Koch-backed climate deniers are exploiting the reproducibility crisis to discredit climate science


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/04/20/national-ass-of-scholars.html


#2

Big bang? Never happened. You can’t reproduce it so the science is bad.
Human evolution? Still can’t reproduce it so the science must be bogus.
What do you mean you can’t reproduce the climate of an entire planet? You climate scientists lack scientific rigor.


#3

Can we just start taking warning labels off things and then let these people and their supporters start using lead paint and pencils again, using tobacco prodigiously, consuming mercury or heroin based cough medicine, put coke back in Coca Cola, etc…and just let nature take its course?!


#4

Nobody has been able to reproduce gravity in a controlled setting on a planetary scale either. Sometimes science has to extrapolate. Also, someone should inform the Koch’s about the precautionary principle.


#5

Of course it lacks reproducibility; that would require this whole mess to have happened before, and to have been well-documented! On the other hand, you put a ball on a table. The table is not level. The ball rolls toward the edge. Will the ball fall off? “No,” say climate deniers.


#6

The National Association of Scholars is a tiny, hydrocarbon-industry backed organization that is not to be confused with the National Academy of Sciences.

Straight out the Bernays tobacco industry playbook: gather together a bunch of denialist crackpots and charlatans, cite their credentials while downplaying their lack of subject-area expertise or the quality of their schools, slap a fancy and authoritative name and logo on their “non-profit” org, figure out ways to anonymise the source of their funding, and you’re off to the races.


#7

I am reminded of the “abusive publisher” game giving your fake journal or conference a name that closely resembles one that is respected in the field. This example is especially heinous because they will refer to themselves or be referred to as the NAS and people will make the wrong assumption.


#8

#9

Some folks just want to watch the world burn


#10

Which doesn’t prevent some of them from also profiting handsomely from selling the kindling.


#11

My computer science professor used to enjoy passing along the saying that any field with “science” in its name wasn’t one.


#12

Well, that would be why they want to watch it burn.


#13

Would that include climate science?


#14

You’d have to ask him, but “environmental science” arose in the military community in the 50s and wasn’t used by civilian scientists until a decade later, and the term “climate science” dates to the 70s. He said this in the late 70s / early 80s, so he may never have heard of either one. Climatology might have been the preferred name for it then.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/climate_science


#15

Do you mean climatology? :wink:


#16

Know what else we didnt’ have a word for in the 50’s through 90’s?

Thundersnow.

I submit that those ‘climatologists’ were shitty at their jobs if they’re the ones who told us what a 50- and 100- year storm are. Most places have had three or four 100 year storms in the last 15-20 years.

I’ll take the sciences with science in their name - whether it’s incompetence or malfeasance, many of the old sciences failed us in the 1950s to 1990s.

Emergent fields may well be a result of an Emergency that others notice, and one, for what ever reason, has yet to.

Further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_history_of_environmentalism


#17

It was a computer scientist telling a self-deprecating joke. Take a thundersnow pill.


#18

or maybe go piss one someone elses leg and tell them it’s snowing.


#19

whichever you decide to do is fine with me.


#20

They have the most arrogant Form 990PFs I’ve ever seen, and I follow Scientology organizations. “Fuck your forms, here’s all our attachments. You sort it out!”

http://990.erieri.com/EINS/251113452/251113452_2015_0d1e6495.PDF