Zombie Science

[IanC]

Summary

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

Medical Hypotheses: Zombie Science - dead but won't lie down


one can only hope that climate science can recognize that it is zombie science and bring itself out of the corner it has painted itself into. I dont even care if it 'takes credit' for revamping itself into respectable science again, just as long as it cuts out the majority of the zombie deadwood that is making it impossible to progress at the present.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, energy sector stooges refer to it as "Zombie" science.

Don't let your lying eyes, ears and other senses fool ya.

This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, the melting of the Arctic Ice is zombie science, even though clearly visible in the satellite photos, it isn't happening, zombie science. The retreat of the alpine glaciers worldwide is zombie science, even though recorded in photos from the USGS for at least the last century, it is zombie science, obviously not happening. These damned zombies are really getting busy.

 

[jc456]

Ah yes, the melting of the Arctic Ice is zombie science, even though clearly visible in the satellite photos, it isn't happening, zombie science. The retreat of the alpine glaciers worldwide is zombie science, even though recorded in photos from the USGS for at least the last century, it is zombie science, obviously not happening. These damned zombies are really getting busy.

so just a quick question, was the ice melting in the artic in the early 1800s? How about in the 1700's?

Was Europe covered in layers of ice back thousands of years or so ago? Did it melt? I find this line of reasoning simply fascinating. It's melting. Yep, it's been melting and refreezing for hundreds of years.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the time that we have been sailing ships, it has never melted to where it is now. In 2007, the Northwest Passage was open. It has opened up again since then.

 

[jc456]

In the time that we have been sailing ships, it has never melted to where it is now. In 2007, the Northwest Passage was open. It has opened up again since then.

" Finally, in 1905, Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage. It took his ship two-and-a-half years to navigate through narrow passages of open water, and his ship spent two cold, dark winters locked in the ice during the feat. More recently, icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships have on occasion battered their way through the ice-blocked route."

Yep, I guess eventually with attempts to clear the ice to get through the ice would eventually be ready to melt away. So Question, did the oceans flood? Isn't that the fear with the melting?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, energy sector stooges refer to it as "Zombie" science.

Don't let your lying eyes, ears and other senses fool ya.

This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels.

Therein lies your problem Sallow.. You're relying on your eyes and the weather report, but Climate Science is using the most advanced sensors and tools available.. Responding to the "crazy climate" that you observe is no different than tossing a few virgins into the volcano to appease the gods..

Arguments on WORLD CHANGING phenomenon are not gonna be won on weather reports. In fact, my eyes seeing no tornadoes, no hurricanes and rebounding ice in the Arctic tell ME a different story. But I don't just believe "my lying eyes"..

 

[IanC]

Ah yes, the melting of the Arctic Ice is zombie science, even though clearly visible in the satellite photos, it isn't happening, zombie science. The retreat of the alpine glaciers worldwide is zombie science, even though recorded in photos from the USGS for at least the last century, it is zombie science, obviously not happening. These damned zombies are really getting busy.

Arctic ice? yes, that does show how climate science cannot seem to get anything right. the models did not predict the large end-of-summer ice loss of the last decade yet somehow you think it vindicates them. natural weather patterns like storms and PDO and AMO have far more effect than simple temperature. and even temperature is not turning out like you predicted, and we still have no idea of the size of the impact of CO2 on temperatures. CO2 is obviously not the climate control knob we were told it was!

here is an animation of satellite information from 1992-2012. while the minimum ice is lower the overall pattern is very normal.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6i5YKs0_Tg]3d sea ice2.avi - YouTube[/ame]


and perhaps we should talk about Antarctica. the extremely cold temperatures there should exacerbate CO2 influence yet other than the volcanically active west antarctica penninsula, temps have been going down and ice is increasing. yet another failure of the models. and the sea ice around Antarctica is yet another conundrum and model failure.


the problem with climate science is that they want to make predictions and influence policy rather than study data and increase understanding of the underlying factors. this is especially true of the IPCC which puts out a highly political SPM (statement for policy makers) which is often not a fair accessment of what the actual report says. the recent fiasco with climate sensitivity is a perfect example. instead of giving the (lowered) best estimate of sensitivity they just widened the lower end of the range while keeping the catastrophic late century prophecies intact!

 

[Abraham3]

I find it interesting that on one hand you all complain about "billions" being wasted financing climate research - so much money that it has corrupted an entire class of individuals, inducing them to conspire and lie - yet on the other hand you complain that the basic research is not getting done.

Which is it?

 

[IanC]

I find it interesting that on one hand you all complain about "billions" being wasted financing climate research - so much money that it has corrupted an entire class of individuals, inducing them to conspire and lie - yet on the other hand you complain that the basic research is not getting done.

Which is it?

You are making a strawman argument rather than parsing my words for their intent. I am indeed complaining that billions of dollars are being wasted by focusing only on CO2 theory, which has failed miserably. I am indeed complaining that groupthink has corrupted climate science into putting any data, old or new, into the best light possible for buttressing CO2 theory. (and sometimes losing or ignoring data if it wont co-operate).

I am of the opinion that if we had spent half the money dedicated to CO2 on water and cloud mechanics instead, that we would be further ahead in our understanding of the climate system. of course that would mean less of the GCMs that spit out meaningless predictions of the future but so be it.

 

[natstew]

I find it interesting that on one hand you all complain about "billions" being wasted financing climate research - so much money that it has corrupted an entire class of individuals, inducing them to conspire and lie - yet on the other hand you complain that the basic research is not getting done.

Which is it?

Don't give me that, 'which is it', argument.

What I object to is the 'billions' being spent on subjective science, or to put it differently, they start with an assumption and spend the 'billions' to get to that assumption, ignoring everything that doesn't fit their assumption, or premise if you prefer.

 

[Abraham3]

And you can show us the billions worth of research to which those accusations apply... right?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, energy sector stooges refer to it as "Zombie" science.

Don't let your lying eyes, ears and other senses fool ya.

This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels.

Of course it isn't. What is happening in the global climate today that hasn't happened before only worse and more of it?

 

[SSDD]

Ah yes, the melting of the Arctic Ice is zombie science, even though clearly visible in the satellite photos, it isn't happening, zombie science. The retreat of the alpine glaciers worldwide is zombie science, even though recorded in photos from the USGS for at least the last century, it is zombie science, obviously not happening. These damned zombies are really getting busy.

Rocks you big idiot....you base your whole "arctic is melting" hysteria on the satellite era which got started during a cooling period....remember the great ice age scare...then it started warming again...It was warmer prior to the beginning of the satellite era and much warmer during the roman and medieval warm periods on back to the holocene maximum. Do you think that the ice didn't melt during those warm periods?

Incidentally, the arctic ice is very close to the 30 year mean. So much handwaving over so little. You claim to be old but seem to have just about zero historical perspective.

And on and on and on....nothing new here...same old same old.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well......to be sure, safe to say, anybody who buys this climate science BS as "science" is acting very zombie-like.

SSDD.....that post above is funny as all hell. The ultimate Oooooops post of all time!!! No shame to the fascist alarmist nutters though........

 

[Abraham3]

Explain this

You can see that last spike getting up near the mean. Does that REALLY look like some sort of turn to you? Do you REALLY think the ice is coming back?

Yeah, that ice is ROARIN' BACK!

ps: Note the colors. Note the near disappearance of older ice.

 

[westwall]

Yes, energy sector stooges refer to it as "Zombie" science.

Don't let your lying eyes, ears and other senses fool ya.

This crazy climate is NOT the result of burning fossil fuels.

Show me any time in written history where the climate was different than today. Go ahead.... show us.

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]

 

[westwall]

Explain this

You can see that last spike getting up near the mean. Does that REALLY look like some sort of turn to you? Do you REALLY think the ice is coming back?

Yeah, that ice is ROARIN' BACK!

ps: Note the colors. Note the near disappearance of older ice.

My, my, my......what a difference a year makes....

 

[mamooth]

And you can show us the billions worth of research to which those accusations apply... right?

To get that "billions" figure, they have to include all the money that NASA and NOAA spend launching weather and earth science satellites. Without that, the budget is well below a billion a year, a lot of which goes to maintaining other hardware.

In contrast, a lowball estimate for fossil fuel subsidies is $10 billion/year. That's without adding the cost of any military expenditures to defend the fossil fuel network.

 

[westwall]

And you can show us the billions worth of research to which those accusations apply... right?

To get that "billions" figure, they have to include all the money that NASA and NOAA spend launching weather and earth science satellites. Without that, the budget is well below a billion a year, a lot of which goes to maintaining other hardware.

In contrast, a lowball estimate for fossil fuel subsidies is $10 billion/year. That's without adding the cost of any military expenditures to defend the fossil fuel network.

Geez admiral. And here I thought you were going to make a intelligent response.....for once.... What a let down.

Would you just LOOK at all of that graft and corruption going on....


Climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Federal law has periodically required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report on federal climate change funding. GAO was asked to examine (1) federal funding for climate change activities and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are interpreted consistently across the federal government; (3) federal climate change strategic priorities, and the extent to which funding is aligned with these priorities; and (4) what options, if any, are available to better align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities. GAO analyzed OMB funding reports and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal officials, reviewed available literature, and interviewed stakeholders.

Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a complex, crosscutting system. OMB reports funding in four categories: technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Over this period, technology funding, the largest category, increased from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion and increased as a share of total funding. OMB also reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and tax expenditures to encourage emissions reductions, with $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses in 2010. Many federal entities manage related activities, including interagency programs that coordinate agency actions. Questionnaire responses suggest that methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not interpreted consistently across the federal government. Respondents identified three methods for defining and reporting climate change funding, foremost of which is guidance contained in OMB Circular A-11. While most said their own organization consistently applied these methods internally, far fewer said that they were applied consistently across the government. Some, for example, noted that other agencies use their own interpretation of definitions, resulting in inconsistent accounting across the government, because of several factors, such as the difficulty in distinguishing between programs related and unrelated to climate change. Respondents, literature, and stakeholders identified two key factors that complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. First, notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms, questionnaire results indicated that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy documents. A 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis had similarly found no "overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs." Second, respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities. Questionnaire respondents also identified options to better align funding with strategic priorities. Such options included (1) a governmentwide strategic planning process that promotes a shared understanding among agencies of strategic priorities by articulating what they are expected to do within the overall federal response to climate change and (2) an integrated budget review process that better aligns these priorities with funding decisions through a more consistent method of reporting and reviewing climate change funding. Federal entities are beginning to implement some of these options. However, without further improvement in how federal climate change funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent. Among GAO's recommendations are that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), in consultation with Congress, clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities and assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting related funding. Relevant EOP entities did not provide official written comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.




U.S. GAO - Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions