Quote:
Originally Posted by Occasionally6
"Climate" scientific research is done in exactly the same way as "other" scientific research. Indeed, research that is relevant to "climate" science is not only relevant to research aimed at determining how the Earth's climate works. There's not any demarcation between "climate" science and "other" science.
|
To a large extent I would agree with this - there are some detail issues such as "non standard" use of statistics but overall yes this is science done in the same way as other science - with the same in-fighting, sharp elbows and people pushing their own careers and positions, sometimes at the expense of others.
Into this mix we add "peer review" which turns out to be "pal review" or maybe "enemy review" in some cases and papers which are often cited turn out to be total junk - see it all
here. This is not all about climate science it is about all kinds of science. And in any case "peer review" doesn't mean that any paper has been "tested" and reproduced - all it means is that reviewers have no problems with it.
But that isn't the public image shown by the IPCC and others.
In their eyes every climate scientist is a hero of humanity, bravely fighting the forces of evil (mainly "Big oil" but without any proof) through the application of pure science and knowledge - kind of like
Technocracy enacted on modern civilisation.
There is no room here for doubt or uncertainy, no room or estimates or confidence levels, no room for perhaps thinking that climate science like other science has flaws or gatekeepers.
The IPCC is given a "free pass" - it can state it is 95% certain and the media repeat it without asking about how they came to that metric, or indeed asking them to justify anything really.
And at the end of the day this ends up being used to justify all kinds of policies implemented without democratic approval or policies which are approved by people who don't understand them, but which are totally impossible to meet such as the UK CCA.
And if anyone suggests maybe any of this is wrong...
