Scientific Research Is Unreliable, Unreliable Scientists Report

[PanzerJaeger]

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

This is exactly the kind of derisive appeal to authority to which I was referring. How many of those scientists are utilizing complicated statistical modelling programs that they do not fully understand? How many are building on prior research that has not been fully proved out due to a hesitation to question authority and/or spend precious grant dollars to replicate research for which someone else has already gotten credit? How many do you think consider the likelihood of being published and quoted before selecting study topics and/or endeavoring to prove this stuff out? How many are reluctant to undergo the kind mocking attacks against their intellectual capacity and/or integrity that you just demonstrated? How many are friends, err, colleagues, and attend the same conferences, lectures, and social events; in other words, how many have vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Is anyone even asking these questions?

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research, and if this stuff is going on in the latter, it is most assuredly going on in the former especially considering the already-shaky modelling that is so heavily relied on. By throwing around labels such as 'denialist' and casting aspersions on people's motivations as you demonstrated above, the field has essentially insulated itself from a vigorous application of the scientific method. It has become only acceptable to publish within a certain box. You may see it as proof positive that only 1 out of 9136 authors rejected man made global warming, but I see it as a big red flag. Be careful not to become the kind of zealot you mock.