Slate : “Science Is Broken”

Slate states the obvious. Science is broken.

Science is broken. How much should we fix it?

Climate science is 97% fake data, fake models, and fake scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Slate : “Science Is Broken”

  1. Jim says:

    You need to be cautious of scientism-ists. They purport to use pure science to advance the religion of climate change and discredit true scientific skepticism as “junk” science funded by the corporate “Big Oil” lobby.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Wasn’t it Feynman that coined the term “cargo cult” science or had he borrowed it from someone else.
      It seems applicable to climate science.

  2. Robert Austin says:

    “It’s that it isn’t self-correcting fast enough.”

    It might be self-correcting faster if the full weight of academia, government and the left wing were not determined to quash the correction. Consider the bullets fired at the UAH facility where John Christy and Roy Spencer work.

  3. CO2isLife says:

    The problem is science has been politicized.

    Ever wonder why Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and any other Marxist Watermelon Environmental organization never produce any “green products” that actually prove the theories they are supporting will actually do any good? The reason is simple, the economics simply aren’t there. Watermelon groups spend most of their money lobbying the government to spend tax dollars to fund their projects.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/watermelon-environmentalist-economics-more-waste-inefficiency-and-incompetence-than-conservation/

  4. gregole says:

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6325/584

    “A common view is that any study finding an effect under noisy conditions provides evidence that the underlying effect is particularly strong and robust. Yet, statistical significance conveys very little information when measurements are noisy. In noisy research settings, poor measurement can contribute to exaggerated estimates of effect size. This problem and related misunderstandings are key components in a feedback loop that perpetuates the replication crisis in science.

    Paper is pay-walled; but this excerpt from the abstract sums up what we are seeing in climate so-called science. A small warming, not much and stalled for years, made up of noisy temperature data, and somehow it’s a problem, and somehow your SUV did it. Paris accord says Americans and Europeans to blame. Laughable.

  5. gregole says:

    https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329.pdf

    This one isn’t pay-walled, is specifically directed at climate so-called science. From the Summary:

    ” ‘Science’ is not a set of facts but a process or method that sets out a way for us to discover information and which attempts to determine the level of confidence we might have in that information. In the method, a “claim” or “hypothesis” is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again. When the “scientific method” is applied to the output from the climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 ( a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.”

    So no matter what Bill Nye, Leonardo di Caprio, Neil degrasse Tyson, and any other number of celebrity spokespersons say, the “science” in “climate so-called science” just isn’t there. It’s politics, progressive leftist politics specifically, through and through. Even the gentlest application of the scientific method to climate so-called science utterly blows it away.

  6. Stosh says:

    Ah, science, in college nuclear physics lab, we replicated Nobel Prize winning experiments. If we didn’t fudge our results and observations a bit, we would have “proved” Einstein wrong, and that nuclear bombs / energy could not possibly work….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.