Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the political front was represented by Dr. Michael Mann. The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the
The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the climate change gravy train. To them, the truth represents a cut in pay and must be denied and undermined, not embraced. A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like
A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like throwing tuna to the sharks.
In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,
Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.
Real science is constrained by what is called “the tyranny of the status quo.” In real science to win the debate, overwhelming evidence must be provided. In real science winning the majority vote means nothing, the null has to be rejected at confidence levels as high as 90, 95 and even 99%. Science papers that reject the null at the 51% confidence level are themselves rejected. Science isn’t a democracy. Science is highly discriminatory. Science demands discipline and accountability. Science has no feelings and isn’t compassionate. There are no safe spaces, affirmative action or participation trophies in science. Science has ridged rules and consequences for failure. Science is “one strike you’re out” intolerant. Science is black and white, Science doesn’t grade on a curve, you are either right or wrong. Science isn’t inclusive, the truth is a very exclusive club that rejects many applicants. There is no gray zone in science. Science is extremely conservative. In other words, real science is the pinnacle of political incorrectness. Politics isn’t bound by the truth, it is bound by the vote, and therefore, the non-scientist has an
