The Wrong Way to Do Science

The Wrong Way to Do Science is to start with a conclusion, and then look for evidence to back it up.

From Nature News :

Global warming is a fact, and once we quantify methane emissions we will have scientific proof that the substrate on the seabed is melting and leaking methane. If these methane deposits reach the atmosphere, they will deepen the greenhouse effect, which, in turn, will promote further methane release, thus closing the circle and ramping up warming.

By quantifying the emissions and establishing their magnitude, we will be able to begin to determine how they will affect global warming. We believe there is a huge amount of destabilized methane deposits that may leak into the atmosphere and ramp up warming.

I have little doubt that the author will find exactly what he expects to find. A better approach would be to collect the data and analyze it objectively.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Wrong Way to Do Science

  1. BarryW says:

    And here I thought the approach was to come up with a hypothesis and then do everything you can to prove it wrong

  2. Marvin Conn says:

    This is why this is so confusing for people. Start by stating truths, “Global warming is a fact”, “methane is a green house gas”, the “greenhouse effect causes warming”, then toss in something that isn’t known to be true or has not been proven, such as “thus closing the circle and ramping up warming” and it seems true as well simply because it is included with a bunch of things that are for sure true.

  3. PhilJourdan says:

    The ends justify the means. Or more exactly the ends prove the means?

    Which is contrary to science as practiced everywhere but climate.

  4. MacViolinist says:

    When you believe strongly enough in a religion, everything points to the truth of the revelation. The “few” things here and there that don’t add up are easily explained away–usually by accusations of heresy.

  5. phlogiston says:

    I always used to think that you had to write scientific papers in the past tense. “We applied such and such a method, and found the following results … ”

    Looks like Nature’s new style for climate “research” is to write it in the future tense. “We will at least go through the motions of making some measurements just to keep the old-timers happy, although we already know perfectly well what we are going to find, which is the following …”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s