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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love the caption to the picture of Obama in the linked Washington Times article:
I can only assume the use of the word ‘pauses’ was superbly ironic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trenberth’s agenda to reverse the null hypothesis is another example. No need to prove a CO2 effect, papers can just assume an effect. http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-kevin-trenberth-effect-pulling.html
How much does the temperature have to decline before we call it global cooling?
More than it did before 2015 became the hottest year ever recorded.
Someday you might try reading a thermometer rightside up.
What’s that fella’s name associated with reading things upside down?
Oh yeh!
I, Mannobelist
I. Mannobelist
You men negative warming? Even worse than the other kind!
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.
Is Dom Josh an amateur inquisitor, or does the GWPF pay him per turn of the screw ?
Science has always been like this in practice. Some what flawed just the money, social and other pressure increase the presence of these flaws.
ssat comment at Bishop Hill “Unthreaded”.
The Times £ Melanie Philips;
Yep MSM.
Mar 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenter ssat
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?
Lancet has form, doesn’t it?
Wakefield.
RETRACTED
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.
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.
http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html
http://creation.com/cracking-the-wall-in-science
… 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.
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.
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.
Chris
Try this one…it leads to the full article on a different site:
http://www.thegwpf.com/melanie-phillips-science-is-turning-back-to-the-dark-ages/
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.
The link works for me. Maybe try again?
Because trillions of dollars of government money depend on the “science”, any scientific fraud is also likely to be financial fraud.
Chris
Psychology never was a science.
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.
LOL, What planet are you living on today ? Will you still be there tomorrow ?
..Climate Change has been happening for approximately 4.5 BILLION years !
Where do you buy those blinkers that only allow you to see what you are directed to look at?
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.
Maybe
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.
Love the cartoon!
In which case you’ll probably love the drawing in this article, too:
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-secret-rooms-that-were-custom-built-to-hide-your-priest
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.
Lysenkoism did not die with Stalin, it is alive and well today.
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?
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01156-3/abstract
Jolly good, carry on…
“mendacious claptrap”
Surely there is a linguistics aficionado who would award this phrase with some type of accolade.