Why Climate Science is Fallible

The popular conception is that scientists dispassionately discover truth through a foolproof technique called the scientific method.

But the common understanding of science is largely an ignorant misconception.

Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.”

Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated.

Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views.

Thus peer review often amounts to pal review.

Neither does peer review detect fraud.

In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data.

The influence of money can be corrupting.

A group of people offered billions of dollars to investigate climate change is unlikely to conclude that it is a benign, natural process unworthy of further attention.