This was a useful recommendation to come out of Wednesday’s hearing. We use red teams for proposals; why not for science, especially considering that fewer than one percent of published papers actually follow the scientific method?
3 thoughts on “Saving Climate Science From Itself”
Comments are closed.
I think Curry, et al’s red team proposal is a way to work around the fact that scientists should be questioning themselves, but are not. This forces it. Anything that improves the sad state of science these days is welcome.
Would that academia consistently apply its own standards. I have a good friend who just completed her thesis defense for her doctorate. That’s right, the word is used routinely before someone can be granted a doctorate. The assumption being that the proposal is faulty and must be questioned and successfully defended before its skeptics prior to the author being credentialed. It is never the other way ’round. Only in Climate Science and in the alarmist predictions of uniform disaster as a result of presumed human induced “Climate Change” have I seen the natural skepticism of the scientific method turned on its head. The more I read about impending climate disasters with little more than the author’s speculative imagination presented as evidence, the more I come to believe this is a form of Gaia religion, not science.
Replace the word faulty with untrue in above. I cannot edit.