Real science is a process, a process that follows the scientific method. The scientific method is designed to standardize the process on which scientific conclusions are based. In essence, it establishes a common language for scientists.
The Scientific Method (as I was taught in 2nd Grade)
- Make an Observation
- Formulate a “Hypothesis” (Note: This Hypothesis is Different from the Status Quo/Null Hypothesis)
- Collect Relevant Data
- Test the Data Using Standard Statistical Techniques
- Analyze the Results and Either Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis
- If the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, Return to Step #1
Notably absent from the scientific method is taking a poll of one’s peers and joining a “consensus.” In real science, the “consensus” is the null hypothesis and represents what is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” The other aspect that is inherent but unmentioned in the scientific method is that it establishes a means to verify the conclusion through reproducibility. If the conclusion is valid, other scientists can INDEPENDENTLY repeat the same experiments and get the same results. The process of reproducibility does not include running an identical or slightly modified computer model using the same “adjusted” data on a different computer by a different like minded researcher. Computer models are computer models, they are simulations, they are forecasts, they are estimates, they are not scientific evidence. Bernie Madoff had a wonderful computer model that fooled a lot of people, but it didn’t reflect reality.
The scientific method also requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn’t prove anything, real science disproves. Science never “accepts” the hypothesis, it either rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. Because of this, science never allows situations like “heads I win, tails you lose,” or CO2 can cause both hotter and colder winters, more droughts and more rain, higher crop yields and lower crop yields, more snow and less snow, etc etc etc. You simply can’t apply the scientific method to a hypothesis where the answer can be the mutually inclusive yes AND no AND maybe. The scientific method needs a hypothesis where the conclusion is based upon the mutually exclusive yes OR no, never both or maybe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is why it is called the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” Failed computer models based upon “adjusted” data and bogus experiments don’t qualify as extraordinary evidence.
Lastly, the scientific method assumes the hypothesis is based upon a causal relationship. The “cause” is the independent variable, and the “effect” is the dependent variable. In any properly designed experiments, all exogenous factors (outside forces) are controlled for, allowing for a pure reading of the impact changing the independent variable has of the dependent variable. The term “ceteris paribus” means “all else held equal,” and is essential to any real scientific experiment to accurately quantify the cause and effect relationship between the independent and dependent variable.
It is with that understanding of how real science works that the fraud of climate science is easily exposed. Climate “science” is the only field of science that doesn’t apply the scientific method to reach its conclusions. The field of climate “science” doesn’t rely on data gathering, empirical evidence, experimentation, reproducibility and falsifiable hypotheses, it relies on computer models, consensus, outright threats and intimidation, half-truths and outright lies, and “peer/pal review.”
Even if one accepts the degenerate and corrupt form of “science” embraced by the climate alarmists, they still don’t succeed in making their case. Under further scrutiny, the climate “science” pillars of computer models, consensus, “peer review” and claims of being a “real science” crumble.
Remember, in real science, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This is especially relevant when the conclusions reached are used to influence public policy that may result in the spending of trillions upon trillions of dollars. This isn’t a game, every public dollar spent on fighting climate change is a dollar not spent on building roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, and dams. The misallocation of resources has real consequences for society, especially given that societies thrive during warming periods, and will collapse during the next ice age.
In order for the climate change hoax/fraud to be perpetuated, one must first corrupt the critical centers of power. Eisenhower realized this threat and warned America about the threat of a “technological elite” in his farewell address.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Evidence of this was just published, exposing that applying of the scientific method isn’t a requirement for federal research grants and publication in “Scientific” Journals. What taxpayer dollars are going to fund is what is called “advocacy research.”
“The problem in journals, with government research, and with universities is that nobody asks them to follow [it]. I’ve been publishing for 55 years and can’t ever recall anyone saying ‘you should follow the scientific method.’”
“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, you do, you keep getting paid.”
“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies, and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”
This provides clear evidence of the claim made on this blog that climate “science” isn’t science at all, and is simply a cleverly disguised political campaign.
For conservatives to really put this issue to bed, they need to accept the hard truth that climate “science” isn’t science at all, it is a giant ruse used to promote an anti-capitalism agenda. Facts aren’t what is important to the supporters of climate change, the benefits promised them by politicians is what is important. The benefits of “believing” in climate change are measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, the benefit of seeking the honest truth is a huge pay cut and drop in their standard of living.
What kind of Orwellian world have we created when the magazine “Science” doesn’t require the application of the scientific method for publication, and what does that say about the validity of “peer review” and the value of reaching a “consensus?” But wait, there is some hope. Science magazine, at least for biological research, is requiring “reproducibility.” The strangely worded policy mentions only “preclinical studies,” with no mention of climate science research. Given drug companies are favorite targets of the political left, this isn’t surprising, nor is the failure to address climate change.
From the following headlines, one has to ask, “what took so long?” Nature was clearly aware of the problem.
About 40% of economics experiments fail replication survey
Rigorous replication effort succeeds for just two of five cancer papers
Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’
Another “highly respected” journal “Nature” discovered similar issues.
Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.
According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.
“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says. “The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. “What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”
“It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”
“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”
The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility of submitted papers as well, but once again, the wording is very strange, failing to address climate change.
“The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”
Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.
“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”
In the Nature article “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research” climate “science” is suspiciously never mentioned. Ironically, almost all these factors are highly applicable to climate “science.”
What “Nature” and “Science” failed to mention, and the reason climate “science” is conveniently overlooked is that transparency is a fundamental requirement for reproducibility. The field of climate “science” is notorious for not releasing its data, methods and models. After the “Hockey-stick” fiasco one can understand why.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”.
Fortunately for real scientists, things appear to be changing for the better. Just this week, “HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE.” The question that really needs to be asked however is “why was this “science” kept secret from the public in the first place, and why did 194 Representatives vote against it?”
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, targeting the way officials use science to develop new regulations.
A bill approved Wednesday by the GOP-controlled House would require that data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment be released to the public.
The bill was approved 228-194 and now goes to the Senate.
BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.
Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.
Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate