Science, Lack Of

I knew scientific objectivity was an endangered species. But that's too optimistic: scientific scruples are a late parrot.

This paper in the November 2005 Nature says, "warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually." Indur Goklany, of the U.S. Department of Interior, read the article and submitted a critical response, which Nature rejected for publication. The University of Colorado's Science Policy reprints Goklany's letter, which quotes the Nature paper's footnote support for the 150k estimate:

Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring. While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future. [Emphasis added.]

In short, the dog ate my homework, so I made it up. Remember, this passed peer review. See a similar atrocity in a recent Science magazine editorial--published, though easily refuted.

Speculation, yes. Sci-Fi, yes. Scare tactic in support of socialism, yes. The next Oliver Stone script, yes. Just don’t call global warming “science.”

(via The Corner)