The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, April 14, 2005
When it comes to "Climate Science", time to get back to basics
In 2003 Michael Crichton gave an outstanding lecture at Caltech regarding the extent to which "climate science”, and science in general has lately become a more of a political campaign/popularity contest as opposed to the exemplary use of traditional scientific method, such as actual experimentation, hard facts, testing hypotheses, and documenting results. If only this were how things were done today...
These days, in order for academics to get sought-after financial grants and tenure in clearly left-leaning institutions of “higher learning”, their conclusions need to agree with a pre-ordained "conclusion", which has everything to do with politics, and very little to do with real science. For their "facts", todays climate “scientists” rely on computer models with an enormous range of variables, many of which are almost impossible to quantify, in order to produce the result they desire: namely “evidence” that the world is about to end if the United States does not bankrupt its economy with draconian measures designed to “protect” an environment that is clearly not predictable (if I cannot tell you with any certainty what the weather is going to be tomorrow, why would I bet the entire economic recovery of the US on politicized predictions of what the weather will be like 100 years from now?). Today’s “Climate Science” is less similar to traditional science than it is to fortune telling. Tech Central Station has an interesting article up today about this disturbing phenomenon.
These days, in order for academics to get sought-after financial grants and tenure in clearly left-leaning institutions of “higher learning”, their conclusions need to agree with a pre-ordained "conclusion", which has everything to do with politics, and very little to do with real science. For their "facts", todays climate “scientists” rely on computer models with an enormous range of variables, many of which are almost impossible to quantify, in order to produce the result they desire: namely “evidence” that the world is about to end if the United States does not bankrupt its economy with draconian measures designed to “protect” an environment that is clearly not predictable (if I cannot tell you with any certainty what the weather is going to be tomorrow, why would I bet the entire economic recovery of the US on politicized predictions of what the weather will be like 100 years from now?). Today’s “Climate Science” is less similar to traditional science than it is to fortune telling. Tech Central Station has an interesting article up today about this disturbing phenomenon.
