Misunderstanding the scientific method: Climate change special

From Peter Ellerton at RealClearScience:

Claims that the “the science isn’t settled” with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.

So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?

The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general. More.

Ellerton writes an average good article on the scientific method but it has almost no relationship to why people doubt the human-caused global warming a-crock-a-lypse.

Most doubters suspect that marketing doomsday is a means of raising taxes and prices and passing new laws, all of which are a business area for any number of globally active lobbies.

More, most doubters are not actually seeing the change happen.

It’s not so much that people doubt the scientific method as they doubt whether science is at the bottom of it at all.

See also: There is no scientific method. (New York Times)

Yes! Forbes says there IS a scientific method


Climate Alarmists are Really the Ones in Denial About Climate Change (Barry Arrington)

  • Alain

    Claiming that anything in science is settled is NOT science; it is dogmatism. So the truth is the opposite of the claim being made. As new facts and information arrive on the scene science has to update and some times change what had been considered “settled”.

    • Global warming is a religion of the unhinged.

      • simus1

        The central dogma of this cultlike nonsense is illogical in science and childish in reasoning.
        A totalitarian’s wet dream.

      • Alain

        Along with being a tool used by the globalists.

  • mauser 98

    NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

  • mauser 98

    Justine pi$$ing unknown dollars at Global Fund Climate Farce in Montreal

    Dear Leader always right


  • ontario john

    The Toronto Star stated today in its editorial section, that it would not show any negative stories about the global warming scam, because it considers the science to be complete. So there, the media elites have spoken and we must obey.

    • Jay Currie

      The poor Star keeps losing the scientific argument so it decides not to run negative stories. Sad.

  • Brett_McS

    There is consensus in science but it doesn’t apply to things such as climate model predictions. The scientific consensus is the set of assumptions used by scientists in their work and it varies from field to field: the laws of chemistry are a consensus among biologists but not among scientists who study interactions at an atomic level.

    The only sense in which climate alarmism is a consensus is in writing grant applications.

  • FactsWillOut

    “So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?”

    The fact is, if you are trained in science, you don’t get the scientific method wrong.
    If you get the scientific method wrong, then you were not trained in science.
    Any article that says something like that is total bullshit, not “average good.”

  • WalterBannon

    Peter Ellerton is NOT a scientist and he clearly knows nothing about the scientific method. His critical thinking skills are not so hot either but he is a good propagandist and a certified member of the global warming cult.

    Peter’s claim that the science is settled is symptomatic of his own ignorance and fallacious thinking. I would suggest that he stick to his area of expertise, however he seems to lack skill there as well.

    PhD Physics