[betty boop]

What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.

None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From which point we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any "consensus" that can drawn from it is a consensus of fraud.

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

Great article, neverdem! Thank you so very much for posting it!

[CottShop]

[[What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up.]]

Not anymore- You simply propose a hypothesis, and then attack ANYONE that doesn’t beleive you- prevent them from publishign in peer reveiw magazines, DENY that you’re preventing them from publishing, and manipulate data and hide data that doesn’t support the theory- Apparently this is how sceicne began to be run startign around 150 years ago or so- right aroudn the time the peer review system became nothign more than a big boys club, where dissenting opinions need not apply

[tacticalogic]

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

The moral failure seems to be the abandonment of professional ethics. If carbon rationing can be effected, the people who control the rationing are going to get rich.

[Alamo-Girl]

We aren't used to thinking of science as a moral enterprise. But if it isn't that, then it isn't science. It's "sanctified" chicanery.

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!

This episode should be a wake-up call to the science community and peer reviewed journals. In ordinary business, this kind of behavior would be called "fraud" and the actors would be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts of law.

[TXnMA]

Below (verbatim, with HTML markups intact) is a comment I made on another FR thread on global warming:

---

"...director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Braaaaacckkkk!!!! (Alert klaxon)

There is a title with a foregone conclusion!

It should be something like,

Tyndall Centre for Climate Study..."

... or "Measurement" or "Analysis", etc...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once an "investigator" (or organization, or movement -- or half the whole world -- gets on a mission to "PROVE" something, (rather than search for unadulterated evidence to refine current understanding) they cease to be scientists (or theologists)-- or, even, truthful...

---

And, by "truthful", I include being "truthful" to themselves...

I have precisely the same objection to the "GoreBull Warmists" who are twisting facts to PROVE that humans are destroying Earth as I do to the "YEC" proponents who are out to "PROVE" that their adherence to Ussher's [mis]interpretation of Genesis outweighs all the true scientific observation that has ever been done.

IMHO, aside from mathematics or trial law, the concept of "PROOF" has no place in honest, rational discourse.

---

(BB & A-G, can you recall the last time one of us claimed we had "PROOF" -- of anything?)