The climate grift #358

[Peter]

Yup. Exactly.

The other difference is that in academia, everyone has to show their workings in detail and everyone then has a lot of time to look into their workings and debate them amongst the whole community.

In the climate case, that would be very complex multiple regressions with people showing their workings for the weighting given to each variable. The community can then see how predictions have worked out over time and discuss how the weighting should change accordingly or if there are other variables that need to be considered and added to the regression.

And over the last 35 years, we've seen the models being refined as the whole community debates the incoming evidence against the model predictions and they're getting more and more accurate with greater consensus.

As you say, if after 3 decades of debating it {and all of them ringing up all their mates and getting their input} the 20 clinicians all agree then it suggests they may be right. {Just a pity that the patient's basically died in the meantime.}

I'm not convinced that the rigour you suggest is all that common within academia (certainly not in my experience), but scientific research is more rigorous. Sad fact is that research outside of universities tends to be more effective and tends to have more freedom.

I've seen some appalling miscarriages in research in recent years, particularly around gender, where you simply cannot challenge the new normal.....