Guest essay by Ian McCandless
This article concerns not the science of Climate Change directly; but rather the issue of science-ethics and protocols, which have been severely breached from Square One regarding it.
AGW proponents have given various arguments for why the standard scientific method does not pertain to their alleged scientific claims: from falsely arguing that their Alternative Hypothesis has been scientifically proved, to the false claim that the Null Hypothesis does not apply to this type of argument.
In any event, the main problem has not been simply the unscientific propositions of AGW-proponents; but more importantly, but the manner in which the non-AGW scientific community has likewise unwisely strayed from the scientific method, instead indulging the AGW-theorists by directly countering their arguments, as if they were proved scientifically valid as theory– rather than simply proclaiming them purely hypothetical in failing to first properly establish the hypothesis, before discussion can continue.
Accordingly, these indulgent scientists have “given up their right to remain silent, and thus anything they said has been used against them; i.e. by responding to the unproved hypothesis as anything but unproved hypothesis, they have enabled the entry of unscientific arguments into the scientific mainstream as established theory, and thereby permitted politically-motivated agendas to claim scientific validity. This has derailed the scientific process entirely by failing to maintain the Null Hypothesis as the standard prerequisite for further scientific consideration and discussion; and has therefore taken the debate from science to forensics, where both sides are given equal credence in establishing preponderance.
This in turn opened the floodgates to further improper forensic discussions as well, breaching all protocols of rational discussion and order, and sinking the entire debate to the level of panic-mongering. Meanwhile the Null Hypothesis has now been reduced to “Proving a Negative” against unscientific arguments.
Therefore responsibility must be placed not only on those who failed to adhere to scientific protocols in initially presenting an alternative hypothesis of AGW; but more to those who likewise failed scientific protocols, by failing to stick to the Null Hypothesis as well in refuting it.
This is not a suppression of new or unpopular positions, but simply a preserving of the integrity of the scientific method in maintaining established scientific knowledge by responsible adherence to standard protocols and methodology– without exception, particularly for popular or politically-driven positions, against which scientific objectivity requires absolute indifference to source.