Science is all too often wielded as a weapon. Whenever anyone claims, "science says," they are betraying a very real lack of understanding as to how the scientific method works; science is not a body of people or an authority — it is a tool, a method of looking at data, drawing conclusions from that data, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and seeing if others can reproduce the results. And when new data becomes available, all of the conclusions previously drawn must be evaluated, dispassionately, against that new data. Science should not — must not — be cited in support of an agenda, as that drives people claiming to be doing science to act in contradiction to the scientific method — working backward from a conclusion, discarding inconvenient data, and so on.

All of these things are happening right now in the arena of climatology.

On his Substack, science journalist Roger Pielke Jr. has described five such cases, and they merit consideration, as they show how science is being abused in pursuit of this particular agenda. Let's look at a couple.
... //

Too many people, especially people with an agenda, are not interested in the scientific method. They aren't interested in the truth. They aren't interested in decoupling science from politics. That's how we have come to this pass, where a loud, vocal, and at some times criminal element is demanding economic ruin, the end of our modern, technological society, and the return of mankind to the 19th century, all in the name of human-caused climate change that the data just doesn't support. The problem here lies not with the people who are doing science; it lies with the Al Gores, the John Kerrys, the Greta Thunbergs, the people who wave the term "science" like a battle ensign, and the vast majority of whom, like Al Gore, like John Kerry, have the carbon footprint of a medium-sized Third World nation.

This isn't science. This is the opposite of science. And these people are willing to destroy our modern lifestyle because of this — because of the bugaboo of anthropogenic climate change. //

anon-201n
8 minutes ago
More recently, scientific theories have become bandwagons, on which research grant grifters jump to get money. Right now, a lot of scientific research in the U.S. is being dominated by the paradigm of human-caused climate change. Into this maelstrom, faulty data and outright falsehoods are being swept around, and overwhelming responsible scientific research which attempts to find truths about earth's ecosystems. Without a framework of adherence to truth, scientific research is crowded out by political pressure exerted by ignorant advocates. //

C. S. P. Schofield
an hour ago
Sadly, science is often like this; called in to support a pre decided position. Or, an old theory hanging on in the face of new data until the men whose reputation were built on the old theory have retired; continental drift is supposed to have been adopted only father a mechanism for it was established, but the truth seems to be that it was accepted by the young blood, and became official after the old guard were no longer blocking it.

My late father was a Professor of the History of Science and Technology, so I gat a lot of this over the dinner table.

Yes, in theory, when the data contradicts theory, the theory gets junked. Seldom happens that directly, though.

Climate Change activism is a particularly squalid case. It doesn’t help their case that their proposed ‘solutions’ are mostly fairy tales. Wind, solar, and battery powered cars will not help, and may cut ally harm the environment more than what they are supposed to replace. I would, in particular, like to see somebody, ANYBODY, taking a hard look at what having wind and solar farms taking energy out of the environment does in terms of side effects. The enviroweenies act like that energy is free, and There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. //

COUltraMAGA
an hour ago
There are so many “climate science” articles that are almost immediately outdated by real-world observations it’s almost funny.

Case in point: I just ran across a recent study that showed that the Great Barrier Reef had rebounded from its 2009 lows to an unprecedented level (30% higher than standard levels of coral colonies) in just 15 years. Remember how all the coral was “dying” and being “bleached” because of CO2 and ozone blah blah blah? Not so much.

Turns out those lows in 2009 (and they were pretty low then) were due to a cyclone that passed almost directly over the entire GBR a year before. Causing widespread damage to the corals (which happens from time to time).

Rest assured, the GBR is not going anywhere, and in fact seems to be sticking a big middle finger to the climatistas by rebounding to far greater numbers than were thought possible. //

C. S. P. Schofield COUltraMAGA
an hour ago
Some decades back I made the observation that at least half the ‘environmental emergencies’ talked about would vanish if we executed the board of directors of The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the like. I think a fair proportion of the others - runaway wildfires spring to mind - could be solved by taking large tracts of land away from various governments and making them privately owned. In the developing world, too much damage is done because the companies working the land have leases from the government instead of owning, and know they have to make all the money they are going to get before tge lease runs out.