Scientific point-shaving scandal

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:43:45 AM
“But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe that which he does not believe”. Thomas Paine

Paine highlighted a failing of human nature in the “Age of Reason.” He narrowly ascribed that weakness as somehow endemic to religious belief. 'Professing to believe in what one does not' is a calculated, intentional act. (Think Al Gore) It may occur sometimes, in the context of religious belief, but is far more prevalent in other pursuits. Consider the recent revelations about climate researchers and their email correspondence.

Any scientist, when confronted with inconsistent or contradictory data has several avenues of response available. He or she can re-examine his previous conclusions. He might scrutinize the new data to assess its validity; perhaps, design a new study to resolve the conflicts. He could acknowledge the new findings while disputing the conclusions drawn from them. Or he could discredit and distort the new information, suppress its publication and impugn the integrity of the other researchers. Simply put, he could behave like a scientist or a politician.

A scientist can only legitimately seek the correct answer. He can’t conspire to produce a particular result.. The global warming proponents are interested in a single conclusion and it is not,simply, the ego-driven investment of people who don’t like to be contradicted. The financial weight and academic opportunities are dense on the global warming side of the debate. It is more difficult to see what’s in it for the skeptics. Aside from professional vindication, what benefit attaches to being right? Cyclical changes in the makeup of the sun’ is hardly a career-enhancing position to take.

“When a man has so far prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to something he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” With persuasive objective evidence in hand, most professionals would embrace the opportunity to debate, The global warming proponents don’t want to debate the evidence. They are content to preach to the converted. The behaviors reported this past week are childish by political standards, unimaginable by scientific standards. It is becoming increasingly clear how the global warming ‘consensus’ was achieved. The referees bet on the game. This is scientific point-shaving.

No one wants to be wrong but scientists are bred to confront the possibility. The universe is expanding, not contracting. We swung 180 degrees on that. We once believed that Wonder bread was integral to good health. Wrong again. Far from crippling science, mistakes are part of the process. They reflect reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available at the time.

This debate has real world consequences. An expensive remedy, Cap and Trade, was fashioned in response to the warming scenario. It will be paid for with real money. The money allocated will not be available for other purposes.

It will probably result in additional unemployment.If the remedy of Cap and Trade were to be pursued based on my conclusions, I would need to hear the other voices and answer their arguments. This isn’t just insufficient curiosity. We are making policy, based on the judgments of men “prepared for the commission of every other crime.”