Feb 4, 2014 Energy Talks
Roger Pielke Sr. wrote on June 4th 2009 a short piece on how “climate science” papers, if there is such a reputable thing, are short circuiting the scientific method so causing falsehoods and a dangerous trend in science that deserves attention from taxpayers, grantors and others interested in good science, properly done, factually accurate and useful for humankind.
Pielke points out, as others and I have in the past that much if not all the “climate science” is based in assumptions and built out using computer modeling. No experimentation is done. No testing, no verifiable conclusions, no facts.
But Pielke goes a little further, he’s calling to account the publishers of the “climate science” to adhere to the minimum standards of the scientific method. With peer review responsibilities on his resume’ Pielke has good reason to see the problems of credibility when peer review journals and the following media rush to print sensationalism rather than science.
I repeat here again, a computer model is not a fact. The reliance on computers, programs and the assumptions or data input is only, at best, a speculation. Pielke offers the six steps common to describing the scientific method condensed by sciencebuddies.org as:
- Ask a question
- Do background research
- Construct a hypothesis
- Test the hypothesis with experimentation
- Analyze the data for conclusions
- Communicate the results
But today, the peer review publishers are short-circuiting the scientific method. Having read a few it’s much more like: pose a conclusion, construct a hypothesis, prove it with your computer and press release your results. Its insulting, to the informed readers, the scientific institutions providing the resources and others researching properly.
What’s lost is accurate descriptions of how the real world functions. When one has a hypothesis that can withstand testing one has a fact, until a test comes along that unravels the theory. That’s how humanity got out of the wild into civilization.
Pages: 1 2