“The history of science is replete with error and fraud.”

There’s a statement to cause frothing at the mouth among the GW zealots! They will go into shock over this:

“Data are routinely gathered, manipulated and modelled by the same research teams and the discipline has not insisted on anything like full transparency. Many of the people engaging in this science are then acting as advocates for particular policy responses.”

They will not, of course, give credence to the last sentence of the article.

Another IPA clone pretending to offer an "objective" opinion as to how the process of scientific research is done and even more importantly how it is "communicated" to the public.

And how it is then used to create "consumer" products to make our lives more "meaningful".

Never mind that the hugely over-whelming amount of research that is done in the USA for instance, is funded by the Pentagon military-industrial-"entertaiment" COMPLEX.

Such funding covers ever possible area of human research and activity, and not just in the hard sciences.

The Pentagon even produces video games and "advises" on the content of block-buster films. And even provides all sort of material support.

Anyone who thinks or proposes that such research and the results that it produces, even in the form of consumer products, is not biased is seriously deluded.

And as we all know the IPA is a propaganda mouth-piece for the COMPLEX and its all-pervading MATRIX. And its Global Spin machine as described by Sharon Beder.

The one-dimensional hollow "men" referred to in the phrase by TS Eliot---we are the hollow men.

A new book by Nick Turse titled The Complex:How the Military Invades Our Everyday Life provides a very detailed description of how the "values" and "world"-view of the system shapes every aspect of our lives. Amazon reviews would be a good place to start.

We now all "live" in the all pervasive MATRIX created by the COMPLEX--Mumford's Invisible Megamachine

Given the uncertainties, it seems to me therefore that we need a dominant branch of the CSIRO which is fully funded by the Australian electorate.

1. With no affiliation to corporations.

2. With no input from corporate or economic think-tanks.

3. Pursuing pure science and performing research entirely for it's own sake.

4. That (if possible) doesn't have to compete for funds.

5. That insulates it's researchers from external political and corporate pressures, while granting them security of tenure and freedom of speech, defended by a dedicated federal Minister against all comers.

Now more than ever we need unadulterated research applied to climatic disturbance, soil fertility, GM crops, water conservation, transport and energy.

Over time the CSIRO itself has been genetically modified by the use of CRCs, which served a very good role in the advancement of Australian industry (I have more than a passing aquaintance with this). But the kind of research we need now should pay no attention to economic matters whatsoever - WHATSOEVER.

We will never get the answers if we stupidly stick to the same methods that got us into this mess in the first place.......

Has it not occurred to the climate change skeptics that 30 - 40 years ago today's climate change supporters would have been the ones going against the flow? Where were the IPA's of the time? What were they saying then?

30 - 40 years ago we all thought the earth's water, soil and air was each so large as to absorb anything we put into or onto it. We've found that to be wrong. Were not those opposing pollution then the ones going against the flow? Where were the IPA's of the time? What were they saying then?

Can none of these climate change supporters be intelligent, sophisticated or good quality scientists? Why are they all wrong?

John

“As I said at the beginning, the history of science is replete with error and fraud. In science, the best kind of quality assurance is to celebrate sceptical dissent and reject any call to bow to a consensus, that “the science is settled”, on principle not just even, but especially when it supports our preferences. Because as Carl Sagan once put it, “Where we have strong emotions, we’re liable to fool ourselves”.”

True and “Strong Emotions” extending to ego, income and self-interest.

Many people have commented on the vagaries, suppositions and errors which cast sufficient sceptical doubt across the entire pseudo-science of GW theory.

Doubtless, as they have done in the past, some GW zealots, who think their’s is the only opinion which matters and should be espoused, will vilify and condemn them (and me) as “misguided” and suggest censorship, as occurred in another thread.

But for all that, we remain independent observers with vested interests in the outcome of GW, no more and no less an interest than every other individual on earth.

Ho Hum “Another IPA clone pretending to offer an "objective" opinion as to how the process of scientific research is done and even more importantly how it is "communicated" to the public.”

Ah an example of what I mentioned above from a pseudo scientific supporter of the notion of AGW, doing what Barry Brook’s article pretentiously warned against as “don’t feed the trolls”.

One is drawn to conclude, “trolls” are a mixed bunch, some talking out against AGW, some talking,like HoHum, in favour of AGW.

How do you tell a pro-AGW troll from an anti-AGW troll?

Easy, pro-AGW trolls are lightweights, you can throw them further.

Chris Shaw “That insulates it's researchers from external political and corporate pressures, while granting them security of tenure and freedom of speech, defended by a dedicated federal Minister against all comers.”

Nice idea but how do you separate the researchers from their natural desire for self-improvement outside their CSIRO predicted role?

My point, your noble proposal is idealistic and unfortunately, even is practical, would not be probable.

i have an honest question.

kellow is arguing that we should be careful of modern scientific pronouncements because of "error and fraud". he has a general attack on modern scientific method, the emphasis upon modelling at the expense of testing.

whatever the merit of this general attack, the specific example he refers to in the article is the orange-bellied parrot, and the minister's use of the science modelling to disallow the construction of a wind farm.

my question is: how does the parrot example support kellow's argument?

my understanding is that

1) the modelling indicated that the wind farm posed a risk but a tiny risk to the parrot

2) the minister used this tiny risk in order to justify a decision he wished to make for political reasons.

so, this example seems to discredit the procedure of basing policy on the science. but how does this example discredit the scientific process or the scientific conclusion?

is the claim that that the modelling in 1) was unreliable, or that there was a better procedure to evaluate the risk? if not, what is the claim? what is kellow's example meant to demonstrate?

honestly, i have no clue what kellow is trying to make of this example.