LOL. Yeah, got it, you topped out at Junior High Science.
Like you know! LOLOLOL!
Yeah, I DO know. Trenberth famously claimed that his experiments didn't need to be repeatable. What does the scientific method say about repeatability?
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
"Chairman Smith. Good morning to everyone. The Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing called ``Climate Science:
Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.''
I'll recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement, and then the Ranking Member.
Today we will examine the scientific method as it relates
to climate change. We must ensure that the underlying science
that informs policy decisions is based on credible scientific
methodology.
I believe the climate is changing and that humans play a
role. However, I also believe significant questions remain as
to the extent. Our actions must be based on sound science. This
is the only way we will be able to better address climate
change.
Before we impose costly government regulations, we should
evaluate scientific uncertainties and ascertain the extent to
which they make it difficult to quantify humans' contribution
to climate change.
Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science
originate with scientists who operate outside of the principles
of the scientific method. The scientific method is a simple
process that has been used for centuries. It involves
identifying a question, developing a hypothesis, constructing
an experiment, and analyzing the results. If the results do not
align with the original hypothesis, the hypothesis must be
reexamined. The scientific method welcomes critiques so
theories can be refined, and it avoids speculation about
distant events for which there is no hard proof.
Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild
guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is
impossible. Anyone stating what the climate will be in 500
years or even at the end of the century is not credible.
All too often, scientists ignore the basic tenants of
science in order to justify their claims. Their ultimate goal
appears to be to promote a personal agenda, even if the
evidence doesn't support it.
The scientific method is regarded as the foundation of
modern science. It ensures that scientific experimentation is
neither arbitrary nor subjective, and that results can be
replicated.
In the field of climate science, there is legitimate
concern that scientists are biased in favor of reaching
predetermined conclusions. This inevitably leads to alarmist
findings that are wrongfully reported as facts.
The scientific method also requires that for a hypothesis
to become a theory, a repeated validation of the results,
called reproducibility, should be possible. However, a recent
survey found that 70 percent of scientific researchers have
tried and failed to reproduce the experiments conducted by
other scientists. The lack of reproducibility is a warning that
the scientific method is not being followed and that the theory
may lack credibility.
To restore faith in science, we must uphold the principles
of scientific integrity. For example, the Science Committee
heard from whistleblowers that National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) employees put their ``thumb on the
scale'' during the analysis of data. This was done to arrive at
politically correct results that would disprove the absence of
global temperature increases from 1998 to 2012.
More recently, NOAA admitted to Committee staff that there
was no legal justification for not complying with the
Committee's lawfully issued subpoena requesting information. In
fact, we learned that it was simply a political decision to
halt any further debate on the subject. This is professional
misconduct, if not worse.
A similar event unfolded in 2009. Emails from East Anglia
University scientists were uncovered and revealed that they
frequently violated principles of scientific integrity and
attempted to halt debate about climate science.
Much of climate science today appears to be based more on
exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions
than on the scientific method. Those who engage in such actions
do a disservice to the American people and to their own
profession. Only when scientists follow the scientific method
can policymakers be confident that they are making the right
decisions. Until then, the debate should continue."
