TriggerFinger


About that settled science...


Judith Curry quoting an anonymous NASA scientistAbout 7 years ago, I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the “undesirable” publicity. I inferred from this that the real problem was the large amount of funds NASA obtains from claims of dire climate change, and that suggestions to the contrary threatened those.

I witnessed similar reluctance for scientists at other organizations to publicly criticize modeling they deemed sloppy because even if they themselves were not at the forefront, they also benefited from the great amount of funds made available. So, it is not just those funded by environmentalists or dirty energy companies who have conflicts, but indeed all receiving government funds based on the great societal consequences of dire warming. It is still dangerous for me to say such things since I am still funded entirely through NASA.

The core of the scientific method is falsification: your hypotheses must be falsifiable, and the goal of conducting experiments is not to confirm your hypothesis but to test the things likely to falsify your hypothesis.

Climate science is so riddled with politics that they are suppressing contrary evidence while accusing the other side of financial corruption. And not just suppressing it by trying to deny funding; they are trying to get the courts to step in:

TelegraphSince it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.

"The most important thing the courts could do," he said, was to hold a top-level "finding of fact", to settle these "scientific disputes" once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed "science" again. Furthermore, he went on, once "the scientific evidence" thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make "the emissions reductions that are needed", including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

... or simply yanking weathermen off the air for books they wrote and published questioning climate change.

This is not how science works. This is not how democracies work. The left has shifted to an openly totalitarian mindset.

This entry was published Tue Nov 03 13:44:38 CST 2015 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2015-11-03 13:44:38.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.