« Latest European Research Determines Why IPCC's CO2-Centric Climate Models Fail So Badly At Global Temperature Prediction | Main | Extreme Climate Change: New Study Concludes That CO2 & Global Warming Had Zero Impact On Winter Storms Over Last 50 Years »


Ronald G.Havelock, Ph.D

It is long past time for the scientific community, broadly defined, to set down clear definitions and come to a consensus on what "science" is.
This is not a matter that can be left to public opinion or to editors of "science" journals. It should not be a matter of opinion at all because it is procedural.
It is what all scientists should have been taught as absolutely basic to science, the rules which make science and distinguish it from "not science."
Important associated questions: what constitutes scientific data?
What constitutes a statistically meaningful connection between two sets of data?
What allows us to conclude that data set A is causally connected to data set B?
What is a hypothesis? How do we test a hypothesis in science? What is a theory?
What is scientifically supported or established theory?
If any of these questions is posed clearly, it should also become clear that there is no scientific evidence behind the current and recent claims of climate alarmists.


Why is it that Lewandowski's discipline is amongst the most often cited for scientific / academic fraud? Is he just a product of the system?

Russell C

But there's another problem with the Lewandowsky paper: Who does he rely on for his references when it comes to making the assertion that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money? Why, none other than the usual suspects seen in similar papers analyzing the motivations of 'denier scientists' - Boykoff, Dunlap, Freudenburg, Lahsen, McCright, Mooney, Oreskes, Schneider.

Each in turn cites a single source in their own writings and speeches to say skeptic climate scientists are paid by 'big coal & oil' to manufacture doubt about global warming: anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. No need to trust me on this, you may look it up for yourselves.

Gelbspan, meanwhile, seems to have every appearance of being the central figure behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists.

People may attempt to analyze 'deniers' motivations all they want, but when a cornerstone premise within all of these papers - that skeptic scientists are corrupt - is literally unsupportable, then the analysis is fundamentally flawed no matter who they survey.

The comments to this entry are closed.