or quickly. It has grown beyond a movement into a way of life.

Le Roy
March 4, 2016 8:11 am

I look forward to seeing the bile and venom that the Alarmists directed at those with the temerity to question the dogma being sprayed over each other as they seek to blame anybody but themselves for the collapse of their religion.

Reply to  Le Roy
March 4, 2016 9:26 am

Just look at some of the posts on the Washington Times article. There are several there following the group think of smear.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Le Roy
March 4, 2016 4:36 pm

In the long run, the alarmists are shooting themselves in the foot. Why not just let them?

Get Real
Reply to  Evan Jones
March 6, 2016 11:59 pm

I would rather see them all deported to Greenland to await the thaw!

March 4, 2016 8:25 am

Another great cartoon Josh. The issue of fraud in science certainly predates CAGW and has always been a disgraceful handmaiden to political motivations in those scientific endeavors that are made more “relevant” by informed speculation like paleontology and anthropology. The “scientific consensus” was stunned and shouted about it a lot during the DDT hearings before Congress yet the urban myths remain about that chemicals damaging effects half a century later and has broadened into a general malaise against anything that might “contaminate” the “natural world”. By all means defend scientific integrity, but don’t expect the fights over if a few warmist scientists give up and climb back claiming it was all a mistake.
There is no substitute for the sort of forum that WUWT provides to discuss pressing scientific issues of the day. The sensible moderation to keep naming calling and pounding with a shoe on the podium from dominating a sometimes contentious issue is really welcome.

Mike Maguire
March 4, 2016 8:26 am

Science has changed/created several definitions for how we measure the world around us.
1. The ideal temperature and CO2 level of the planet is now the level it was at when humans started emitting fossil fuels.
2. The profound evidence of life’s positive response during the now, discredited Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, no longer applies. Nor does the millions of years of evidence of life doing better when temperatures were this warm or warmer and when CO2 levels were higher……… and life struggling when it was colder than this.
3. This has been replaced with a new universal law. When CO2 and temperature goes up, “bad things do better, good things do worse”. Regardless of the life form…….ticks, mosquitoes, fleas, roaches, noxious weeds, bacteria or virus’s, they all do better. While at the same time, most good things are harmed…..polar bears, butterflies, penguins, honey bees, tree frogs, sea life, crops and HUMANS.
4. This new, universal law is based entirely on a speculative theory, the evidence of which is the computer generated guidance from models programmed by the humans. These smart scientists know exactly what mathematical equations to use/plug into the models to represent the new law.
Yes, these scientists are very smart, having convinced billions of humans on this huge planet of this new, universal law. However, they have overlooked one important item………they forgot to inform life on this greening planet, that it’s supposed to act completely the opposite of the way it did previously!

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 4, 2016 10:41 am

Ever so slightly OT – the “climate science” world likes to point to 1850 as the beginning of the industrial age. However, it started in England about 1775. Is this 75 year error oeing to lack of data, or lack of torturable data?

Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 4, 2016 2:23 pm

You are up against the difference between history (“fiction with footnotes”) and “scientific” data. The industrial revolution kicked off when industries began to produce products with the assistance of powered devices – the earliest appearing in the textile industry in England with the “flying shuttle” and “spinning jenny.” These all appeared in the 18th C, thus the earlier “historical” date. Climate science pulls 1850 up mainly because the scientific revolution had begun to inspire both individuals and governments to systematically observe natural phenomena. The early climatological data was being collected in the service of commerce and, if you look at what government department NASA and NOAA fall under, it has not changed. But commerce is very tightly linked to money rather than science per se, and biases (funds) research in support of avenues that will or can be made to generate a monetary return. Also, since “new avenues” provide “opportunities” to get into an enterprise early, the commerce policy makers are able to invest in these “new” avenues and make the earliest profits. “Climate change” has become identified as an “area” in need of “research” by the US Department of Commerce, the rest of the pattern runs downhill from there.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
March 5, 2016 5:34 am

DUH, the 1850 start of the Industrial Age (AKA: increased CO2 emissions driving surface temperature increases) had to coincide with the natural temperature increases signaling the end of the Little Ice Age.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 4, 2016 11:06 am

“2. The profound evidence of life’s positive response during the now, discredited Medieval and Roman Warm Periods,”
I still find them credible.
What I find incredible is it seems hardly anyone ever challenges those who did the discrediting of past warmer temperature periods. Knowledgeable people on this website know there were warmer periods in our past than today, yet they play the game that this is the “hottest year ever” in human history. I don’t understand why.
The decade of the 1930’s was hotter than today. Even some of those who currently promote human-caused global warming said, at one time, that the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. Later, it was in their interests *not* to have the 1930’s be the hottest, so they fiddled with the computer models and created the current land temperature chart that shows warming from the 1930;s, not cooling, as it should show.
We even have email evidence of them conspiring to eliminate the 1930’s as the hottest decade, with their computer manipulations, because it did not fit in with their human-caused global warming/climate change theory.
We know the temperature profile has been distorted by these manipulations making things appear to be getting hotter, when they are not, yet this gross distortion of history is hardly ever challenged.
I know the satellite temperture data is the only reliable data we have, but why let the lies of these climate charlatans stand as if they are true? Why pretend that 1998, is as far back as we can go to find a high point?
I think the 1930’s is a better focal point when comparing heat today with heat in the past. It starts right at around the beginning of the era where humans might start influencing the climate. By all accounts, it was hotter then than now, excepting of course, the accounts of the climate charlatans, whose theory would be blown up if they accepted it.

bit chilly
Reply to  TA
March 4, 2016 6:11 pm

ta says ” Knowledgeable people on this website know there were warmer periods in our past than today”.
ye, like 1998 😉

March 4, 2016 8:29 am

We can but hope that dissection and autopsy of this corpse of a science, particularizing climate science, can provide us with the knowledge and skills to combat the next perversion of science by narrative.
I’ve a lot of faith in science; this is not its first rodeo.

Fly over Bob
Reply to  kim
March 4, 2016 9:17 am

The unfortunate aspect is that Science like all endeavors are perfect until humans get involved.

Kerry Hulett
Reply to  Fly over Bob
March 5, 2016 10:04 pm

Humans are not problems. Gov’t science always has politics as its truth.

Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 8:30 am

Since the Spanish Inquisition started in 1478 and the Renaissance started in 1300, I think Josh needs to rename the cartoon, “Renaissance Data Torture”.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 9:12 am

“Mediaeval things relate to or date from the period in European history between about 500 AD and about 1500 AD..”
according to Collins dictionary
The Renaissance did not spell the end of the ‘middle ages’.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 4, 2016 10:19 am

Perhaps not, but cartoons and statements such as these perpetuate the truly ignorant notion that the Middle Ages were a time when nobody used their brain and that everyone suddenly woke up when the Renaissance started.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 4, 2016 10:46 am

Monna said-“Perhaps not, but cartoons and statements such as these perpetuate the truly ignorant notion that the Middle Ages were a time when nobody used their brain and that everyone suddenly woke up when the Renaissance started.”
Since you seem to be insinuating that you are some kind of authority on truly ignorant notions, or what perpetuates them, I’d be interested in viewing your research to validate your above conclusion on this.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 4, 2016 4:37 pm

Just like I depend on Fox for all my current event news, I also depended on Monty Python for all my knowledge of history.
Thanks for letting me know I was wrong.

Reply to  Leo Smith
March 4, 2016 4:42 pm

Thanks Monna

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 5, 2016 6:21 am

The period in European history between about 500 AD and about 1500 AD represents a time from when the religious fanaticism of the Church of Rome took full control of the education of the populace ….. resulting in a disastrous 400+ years of hardship now referred to as the Dark Ages.
And it was the Protestant Reformation and the printing press, …. not the Renaissance, ….. that was responsible for the awakening of the populace.
But history is trying to repeat itself …… because a new religious fanaticism began taking control of the public education of the populace in the 1970’s and thus a new Dark Ages of Science Education is in progress and progressing rapidly.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 9:15 am

Not only that, but Science in the Western world and arguably the entire world had its inception with the work of a brown hooded Friar named Roger Bacon who wrote his seminal work Opus Majus (1267 AD) under the support of Pope Clement IV. So…the cartoonist…. and Melanie Philips just don’t know and there is a word for that.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 4, 2016 10:42 am

It’s a cartoon, Paul.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 4, 2016 10:54 am

Apparently there are many climate science cartoon skeptics among us today Jim. 🙂

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 4, 2016 7:30 pm

And here I thought it started with the Egyptians, had a revival with the Greeks and continued under the Romans.
Aristotle, Plato, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, etc.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 4, 2016 10:03 pm

Technology and Science are different words for a reason. Logic and Science are different. Engineering war machines and Science are different. In reading the Opus Majus you quickly detect a newness in regards to inquiry, postulation of an underlying principle, experimentation, documentation of the experiment, review of the results, and publishing. It is not simply math, or logic, or empirics or writing. It was all of it aggregated into the execution of the method we know well today as the Scientific Method.

Reply to  Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 2:29 pm

Ah, the implication in the cartoon is that the “methods” being employed on the data are “medieval,” and that Monna, is metaphor, not a statement about historical processes. In fact you could even describe the data “adjustments” Procrustean, which would push the temporal reference back into mythological eras. The message is in the metaphor.

Reply to  Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 4:25 pm

I took “Medieval” to be a play on the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period as well as to the method of torture depicted in the cartoon.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Katherine
March 5, 2016 12:06 pm

It’s already pretty complicated Katherine but I want to know who’s playing the pope and Torquemada in our little drama today. Is it just self interest that has so many “scientists” fabricating evidence?

Reply to  Monna Manhas
March 4, 2016 4:43 pm

Josh deserves to be clapped in irony irons and put an IKEA comfy chair.

Patrick Hrushowy
March 4, 2016 8:30 am

Sadly, it isn’t close to being over in Canada. Our new federal government is proposing to bring in climate protection measures that were typically proposed at university protests more than 10 years ago. You see, progressives have been out of power in Canada for 11 years and now the new Trudeau government wants to “set things right” to radically reduce carbon emissions by 2030. Happily, provincial governments have direct control over source development and environmental protection and a number of provincial premiers are not quite as enthusiastic as the prime minister and are throwing roadblocks in his way. As Britian is backing away from subsidizing green energy our federal government is setting about imposing a whole new regime of green subsidies and is going to create millions of new jobs in a green economy. Where have we heard that before.

Patrick Hrushowy
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
March 4, 2016 9:26 am

It should say “direct control over resource development” above.

Chuck L
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
March 4, 2016 10:21 am

I am in Banff CA on vacation and Edmontonians are VERY unhappy with their anti-fossil fuel Premier Rachel Notley and trust-fund baby dilletant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Edmonton economy is in recession and there is real economic pain occurring.

Reply to  Chuck L
March 4, 2016 10:22 pm

Please don’t start me on those two. Already both their “budgets” have been thrown out of the window, promises broken and the country is going backwards. It is a sad situation when Canada send over 380 delegates to Paris for COP21 I wonder the CO2 footprint they left and how they can honestly account for that. But we don’t see that on CBC.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
March 4, 2016 4:52 pm

our federal government is setting about imposing a whole new regime of green subsidies and is going to create millions of new jobs in a green economy. Where have we heard that before.
I hope not, as it has been amply demonstrated that every green job costs ~2.5 other jobs. Not to mention the productive capacity that is eliminated by those doing green rather than actually productive jobs.

Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
March 4, 2016 5:56 pm

Yup, it appears there will be shifting waves for some time. Canada being where Britain was. The US likely shifting gears away in this pendulum swing. Poland and Japan are my new hero countries. Poland will burn coal because Poland has coal. Japan will build new coal powered plants because nuke is not v popular after the TEPCO bungling.
Lots of profit potential in swings. Coal was up over 30% at one point this week.
Reminds me a little bit about fashion. I figure if I pay enough attention I can find a geographic region where my searsucker suit is in vouge.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
March 5, 2016 12:10 pm

We need a commitment from our new PM not to unleash the kind of energy policy disaster on the country that his buddy Wynne created in Ontario.

Lynn Ensley
March 4, 2016 8:34 am

It is not science that is corrupt but rather scientist. This is what happens when society become unmoored from logic and reason.

March 4, 2016 8:45 am

Science is a process that only makes sense in a modernist worldview. It assumes an objective reality that may be measured, manipulated, understood and where reality is allowed to falsify an hypothesis, regardless how cool the hypothesis is.
Post-modernism, which dominates academia, is antithetical to that worldview. Reality there is merely a community created narrative not capable of being understood outside the community. Thus, post-modernists can say, without shame, that science should serve the narrative of their culture and community, regardless of the objective reality because reality is irrelevant outside the community narrative. They can say, without shame, that the science is settled because the narrative is settled. And, the science is not settled until it confirms the community narrative.
Thus, torturing the data ’til it fits the narrative, running simulations until the simulations fit the narrative is to a post-modernist, genuine “science.” The science is settled when it confirms the narrative. At that point, they can say, without shame, that their opponents are anti-science deniers. Their opponent’s real sin though has nothing to do with science. It is sin because it suggests that the community narrative be tested against reality. That is not even a legitimate activity to a post modernist as the reality cannot be understood by anyone outside the community and any tests of their reality from the outside are, at best irrelevant and more likely comprise oppression. Post-modernists just don’t accept reality to exist outside the community created reality narrative.
I think it helps sometimes to pick apart worldviews because what a modernist means by ‘science’ is different than what a ‘post-modernist’ means. And if we pretend (or believe) we are speaking about the same thing with them, no actual communication occurs.

Reply to  Frank
March 4, 2016 10:25 am

A most insightful description of the situation. It certainly seems to cover the academic side of things and may extend well into the government side of things.

Reply to  Frank
March 4, 2016 11:28 am

Just a confirmation note: this matches what I found in looking at the post modernism drek.
Well summarized.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Frank
March 4, 2016 4:42 pm

I found this to be an excellent explanation of the disconnect –

Smart Rock
Reply to  Frank
March 4, 2016 5:24 pm

Thank you Frank for a fresh, innovative analysis of the AGW game. I have been bothered by wondering how could these people be so blind to historical reality, so manipulative of data, and have clear consciences. One has to assume that most are (more or less) well meaning people who don’t engage in criminal activity, who support their ageing parents, who are kind to animals, and so on and so on. And this puts it in a nutshell. They have redefined science so that our science (traditional scientific method – no need to spell out how that works) is not “real science” but theirs is. And, probably, most of them have done it unconsciously, or maybe semi-consciously. And no doubt the money helps.

bit chilly
Reply to  Smart Rock
March 4, 2016 6:20 pm

the term “group think” works for me. if you are not in the group, how can you possibly think the same way as the group. if you cannot think like the group, what you think is irrelevant .

Reply to  bit chilly
March 4, 2016 7:36 pm

Groups are not static. Noncompliant group think creates cracks which lead to new islands of groups. We ARE a fascinating species.
A recent example is the cracks that have been created in the GOP “group”.
The next 12 months will create a further realignment of those groups. Then we flip a coin and see who goes first.

Mark from the Midwest
March 4, 2016 8:56 am

It’s not just in climate science, there’s a very interesting book titled “The Flight from Science and Reason” published in 1997, that surveyed a number of domains where science was abandon and replaced by post-modern drivel. Within the contributions in that book you will find several references to the notion of “pathological science.” Pathological science never leads to meaningful research programs, since it’s premise is based on speculation, not evidence. It was more widely seen as a problem in the social sciences, (sic), in 1997, but if your read articles in the book, where it’s mentioned, you will see that it surely applies to climate science in the 21st Century

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 4, 2016 9:39 am

Mark from the Midwest,
Pathological science” was a term introduced by Prof. Irving Langmuir in the 1950’s.
Langmuir wrote about “Symptoms of Pathological Science”. He gave six symptoms, which apply directly to ‘climate science’ (my comments in parentheses):
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. (Think: the ‘CO2 warming’ effect.)
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. (They have yet to measure AGW)
3. Claims of great accuracy. (Tenths and hundredths of a degree!)
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience. (Experience/observations contradict ‘theory’)
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. (‘Say Anything’)
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. (Happening now)
The only difference between former hoaxes like N-Rays, the Allison Effect, and Flying Saucers is the huge amount of money propping up the ‘dangerous AGW’ hoax. If not for the grant money fueling the CAGW scam, it would have died as quickly as the flying saucer craze.
That grant money (more than $1 billion annually!) is starving much more deserving areas of science. The non-climate scientists who must fight for small grants should be protesting this enormous hoax as a misappropriation of science funds.
For almost twenty years harmless, beneficial CO2 has been steadily rising — but global temperatures have been in stasis, thus falsifying the CO2=AGW conjecture. “Climate change” has become an unethical and political waste of taxpayer funds.
Those in the hard sciences know the global warming scare is a money-driven scam. It is past time for those scientists to speak out. If they don’t, their own scientific field will become equally politicized, and it will be too late for them to say anything.

Bad Andrew
Reply to  dbstealey
March 4, 2016 9:44 am

And put briefly: if you are going to go Big Lie, go Big.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 4, 2016 10:56 am

3. Claims of great accuracy. (Tenths and hundredths of a degree!)
Not “precision”?

Reply to  dbstealey
March 4, 2016 5:02 pm

Not precision.
The models can spit out the exact output (answer) 1000 times … very good precision.
Tweak the model till the range of answers is “reasonable” … acceptable precision.
Miss the target by a bunch, regardless of the precision … not accurate.
The completely broken clock is accurate twice a day … its precision throughout the day sucks.
Twenty minutes fast all day long is very precise … its accuracy sucks.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 4, 2016 6:43 pm
John Harmsworth
Reply to  dbstealey
March 5, 2016 12:27 pm

I live in hope that #6 is coming to pass but your comment about funds give me an idea. Perhaps if we can convince the world that global warming will increase the incidence of rare diseases, we can divert some funds from AGW to things that help people. Repeat after me; “Global Warming to be tough on war orphans”!

Ron Clutz
March 4, 2016 9:09 am

It should be clear that when climate alarmists appeal to saving the planet for future generations, they are applying contextual ethics. Less obvious is the ancient religious notion that by making sacrifices, we humans can assure more favorable weather. These days, fossil fuels have become the sacrificial lamb required by Mother Nature to play nice with human beings.comment image?w=600&h=398

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 4, 2016 4:48 pm

great analogy – and now that there are no more virgins …

March 4, 2016 9:10 am

All excellent news that real science is at last being promoted and the fundamental principle is restored wherein the science is deemed wrong if an hypothesis cannot be proved. Too often modern science is governed by simple statistical linkage. We see all sorts of such links – particularly in medical ‘proofs’. Take one of the latest, the hypothesis suggesting that alcohol consumption can affect one’s cancer risks – yet really that is only half the science. The real scientist is the one who, instead of leaping to publish a discovered ‘link’, defers doing so until they have established why it is that so many people go on not to develop cancer despite consumption of alcohol.

Science or Fiction
March 4, 2016 9:26 am

One proof that science has been recruited to serve politics is right under our noses:comment image
“After the first order draft has been reviewed by experts, authors prepare a second order draft of the report and a first draft of its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The second order draft of the report and the first draft of the SPM are subject to simultaneous review by both governments and experts. Authors then prepare final drafts of the report and SPM. These are distributed to governments who provide written comments on the revised draft of the SPM before meeting in plenary to approve the SPM and accept the report.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
March 4, 2016 12:37 pm

Science or Fiction:
All politicians consider that “science should be on tap and never on top”.
This is as it should be because politicians need to ‘balance’ information from many sources when making policy decisions: no one source should naturally dominate (e.g. sometimes scientific information should outweigh inteligence information and othertimes vice versa).
The problem arises when science – in the form of many scientists – is subverted to support political polices. That subversion is Lysenkoism. I have often said – including on WUWT – that IPCC Reports and Procedures are Lysenkoism.
The subversion of science by promoters of AGW could not have happened without the subversion of scientific Institutions which Richard Lindzen described in a shocking but fascinating paper that ‘names names’.

Gunga Din
Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2016 3:20 pm

Character matters…and not just in politics.

Gunga Din
Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2016 3:25 pm

I should add, that while I may not agree with Richard’s politics, I don’t question his character.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  richardscourtney
March 4, 2016 4:37 pm

Thank you for your perspective, and for the link to a great essay by Richard Lindzen. The essay is a must read!
Regarding discarding or correcting data (Medieval data torture) I think Richard Lindzen pinned the cause and effect here:
“The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction.”
I started to include several quotes from the essay in this reply, but there are so many nuggets of gold. However, as United Nations plays a key role in alarmism, I think the following section is valuable:
“Perhaps the most impressive exploitation of climate science for political purposes has been the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) …, and the agreement of all major countries at the 1992 Rio Conference to accept the IPCC as authoritative. Formally, the IPCC summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years… The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarize, but rather to provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge. That said, the participating scientists have some leeway in which to reasonably describe matters, since the primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of representative from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation.”
I have several essays relevant to the above section at my site: IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning!, IPCC is governed by unscientific principles! My own great great disappointment, with United Nations leading us back to the dark ages, is summarized in this essay:United Nations was supposed to solve international problems of a cultural character – not to become one!
One of the conclusions by Richard Lindzen is quite surprising:
“It may, however, be possible to make a significant beginning by carefully reducing the funding for science. Many scientists would be willing to accept a lower level of funding in return for greater freedom and stability. Other scientists may find the trade-off unacceptable and drop out of the enterprise. The result, over a period of time, could be a gradual restoration of a better incentive structure.”
However, it makes sense when we see the premises he provides at the beginning.
“The creation of the government bureaucracy, and the increasing body of regulations accompanying government funding, called, in turn, for a massive increase in the administrative staff at universities and research centers. The support for this staff comes from the overhead on government grants, and, in turn, produces an active pressure for the solicitation of more and larger grants [3].
One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals [4]. In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

Reply to  richardscourtney
March 6, 2016 2:39 am

March 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm
Thank you for the link to Richard Lindzen’s paper. It was well worth my time to read.

March 4, 2016 9:27 am

This is nothing new. Results “Discovered” in physics over the last 40 years were often presupposed in pursuit of funding and Nobels:
You get what you pay for in speculative science. Small wonder the theories get more and more complex as they are massaged to cover all the unfacts created…pg

Alan the Brit
March 4, 2016 9:32 am

I think that there is a sense of returning to the Dark Ages for simplistic reasons. “They” want control over others, & the one way it is done is by the use of knowledge. Can’t speak for America, but here in the PDREU/UK or EUSSR, if one knows more than someone else, they have power over that other person. The British Civil Service used to at least run on that principle. Management had to know more than those under them, it was used as a means of control. There is also that classic politicians statement when they’re challenged on the “science” by a non-scientist, they respond with “You’re not a climate scientist & neither am I!” Yet they hide behind the “authority” which is the UNIPCC, which acts as the sole point of reference & authority in climate science!

March 4, 2016 9:34 am

There is nothing new about poor science being passed off has good , nothing new about ‘researches’ producing the data they ‘need ‘ rather than letting the facts speak for themselves and nothing new about bad ‘consensus’ getting the way of progress . However what we seen in climate ‘science’ is all of this being done on a epic scale , to such an extent that what is consider poor practice in any other area is not merely normal but honourable within climate ‘science ‘.
You would actually have to ask , given all that Mann and Co have done , just how extreme would someone’s personal and professional practice have to be before they be called-out for it , if that behaviour resulted in support for ‘the cause.
Given that even fraud and totally fabrication of results has been give the green light , what would a climate ‘scientists ‘ have to do before they be disowned by their own profession, other than that is question ‘the cause ‘ in the first place which can certainly lead to excommunication ?

Reply to  knr
March 4, 2016 11:01 am

There is nothing new about poor science being passed off as good…
But how often has it been supported by so many governments in such a huge fashion?

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 4, 2016 12:23 pm

If you research eugenics you will discover it was supported by more institutions, governments and people than AGW plus eugenics lasted much longer than AGW. A century ago eugenics was generally accepted as being ‘settled science’ and it is difficult to find any of the ‘great and good’ who then did not accept it.
The obvious similarities of AGW to eugenics is why I opposed the AGW-scare from before its start when I saw Thatcher trying to start it in 1980.

March 4, 2016 9:36 am

Sadly there those in the hard sciences who look to get into this scam because its such a good income source for any old rope .

March 4, 2016 9:38 am

Yes. There are two sorts of integrity issues. The obvious one is illustrated by Mann’s ‘hide the decline’, Karlization, or the many instances of academic misconduct exposed in Blowing Smoke essays. That is explained by the corrupting financial and career incentives Eisenhower first warned about. Less obvious but far more troubling is the failure of most of the rest of science to speak out about how shonky the first part is. Exceptions like Hal Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Richard Lindzen, and our hostess are the exceptions proving the rule.
When the history of climate science is finally written, there will be many ugly lessons.

Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2016 10:15 am

AW in a dress?
I think not.
Let me guess. Cut and paste from Judith Curry site.

Reply to  RobRoy
March 4, 2016 11:02 am

Or JoNova, I suppose.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2016 12:08 pm

rud, some part of that is specialiization. No one wants to challenge a scientist in another specialty, to be caught out of your depth, and criticized for being out of bounds. Once climate science got itself recognized as a field of study, PC takes over and scientists in other fields stay silent (lest their own oxen are gored.)

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Ron Clutz
March 4, 2016 12:11 pm

The tragic irony is, as Tim Ball has pointed out, understanding the climate really requires a generalist perspective, which is sadly lacking because the consensus gang circled the wagons so early on.

Reply to  ristvan
March 4, 2016 3:20 pm


March 4, 2016 10:11 am

There was a time I believed scientists. No more sorry. They have proved themselves to be no more than snake oil salesmen. What a shame.

March 4, 2016 10:17 am

“much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
“There was a time I believed scientists”
Who’s turning crazy? Calm down, science is precisely not religion…
I’ve not yet found the source, but that’s what I’ve read in a french book recently: “Not that many years ago, an editor of Nature was asked by a journalist: – among all those papers you publish, how many do you think will one day turn out to be wrong? – answer : All of them“… Certainly a very good answer IMHO… but I understand that was before AGW stuff emerged.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  samchoueque
March 5, 2016 2:18 pm

So now it’s twice as many!

Just some guy
March 4, 2016 10:18 am

It appears Rick Mears is the latest to join the torture club with his upward adjustments to the RSS data. There’s a new article about it on Roy Spencer’s site. The inquisition will continue until all data is converted.

Reply to  Just some guy
March 4, 2016 10:37 am

And if is wrong it should be.

Just some guy
Reply to  Toneb
March 4, 2016 10:44 am

The article on Spencer’s site makes a strong case that It is RSS which is now wrong.

Reply to  Toneb
March 4, 2016 12:45 pm

Please define what you mean by the data being “wrong”.
And how could you know it is “wrong” when the data is of a parameter (e.g. global temperature) that has no calibration standard?

Reply to  Toneb
March 4, 2016 7:20 pm

If it is not going higher, it is by definition wrong, and must be corrected to show an increase.
Toneb gets my nomination for The King of Science and Truthiness!

March 4, 2016 10:39 am

As bad as climate “science” is, you should check out the “science” of the human diet, or more precisely, how the present day “official and scientific” dietary recommendations came to pass.
Check out “GOOD CALORIES , BAD CALORIES,” by Gary Taubes or it’s more compact, abridged version by the same author, “WHY WE GET FAT.”
Also, “THE BIG FAT SURPRISE,” by Nina Teicholz
I realize this website is climate-topic specific, but these books show that bad science is not unique to those in the climate arena.
The commonality betwixt climate and nutrition science is that neither field is amenable to reliable controlled experiments which thus allows individual belief systems of the researchers to steer the results to those desired or just as likely, totally ignore results which are inconvenient..
Coincidentally, climate and nutrition science allow experts in these respective fields to recommend policies that affect (control?) the general population.

Reply to  JohnTyler
March 4, 2016 11:57 am

It’s not just bad science. It has to do with some peoples’ ability to control the agenda and punish those whose work doesn’t conform to orthodoxy.
We are beginning to see some push-back. Check out Heterodox Academy.

Harry Passfield
March 4, 2016 10:44 am

I love the caption to the picture of Obama in the linked Washington Times article:

President Barack Obama pauses as he speaks…

I can only assume the use of the word ‘pauses’ was superbly ironic.

March 4, 2016 10:56 am

NOBODY expects the Climate Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency….
Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Hockey Stick….
Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.

March 4, 2016 11:11 am

So will Hillary be a silent reformer of this medieval world of climate indulgence payments or one who doubles down? The underlying need of the party high priests for several mountains of more money to maintain the facade of spending while giving the silent treatment to lost-decade type growth is still there. My guess is that money need will swing to Wall Street trading tax and tax the rich chants in place of another big run at carbon taxes on the masses. There will still be plenty of room for other policy scams like pot hole repair and soak the rich even when the formula points to middle class targets over time (AMT tax). I think the party-run policy scheme has run its course. It will be a gradual silent treatment for years to come after Peak Climate Media messaging leading up to Paris. Climate is the un-word for now and possibly after Hillary releases her claimed mandate list of priorities post election day. I suppose there is still a need for vigilance like whether the gender, race, income, and climate impact study from UWM strikes a cord with progressive storm troopers.

March 4, 2016 11:33 am

The acceptance of scientific theories taken at first offering without due diligence and actual proof goes back at least 30 years to the CFC causes the ozone hole theory. Thirty years on still no empirical evidence but the myth remains. CFC’s do not cause the ozone hole and there is a very simple explanation for the annual ozone loss over Antarctica. The large loss of ozone over the Arctic with a bias to the Eurasian continent during January and February 2016 is a classic example why the CFC theory is false, but not one word of comment from anyone. The continued acceptance of this theory has set back atmospheric science for at least 30 years. Revealing the real cause allows the observer to see the wondrous complexity of our immediate atmosphere and the many inter-related phenomena. Once seen it is all so obvious.

John Robertson
March 4, 2016 11:52 am

Climate Science?
That would be nice.
Climatology does not use the scientific method.
The UN IPCC is politics shrouding its self with an illusion of science.
Now as the artists swell and boom their “success”, consider this.
Parasitic infestations are seldom noticed until they seriously endanger their host.
The Righteously Gullible have the bit between their teeth as they rush to solve a non-problem.
By taxing everything, they shall stop the sky from falling.
Parasites love the concept of power without responsibility, taxes without representation.
Robbing the many to benefit the entitled few.
This is human nature.
This is the UN.
However the theft from the many, is passing beyond even the nonpolitical citizens tolerance.
Generally once parasites exceed their hosts comfort level, they get scraped off.
CAGW is a scheme to enrich an ever growing parasitic class of people.
Naturally canadian bureaucrats would be amongst the instigators.
Remember this; Kleptocracy is unstable.
As soon as those being robbed, realize they do not like being robbed, government by thieves for the benefit of these thieves starts to crumble.
Nonviolent persons reduce their wealth, hide their savings and refuse to participate.
The bandits up their rate of theft.
More producers withdraw.
Rate of theft goes up.
Finally the formerly fat and lazy producers lose it, indulge themselves in a mob cull of their parasitic overlords.
Sound familiar?
The short version.
Kleptocracy relies on one really big lie.
“We are from the government, we are here to help you”.
The behaviour of our “helpers” speaks for itself.
There is no limit to the level of theft they are willing to indulge in.
Taxing Carbon equals taxing life.

March 4, 2016 2:54 pm

Trenberth’s agenda to reverse the null hypothesis is another example. No need to prove a CO2 effect, papers can just assume an effect.

Frederick Bartram
March 4, 2016 3:05 pm

How much does the temperature have to decline before we call it global cooling?

Reply to  Frederick Bartram
March 4, 2016 4:38 pm

More than it did before 2015 became the hottest year ever recorded.
Someday you might try reading a thermometer rightside up.

Reply to  Russell
March 4, 2016 6:04 pm

What’s that fella’s name associated with reading things upside down?

Reply to  Russell
March 4, 2016 6:26 pm

Oh yeh!
I, Mannobelist

Reply to  Russell
March 4, 2016 6:27 pm

I. Mannobelist

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Frederick Bartram
March 5, 2016 2:30 pm

You men negative warming? Even worse than the other kind!

March 4, 2016 4:03 pm

Oh the hipocracy. Just go to any climatealarmist/no fracking/pro alternmate energy/anti oil and gas forum or protest and ask this simple question (if you can get called on). How did you get to this meeting tonight? If they are honest (and that is a stretch to be sure) they will say I drove my SUV/car. They just don’t get it.

March 4, 2016 4:30 pm

Is Dom Josh an amateur inquisitor, or does the GWPF pay him per turn of the screw ?

March 4, 2016 5:02 pm

Science has always been like this in practice. Some what flawed just the money, social and other pressure increase the presence of these flaws.

March 4, 2016 5:57 pm

ssat comment at Bishop Hill “Unthreaded”.
The Times £ Melanie Philips;

According to a new study, scientists’ claims that coral reefs are doomed by ocean acidification are overplayed. An “inherent bias” in scientific journals, says the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science, has excluded research showing marine creatures are not being damaged.
Instead, he says, many studies have used flawed methods by subjecting such creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never happen in real life. No surprises there. The claim that CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans is a favourite of climate-change alarmists.
Man-made global warming theory has been propped up by studies that many scientists have dismissed as methodologically flawed, ideologically bent or even fraudulent. The problem of scientific integrity, however, goes far wider… Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
One reason is that cash-strapped universities…
But whatever happened to peer-review… Not one picked out all the [8] mistakes. On average, they reported fewer than two; some did not spot any.
The problem lies with research itself… an official at America’s National Institutes of Health has said researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings. “Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable”.
Who now knows what to believe? The corruption of research is on such a scale that even studies purporting to expose flaws in other studies may themselves be flawed.
Underlying much of this disarray is surely the pressure to conform to an idea, whether political, commercial or ideological. Ideological fads produce financial and professional incentives to conform and punishment for dissent, whether loss of grant-funding or lack of advancement… “For many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
This is most egregiously displayed in climate science. In the “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, scientists suppressed research findings to “hide the decline” that had occurred in global temperature [big whoops there Melanie]. Such evidence undermined man-made global warming theory… Twisting evidence to fit a preconceived notion is the hallmark of anti-scientific obscurantism.
Scientists pose as secular priests. They alone, they claim, hold the keys to the universe…

Yep MSM.
Mar 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenter ssat

March 4, 2016 7:12 pm

Am I the only one who is taken breathless by this story in The Lancet exactly one day after a ridiculous story in the same publication, about how we are on the verge of running out of food due to an imaginary problem, even though food production growth may actually be accelerating upwards?
What the hell is wrong with these people?

Reply to  Menicholas
March 4, 2016 8:46 pm

Lancet has form, doesn’t it?

March 4, 2016 11:43 pm

After looking closely at the ‘data torture device’ as illustrated by Josh, there appears to be some serious flaws in the structural integrity and operational functionality for use as claimed/intended. Cracks will develop and likely cause unforeseen consequences. Any further use could cause irreparable harm to the operator and/or user. Product liability laws could lead to fines, confiscation, and incarceration. Beyond all that … well it’s just not ethical to torture data.
More research is needed.

March 5, 2016 1:38 am

Talk to any creationist if you want a disheartening reply… they will tell you they feel like they have had to put up with the same “established science” brick wall, derision, being fired from their positions, and shoddy conclusions from questionable research on the other (evolutionist) side for a lot longer than you climate people. You would be amazed as to the level of denial that humans are capable of.
… I bet even most of you will side with the establishment on this one (I’m “a crazy”)…
“psuedo-science”, or story telling science (making the evidence fit the narrative / theory) started with Evolution, if you want any traction to root it out of science, start there, or you are lost. Well at least Science is.

Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 2:42 am

I do hope many have ACTUALLY READ Melanie Phillips’ article in yesterday’s London Times. It’s a devastating attack on ocean ‘acidification’ bias, on biomedical research etc etc and finally – Climate Science. Quoting Climategate and ‘hide the decline’, she says “…claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. ….Scientists pose as secular priests….etc
I believe this article with recent ones by Matt Ridley (benefits of CO2 etc) is a breakthrough of importance. Can’t wait for the warmist/alarmist reaction, but I suspect they will keep their heads down.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 4:18 am

I would like to read Melanie Philips’ article, but the link at the top doesn’t work, and you have to be a subscriber to read it at the Times.
Is there a link to read it without having to be a subscriber?
Because trillions of dollars of government money depend on the “science”, any scientific fraud is also likely to be financial fraud.

Reply to  Chris Wright
March 5, 2016 8:26 am

Try this one…it leads to the full article on a different site:
If you google the name of an article and the author’s name, you can a=often find a place to read it for free.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 8:22 am

The link works for me. Maybe try again?

Chris Wright
March 5, 2016 3:52 am

Because trillions of dollars of government money depend on the “science”, any scientific fraud is also likely to be financial fraud.

March 5, 2016 3:55 am

Psychology never was a science.

Eric Holohan
March 5, 2016 5:16 am

So , if you dismiss the 50 % that is claimed to be untrue and you accept the 50 % the you therefore agree is true, and if Almost all 100% of the data is showing the same trend, you have your answer.
This piece is a rather feeble attempt to undermine the fact that climate change is happening / happening at an increasing rate / and happening because of human causes.
I suggest the author re writes the piece using scientific method to determine the conclusions.

Reply to  Eric Holohan
March 5, 2016 6:12 am

LOL, What planet are you living on today ? Will you still be there tomorrow ?

Reply to  Eric Holohan
March 5, 2016 6:29 am

..Climate Change has been happening for approximately 4.5 BILLION years !

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Eric Holohan
March 5, 2016 2:43 pm

Where do you buy those blinkers that only allow you to see what you are directed to look at?

March 5, 2016 6:13 am

For most, if not all, of my lifetime “science” has been mostly politics and group-think. The public was sold some wild idea that scientists are special creatures who seek only truth above all else. What a joke. Most of what science says is true is not so. Medical science alone has put out more propaganda than one could hope to list. I am sure that there are many men and women (I personally know a couple) who are committed to the honest application of the scientific method. It is my opinion that these people are few and far between.
The myth of the evil CO2 is just one example of many.
First step back from the edge of the abyss is to totally take government funding or influence out of science. If non-government funding can not be found then we don’t need it.

Reply to  markstoval
March 5, 2016 8:06 am

The funding source is not as important as the transparency in experimental design, raw data and deliberative discussions concerning what the findings mean.
Whoever pays for it has to be clear as day if they want credibility. Science by industry suffers because it’s tough to be profitable if you spend your money to work a problem out then give away the answer. Science by “benevolent” government is dicey because government takes sides to promote their cause de jeur and it is not in their interest to show us how it’s flawed.
Quite the pickle.

March 5, 2016 7:42 am

Love the cartoon!

Reply to  Realist
March 6, 2016 11:34 am

In which case you’ll probably love the drawing in this article, too:

Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 9:57 am

A couple of irritating warmist/alarmist letters in The Times today – “multiple inquiries have refuted the ‘hide the decline’ scandal” – the peer review process is a valuable way of ensuring scientific validity — etc. One from a senior member of the Royal Society who has forgotten their fundamental motto – the RS does not speak as a body. These letters need a more powerful pen than mine. Somebody like Lord Monckton, perhaps.

March 5, 2016 2:52 pm

Lysenkoism did not die with Stalin, it is alive and well today.

March 5, 2016 3:21 pm

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
That would be the same Richard Horton who permitted the publication of this piece of mendacious claptrap, presumably?
Jolly good, carry on…

Reply to  catweazle666
March 5, 2016 4:05 pm

“mendacious claptrap”
Surely there is a linguistics aficionado who would award this phrase with some type of accolade.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights