I worry about the conspiracy theories that seem to be getting more traction in the USA. This type of thinking muddles what a fact even is.
And by debating this nonsense as if it has any credibility, we fail to deal with the big issues of the 21st century. Good luck discussing anything with a conspiracy nut job who is convinced of whatever. They will stick to their guns and double down on their opinions no matter how outlandish and obviously mistaken their theory is. The moon landings were faked. September 11th was planned by President Bush. The Sandy Hook shooting didn’t happen, it is just a fake story to take away our guns, We have our former USA president still being accused of being secretly born in another country. Oh and I live in California, and apparently all the illegal aliens vote, and not only that, they vote multiple times. Who knew? Both sides of the political spectrum are full of crazy conspiracy theories. I just find the ones I listed to be the most offensive and dangerous.
Some people even think the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Wow!! Global climate change seems easy to pick on that if you accept the other BS. Science is hard, and a good scientist or mathematician double and triple checks their work. Science is messy. I know this because I went to a University and studied math and science. When I did this in the late 80s and early 90s, it was a good thing. Now, apparently I am a puppet of the deep state, whatever that is. If we don’t get off this crazy train we are screwed as a society.
Confusion and partisanship muddles our ability as a society to plan for the future. If we want to have a discussion of global climate change, or sea level rise as the military likes to call it, it’s rate, our strategy as a society, that would be great. Heck, the Koch brothers, famous conservatives, assist in sponsoring Nova, a science show on PBS, that does just that. But most people seem to want to cling to whatever they know and go into an social media echo chamber, so they don’t have to think and question.
What about AI in weaponry and self driving cars? Ethics pertaining to cloning or bioengineering? How about dealing with rising population; over 7 billion and rising? Balancing the needs of society with protecting the environment so our children and grand children don’t inherit a mess? What about nuclear power? Space travel and exploration, I hope?
Discussion of science and its implications from society seems more about shouting from both ends of the political spectrum. Which has a cooling effect on scientists frankly discussing problems that are the foundation of the scientific method. The rabid pundits from both ends of the spectrum are so eager to catch the scientists in a lie, or mistake any disclaimer of experimental error and misinterpret it into whatever conspiracy they are trying to “prove”, that real science is being buried.
Does the ‘Henry Miller’ persona understand molecular spectroscopy? Certainly not.
How is the public supposed to trust science that does not follow the scientific method? Consensus is mentioned. It has nothing to do with science. The history of science is replete with examples of consensus breaking. Reproducibility, which is truly in need of some revision, is also necessary as a check against confirmation bias. Science paid for by the public must be open to the public, with national security exceptions. The article seems to take umbrage at attacks on so-called global warming science. However, The IPCC and other pushers of global warming alarmism are so infested with politics and reliance on unreliable model predictions that any hint of scientific integrity has been lost.
It appears that Mr Berg is advocating hiding the evidence.
So apparently you’re all for reproducibility–except when it’s demanded of the AGW “religion.”
For at least a couple of decades, AGW “researchers”–and I use the term loosely–have, instead of observing climate in order to understand its mechanisms, been observing climate in order to confirm their pre-existing conclusion that humans are screwing it up.
This isn’t science, and the irreproducibility of the climate evolutions shown by the many various climate models demonstrates that. Look at the various previously predicted future temperature profiles and compare them to actual measurements. The models, almost universally, predict higher than measured. Wouldn’t you think that they’d spread around reality? That they don’t, that they’re near-universally high suggests either that the “scientists” involved haven’t a clue what they’re talking about–or that the models reflect their biases more than they reflect reality. The only “reproducibility” here is that, one way or the other, the “science” is bad.
As a cautionary word, if you want to write about reproducibility, good onya. As science evolves, things are likely to get more and more subtle and reproducibility will get more and more difficult as the number of “unknown unknowns” increases in proportion to the “known unknowns.” It’s not always obvious what’s relevant and what isn’t. But if you’re going to write about reproducibility, it might be best to avoid editorialising about contentious issues like AGW. It has become a religion, and no one ever wins religious arguments.
Yes! I agree completely… universities are one of the foundations of the Deep State pyramid. We need more organizations like NAS to MAGA!!!!
It’s funny that you cite political incorrectness to deflect the charge that much university science involves fraud. The issue that the report discusses isn’t a specific position on climate change but irreproducibility. The report discusses issues like fraud, small sample sizes, overemphasis of small (but possibly significant) effects (which may be statistical artifacts or due to fishing). Instead, you seem to emphasize the funding sources of NAS, and you aim to smear them by characterizing them as “small” and an “advocacy group.” Let me clue you in: All of American universities are funded by corrupt banking interests, starting with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Rockefeller-funded General Education Board. Your picking on the Koch Foundation is one more example of tendentious bigotry. Why doesn’t the University of Chicago hand back its endowment to the Rockefeller family and admit its been on the payroll for the past 125 years? Or don’t you know?
It needs to be noted that NAS not only provided Emanuel with a forum for his complaint against the manner in which Randall and Welser wrote about Climate Gate but also published his letter in their periodical Academic Questions.
Readers may be interested in this recent editorial from Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of Science journals: “Transparency is critical when it comes to decision-making that broadly affects the public, particularly when it comes to policies purported to be grounded in scientific evidence… The scientific enterprise should stand up against efforts that distort initiatives aimed to improve scientific practice, just to pursue other agendas.” http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6385/133.full
Comments are closed.