Feb 4, 2014 Energy Talks
I am sort of implying that “climate science” isn’t civilized. Its not. “Climate science” is much more appropriate for story tellers shocking and frightening listeners over the campfire. It has no place in the scientific press or in reputable news. It’s junk, not even junk science, an idiot’s term to describe falsification either of the data or the process.
The worry is that most any journal will publish a “climate science” paper with sensational press releases beforehand. The depth of the corruption includes such estimable journals like The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, on to the more popular Nature and Science Magazine.
In a general sense, all those “climate science” papers are predictions, which have no place in the science literature. It’s a scandal that things have gotten this far. Its well past time for some self police work to be applied, such papers must not only be stopped from being published, the junk must be excised from the body of work loaded now.
To quote Mr. Pielke, “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.”
I agree, but find it still a weak point. It should never have happened. All science is based on replicable results, if not replicable, why not is the issue.
A dire sense of dread should be moving through both the science literature community as well as “climate scientists.” The computer models are not, never, nor will save careers. The lesson to learn is that computer models might be fine for a way to grasp concepts, but for facts, they at best are predictions, no better, and likely worse than picking stocks or the trends in commodity prices.
So far the science journal community has let slip only the “climate science” – as far as we know. That point, “as far as we know,” is the true problem to solve. If the science literature community can’t be trusted on climate science what other fields have cracked into illegitimate publication?
It’s a matter of trust, in competence, confidence and reputation. The depths of the wounds are becoming more broadly seen, and it’s long overdue. I’m waiting for the admissions and the repairs to begin. Anyone care to guess how long that will take?
Just for fun, someone will run a computer model showing how much money has been frittered away. It’s going to be big – and inaccurate – but illustrate a disappointment in human character.
That’s what history will remember, part of the developed, educated (highly educated at that) population of the world bought into theory unprovable except by the “consensus.” But only part bought the lie. We’re still choosing where to sit, with the imagined consensus believers or with the skeptics looking for proof.
The worst part is the behavior of the believers. It’s a sad state when “science” relies on the condemnations of believers upon the skeptics. That’s the conduct that makes history. It won’t be the warming or the cooling of the atmosphere that makes history – it will be how we treat each other that’s remembered.
Original post: New Energy and Fuel
Pages: 1 2