I try not to pen editorials. OK here goes. I respect the attention given to this blog, as there are plenty of other great blogs on climate change, politics, finance, etc to read. I try to stay an ‘on message’ advocate for numeracy. Everyone has something to offer from their experiences though. Right at this moment, there is something to say that is important about numeracy, but takes a bit to explain.
I would encourage y’all to read the discussion on New paper on mathematical analysis of GHG in relation to VS, not because I believe in it, or because I believe in balance of probabilities it is right, but because I believe it is the way scientific progress is made. Its what I have tried to do here. Check the numbers.
This is not another ‘me too’ paper inventing there own ‘novel’ approach to affirming the cause du jour in the name of ‘research’. Its about contesting methodology of other experts in the field. Boring? No. It’s what it’s all about. Jargon? No. Its no more complex than ‘regression’. Just unfamiliar. And I am not taking a dig at anyone, as I respect everyone who posts here. Peer reviewed? Uncertain.
When Steve McIntyre started his blog 5 years ago, and I did around the same time, I sent him a email saying to the effect that he would change the way science is done. He called the FOI’s and journal processes of peer review, comments etc ‘quasi-litigation’. I agree, and acknowledge that scientists should use the available processes more. It is a natural extension of the search for truth.
The main failing of the IPCC, IMHO, is in ignoring peer-reviewed papers and comments in favor of confirmatory dreck. What to do about that? The only answer I know is by contesting the logic, models, mathematics, and results using data. Don’t just check your assumptions, check your calculations. Check the stated results are justified.
What point is there in talking about philosophy of science, when the by all accounts, most science is wrong? The overwhelming reason is because:
Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
Climbing into the stadium and dueling over the technical details is the only way, despite the personal cost.