Here is a Nobel Prize winner warning us of Junk Science on climate claims. His point is that they are falling into fallacious thinking, using confirmation bias in ranges of evidence within the error rate of the instruments and recording methods.
I would like to use his observations on the reliability of the temp records as a jumping off point to discuss junk science concepts and a review of how junk science is foisted on the public.
First an essay on the Emperor’s nakedness as told by Dr. Giaever at a big meeting of Nobel Prize winners, real Nobel prize winners, not Peace Prize winners, usually political figures admired by the Norwegians.
I have many books that pertain to junk science, but I will focus on two Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 3rd Ed. 2011 published by the Federal Judicial Center and Judging Science, written by Peter Huber (PhD MIT, JD Harvard) and Kenneth Foster (PhD, bioengineering, Prof at U of Penn).
Both of these books were published to expand the discussion and knowledge pertinent to the jurisprudence of the Daubert v Merrill Dow (1993) Supreme Court opinion that created a new standard for judicial rulings on admissibility of scientific evidence and testimony. The Reference Manual is a guide for Federal Judges and Lawyers in Federal Courts on the federal rules of evidence and the role of judges as gatekeepers for reliable evidence, a how to book for judges and lawyers.
I reviewed and summarized the problems with Junk Science and the book Judging Science at the JPANDS journal in 2012.
Milloy and I wrote extensively on junk science by the EPA and how to challenge it, with ample references to the two books at American Thinker in 2012.
The fallacy pointed out by Dr. Giaever is confirmation bias combined with claims within the range of noise–or sensitvity of the instruments and reliability of the record.
Temp records are subject to culling and manipulation, but even with the manipulations done by government agencies of the surface temps, they still end up with very small temperature changes easily affected by error and instrument/record limits of accuracy.
That’s Giaever’s Emperor’s Clothes argument, but in the essay linked above Milloy and I discuss the junk science and scientific misconduct in much greater detail and why we continue to challenge EPA sponsored science that is their justification for onerous and burdensome regulatory activity.
Please give these attached essays a review if you are serious about the problem of cargo cult/junk science in the service of political agendas.
We agree with the warning of President Eisenhower about the government research complex:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.