Calling Out the Media: They Wouldn't Know Science If They Tripped Over It

SEE HERE It used to be that the media had scientists who wrote their science articles. I mean real scientists that did real science. Now they just bloviate based on a rather pigmy understanding of what science is that they probably go somewhere around the sixth grade from a teacher who had also never done any real science. Let me tell you what appears to be a well kept secret: 1) Science is about data, and 2) science is not about consensus. Indeed if science were about consensus we'd still be locked in some of the paradigms of the past. Data rules.

When we come to climate science the first thing to understand is that the climate models do a pretty lousy job of matching the data, especially when you examine them closely. Moreover, the track record of the modelers is to conceal much of their work. That's also unscientific. True science is done in a goldfish bowl where all the data is open and replication of experiments are encouraged. Not so in the so-called climate science community where just trying to get the underlying data has taken independent investigators years of requests and hounding. Moreover, the cherry picking, no only of data such as proxies, but suppression of evidence that doesn't support their cause, like the Medieval Warm Period (sort of negative cherry picking) is clear evidence of an intent to defraud. It's just a scam to pay off their financial supporters with results that will allow them to go forward with taxes and regulation. We should get the government out of science and science will benefit.