False data (or no data) is scientism, not science

Andrew Ferguson writing in the Weekly Standard, Making It All Up:

Either behavioral psychologists are the smartest researchers, and certainly the luckiest, in the history of science​—​or something is very wrong. And we don’t have to assume bad faith on the part of social scientists, although it helps. The last three years have brought several well-publicized cases of prominent researchers simply making up data. An anonymous poll four years ago showed that 15 percent of social psychologists admitted using questionable research practices, from over massaging their data to fabricating it outright. Thirty percent reported they had seen firsthand other researchers do the same.

Is Climate Science a hard science or a social science? It’s made up of geophysicists, oceanographers,  geographers, and other scientific disciplines that are thought to be hard sciences, so does that answer the question?

Perhaps it should, but I don’t think so. The way climate science is practiced is a better indication, and that leads to the conclusion that it’s definitely a social science. The conclusion that climatologists reach based on no data or false data also puts it in the same category and subject to the same failures that Andrew Ferguson is talking about.

The so-called “Hockey Stick” was wholly made up Michael Mann to make it appear that a sudden increase in global temperatures had occurred in the second half of the 20th century.  We know from the release of the East Anglia University emails that so-called climate scientists have made up false data and lied on many occasions. These things are done to convince the public that we face a crisis that must be addressed by government grants to academia and climate scientists.

That’s the false data, but climate science depends for its future predictions on no hard data all. Computer models are the sole criteria for coming up with dire predictions that we are all going to die unless the scientists get more of our money and the politicians get more control over our lives and freedoms. The computer models have been shown to be wrong in the short run and there is earned skepticism of the ability of such models to predict the long-run future.  A computer model, even if sound, depends on the integrity of the people running the program and they have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

So climate science is definitely not a hard science, but is it even a social science? It might just be another “ism” of politics: scientism.

Well, that’s what most social science is anyway.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email


%d bloggers like this: