Originally Posted by
CurtainTwitcher
Derfred, listen to the words of
Richard P Feynman very carefully about how easy it is to be wrong in science (he really was a rocket scientist, being a theoretical physicist on the Manhattan Project):
Could we substitute climate science for social science in his example?
From his talk
Cargo Cult Science:
Doubt is important. Science is never "beyond doubt", because then it is no longer science, it is something else. Suppression of doubt is the hint this is no longer science.
Here are a couple of posts that cast doubt on the BOM measuring equipment, and it's method of 1 second recording and the effect it has skewing the hourly & daily temperature records. That is good science, drilling right down and doing the work as per Feynman.
CurtainTwitcher,
I appreciate that you've put a lot of effort into this post, but it demonstrates nothing in the field of climate science other than that you have joined the realm of climate change deniers who will post reams of irrelevant "science" in an effort to discredit the relevant science.
This is nothing but pure obfuscation, but of course for the masses who are not well educated in science, and who love a conspiracy theory, and who tend to believe anything a "shock jock" or "business leader" will tell them, it works quite well. It won't work with me, I'm sorry.
The difficulty climate science faces is this: if they are correct, by the time they are proven correct beyond all doubt, it might be too late. They warn that we can't afford to wait that long before action is taken.
So to believe them involves a risk, and it might hurt the economy in the short term. Arguably it will benefit the economy in the long term, but the "shock jocks" and "business leaders" I refer to aren't particularly concerned with the long term, they want to make their money NOW.
Hence the obfuscation, weird science, conspiracy theories etc that control the anti-climate change argument. There is big money at stake, and where there is big money there is big influence.
I happen to know a few research scientists (and I have a degree in the subject myself). I can assure you, for a pure research scientist, their reputation is their only asset. The peer review process exposes pretenders for who they are quite rapidly, and an offender will never gain a research grant again. As a result, research scientists go to extreme lengths to ensure that any published research from their desk is as water-tight as possible. We fly aircraft - we are accustomed to the amount of engineering and testing and certification involved in producing a simple aircraft part or instrument. It's not dissimilar. So I find it fascinating that so many in our industry become climate science deniers, after all, we are the benefactors of extremely rigorous science and engineering.
So 97% of global climate scientists are either pursuing poor science, or they are all in the pocket of some Chinese solar panel company. I don't find either prospect easy to believe, but I do note the power of the dollar and it's influence. Seems you have fallen for it.