Climate Change - Anatomy of Bad Science
More and more, Climate Change shows itself to be bad science.
Real science, I am told by my evolutionist friends,
1) follows the evidence where it leads and is based on skepticism
2) is repeatable
3) is open
4) always tries to refute itself (I've lost track of the number of times I have been told that evolutionists always try to disprove evolution, as they would become famous if they did!)
Enter 'Climate-Audit', and Steve McIntyre, who is auditing the statistics used to underpin all the alarming man-made global warming claims. Steve has had several successful projects about various statistical flaws (for instance, the Hockey Stick graph and NASA revising data).
For the most part, Steve has faced an uphill battle because most of the papers are based on data and statistical methods that have not been released (thus breaking points 2 + 3), but even so, he has managed to identify significant issues.
So how do major science blogs react to Climate Audit winning the best science blog (subject to the organisers verifying the numbers)? Bad Astronomy...ostensibly run by a skeptical astronomer? He calls Climate Audit an 'anti-global warming site' and was thinking of endorsing Pharyngula to try and beat Climate Audit so that 'a real science site would win the award'
Pharyngula shows a similar bent, saying of Climate Audit "Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science" but the real clarify about these 'science blogs' comes from another comment "You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.". Finally, he comments "Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award"
You see, to these people, it doesn't matter if their are valid errors. It doesn't matter how much global warming is really happening, the statistical significance of the claim, or even how much of the change is due to humans interference (try and find and fast numbers for that one). What matters is 'the big picture', the meta-narrative that it is all evil capitalist greed's fault. It doesn't matter that there are competing explanations either...as long as it agrees with their own ideological bias, they are happy, and to hell with repeatability, openness, accuracy or skepticism. Just like most of the man-made global warming community.
And, to answer Steve McIntyres question, that is why the debate seems to line up on left/right lines. Because the science isn't settled, but left wing moonbats have tried to settle the debate with propaganda, not science. Which is why they don't deal with Steve's statistics, but instead just hurl insults.