Natural scientists have sought to understand the workings of the climate system and its various parts. But in recent decades the process of discovery has been subverted, and the science is going in circles. Richard Lindzen tells how it came to this in his essay: Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?
As you might guess, the title is a rhetorical question. From his long and deep experience with the field, Richard Lindzen can and does describe in detail how and why climatology is failing as a natural science. The machinations and convolutions bring to mind the quotation:
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
– Otto von Bismarck
Perhaps because the field was contaminated with political aims early on, the whole enterprise has come to resemble a legislative process:
Lindzen sets the record straight with names and maneuvers which have crippled efforts to answer questions about the functioning of earth’s climate system.
When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
By taking a few minutes to read his text (here), you can learn from Lindzen some important truths:
- How science was perverted from a successful mode of enquiry into a source of authority;
- What are the consequences when fear is perceived to be the basis for scientific support rather than from gratitude and the trust associated with it;
- How incentives are skewed in favor of perpetuating problems rather than solving them;
- Why simulation and large programs replaced theory and observation as the basis of scientific investigation;
- How specific institutions and scientific societies were infiltrated and overtaken by political activists;
- Specific examples where data and analyses have been manipulated to achieve desired conclusions;
- Specific cases of concealing such truths as may call into question gobal warming alarmism;
- Examples of the remarkable process of “discreditation” by which attack papers are quickly solicited and published against an undesirable finding;
- Cases of Global Warming Revisionism, by which skeptical positions of prominent people are altered after they are dead;
- Dangers to societies and populations from governments, NGOs and corporations exploiting climate change.
Thanks to Richard Lindzen and others for putting on the record how broken is the field of climate science. It is dangerous in itself, and it also extends into other domains, threatening the scientific basis of modern civilization. Fixing such scientific perversions will be difficult and lengthy, but it can only start with acknowledging how bad it is. It truly is worse than we thought.
No matter that these contortions extend back for some years; there is no statute of limitations on crimes against science. And the bad behavior is unabated: witness the fresh Revisionism of attacks in 2016 against Exxon and other oil companies for not proclaiming warming alarms in the 1970’s.
Was there ever a field of knowledge so abused, corrupted and corrosive? Who will drain the swamp of Climate Science and contend with the alligators there?
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
“When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.” –Dr. Richard Lindzen
It is always interesting to read what Richard Lindzen has to say. He is one of the best in the field. But all faults in climate science, which is a lot, should be addressed to climate science. They alone should be held fully responsible. Climate science, which never was able to define what Climate is was never in a successful mode of enquiry, but told politicians and the general public that they understand what they are talking about.
Thanks Ron for moderating my last comment earlier this morning, which fits also in this context (about the 10th comment) at: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/climate-change-is-a-social-science/
Thanks for stopping by Arnd. It is good to remind us that nature can not be reduced to our measurements, even 10 or 100 of them. And I did not know the Greeks used “climate” referring to the sun’s inclination.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.”
Richard Lindzen on the broken field of ‘climate science’ …
How in hell did we get to this sorry state.
Jim, it is a sad state of affairs, but Lindzen tells the story straight how we got here. And a lot of it is following the money.
There is science, science fiction, and out right lies. We seem to always have a hard time telling the difference. Piltdown man, Darwin, global warming. What about common sense? We all need to keep the earth we live on as clean and pollution free as possible. We don’t need a “scientific lie” to motivate us. Try the truth.
The cartoon of the sausage factory is interesting, but is also sadly extremely misleading. It only shows Republicans working in the sausage factory. The artist behind that cartoon is participating in the lefty deception that democrats are pro-science or even more laughably pro good governance. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
True, the cartoon is one sided, dated after the Republicans retook the House. The same critique also applies to the process by which the Affordable Care Act was cobbled together by the Democrats.